Oh I agree with you, I hate the nameless sourcing thing. I think all you can do is ask yourself who benefits from a story with anon sources. Typically CNN isn’t one to throw bones our way so it made it easier to digest for me, but perhaps I’m missing something in their intent. Durham is such a secretive individual it made sense that a story about him pulling subpoenas had to be anonymous.
OP linked some references, even stated some MSM ones.
Jeez you guys are retarded. Do you read your own links?
I'll believe it when I see it. This almost feels like a bone they're throwing to us after their Jan 6th shit quietly failed.
Not my links. My point was that it was posted on a MSM source. Since CNN has no benefit to a Durham investigation it seems unlikely that it’s made up.
What I meant was that they had no named sources. A source at CNN could be the doorman making up a story. Within the article, you find no real basis.
It could be just that this is the way journalism works these days, but if so, it isn't truly investigative reporting. It's sharing rumors.
Oh I agree with you, I hate the nameless sourcing thing. I think all you can do is ask yourself who benefits from a story with anon sources. Typically CNN isn’t one to throw bones our way so it made it easier to digest for me, but perhaps I’m missing something in their intent. Durham is such a secretive individual it made sense that a story about him pulling subpoenas had to be anonymous.