Russia, help a socialist? Nah...

“despite his decision to continue his primary campaign to appease his supporters at the expense of the party and party nominee.”

I will never unsee this.

This just in: Clinton not President-elect. Election over. Trump won.

1. He was still briefed in the updated timeline, and in any case he should have known about this earlier,it was reported that he was briefed, and it’s KAC’s job to know about that, and in any case SM was right to call that out as ‘concerning’. And see my previous point about it being incredibly boring and pedantic to…

No, if you can’t afford to defend against them, apparently you can choose not to defend against them. Much cheaper that way.

It’s clearly relevant whether it’s true or not. It’s pretty clearly not true, but it’s still obviously relevant to the public. The article you reference also quibbles specifically with when Trump knew about the report, which is an answer to a question no one is asking. Who cares when Trump knew about this report?

So much more hummus in my future...

Why not both? Can’t he hate Trump and also think this is correct by journalistic standards? Nobody gives a shit about Buzzfeed’s ‘integrity’, but giving the public relevant topical information about current events regarding public figures is a journalistically radical* thing to do, and for bonus points, it hurts…

Why not just go whole hog and build a PC?

They do ‘just say that’, all the time. No one is “pretending they have any integrity or that they are a real news outlet and acted correctly.”

That’s why it was Buzzfeed. Let Buzzfeed handle spurious shit like this. Let the big boys keep their credibility, and we still get the scoop. Everybody wins. That’s why we have a Buzzfeed.

Only you had the courage to publish this important news. Truly the highest and noblest goal of journalism. Stay on this beat, I want to know ethnicity and current whereabouts for that midget ASAP

Or they can pass the damage, and cost, along to you, the consumer! Much cheaper that way.

Is too bad. Real missed opportunity.

Not giving them $100,000 dollars doesn’t secure the data, either. We’ll never know if paying would have prevented the release of the information, but not paying had obvious consequences. In any case, it makes their financial priorities abundantly clear.

I object, you can’t objectify what’s objectively already an object!

Yes, that would be better.

“it sounds like the ESEA is doing what it can to ensure this doesn’t happen again,”

Why no linked article about Scalebound? For being much hyped, I have never heard about it until now.