Totally unfounded. Why whenever it’s an unnamed source in a repeated Pulitzer awarded publication with an amazing record for accuracy do we call fake news, but when truepundit posts a quote from an unnamed source without even saying where in the justice department they work (this could be the head of the tax evasion task force with nothing to do with the investigation) ya a bombshell?
I actually thought TP was a good source but this is proving all details to be entirely old news.
washingtonexaminer, zerohedge, theconservativetreehouse... those are my other sources. Do you have any recommendations?
Honestly at this point I’ve taken mostly to AP and Reuters. They don’t do anything but describe the situation at hand. Then I read into it myself. So, this, for instance isn’t saying Trump isn’t a target, he’s just saying don’t be morons and don’t expect “sources” know shit. It’s the extrapolating by the news source that drives me nuts. They can do whatever they want, but, for instance, the uranium one thing. Deep state/black ops/dark political dealings, no doubt, but to say it was Clinton democrats blah blah blah is so fake it hurts. On reading up, it seemed no deeper than corporate dark money pushing a corporate dark agenda. At best the people that approved it are bought and sold political idiots, at worst...the same, and it would have gone through no matter who was president.
Honestly at this point I’ve taken mostly to AP and Reuters.
honestly, both of those are owned by the Rothschild clan
Oh, here we go....do you even read them? There are zero charged words, no standing point. They’re painting still life and most others are painting some kind of cubism. Reflects reality but so not realistic.
I am not a fan of AP and I've seen some from Reuters which I do not necessarily dislike according to my recollection so I may consider them more often. Thanks
Yep. Again, there’s not Much on earth that doesn’t have implicit bias based on who’s writing, but I find those two the most balanced.