[TangoLimaSierra]

"...being “seriously considered,” an administration source tells Deadline..."

I can't believe all the commenters here buying this BS.

[AFB-XYZ]

Without having read every part of the article in-depth yet, I have to say that I couldn't find anywhere that the "administration source" was named.

You've brought up an important point: If the "72-hour rule" is to be applied on all Internet-based news items, shouldn't it apply even more to unnamed sources, "insiders", "people with knowledge of . . .", etc.?

[Miami Rebel]

The story would be given no weight had President Trump not opened the door to it being a possibility.

President Trump said in May that he “would certainly look at the facts if I think somebody was mistreated, whether they like me or don’t like me.”

WHY?

[Danie_2023]

“”I can’t believe all the commenters here buying this BS.””

The forum is rampant with knee-jerk responses to ‘stuff’ like this. Rule of thumb that most of us go by is... if it’s an anonymous source, it’s BS. If it’s coming from a RINO, it’s BS. If it’s coming from someone we trust, we trust, but verify.

[Jamestown1630]

I ceased being surprised at what some Freepers will fall for a long time go.

[TheWriterTX]

Exactly! The administrative source could be the janitor, for all we know.

Until Trump says it, it is not credible.