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?

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?

Its savvy journalism.

 

[healthmyths]

Now to add further to the above statement about "Journalistic ethics"!

From that bastion of ETHICS that has former Clinton officials working for them...
Deputy attorney general acknowledges he may need to recuse himself from Russia probe: sources

Late last night, he issued what many online are calling a "bizarre" statement, condemning recent reports.

"Americans should exercise caution before accepting as true and stories attributed to anonymous 'officials,'" Rosenstein said. "Americans should be skeptical about anonymous allegations. The Department of Justice has a long-established policy to neither confirm nor deny such allegations."

No explanation for the statement was given, but it came just hours after The Washington Post published a story saying Mueller's inquiry is now looking at the finances and business dealings of Jared Kushner, Trump's son-in-law and a key adviser to the president.

The story was attributed to "U.S. officials familiar with the matter."

Where is the "JOURNALISTIC ethics" in labeling a news story as "bizarre"???? To most people reading this it sounds biased!

Again to make a point very very clear... this above comment from the BIASED ABC news clearly biases the story by commenting "bizarre" statement!
The reason for the label is because Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein is explaining to most people that understand... this is anonymous information that
can be totally fabricated! Who said it and to whom! prove it!

 

[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.

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"!

Are you really as stupid as this post suggests? Are you familiar with the INTERNET? Does that ring a bell? Of course acknowledging the truth that technology has had an impact is not something you will consider - the truth will wreck your agenda.

Oh, and BTW, my first sentence, the question is rhetorical - you are stupid if you believe lying and misleading the reader makes you a patriot or honest, you are not either.

 

[healthmyths]

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?

Its savvy journalism.

It's not journalism. Did you ever take journalism courses like I did in college you'd learn that personal bias, subjective, opinions are suppose to be left on the
EDITORIAL page! When reporting as I learned you simply report the FACTS not suppositions. What FACTS came from the Post story when 30 White House
officials are quoted anonymously? Hey here is a quote I heard from a high up White House Official that Jeff Bezos who owns the Post wants Trump out because
Trump wants to put Amazon out of business! Yup... that's the truth! I heard that from a HIGH UP official who spoke to a friend who told a cab driver who reported
it to a ABC news reporter who doubted it so who passed the story on the the Post!
How's that for "savvy bullcrap"!

 

[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"!

Are you really as stupid as this post suggests? Are you familiar with the INTERNET? Does that ring a bell? Of course acknowledging the truth that technology has had an impact is not something you will consider - the truth will wreck your agenda.

Oh, and BTW, my first sentence, the question is rhetorical - you are stupid if you believe lying and misleading the reader makes you a patriot or honest, you are not either.

Very familiar with the Internet DUMMY! I was creating web pages when there were only 15,000 web sites in the world in the early 90s!
Why do you think I'm asking these questions of idiots like YOU that take the Post as 100% accurate!
The Post wrote the story. Said "MANY" of the 30 White House officials on condition of anonymity"!
OK then name me the FEW that didn't as for anonymity! I'd believe THEM before the "MANY"!
But the POST never Identified the "FEW" because there WERE NONE!
YOU tell me... if there WERE people of the "MANY" that didn't speak on anonymity
A) who were they.....
B) They would be fired immediately under their signed Non-disclosure agreement.

 

[Care4all]

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

Because they are the only ones who have no journalistic integrity and publish unknown sources.

hidden sources are and have always been, the backbone of journalism....that's why we have the first amendment protecting the press from revealing their sources.

we would only have the news and propaganda, the govt wants us to have... if it were not for unnamed sources....it would be the opposite of a free press, it would be a govt run press....

there is a protocol they follow on unnamed sources, need more than one, their editors double check the sources the journalists use AND they notify the dept of justice on every article they write with unknown gvt sources and give the justice dept a heads up and a chance to stop them if critical to national security, before any article goes to print...

 

[candycorn]

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?

Its savvy journalism.

It's not journalism. Did you ever take journalism courses like I did in college you'd learn that personal bias, subjective, opinions are suppose to be left on the
EDITORIAL page! When reporting as I learned you simply report the FACTS not suppositions. What FACTS came from the Post story when 30 White House
officials are quoted anonymously? Hey here is a quote I heard from a high up White House Official that Jeff Bezos who owns the Post wants Trump out because
Trump wants to put Amazon out of business! Yup... that's the truth! I heard that from a HIGH UP official who spoke to a friend who told a cab driver who reported
it to a ABC news reporter who doubted it so who passed the story on the the Post!
How's that for "savvy bullcrap"!

