Well I like three key points in that article from their evidence;
First is all this intel seems to be specific to DC, so that doesn't cover every riot.
Second they mask the name of the channel and the far right group is unnamed, and the specific threat is automatic weapons to be used, which then never happened. So that sounds like bad intel.
Third, the "No ANTIFA" involvement was coming from the source marked as "From Social Media Partnership". So is that the evidence didn't exist or is this another example of media bias cause they won't give them up?
Well I like three key points in that article from their evidence;
First is all this intel seems to be specific to DC, so that doesn't cover every riot.
Second they mask the name of the channel and the far right group is unnamed, and the specific threat is automatic weapons to be used, which then never happened. So that sounds like bad intel.
Third, the "No ANTIFA" involvement was coming from the source marked as "From Social Media Partnership". So is that the evidence didn't exist or is this another example of media bias cause they won't give them up?
Social media "partnership" was just one source of intel for them. They're lying.