Speaking of “guessing at their opinions” we already did notice that Jim Peebles fell for what a FOX reporter told him what to think about this.
Nevermind that there is plenty of evidence, not only for partisanship in favor of Trump, but there is also evidence at misleading points by FOX and others when one looks at the Carter article Jim Peebles points at:
“This bit of explosive information was revealed in an expose on Steele by The New Yorker’s Jane Mayer but the implications for the FBI are profound.”
Is Jane Mayer a bad source too?"
One can see how he was misled by that FOX contributor:
No, indeed Jane Mayer is not a bad source, what took place was that Jane Mayer was cherrypicked by FOX’s Carter, and as I have seen many propagandists out there do, expected that Jim Peebles and others would not check is it was indeed an expose of Steele.
That was an expose all right, but mostly of Trump and the Republicans. Jane Mayer clearly reports that overall Steele has been railroaded unfairly by the Trump and the Republicans. What Carter, the FOX contributor did, was to grossly cherry pick to tell their readers what she only wanted to report to them. Carter’s piece ends then as a misleading article.
BTW one has to notice that Jim Peebles needs to read more carefully, Carter said first that what the New Yorker did was an expose, only to right away “clarify” that it was “an expose titled” article at the New Yorker" :smack:
Yep, as in “just my opinion that it was an expose of Steele”, but reading it does show that the expose is directed to the Republicans and Trump. So, we will see if Jim Peebles still thinks that Jane Mayer is a good source. Others should know by now why I do describe FOX and many of its contributors as poisoners of information.
That isn’t true. There is very strong evidence that Carter Page was being used by the Russians, and many Trump supporters like yourself are in total denial. Such strong denial that you can’t even regard him as a patsy: no, you must regard him as innocent and framed.
You seem blissfully unaware of the difference between a fact and an opinion. May I ask what field of work you are in, in which such distinctions are irrelevant?
You need better sources. Seriously, this is just getting ridiculous. What’s next, wanna re-litigate Benghazi? Wanna bring up how the Pope endorsed Donald Trump? Start talking about how tap water turns frogs gay? Tell me where you got off here, I’m trying to see whether the barrel has a bottom.
Explain how 1, 2, or 3 above are not about Putin/Russia’s OPINIONS.
So I looked at the John Oliver article:
“The investigation also isn’t actually about collusion, rather it’s about whether a person or the campaign conspired with the Russian government to infiltrate the 2016 election. The Trump allies maintain there is “zero evidence” to confirm anything. The reality, however, is that no one has any idea what has been found under the secret grand jury. In many cases, Mueller’s office has managed to keep things secret for months, until public court documents are filed and reported.”
Explain the difference between collusion and conspiracy. I think they are close enough to synonyms for the difference to be moot. The first sentence contradicts itself, unless there is some crucial difference between the 2 words that escapes me:
“isn’t actually about COLLUSION, rather it’s about whether a person or the campaign CONSPIRED”
WHAT???
Yeah, Mueller might have some evidence in his back pocket that he just can’t show us yet. I don’t believe it though.
Oh, and I rarely watch FOX news. I think it is too mainstream, and barely moving a little from the establishment propaganda.
Not sure what you are claiming here, even you report that, the fact is that you did rely mostly on FOX news sources and contributors.
So, besides declaring that the ones making what FOX is “are establishment propaganda”… you also think that Jane Mayer from the New Yorker is a good source, then that is the end of the thread; because she did expose Trump and the Republicans asinine treatment of Steele.
No, in one particular subargument I referenced Nunes and “a FOX source”. That’s 50 percent of the sources for one particular point. And the FOX source actually was based on a non-FOX source. So really that particular point was relying in the end on no FOX sources. In regards to the root source behind the FOX source, if Jane Mayer presented some evidence which helps Trump, and somewhere else was anti-Trump, then that points to her being a BALANCED source. So really what you point to is she may be a good source to use in a debate.
And by your own calculation, when sources are not being accurate, then those sources should have been dropped, but so much for that.
Again, nowhere do I see you dropping those sources and agreeing with what Jane Mayer reports overall, you are only cherry picking to get a predestined outcome.
And again, thread over then. Trump and the Republicans really are off base by attempting to declare Steele as a non-reliable source when Jane Mayer reports that Steele is one of the good guys.
And again: Sarah Carter from FOX does appear as a vulgar cherry picker that managed to confuse people like you. About who was being exposed in the article by Jane Mayer.
