Yeah, the more I think about this the more it really comes down to an assessment of trust. I wouldn't characterize it as 'he said/she said' because I don't think it's necessarily about different stories - just differing values you give to the stories.
I've been thinking about what if this happened with a politician I really trusted? If a President I thought was steeped in honesty, integrity, good judgment, and solid strategic goals - how would I react to a report he/she had shared sensitive information with a semi-hostile foreign power, but one we were struggling to cooperate with against a common enemy. Especially in a context where that common enemy could end up having a disproportionate impact on national security resources if we were forced/pressured to deploy substantial forces to a problematic AOR?
I don't know, I would I think be concerned from the professional side about how smart a decision that release was but, I think I'd feel like those are the kinds of decisions the President is elected and empowered to make. I'd be incensed that professionals in the IC would challenge the President's authority and put our intelligence sharing agreements (trust) at risk through unauthorized disclosures. If there were foreign media in the room for the disclosures maybe I'd mollify my take against the leakers.
So, I guess this is a case where my belief the President's consistent lies and overall lack of credibility make this a significant case against him. But, if it weren't for that I'm not sure I would think so.
So, if you're somebody who doesn't feel the President has lied or has a lack of credibility, if in fact the opposite - you trust him on all the categories I mentioned before - you would have a totally different take. It's kind of weird for me to think about - because for the first 48 hours of this thing, and I still have qualms about it - this didn't seem to me to be a very partisan issue. I guess it comes down to personal partisanship - your direct views on the President himself.
