But why give any credence to an organization you say has a near zero likelihood of being correct?

If someone has a 1% track record of being honest, and they tell me something...I'm going to bet the other way. Even if the other guy is also being squirrelly. Say what you want about Trump on this, he's still got a better record overall, and was never the most articulate, or honest on some of the details.

There's just no way I'm taking WSJ and anonymous sources as anything of value, when they did this exact same bullshit for a decade.