Oh no! The Clinton News Network, aka CNN, has clearly found the smoking gun. Yes, hold on to your hats, ladies and gentlemen, the leftist activists disguised as journalists have discovered that Russian officials bragged they had “derogatory” information on Trump and his associates!
Russian government officials discussed having potentially “derogatory” information about then-presidential candidate Donald Trump and some of his top aides in conversations intercepted by US intelligence during the 2016 election, according to two former intelligence officials and a congressional source.
One source described the information as financial in nature and said the discussion centered on whether the Russians had leverage over Trump’s inner circle.
Oh no — that’s terrible! Please, hand that “source” a subpoena and let him/her talk about this on the record! Let the grand unmasking begin!
Wait, what’s that?
But the sources, privy to the descriptions of the communications written by US intelligence, cautioned the Russian claims to one another “could have been exaggerated or even made up” as part of a disinformation campaign that the Russians did during the election.
“The Russians could be overstating their belief to influence,” said one of the sources.
Oh, and then there’s this:
CNN has not been able to verify the allegations about the derogatory information in the dossier, but current and former US officials say some of the Russia-to-Russia conversations in the dossier have been corroborated.
That’s what constitutes a blockbuster report nowadays? Some anonymous “sources” claiming the Russians said they had “derogatory information” on Trump, but those same sources adding that Moscow could’ve been lying and CNN itself being forced to admit it couldn’t verify the allegations?
Here’s some real-fake breaking news for CNN: a source in my head just told me that CNN may be acting as an agent for the Russians. That same source added, however, that he may be mistaken. I have no way of verifying his claims. There could be a sinister relationship there, but there could also not be. Perhaps they’re acting in good faith, but who knows — maybe they aren’t. In either case, I thought I’d mention it here. You know, just in case.