Why are all the leaks coming from Washington Post????

[candycorn]

Hell I still say it's someone from Trumps inner circle. It makes both Trump and the investigation look bad.

AGAIN answer this please as it was the sole point of this thread:
Who are the few that didn't speak on condition of anonymity?
But the private accounts of more than 30 officials at the White House, the Justice Department, the FBI and on Capitol Hill, as well as Trump confidants and other senior Republicans, paint a conflicting narrative centered on the president’s brewing personal animus toward Comey.
Many of those interviewed spoke on the condition of anonymity in order to candidly discuss internal deliberations.
Inside Trump’s anger and impatience — and his sudden decision to fire Comey

Do you understand?
Why doesn't the Post simply identify those "FEW" that make up the others of the "MANY" of the more than 30 officials at the White House ?????

You really don’t know?

 

[healthmyths]

Hell I still say it's someone from Trumps inner circle. It makes both Trump and the investigation look bad.

I think it's been Mueller, letting the American public know what's happening without "breaking the rules." Nothing is being leaked that could jeopardize the investigation--just a status update, so far as I've heard.

Leaking of any kind is illegal.

Leaking of unclassified information isn't.

Do you understand this issue?
Many of those interviewed spoke on the condition of anonymity in order to candidly discuss internal deliberations.
But the private accounts of more than 30 officials at the White House, the Justice Department, the FBI and on Capitol Hill, as well as Trump confidants and other senior Republicans, paint a conflicting narrative centered on the president’s brewing personal animus toward Comey.
Many of those interviewed spoke on the condition of anonymity in order to candidly discuss internal deliberations.
Inside Trump’s anger and impatience — and his sudden decision to fire Comey

My position is to CALL THE POST on this statement! Who are the FEW that didn't ask for anonymity!

 

[healthmyths]

Hell I still say it's someone from Trumps inner circle. It makes both Trump and the investigation look bad.

AGAIN answer this please as it was the sole point of this thread:
Who are the few that didn't speak on condition of anonymity?
But the private accounts of more than 30 officials at the White House, the Justice Department, the FBI and on Capitol Hill, as well as Trump confidants and other senior Republicans, paint a conflicting narrative centered on the president’s brewing personal animus toward Comey.
Many of those interviewed spoke on the condition of anonymity in order to candidly discuss internal deliberations.
Inside Trump’s anger and impatience — and his sudden decision to fire Comey

Do you understand?
Why doesn't the Post simply identify those "FEW" that make up the others of the "MANY" of the more than 30 officials at the White House ?????

You really don’t know?

NO I don't know the "few" that didn't ask for anonymity!

Do you understand this issue?
Many of those interviewed spoke on the condition of anonymity in order to candidly discuss internal deliberations.
But the private accounts of more than 30 officials at the White House, the Justice Department, the FBI and on Capitol Hill, as well as Trump confidants and other senior Republicans, paint a conflicting narrative centered on the president’s brewing personal animus toward Comey.
Many of those interviewed spoke on the condition of anonymity in order to candidly discuss internal deliberations.
Inside Trump’s anger and impatience — and his sudden decision to fire Comey

My position is to CALL THE POST on this statement! Who are the FEW that didn't ask for anonymity!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Hell I still say it's someone from Trumps inner circle. It makes both Trump and the investigation look bad.

I think it's been Mueller, letting the American public know what's happening without "breaking the rules." Nothing is being leaked that could jeopardize the investigation--just a status update, so far as I've heard.

Leaking of any kind is illegal.

Leaking of unclassified information isn't.

Leaking of information in an ongoing investigation is illegal. It violates the privacy of someone who is assumed innocent until proven guilty and taints the jury pool.

 

[healthmyths]

What I do KNOW is that someone in the White House is taking this story very seriously!
They are then calling the POST's bluff! Reveal those "FEW" that didn't speak on anonymity!

Do you understand this issue?
Many of those interviewed spoke on the condition of anonymity in order to candidly discuss internal deliberations.
But the private accounts of more than 30 officials at the White House, the Justice Department, the FBI and on Capitol Hill, as well as Trump confidants and other senior Republicans, paint a conflicting narrative centered on the president’s brewing personal animus toward Comey.
Many of those interviewed spoke on the condition of anonymity in order to candidly discuss internal deliberations.
Inside Trump’s anger and impatience — and his sudden decision to fire Comey

My position is to CALL THE POST on this statement! Who are the FEW that didn't ask for anonymity!

