Sir, are you at all awate of how your critical processes do an about-face depending on whether the set of propositions being looked at supports your political views or not? I’m not talking about abstractions either — You actually use virtually identical phrasings to mean virtually opposite things. You describe events with virtually identical language, but then reach conclusions that are completely contradictory. It is eerie…
When “looking logically” at the Trump-Russia story, and parsing the Seth Rich story on Fox (within a few hours, no less), you note that:
- In the Rich case, about the person initially making the claims, “…Rod Wheeler has inexplicably walked back his story…” And in the Russia case, about the tech firm that made the initial DNC Russia hacking claim, “The firm has since walked back that claim.”
- When describing “The allegation that the DNC emails and the Podesta emails were stolen by “Russian hackers” and handed over to Wikileaks…” You plainly state that “There is no evidence whatever of the Russian hack claim…” But in the Rich case, you present that “Fox still claims that it has an FBI source who has seen the emails and a track back to Gavin MacFadyen…” But you do not add, as you did about Russia hacking allegations, that there is no evidence whatever.
- Despite both claims getting 'walked back,' and although neither story has been shown to be true by evidence (never mind your choice to only point that out about one), you nonetheless conclude, about the Russia hacking that was alledge by a known source and backed up by our intelligence agencies, that “the Russian hacker conspiracy theory is almost certainly false.” But about the Rich story, though based solely on a single unnamed source who alledgedly claims to have seen some emails, you conclude, “So, while far from confirmed, the story is far from debunked.”
Let’s state this again, plainly:
Russia hacking of DNC, alledged by a known tech firm and also claimed true by our intelligence agencies, is “almost certainly false.”
Seth Rich murder related to DNC leaks, alledged by a single, unknown source via Fox news, is “far from debunked.”
Honestly, I am just wanting to know if you are aware and conscious that you did this, or if you never juxtaposed these two strangely discordant ways of seeing things. I get the feeling it was not an intentional attempt to mislead your readers, but rather an unconscious attempt to mislead yourself.