General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsRachel makes me nervous. Is she outing sources.
The other night she flashed a document that was leaked to her, fine. She put the headers of official docs to prove they were real on the screen, fine. But anything can be tracked back, like, who had access to the leaked docs etc.
Tonight she's doing another thing, the premise of lauding whistleblowers, but is she leaving so many clues that she's jeopardizing her sources?
Couldn't she do the stories without focusing on the sources and how authentic they are?
Dem2
(8,168 posts)I'm betting she knows exactly what she's letting us see and why.
UTUSN
(70,674 posts)Last edited Tue Mar 7, 2017, 12:41 AM - Edit history (1)
If anything, deliberately leading our opponents to think certain things. I really think she's that forward thinking in what she lets her audience see.
shraby
(21,946 posts)the janitor to the lady who cleans the dust off the computers. They would be hard put to figure out who it is. Look how long deep throat stayed hidden as to who it was..until he died from old age.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)The_Casual_Observer
(27,742 posts)To prove authenticity.
napi21
(45,806 posts)radical noodle
(8,000 posts)I hope you're watching the piece coming up about Trump and the fertilizer king.
UTUSN
(70,674 posts)It's: Why can't the mass of known evidence convince everybody else?
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)about a week ago. And he did it with more detail.
rzemanfl
(29,556 posts)KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)rzemanfl
(29,556 posts)WiffenPoof
(2,404 posts)There is a video of her giving her valedictorian speech at her high school at the ripe old age of 17. The creativity and daring insight was amazing.
Here is the video...