 

[healthmyths]

Hell I still say it's someone from Trumps inner circle. It makes both Trump and the investigation look bad.

I think it's been Mueller, letting the American public know what's happening without "breaking the rules." Nothing is being leaked that could jeopardize the investigation--just a status update, so far as I've heard.

Leaking of any kind is illegal.

Leaking of unclassified information isn't.

Leaking of information in an ongoing investigation is illegal. It violates the privacy of someone who is assumed innocent until proven guilty and taints the jury pool.

Missing the point of the topic!

Many of those interviewed spoke on the condition of anonymity in order to candidly discuss internal deliberations.
But the private accounts of more than 30 officials at the White House, the Justice Department, the FBI and on Capitol Hill, as well as Trump confidants and other senior Republicans, paint a conflicting narrative centered on the president’s brewing personal animus toward Comey.
Many of those interviewed spoke on the condition of anonymity in order to candidly discuss internal deliberations.
Inside Trump’s anger and impatience — and his sudden decision to fire Comey

My position is to CALL THE POST on this statement! Who are the FEW that didn't ask for anonymity!

 

[Juicin]

Who is the obvious alternative to bring the leaks to?

A New York paper? NYT seems like the only other possible choice, and I wouldn't trust them if I was a leaker.

They could leak to a foreign paper, or an online publication with a harder political bent. But none of those are newspapers of record, and again I wouldn't trust htem.

Almost the leaks are true, who cares if they're anonymous? That's how reporting works. The white house doesn't even bother issuing a denial for most of the claims for that reason. Just whine about leaks

And relative to questioning where the President was born, this is pretty fucking tame.

 

[candycorn]

Hell I still say it's someone from Trumps inner circle. It makes both Trump and the investigation look bad.

AGAIN answer this please as it was the sole point of this thread:
Who are the few that didn't speak on condition of anonymity?
But the private accounts of more than 30 officials at the White House, the Justice Department, the FBI and on Capitol Hill, as well as Trump confidants and other senior Republicans, paint a conflicting narrative centered on the president’s brewing personal animus toward Comey.
Many of those interviewed spoke on the condition of anonymity in order to candidly discuss internal deliberations.
Inside Trump’s anger and impatience — and his sudden decision to fire Comey

Do you understand?
Why doesn't the Post simply identify those "FEW" that make up the others of the "MANY" of the more than 30 officials at the White House ?????

You really don’t know?

NO I don't know the "few" that didn't ask for anonymity!

Do you understand this issue?
Many of those interviewed spoke on the condition of anonymity in order to candidly discuss internal deliberations.
But the private accounts of more than 30 officials at the White House, the Justice Department, the FBI and on Capitol Hill, as well as Trump confidants and other senior Republicans, paint a conflicting narrative centered on the president’s brewing personal animus toward Comey.
Many of those interviewed spoke on the condition of anonymity in order to candidly discuss internal deliberations.
Inside Trump’s anger and impatience — and his sudden decision to fire Comey

My position is to CALL THE POST on this statement! Who are the FEW that didn't ask for anonymity!

You want the Post to name anonymous sources?
I see.
No.

You don’t name sources in some cases to preserve them as a source for future scandals.

 

[Ted Frazier]

Hell I still say it's someone from Trumps inner circle. It makes both Trump and the investigation look bad.

I think it's been Mueller, letting the American public know what's happening without "breaking the rules." Nothing is being leaked that could jeopardize the investigation--just a status update, so far as I've heard.

Leaking of any kind is illegal.

Then again why don't those "few that didn't speak on condition of anonymity " be identified!

Do you understand this issue?
Many of those interviewed spoke on the condition of anonymity in order to candidly discuss internal deliberations.
But the private accounts of more than 30 officials at the White House, the Justice Department, the FBI and on Capitol Hill, as well as Trump confidants and other senior Republicans, paint a conflicting narrative centered on the president’s brewing personal animus toward Comey.
Many of those interviewed spoke on the condition of anonymity in order to candidly discuss internal deliberations.
Inside Trump’s anger and impatience — and his sudden decision to fire Comey

My position is to CALL THE POST on this statement! Who are the FEW that didn't ask for anonymity!

