So these FBI imposters knew he went to a protest, where he lives, and want to ask questions? If they were criminals, wouldn't they want something from him?
This comment reads to me like you understand the implications and it makes you uncomfortable so you're deflecting with nonsense. Let's assume they're real FBI agents: what do you think of this action?
What about this story makes it "BS"? Your comment(s) provide no rebuttals or anything to discredit this story. It doesn't sound like you're a skeptic, more like you'd made your up mind prior to reading the article.
> why should we assume anything
Because discarding something as fake news is not good faith. Believe it not, you can simultaneously be skeptical and engage with the content of the article. The question still stands: what do you think about the FBI going to a protestors house to ask him questions about it?
> We need better reporting and part of that is verification.
He tried reaching out to the FBI but they declined to comment due to the ongoing government shutdown as noted in the article. What level of "verification" would make you happy?
> There is no requirement to presume/assume "good faith".
You're not answering anything with substance. Yes, it's a convienent strategy to assume everything is fake news when it doesn't fit your narrative. But that's not reality and it's pretty obvious that you're deflecting.
> Do you accept part or all of the entire post as factual?
Yes, he's an independent journalist that's reported on some big stories this year already. Given the actions against civil rights we've seen already from this administration, sending FBI agents to ask questions is certainly tame by comparison and very plausible.
This comment reads to me like you understand the implications and it makes you uncomfortable so you're deflecting with nonsense. Let's assume they're real FBI agents: what do you think of this action?