It's an Old Scam

Used by the Dumocrats many times: “the anonymous source.” they print a damaging (they hope) story in the cooperative liberal media, and attribute it to an “anonymous source.” And we’re supposed to believe it. Like with Harry Reid’s “imaginary friend” who told him a Republican candidate had not paid his taxes for ten years. Then there are all the stories in the media attributed to “anonymous sources” whose existence can’t be proven, about which Dumocrats, and the media tell us they “must protect their sources.” Yes, some sources must be protected. But stories attributed to UNNAMED people should be backed up by other sources, as well, to be taken at face value, especially if their claims cannot be supported by other means. NOBODY should be “slammed” by an UNNAMED source, based on the unsupported word of someone you may not question, nor name. Additional sources, NAMED, must be pursued, and brought to our attention, maybe using the unnamed source to lead us to NAMED sources to back up the story. The latest (at this writing) example of this syndrome is the ANONYMOUS op-ed in the New York Times, claiming all sorts of damaging things President Trump, or his staff are SUPPOSED to have said, but which no one (but the unnamed writer) ever heard. Then there’s Bob Woodward’s book, “Fear,” based almost entirely on “unnamed sources,” which should be IGNORED. (Just common sense)