150 Armed Militia Members Take Over Federal Building

[*bfine32*]

(03-16-2016, 11:21 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Because one has a clear agenda and the other does not?  What possible reason would the reporter have to lie as the statement was made well in advance of the shooting.  I suppose you'll come back with clickbait, which is possible albeit unlikely.

Because no one else had a statement issuing a threat; that was hot, why do you think it got so much play?  As soon as that reporter said he was told that over the phone, every source ran with it in quotes. Perhaps the reporter did not lie; perhaps it was entirely true that what he was reported was what was said. Conersely, what if he miss quoted and the person on the other end simply said we are prepared to die for our cause or the reporter decided to embelish just a tad? You find it unlikely that a reporter would sensationalize a story; I do not.

Perhaps the reporter had no agenda (perhaps); but do you think those that took the unsubstantiated words from the reporter as a bona fide threat had an agenda?