The Washington Post named four of those interviewed: Sam Nunberg, Newt Gingrich, Roger Stone, and George Lombardi.
Your thread just died and you got caught not reading the article you had an issue with.

 

[Ted Frazier]

Who is the obvious alternative to bring the leaks to?

A New York paper? NYT seems like the only other possible choice, and I wouldn't trust them if I was a leaker.

They could leak to a foreign paper, or an online publication with a harder political bent. But none of those are newspapers of record, and again I wouldn't trust htem.

Almost the leaks are true, who cares if they're anonymous? That's how reporting works. The white house doesn't even bother issuing a denial for most of the claims for that reason. Just whine about leaks

And relative to questioning where the President was born, this is pretty fucking tame.

What you want is for leakers to go to RT, Fox News and the website of Putin-lover Glenn Greenwald. We know what happened to Reality Winner.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Hell I still say it's someone from Trumps inner circle. It makes both Trump and the investigation look bad.

I think it's been Mueller, letting the American public know what's happening without "breaking the rules." Nothing is being leaked that could jeopardize the investigation--just a status update, so far as I've heard.

Leaking of any kind is illegal.

Then again why don't those "few that didn't speak on condition of anonymity " be identified!

Do you understand this issue?
Many of those interviewed spoke on the condition of anonymity in order to candidly discuss internal deliberations.
But the private accounts of more than 30 officials at the White House, the Justice Department, the FBI and on Capitol Hill, as well as Trump confidants and other senior Republicans, paint a conflicting narrative centered on the president’s brewing personal animus toward Comey.
Many of those interviewed spoke on the condition of anonymity in order to candidly discuss internal deliberations.
Inside Trump’s anger and impatience — and his sudden decision to fire Comey

My position is to CALL THE POST on this statement! Who are the FEW that didn't ask for anonymity!

The Washington Post named four of those interviewed: Sam Nunberg, Newt Gingrich, Roger Stone, and George Lombardi.
Your thread just died and you got caught not reading the article you had an issue with.

Those four that were interviewed gave no indication of what the article claimed.

 

[Ted Frazier]

Hell I still say it's someone from Trumps inner circle. It makes both Trump and the investigation look bad.

I think it's been Mueller, letting the American public know what's happening without "breaking the rules." Nothing is being leaked that could jeopardize the investigation--just a status update, so far as I've heard.

Leaking of any kind is illegal.

Then again why don't those "few that didn't speak on condition of anonymity " be identified!

Do you understand this issue?
Many of those interviewed spoke on the condition of anonymity in order to candidly discuss internal deliberations.
But the private accounts of more than 30 officials at the White House, the Justice Department, the FBI and on Capitol Hill, as well as Trump confidants and other senior Republicans, paint a conflicting narrative centered on the president’s brewing personal animus toward Comey.
Many of those interviewed spoke on the condition of anonymity in order to candidly discuss internal deliberations.
Inside Trump’s anger and impatience — and his sudden decision to fire Comey

My position is to CALL THE POST on this statement! Who are the FEW that didn't ask for anonymity!

The Washington Post named four of those interviewed: Sam Nunberg, Newt Gingrich, Roger Stone, and George Lombardi.
Your thread just died and you got caught not reading the article you had an issue with.

Those four that were interviewed gave no indication of what the article claimed.

The article said that 30 people provided "conflicting" opinions about the relationship between Trump and Comey. :That means that some people said things that differed from what other people said. That's all.

This thread is dead. Finito. Toast. because the author didn't realize that four of the 30 people were named.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I think it's been Mueller, letting the American public know what's happening without "breaking the rules." Nothing is being leaked that could jeopardize the investigation--just a status update, so far as I've heard.

Leaking of any kind is illegal.

Then again why don't those "few that didn't speak on condition of anonymity " be identified!

