> Of course, but that is his decision to make,
This is incoherent. It’s the president’s decision to do something he shouldn’t do? What point are you even trying to make?
> you are ranting about this with no idea what was actually shared
Except through all the reporting that has been confirmed by the intelligence agencies and Trump himself admitting the story is true and undermining his own national security advisor.
It’s clear to me that you have no idea what you’re even talking about and are forming opinions based on incomplete information for the convenience of your own worldview. I really don’t have much to say to you, in that case, but I will anyway because we made it this far.
> and making wild claims of putting sources at risk etc out of pure hate.
Seriously? Even republicans have admitted that this puts sources at risk. Add in the myriad intelligence operatives and federal agents who’ve chimed in saying the same thing.
You can certainly try and diminish the seriousness of this issue and question the motives of those who dissent all you want, but most Americans see right through what you and others like you are doing. And it’s disgusting.
> There is zero evidence of Trump doing anything wrong, zero.
You’re either massively ignorant or purposefully lying. I truly hope it’s not the latter. It’s just insane to me that you can look at all of the facts that contradict that statement and decide they don’t matter.
> Let me say this again being as you seem to be a tad slow
I’m sure anyone who breaks your peculiar bubble of misinformation seems like a lot of things.
> there is “ZERO” evidence of Trump breaking any law.
For the last time, that doesn’t mean he didn’t do anything wrong. And there’s a lot of evidence to suggest that he could have obstructed justice, which is the issue. But rather than shine a light on the president possibly commiting criminal actions, right-wing media wants to focus on a bogus conspiracy theory that’s been debunked ad nauseum.
> Things like memo’s have zero credibility,
You’re seriously convinced that intelligence gathered by the FBI and testimony by a public official has zero credibility? I have news for you. You’re one of a small number of people who actually believe that. I would love to hear you try and make that argument surrounded by a crowd of actual FBI agents who do this for a living.
It’s evidence, plain and simple. It’s not enough evidence on its own to make a solid case against the president, but it’s still evidence supported by corroborating testimony. Denying its credibility doesn’t change that.
> Comey was playing politics so his note making is subject to his own failed credibility and the fact his office was leaking a constant stream of classified information almost every day.
Now you’re simply spewing bold-faced lies. There is no evidence of classified information leaking out of the FBI, especially from Comey’s office. There are anonymous sources in the FBI making statements, but they’re not classified. A constant stream almost every day? You’re living in a fantasy land, or again, you’re being intentionally deceptive.
As for the “playing politics,” that’s a serviceable talking point, but it ignores the totality of Comey’s career in the FBI. We’re talking about a man who thought it too improper to even play basketball with Barack Obama. No one is buying “failed credilibity” from a guy who was beloved by his intelligence officers. He may have bent the rules and has rightly been chastised for that, but he has zero record of dishonesty.
> How about this, Trump has openly asked him to make the leaking from the FBI a priority and Comey refused, why?
Because the leaks have been coming from the White House, and it’s improper for the director of the FBI to cover for the president’s scandals, especially when he’s trying to investigate Trump’s own associates for criminal activity.
You would know this if you actually followed the news, but I feel like I’m talking to someone who gets their news from Breitbart’s twitter account.
> There is no news story,
> it is 100% based on unfounded claims and unnamed sources,
Now you’re making it obvious that you don’t understand how journalism works. Unnamed sources are used all the time, but you’ve clearly been fed the rhetoric that journalists simply “make up” their sources. Here’s how it works: news stories find multiple sources who back up what they’ve heard elsewhere, and an editorial board deems the likeliness based on the person’s credibility and if their story is true in light of what another source has said.
That’s why the adults in the room take the reporting of WaPo and NyTimes seriously. They have a strong record of getting this stuff right and being proven right. Despite what you’ve been told to believe, there’s a high level of scrutiny put on journalists to put out credible information.
> we have not seen a single shred of actual evidence so where is the story?
Correction: you have not seen a single shred of actual evidence, apparently, while the rest of us several steps ahead of you.
Case in point, the president tweets a day after WaPo breaks the classified intel story and confirms it’s true by defending himself. Start paying attention.
> If you on the radical left think just blurting out all sorts of unfounded accusations is news then let’s let it go both ways. You have a massive double standard.
I’m sure everyone seems like the radical left to you for reasons that have actually nothing to do with what makes someone “radical” or “leftist.” But hey, just labeling people we don’t like or disagree with sure is easier than being precise with our language.
I truly hope that you open your mind a little bit to the actual nuances and machinations of journalism and what the news is. Seems a bit naiive to me that you think the majority of the world is just so stupid and buying into “unfounded news stories,” and you’re just the only person in the cosmos who sees the light!
But if you don’t realize this eventually, no skin off my back.