Quote:
Originally Posted by shazeep
|
Lets just look at the first one
" (his file is likely classified, meaning the public will
not allowed to know the whole story)"
This bit of "news" never actually gives ANY reason whatsoever to believe he was an FBI informant. Rather they assert it and assume its true (as you probably do) and then work from there.
But think about that quote....his file is likely classified? Then HOW do they know he was an informant?
That's beyond asinine. The article is clear biased when they state things like the pictures were MADE to look like CCTV footage. Whoever wrote that piece is biased and assumes what he says is true...or at the very least assumes someone will believe his tales.
Linear Mode
