Senator Feinstein's Office releases Fusion GPS interview transcript after GOP chair silence
163 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;53039489]uhh, zukriuchen isn't the type of person to promote wacky conspiracy theories, this is more like gaslighting than people saying "slow your roll fam you're veering into conspiracy theory territory"[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;53039550]it is a bit of a hobby of mine to dive into the conspiracy theory community, mostly just to see what's up, and i am seeing a lot of similarity in language and defense tactics being employed itt. take that as you will.[/QUOTE]
You know the major difference between a conspiracy theory and what's going on here? Conspiracy theories are grounded in flawed logic and evidence. Something that is not the case here. Despite what the morons arguing it's a conspiracy theory keep pushing nobody is saying this absolutely happened. They're saying it's very likely that it happened based upon existing evidence and Putin's past history of dealing with anything he considers dangerous to his personal interests. There is no conspiracy theorizing here at all.
[QUOTE=Alice3173;53040342]Conspiracy theories are grounded in flawed logic and evidence. [/QUOTE]
In my experience, the most persistent conspiracy theories are not based on flawed logic, but combine a series of unprovable but individually reasonable, likely assertions into a long chain of causal logic that ends with whatever point the theorist is trying to make. The theories seem plausible because each individual claim is reasonable or supported by precedent, but are logically unsound because they operate on the assumption that every claim in the sequence is fact by virtue of being reasonable or likely. If you have three 'reasonable' claims, call it 80% probability each, the likelihood of all three being valid is only fifty-fifty, but to a conspiracy theorist the conclusion is just as reasonable as each claim along the way.
[I]If[/I] the tape is real, and [I]if[/I] the prostitutes in it were identified, and [I]if[/I] they were killed by the Russian government, [I]then[/I] yeah they're dead. Treating each of those reasonable, but unproven claims as fact and stating that a conclusion that requires all three conditions to be true is 'almost a certainty' is conspiracy theory reasoning, probabilistically wrong, and a dangerous mindset to get into.
Edit: And frankly, this:
[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;53039230]So just to be clear, you think it's a conspiracy theory that Putin murders his political opponents?
Do you think it's a conspiracy theory that the Russian government is corrupt?
Do you think it's a conspiracy theory that Russia is headed by a russian Spymaster who has abused his position of power and connections to jail, murder, and malign the people of Russia and the world at large to increase his personal power?
Do you think it's a conspiracy theory that Russia jails or murders people who find themselves in a position of knowledge or power that the Government wants for itself?[/QUOTE]
Is [I]exactly[/I] how conspiracy theorists defend these logic chains. Each of those is a completely reasonable claim in isolation, so they're easy to defend as isolated statements; everyone agrees that Russia is capable of killing political dissidents who pose a threat to Putin. It's the [I]aggregation[/I] of that reasonable claim with other, mutually contingent reasonable claims that warrants skepticism. Nobody's saying inference is invalid, but it has to be taken with a grain of salt.
The definition of the word if is not "this is a fact". Also three causal things in a sequence does not make something improbable. We are not considering things in a vacuum but as a whole here. To correct you, catbarf, i asked those questions to see where our opinions diverged, because if we both were in agreement on those facts then likely we would arrive at the same conclusion. It was less a defense and more an attempt to learn what they know mixed in with a jab that he appeared to be calling actual facts 'conspiracy theory'
If there was an apple in an apple tree, if it was fall when it dropped, then there is now a rotting apple under that tree. That is what you're looking at. We've been told there was an apple and the person who said there was also claims it dropped in the fall. We can't observe the apple ourselves but also have no reason to distrust the source. We can't observe the rot but can observe that apples by nature rot over time. We cant even observe the tree but we can observe the trees adjacent to it, of which at least one has a rotting apple underneath.
Therefore it is likely as they describe. Does that mean 'it definitely happened? No. It means it likely happened. Is that 'hysteria'? No. That's reasoned, careful, logical deduction arrived at by close examination and consideration of surrounding facts. Is that the same as saying 'this is the truth'? No.
We need to be as slow and cautious as we can with what claims we're willing to make and ideas we're willing to propose regardless of how big a bombshell we're dealing with. If hysteria wins, we lose.
Alright, so I just finished reading the entire hearing, word for word, and there are some pretty large misrepresentations being made by people like Abramson.
1) Nothing in the interview says that the GOP new about the dossier stuff, or even that Steele was doing the intelligence gathering. Assuming Simpson (the head of Fusion GPS) told the republican client (who we don't know anything about, other than him being a republican) about the research he was doing, it would have only been about the loose relationships with European criminals. With that said, Simpson clearly states that they did not find any evidence of criminal activity by Trump with these criminals.
2) The comment about there being a 2nd source within the Trump campaign/business organization (Simpson doesn't know which when asked) is based on an offhand comment from Steele. Simpson does not state who the source is, he doesn't state what the source said, etc.
Abramson tweeted: [QUOTE]So, to sum up where we are: everything the GOP said about the Dossier post-August 2017—to American voters—was a lie. They knew full well the Dossier had *corroborated* what a whistleblower in the Trump campaign told the FBI *before* July of 2016. This is goddamned explosive.[/QUOTE]
Nothing in the interview says this. Simpson was told, in a non-descript way, about a 2nd source related to Trump by Steele. Simpson specifically says that he didn't know if was from the campaign or from the Trump business organization. Simpson never says anything about this being told to the republican client. In fact, Simpson declines to answer any questions about what he told to his clients.
[QUOTE]House and Senate GOP allies of Trump are revealed, today, as being damn near complicit in a cover-up of epic proportions. Grassley trying to block the release of this transcript is him trying to keep Americans from finding out that the Dossier *wasn't* the FBI's main source.[/QUOTE]
Simpson's lawyer requested for it to stay confidential. The interview also says nothing about the dossier not being the main source other than the single offhand comment from Steele about a second source that confirmed some non-descript part of Steele's intelligence.
In fact, Simpson specifies that Steele told the FBI months before ever hearing about the 2nd source, which happened at a later date. We don't know whether they had the 2nd source before or after Steele had gone to the FBI. The timeline was not given.
[QUOTE]What this means is the GOP *knew* the Trump-Russia story was legitimate—as it came from a whistleblower in *Trump's own campaign*—in August 2017. That's over four months ago. They've been lying this whole time. This is an *unspeakable* act of disloyalty to the United States.[/QUOTE]
Nothing in the interview had anything to do with the GOP knowing about the 2nd source, or even if the 2nd source was part of Trump's campaign.
[editline]10th January 2018[/editline]
He either didn't read the full testimony or he is purposefully being deceitful. Him continually saying that the 2nd source is a whistleblower from the Trump campaign goes directly in opposition to Simpson's actual answers. He explicitly declines to state whether it was from Trump's campaign or from his business organization. Here's the text:
"Q. One point I'd like to clarify from Ms. Sawyer's questioning. I believe you said that Mr. Steele had told you that the FBI had a source from inside the Trump organization and I believe she referred to a source from inside the Trump campaign. Do you know which is the accurate -
MR. LEVY: He's not going to get into the details of that source.
MR. DAVIS: I'm not asking for any particular details. It was characterized differently by you and by counsel. I just wanted to make sure.
BY THE WITNESS:
A. I don't know.
MR. FOSTER: So you don't know whether it was the organization or the campaign, in other words?
MR. SIMPSON: That's correct."
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.