Right, Comey asked for more resources and got fired because there is nothing to show here.
WSJ : “Mr. Comey was concerned by information showing potential evidence of collusion”
- Thread starter exGOPer
- Start date
Right, Comey asked for more resources and got fired because there is nothing to show here.
Maybe, maybe not. Until you have proof, it's just speculation.
But I already posted the proof
Odd, because I've asked you several times to show the part with the proof. All I get is more conjecture. I'll try again.
Can you show me the part of the article that proves there was collusion? I mean, other than the argument that "the WSJ is a right wing paper, and if they say it then it must be true".
Sure
Claim made - FBI is investigating Trump-Russia collusion
From the article - Mr. Comey was concerned by information showing possible evidence of collusion
Done, both claim and source provided
Ok, so the claim that FBI is investigating the collusion is true. Established, because the FBI said/says it is. No problem there.
From the article, Comey concerned by information showing possible evidence of collusion. Ok, so there is something that could possibly show collusion. Forget about the fact that it is only possible. Where is the information that can show possible collusion? What is the nature of the information? Is it a document?
I see no evidence other than speculation from you, and from the article.
The article is saying that it heard from someone who heard it from Comey who says there is something that might be considered evidence of possible collusion. Forgive me if it's not blowing my skirt up.
Saying you don't know the form of evidence or it's nature doesn't negate the fact that collusion was reported, this is like saying that you do not believe if a team won a game as reported by someone because they didn't report the score as well
Whether a team won a game is easily verifiable. Saying someone colluded with a foreign nation - you would think - would be easily done as well. Yet here we are, half a year after the election with absolutely nothing at all that shows this occurred. Just more conjecture. Like your article.
It's easily verifiable based on information provided - if you had no source for real time information then it would take time to verify just like a slow moving investigation does.
Watergate took 2 years to reach conclusion, why is six months such a long time?
It's not a long time for an investigation. But it's a long time to hear that it is fact, when no facts have been presented. I have a suspicion that, even if no facts are ever produced and everyone is exonerated, folks like yourself will go on yelling it was a conspiracy, just like the birthers did with Obama.