How is what Carter pointed out cherry picking a fact? One branch of this debate (and I think a losing one) says “The FBI didn’t know”. The Nunes memo said they did know. If you want to doubt Nunes, then Carter was observing another reported fact which would point to it. Yeah, it is one fact. But a fact is a fact, and the notion of cherry picking is irrelevant. Go agead and go with “The FBI didn’t know”. Then you can’t later argue the alternative, first argument in this debate, which was: “anyone reading the footnote would know”. So if we get a third source you can’t quibble with later which says “The FBI knew”, then I win the debate.
You already lost, I told you several times already that the FISA courts got several extensions. On every single one of those extensions the courts would have complained to the FBI but AFAIK they never reported that something was a miss. By the latest extension, they would be aware now about how Clinton was involved. By the reaction reported by those courts (granting the extensions), the conclusion is once again: you are making a lot of a moot point.
As a second lesson: It is clear that you do consider sources like Jane Mayer as good, so deal with how she was misrepresented by the likes of FOX’s Carter.
The Carter Page wikipedia article says:
“The initial 90-day warrant was subsequently renewed more than once.[30]The New York Times reported on May 18, 2018 that the surveillance warrant expired around October 2017.[31]”
And this October 24 2017 NYT article:
Says:
“A spokesperson for a law firm said on Tuesday that it had hired Washington-based researchers last year to gather damaging information about Mr. Trump on numerous subjects — including possible ties to Russia — on behalf of the Clinton campaign and the D.N.C.”
And appears to be one of the first stories to break the news.
So I don’t see any evidence Clinton funding of the Dossier was public knowledge at the time of any of the Page FISA filings.
Missing the point, if it was so important the judges already do know now who were the funders. Not a complaint has been reported from the judiciary. And again, back then the courts did not miss anything because they did not need to see what you are demanding.
And then, as I pointed before, others looking at what Jane Mayer reported is not to conclude that Steele or the FBI hid something. But that as I pointed people like Fox’s Carter misrpresented what Jane Mayer did report, here is what NPR reported after looking at what Mayer reported:
I’m not sure if the NPR quotes within the quote above will show up. But if the first section you bolded is saying what I think it is, it is wrong:
“In a story Feb. 2 about a Republican memo on the Russia investigation, The Associated Press erroneously reported that a former British spy’s work on an opposition research project was initially funded by the conservative Washington Free Beacon. Though the former spy, Christopher Steele, was hired by a firm that was initially funded by the Washington Free Beacon, he did not begin work on the project until after Democratic groups had begun funding it.”
The other bolded sections consist of stuff like I responded to from posters arguing “anybody reading the footnote would know”. Keep in mind this is from NPR, a partially publicly funded organization that got rid of public comments to its website articles during the runup to the 2016 election:
Come on, stop quoting all these mainstream news sources. Lay it on us, dude! Give us your truth from the alternative media sources that are sticking it to the Deep State, man!
Not sure what that bit does to counter all the rest, but as even Wikipedia notices while acknowledging what AP reported:
In essence, while the free Beacon did not contribute to the second phase, that there was a first phase conducted by Fusion GPS was the case.
As for the very silly counter to dismiss NPR, you are missing the point again, the point was that that NPR article was cited to show that others do say that what that FOX contributor reported was a very gross cherry pick and that in the end you just can not explain why what Jane Mayer reported is not being taken seriously by you after you told us that she was not a bad source.
Again, Jane Mayer told us that:
So, now that you know what she reported, do you still think that she is a good source and that maybe you should learn about what she actually did report?
The notion of cherry picking is not applicable. This is saying according to this source Steele knew who was funding and when he knew it, which impacts how certain we are the FBI knew it (the other source is the Nunes memo). All of the other stuff you are pointing to and writing about is irrelevant to that. You are actually reverse cherry picking.
Of course you are cherry picking. You quote NPR stories when it comes to a narrow, technical, and basically irrelevant point about when Steele may have known about DNC funding of his investigation, and reject NPR when it comes to the overwhelming evidence of connections between the Trump campaign and Russia’s interest in tilting the election.
Sure it was, the impression Carter leaves is that Steele was the target of an “Expose” in a negative way, when in reality Jane Mayer made an expose of Trump and the ones that claim that Steele should not be trusted.
As pointed many, many times before, Fox’s Carter goes for the question mark style of reporting; that can be answered both in the positive or the negative IOW, just innuendo in the end. In reality there is no evidence on what she cherry picked, only her opinion.
What you say there is not even wrong, besides showing that what she did was misleading, the reverse of cherry picking is… showing the whole context.
As in showing readers that a writer that you declared to be a good source did actually tell us, not what a contributor of FOX does by misleading her readers about who was Mayer exposing in her article. The FOX contributor was only doing a wonderful job at using weasel words to tell her readers a different conclusion.
Others should know by now why I do describe FOX and many of its contributors as poisoners of information.