And y'all bitched about the pardons...
-
@jon-nyc On the basic principle that when an expert weighs in on something, thereby abandoning the default position of "I don't know", and backs it with their credibility as black box thinkers with access to information and expertise that laymen do not have access to, and then they are proven wrong in retrospect, that those experts fell victim to a human failing. I'm uninterested in any attempt to disentangle motivated reasoning or tribal groupthink from outright dishonesty, because in the human mind, there is no bright line between them. In your world you can continue to believe that honest and well intentioned mistakes were made, while everybody else can see the convenience of that puzzle piece in your preferred narratives.
-
Actually if you reread the letter they weren’t even wrong. They stated outright that they’re had no direct knowledge of the whether the emails were real or not. What they said is ‘it had the hallmarks’ of a Russian disinformation campaign and it’s hard to argue otherwise.
“Don’t make me repeat myself”
- history
-
Read the letter I’m not doing any magic here.
And you’re simply wrong. We can not know that they knew otherwise and all evidence would point the other way.
Not least that the editors of WSJ and FoxNews turned the story down. You didn’t need to be motivated by TDS to find it suspect that fully-beclowned Rudy Giuliani would show up with Hunters laptop at the last hour and that it would be legit.
“Don’t make me repeat myself”
- history
-
@jon-nyc You can live in a world where those intelligence officials made an honest mistake, and were not parlaying their credibility into convincing the electorate of something they wanted the electorate to believe. Get as granular as you need to get, ignore implications of the weight of expertise and experience, frame it as an innocent message about how there are certain "hallmarks" and that's just objective fact. You employ this line of thinking selectively, either zooming in or zooming out on any given situation, in order to find the best framing for your preferred narratives. Meanwhile, the message, in practice, broadcasted by that letter, was that the experts who should know, believed the laptop to be fake Russian disinformation, and they're confident enough to publish a letter about it.
-
You keep running from your own statement. It is indefensible I’ll give you that, in the sense that is zero evidence for it and none that could be posited with a straight face.
If you disagree make the case concisely. How precisely can we ‘know that they knew’?
“Don’t make me repeat myself”
- history
-
@jon-nyc They knew that they did not have enough confidence to go as far as publishing a letter with the stamp of "intelligence officials" and all the credibility that goes behind that. Yes, I read into that human failings, as I wrote above. That is my response to you, as you continue to zoom in so that the implications of the letter to convince the public of a certain conclusion are safely out of focus.
I'm uninterested in any attempt to disentangle motivated reasoning or tribal groupthink from outright dishonesty, because in the human mind, there is no bright line between them.
-
@Horace said in And y'all bitched about the pardons...:
There's always been a reasonable case to be made about how the election was affected by the Hunter laptop story,
And there is also the case that President Trump's victory in 2016 was due to the FBI releasing something on Hillary Clinton's emails a week(?) before the election.
Almost always, people lose elections because they were a worse candidate than the other person. The lack of responsibility of candidates blaming everything but themselves says something about them.
-
Riding the rail again
“Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”
Warning: I post things that interest me. Read and comment at your own discretion.
-
Stated the obvious.
