Never said they are. But if they can corroborate a part of a claim, they are useful. for an investigation. Maybe tell Nunes this with his ridiculous "memo" that he doesn't want to release for "some" reason, even though he can at any time.
And "bugs" like meltdown and associated problems compromising the kernel. With all the other back doors, my tinfoil hat tells me they are "features", baked in for a stack of 3-letter agency cash.
It does seem a presumption to me to expect hearsay from people chosen secretly can satisfactorily corroborate claims alone. As if that can't affect the truth rather than, say, can't help but do so. Let's say for instance confidential sources for a given article happened to've been Lt. Gen. James Clapper Jr, Ret. and Adm. Mike Rogers, both which are neo-Cold War fanatics that have been directors at NSA. These inveterate liars perjure themselves before Congress and the American people as a matter of course. What haven't they lied about on CSPAN video and gotten away scot-free with? Ask Ed Snowden and Thomas Drake. I'm all for deliberative theater but of all the people I'd least trust to gin up a Congressional witch hunt for an "enemy within," it'd probably be these particular longtime confidential sources. I don't mind the mainstream press are stenographers, I just mind the lazy ones. This is how we get Judith Millers. We'll see this drag out until the next election, and the one after that. Or are we still pretending RussiaGhaziPalooza's going to come to a point? Clinton 2020? The Second Crimean War? Nuclear Winter? The rise of the squid?
Except the sources have an ax to grind, and several of their stories have been proven false and retracted.
Sometimes, these things are impossible to get around. US partisan politics is one hell of a drug.
Confidential sources aren't proof. You know, kinda like secret evidence isn't evidence, secret courts aren't courts, and secret laws aren't laws.
don't forget secret warrants that come with gag orders.
“No…”
Never said they are. But if they can corroborate a part of a claim, they are useful. for an investigation. Maybe tell Nunes this with his ridiculous "memo" that he doesn't want to release for "some" reason, even though he can at any time.
And "bugs" like meltdown and associated problems compromising the kernel. With all the other back doors, my tinfoil hat tells me they are "features", baked in for a stack of 3-letter agency cash.
It does seem a presumption to me to expect hearsay from people chosen secretly can satisfactorily corroborate claims alone. As if that can't affect the truth rather than, say, can't help but do so. Let's say for instance confidential sources for a given article happened to've been Lt. Gen. James Clapper Jr, Ret. and Adm. Mike Rogers, both which are neo-Cold War fanatics that have been directors at NSA. These inveterate liars perjure themselves before Congress and the American people as a matter of course. What haven't they lied about on CSPAN video and gotten away scot-free with? Ask Ed Snowden and Thomas Drake. I'm all for deliberative theater but of all the people I'd least trust to gin up a Congressional witch hunt for an "enemy within," it'd probably be these particular longtime confidential sources. I don't mind the mainstream press are stenographers, I just mind the lazy ones. This is how we get Judith Millers. We'll see this drag out until the next election, and the one after that. Or are we still pretending RussiaGhaziPalooza's going to come to a point? Clinton 2020? The Second Crimean War? Nuclear Winter? The rise of the squid?