>>> You trust a system of checks and balances precisely because of this.

>> I think trusting in our system of checks and balances > No. A thousand times no. No damn way.

Which one is it? I paraphrased you, and you contradicted your own recommendation.

You’re proposing a flawed research methodology which uses an a priori fallacy. If the CIA says A, but an internal memo says B, B is more trustworthy. It’s equally as gullible as believing A, just inverted.

This is a treacherous assumption, especially if it concerns the CIA, which has among its stated missions information and psychological warfare. Propaganda using “accidental” disclosures is normal. By all means, use additional corroboration to update your Bayesian credences, but at that point you’ve advanced beyond the lazy skeptics being discussed.