Do you understand this issue?
Many of those interviewed spoke on the condition of anonymity in order to candidly discuss internal deliberations.
But the private accounts of more than 30 officials at the White House, the Justice Department, the FBI and on Capitol Hill, as well as Trump confidants and other senior Republicans, paint a conflicting narrative centered on the president’s brewing personal animus toward Comey.
Many of those interviewed spoke on the condition of anonymity in order to candidly discuss internal deliberations.
Inside Trump’s anger and impatience — and his sudden decision to fire Comey

My position is to CALL THE POST on this statement! Who are the FEW that didn't ask for anonymity!

The Washington Post named four of those interviewed: Sam Nunberg, Newt Gingrich, Roger Stone, and George Lombardi.
Your thread just died and you got caught not reading the article you had an issue with.

Those four that were interviewed gave no indication of what the article claimed.

The article said that 30 people provided "conflicting" opinions about the relationship between Trump and Comey. :That means that some people said things that differed from what other people said. That's all.

This thread is dead.

It was dead once anyone cited the Washington Post or NY Times. Both served a purpose as a bird cage liner until the birds refused to shit on it because that would be redundant!

 

[debbiedowner]

All this and now Trump is going it seems after Rosenstein. By Monday everyone will be fired that is investigating him. Then the real fireworks start. He's tweeting like hell this morning.

 

[Iceweasel]

Anyone think to ask why the Washington Post is THE ONLY one that "anonymous sources" are speaking too regarding President Trump,etc.?

Why is it ONLY the Washington Post that has these "anonymous sources"?

One of their rumors Post told us this back in May 10,2017.......
But the private accounts of more than 30 officials at the White House, the Justice Department, the FBI and on Capitol Hill, as well as Trump confidants and other senior Republicans, paint a conflicting narrative centered on the president’s brewing personal animus toward Comey.
Many of those interviewed spoke on the condition of anonymity in order to candidly discuss internal deliberations.
Inside Trump’s anger and impatience — and his sudden decision to fire Comey

NOW some of those spoke WITHOUT anonymity! Why doesn't the POST reveal them?

I did a search on the very latest rumor..
"Special Counsel Robert Mueller investigating U.S. President Donald Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner",
over 286,000 results!

• Special Counsel Robert Mueller is examining the finances and business deals of White House aide and Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner, the Washington Post reported, citing officials familiar with the matter.
• Special counsel Mueller reportedly investigating Trump aide Jared Kushner's finances, business deals
  
• Special counsel Mueller investigating Jared Kushner's finances, Washington Post reports
  Special counsel Mueller investigating Jared Kushner's finances, Washington Post reports
  
  
• The Washington Post had earlier reported that investigators were scrutinizing separate meetings that Kushner held with Russians in December – first with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak and then with Sergey Gorkov, the head of a state-owned Russian development bank. At the time of that report it was not clear that the FBI was investigating Kushner’s business dealings.
  The officials who described the financial focus of the investigation spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly.
  Special counsel is investigating Jared Kushner's business dealings

Someone must have got a heck of a Amazon Prime membership.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Anyone think to ask why the Washington Post is THE ONLY one that "anonymous sources" are speaking too regarding President Trump,etc.?

Why is it ONLY the Washington Post that has these "anonymous sources"?

One of their rumors Post told us this back in May 10,2017.......
But the private accounts of more than 30 officials at the White House, the Justice Department, the FBI and on Capitol Hill, as well as Trump confidants and other senior Republicans, paint a conflicting narrative centered on the president’s brewing personal animus toward Comey.
Many of those interviewed spoke on the condition of anonymity in order to candidly discuss internal deliberations.
Inside Trump’s anger and impatience — and his sudden decision to fire Comey

NOW some of those spoke WITHOUT anonymity! Why doesn't the POST reveal them?

I did a search on the very latest rumor..
"Special Counsel Robert Mueller investigating U.S. President Donald Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner",
over 286,000 results!

