The One Important Question We Are Not Getting Answered By CNN From Their Wikileaks Story

In this article, CNN’s sources gave completely misleading information about the story that Wikileaks was providing Donald Trump with information before it was released to the public. The story was pretty much accurate in all aspects except the date of the release of the data. That was all they had to falsify to spin it that Trump was in collusion with the Russian. For hours it became the smoking gun that the mainstream media wanted it to be. Who was that source? Why won’t CNN release the identity?

As Written By Jazz Shaw for Hot Air:

John dug into several aspects of this story yesterday, but more questions remain. The issue at hand is one we’ve been covering since Friday and it involves that CNN report claiming that candidate Trump was given special access to some Wikileaks information before everyone else. The key failure in the report was that the actual email was sent after the material in question had gone public.

To be clear, this is not a minor mistake. It changed the story from a bombshell into, “Man may have read something on internet.”

But as John was pondering yesterday, that means that two different sources – anonymous sources as is so often the case with some of these damning stories about Trump coming from the New York Times, the Washington Post and CNN – had burned CNN and they seem to be totally fine with it. There has been zero indication that they plan to tell us who those faulty sources were, though there’s no journalistic rule against it. And the claim from the network is that they don’t believe the sources were acting maliciously. Really?

In this morning’s edition of the Morning Jolt, Jim Geraghty brings up the follow-on question which has been missing. Why should we believe this was an innocent mistake when that is the least likely scenario? (Emphasis added)………


Good question: Why don’t we know who CNN’s sources were on the “botched” email story? (Part 2) – Hot Air Hot Air

Leave a Comment

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.