Well, at some point you have to consider the source; not the person who told you about Bezos but the long lineage of lies you’ve broadcast here. I have come to assume you’re the US distributor of bullshit. I’ll just add that to the pile. The Washington Post, for whatever it’s reputation is, may be respected by some, repulsed by others. I don’t have any reason to doubt them. I have every reason to yawn at your silly accusations.

Your trying to equate the two is laughable.

 

[g5000]

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

False premise.

Fox News, MSNBC, The New York Times, Breitbart, The Blaze, The Daily Caller, et. al have ALL quoted anonymous sources.

NEXT!

 

[whitehall]

The leaks aren't "coming" from the Washington Post, they are leaked "to" the Washington Post. Since the leaks are unverified and anonymous it's possible that they are enhanced by the Post or even rewritten for political purposes.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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?

Its savvy journalism.

It's not journalism. Did you ever take journalism courses like I did in college you'd learn that personal bias, subjective, opinions are suppose to be left on the
EDITORIAL page! When reporting as I learned you simply report the FACTS not suppositions. What FACTS came from the Post story when 30 White House
officials are quoted anonymously? Hey here is a quote I heard from a high up White House Official that Jeff Bezos who owns the Post wants Trump out because
Trump wants to put Amazon out of business! Yup... that's the truth! I heard that from a HIGH UP official who spoke to a friend who told a cab driver who reported
it to a ABC news reporter who doubted it so who passed the story on the the Post!
How's that for "savvy bullcrap"!

Your ""Savvy bullcrap"" is also an emotionally rant, and rather quite silly. People fear power, and a journalist or a friend needs to be trusted to not share confidential discourse when the leader or whistler blower feels at risk if he or she is disclosed as a source.

Good journalists and good friends respect that concern. Something those of us with empathy understand - why don't you, or are you simply echoing the meme?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

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

False premise.

Fox News, MSNBC, The New York Times, Breitbart, The Blaze, The Daily Caller, et. al have ALL quoted anonymous sources.

NEXT!

RUSSIA!! RUSSIA!!

 

[easyt65]

Many of WaPo's 'leaks' have been Fake News stories of un-substantiated reports by 'anonymous' sources.

They are about as trustworthy as CNN.

That being said, the leaks are probably coming from Comey and his mentor, Mueller.

 

[mudwhistle]

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.

Mueller didn't release that. This is the deep state trying to force Trump's hand. Mueller is just playing video games in his new office.

 

[dannyboys]

The leakers, whoever they are WILL be uncovered.
May God help them when their names become public.
If they think they can slink off to teach at some Lib. community college somewhere they have another thing coming.They better consider leaving the country.

 

[jc456]

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

comey told us under oath they lie. so anonymous means liar. They are now a nothing reporting firm. ouch, must suck to say one works for them.

 

[jc456]

The leakers, whoever they are WILL be uncovered.
May God help them when their names become public.
If they think they can slink off to teach at some Lib. community college somewhere they have another thing coming.They better consider leaving the country.

reality winner, one is out!!

 

[OldLady]

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.

No, I don't believe it's him or his team, it would deeply hurt him. Leaks have been coming out long before Mueller. There is someone on his team or maybe even Pence that is leaking. Remember he doesn't treat the people around him with much respect and belittles them. Some of his own people are out to get him.

You're right--there have been leaks right along, way before Mueller. I was thinking of these most recent ones about the investigation into obstruction of justice, who is being looked at for finances, etc. The leak about the OofD charge couldn't have come from the WH because they didn't know. Now, the memo about what things to hang onto, that could well have come from the WH.

 

[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!

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.

DID YOU READ THE ABOVE CLOSELY??? Obviously NOT!
I want the POST to name the "FEW" or ONE or More that didn't ask for anonymity!
THAT's what I'm asking for! AGAIN read closely which is the problem with a lot of people!
Many of those interviewed spoke on the condition of anonymity in order to candidly discuss internal deliberations.

Did the POST say ALL of those interviewed ? NO they said Many.
That means a FEW or just even ONE did NOT speak on condition of anonymity!
WHO were the FEW or ONE???????

 

[jc456]

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.

you can't be that fking dense. or you're deflecting cause you won't answer you don't know. either way you remain one of the libs out of touch!!!

 

[candycorn]

If you can’t understand the concept of preserving the sources you have as a journalist, you’re pretty stupid.