• Special Counsel Robert Mueller is examining the finances and business deals of White House aide and Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner, the Washington Post reported, citing officials familiar with the matter.
• Special counsel Mueller reportedly investigating Trump aide Jared Kushner's finances, business deals
  
• Special counsel Mueller investigating Jared Kushner's finances, Washington Post reports
  Special counsel Mueller investigating Jared Kushner's finances, Washington Post reports
  
  
• The Washington Post had earlier reported that investigators were scrutinizing separate meetings that Kushner held with Russians in December – first with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak and then with Sergey Gorkov, the head of a state-owned Russian development bank. At the time of that report it was not clear that the FBI was investigating Kushner’s business dealings.
  The officials who described the financial focus of the investigation spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly.
  Special counsel is investigating Jared Kushner's business dealings

Stupid Question, stupid thread:

The Wash. Post broke the Watergate Story, does anyone but the hack who posted this thread believe "Deep Throat" would have gone to a Weekly Paper in rural Alabama?

The Beltway is filled with secrets not known to the public, a leak, a whistle blower, can be a patriot or an agent provocateur; journalists are most times the best and easiest way to inform the public.

The difference between a journalist and P@triot is journalism has a code of ethics, and checks out sources of information - P@triot's ethics are those of a reptile.

 

[healthmyths]

I think it's been Mueller, letting the American public know what's happening without "breaking the rules." Nothing is being leaked that could jeopardize the investigation--just a status update, so far as I've heard.

Leaking of any kind is illegal.

Then again why don't those "few that didn't speak on condition of anonymity " be identified!

Do you understand this issue?
Many of those interviewed spoke on the condition of anonymity in order to candidly discuss internal deliberations.
But the private accounts of more than 30 officials at the White House, the Justice Department, the FBI and on Capitol Hill, as well as Trump confidants and other senior Republicans, paint a conflicting narrative centered on the president’s brewing personal animus toward Comey.
Many of those interviewed spoke on the condition of anonymity in order to candidly discuss internal deliberations.
Inside Trump’s anger and impatience — and his sudden decision to fire Comey

My position is to CALL THE POST on this statement! Who are the FEW that didn't ask for anonymity!

The Washington Post named four of those interviewed: Sam Nunberg, Newt Gingrich, Roger Stone, and George Lombardi.
Your thread just died and you got caught not reading the article you had an issue with.

Those four that were interviewed gave no indication of what the article claimed.

The article said that 30 people provided "conflicting" opinions about the relationship between Trump and Comey. :That means that some people said things that differed from what other people said. That's all.

This thread is dead. Finito. Toast. because the author didn't realize that four of the 30 people were named.

Who were the 4 named people?

 

[healthmyths]

Hell I still say it's someone from Trumps inner circle. It makes both Trump and the investigation look bad.

AGAIN answer this please as it was the sole point of this thread:
Who are the few that didn't speak on condition of anonymity?
But the private accounts of more than 30 officials at the White House, the Justice Department, the FBI and on Capitol Hill, as well as Trump confidants and other senior Republicans, paint a conflicting narrative centered on the president’s brewing personal animus toward Comey.
Many of those interviewed spoke on the condition of anonymity in order to candidly discuss internal deliberations.
Inside Trump’s anger and impatience — and his sudden decision to fire Comey

Do you understand?
Why doesn't the Post simply identify those "FEW" that make up the others of the "MANY" of the more than 30 officials at the White House ?????

You really don’t know?

Tell me. As obviously I don't know who any of the "few" were that made up the "Many" of the 30 officials!
If they were named then they are in trouble!

 

[candycorn]

Hell I still say it's someone from Trumps inner circle. It makes both Trump and the investigation look bad.

AGAIN answer this please as it was the sole point of this thread:
Who are the few that didn't speak on condition of anonymity?
But the private accounts of more than 30 officials at the White House, the Justice Department, the FBI and on Capitol Hill, as well as Trump confidants and other senior Republicans, paint a conflicting narrative centered on the president’s brewing personal animus toward Comey.
Many of those interviewed spoke on the condition of anonymity in order to candidly discuss internal deliberations.
Inside Trump’s anger and impatience — and his sudden decision to fire Comey

Do you understand?
Why doesn't the Post simply identify those "FEW" that make up the others of the "MANY" of the more than 30 officials at the White House ?????

You really don’t know?

Tell me. As obviously I don't know who any of the "few" were that made up the "Many" of the 30 officials!
If they were named then they are in trouble!

You don’t name a source if you think you may need it later in some cases. Given he has 7 years to go in his administration, if the source is in the Executive….that is valuable to have. As for “are they in trouble”, given Trump, it could change from minute to minute. Skiled politicians use leaks to their advantage.

