As we've seen recently, the media (and Democrats) have no problem getting their narratives by way of rumors -- most recently by way of The Atlantic -- from completely anonymous "sources."
CNN and Dems were all over that completely anonymously sourced story:
Sen. Amy Klobuchar calls for an “immediate hearing” with FBI Director Kash Patel over The Atlantic’s reporting about allegations of excessive drinking, which Patel denies. pic.twitter.com/RpHsaNxIwE
— Erin Burnett OutFront (@OutFrontCNN) April 21, 2026
It's almost like the Democrats knew ahead of time that the hit piece on Kash Patel was going to be published, because they had the talking points ready to go. And it's no coincidence that the story was published right before the SPLC was hit with an 11-count indictment.
This tells you it was coordinated. From the sources, to the outlet, to Democrat pearl clutching and media megaphone.
— Stacey (@ScotsFyre) April 21, 2026
Seriously, screw these people & their manufactured outrage. Bring out the anonymous sources. https://t.co/xL5oh72Ug7
However, I have found some "anonymous sources" that the media and Democrats do NOT like.
Trump's White House ballroom is being privately funded, and suddenly "anonymous sources" are really bad:
The secret contract for Trump's White House ballroom just revealed. See how it protects donors who want to remain anonymous: pic.twitter.com/pe1WvehgIE
— Erin Burnett OutFront (@OutFrontCNN) April 24, 2026
That CNN story explains why those donors want to remain anonymous and they don't even realize why. The lib media's upset they can't name and shame (or even dox) donors.
Oh no...they want to remain anonymous?
— judy (@judy060709) April 24, 2026
So do the accusers in The Atlantic Patel article. And YOU, for sure, are okay with that.
What a joke.
Why can’t they remain anonymous. Most of your sources demand it.
— Keyturner (@decathlongs87) April 24, 2026
Suddenly the rules change when Trump's the one granting the anonymity.
