I wouldn't call that credible.
-
-
Replying to @ScottAdamsSays @AJA_Cortes
That's because you didn't read it. It details how Dutch intelligence tracked Russian activities in real time.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
-
Go on and explain why.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
It would be a headline story in USA. Therefore, even anti-Trump U.S. media judged it not credible by even their own fake news standards.
1 reply 1 retweet 5 likes -
It was. I simply gave you the original source so you couldn't use confirmation bias to ignore it. Unsurprisingly you did it anyway. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2018/01/26/dutch-media-reveal-country-to-be-secret-u-s-ally-in-war-against-russian-hackers/?utm_term=.7af5ff369806 …
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @NateWatkins @ScottAdamsSays and2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
-
Replying to @NateWatkins @ScottAdamsSays and2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
-
Point accepted. The fake news anti-Trump media did point to the non-credible article and added nothing to the story. I stand corrected.
3 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
There's no such thing as "fake news anti-Trump media." Even using this phrase is proof of an abundance of bias. The phrase "fake news" means information that is intentionally wrong to trick the audience.
3 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
I include “intentionally misleading” in my fake news bin.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.