 

[healthmyths]

Anyone think to ask why the Washington Post is THE ONLY one that "anonymous sources" are speaking too regarding President Trump,etc.?

Why is it ONLY the Washington Post that has these "anonymous sources"?

One of their rumors Post told us this back in May 10,2017.......
But the private accounts of more than 30 officials at the White House, the Justice Department, the FBI and on Capitol Hill, as well as Trump confidants and other senior Republicans, paint a conflicting narrative centered on the president’s brewing personal animus toward Comey.
Many of those interviewed spoke on the condition of anonymity in order to candidly discuss internal deliberations.
Inside Trump’s anger and impatience — and his sudden decision to fire Comey

NOW some of those spoke WITHOUT anonymity! Why doesn't the POST reveal them?

I did a search on the very latest rumor..
"Special Counsel Robert Mueller investigating U.S. President Donald Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner",
over 286,000 results!

• Special Counsel Robert Mueller is examining the finances and business deals of White House aide and Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner, the Washington Post reported, citing officials familiar with the matter.
• Special counsel Mueller reportedly investigating Trump aide Jared Kushner's finances, business deals
  
• Special counsel Mueller investigating Jared Kushner's finances, Washington Post reports
  Special counsel Mueller investigating Jared Kushner's finances, Washington Post reports
  
  
• The Washington Post had earlier reported that investigators were scrutinizing separate meetings that Kushner held with Russians in December – first with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak and then with Sergey Gorkov, the head of a state-owned Russian development bank. At the time of that report it was not clear that the FBI was investigating Kushner’s business dealings.
  The officials who described the financial focus of the investigation spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly.
  Special counsel is investigating Jared Kushner's business dealings

Stupid Question, stupid thread:

The Wash. Post broke the Watergate Story, does anyone but the hack who posted this thread believe "Deep Throat" would have gone to a Weekly Paper in rural Alabama?

The Beltway is filled with secrets not known to the public, a leak, a whistle blower, can be a patriot or an agent provocateur; journalists are most times the best and easiest way to inform the public.

The difference between a journalist and P@triot is journalism has a code of ethics, and checks out sources of information - P@triot's ethics are those of a reptile.

Bullshit on the term "journalist"!
Name me the "few" that didn't speak anonymously!
Journalists NEVER had ethics!
They depend on advertising dollars and advertising dollars depend on circulation!
Time has just fired 300 people as $$s are down due to advertising is down and that's because circulation is down!
The move, which President and CEO Richard Battista described as "difficult but necessary," will reduce Time Inc's global staff by 4% and comes as the magazine industry struggles to cope with declines in print circulation. Time Inc. cuts 300 positions
And that's because more and more people are recognizing that simple fact that the "NEWS" is more "rumors"!

 

[healthmyths]

Hell I still say it's someone from Trumps inner circle. It makes both Trump and the investigation look bad.

AGAIN answer this please as it was the sole point of this thread:
Who are the few that didn't speak on condition of anonymity?
But the private accounts of more than 30 officials at the White House, the Justice Department, the FBI and on Capitol Hill, as well as Trump confidants and other senior Republicans, paint a conflicting narrative centered on the president’s brewing personal animus toward Comey.
Many of those interviewed spoke on the condition of anonymity in order to candidly discuss internal deliberations.
Inside Trump’s anger and impatience — and his sudden decision to fire Comey

Do you understand?
Why doesn't the Post simply identify those "FEW" that make up the others of the "MANY" of the more than 30 officials at the White House ?????

You really don’t know?

Tell me. As obviously I don't know who any of the "few" were that made up the "Many" of the 30 officials!
If they were named then they are in trouble!

You don’t name a source if you think you may need it later in some cases. Given he has 7 years to go in his administration, if the source is in the Executive….that is valuable to have. As for “are they in trouble”, given Trump, it could change from minute to minute. Skiled politicians use leaks to their advantage.

BUT they said specifically" "MANY" of the officials spoke on condition of anonymity!
THAT's NOT ALL spoke but Many so that leaves at least one or more that didn't!
Who are they and why weren't they named in the article?