>>514850658
I've been around long enough to know that when you see "sources say" in an article, the source is the imaginary voices in the author's head. As for "former official," it's either the same faggots on TV (Bolton, Clapper, Brennan, etc.) or it's, as you said, some pencil pusher who never actually had access.

ULTRA MAGA
>>512518223
Tbh, nothing ruins a good company, tech or otherwise, than being taken public. It's good for the founder, because he can cash out and retire, but he had better not have any emotional attachment to his company, because it's doomed in the long run.

EXTREME ULTRA MAGA