Things to make you go HUMMMM

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

My problem with fact checkers is twofold:

- they might be high in factual reporting, yet biased. How so? If it reports 100% accurate facts, but only one-sided (i.e., omitting facts that would support the other side), it is biased by definition. This is a general comment, not specifically aimed at Snopes.

- the facts might be there, even on both side, but it is interpretation of those facts, and ultimately labeling them as true of false, that is subject to bias.

For instance, in the uranium case, Snopes crucial argument is that Clinton did not have a veto power, being just one of nine deciding members. Anyone who knows anything about influencing others knows that influence has many forms besides formal power. Even the order in which the nine members speak has impact. Many committee decisions are pre-determined in private consultations prior to an official meeting, so direct physical presence is not needed.

The fact that the $133 million contributor sold his shares in the company means little in the light of the fact that the next biggest contributor, and related directly to the uranium deal, is his closest and long-time friend. Again, most influence is not done formally. Spending $133 million for charities, directly linked to such influential players like the Clintons, is highly suspicious, to say the least. Giving it to the Red Cross or similar is one thing, giving it to the Clintons quite different.

None of what I said above proves the Clintons did something wrong. But it also does not support the "false" label by Snopes.

I wish that fact checkers would provide facts, and leave the interpretation and labeling to readers.

[Alan Goldhammer]

I wish that fact checkers would provide facts, and leave the interoperation and labeling to readers.

Glenn Kessler's column in the Washington Post is thorough in this regard and though he does award Pinocchio's, the analysis is always fair.  He has gone after both Democrats and Republicans. 

BTW, did you mean 'interpretation?'

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

...BTW, did you mean 'interpretation?'

Yes, a typo.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

My problem with fact checkers is twofold:

- they might be high in factual reporting, yet biased.

They might, but not Snopes.

How so? If it reports 100% accurate facts, but only one-sided (i.e., omitting facts that would support the other side), it is biased by definition.

They explain it on their site. The use of loaded words, and reporting on selective subjects, can cause a bias in the otherwise factual (with reputable sources) reporting.

Cheers,
Bart

[Farmer]

Indeed Russ, it's one of the least biased sources and with high factual reporting.

The key factor there - they post sources.  It's very easy to verify what they've presented as evidence.  Russ doesn't really like facts in these matters and always just responds with rhetoric.

[Alan Klein]

See the New York Times article here that covers the Inspector General's report.  I think this was a rogue effort within the IRS just as there was a rogue effort within the FBI to go after Clinton during the summer of the election year (Giuliani was making noise about this at the time and he was locked into the FBI group).  Neither one of these was appropriate and the IRS people were all hauled up and dealt with unlike the FBI group (do you really think the Republican Congress will do any oversight hearings??).
All the PhRMA (my employer and yes, I contributed to the association PAC with the full knowledge that some of the money might go to candidates I would not support) disclosed all contributions.  All trade associations disclose this and they have to register all lobbyists.  I was VP for Scientific and Regulatory Affairs and did not have to register since my job involved no lobbying activities.  I did accompany our lobbyists from time to time when they needed technical support on an issues and I testified in front of several Congressional subcommittees on a variety of issues over my working career.  If you are so inclined you can watch me at the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.

I think there's been a concerted effort and a probably rogue behind the scenes effort to smear Trump since he ran two years ago.  The media and establishment Republicans hate him as much as the Democrats because he is an outsider.  He wants to overturn their cozy, incestuous relationship in  Washington.  The Republicans hired the British spy to smear him and only stopped after he won the Republican nomination.  It was then that Hillary took over the effort with the dossier using Russian KGB disinformation.  His enemies used it to start the campaign and got the special prosecutor to follow up.  Even if they find no collusion, they've done enormous damage to the president and the Republican congress.  The Russians win no matter what happens.  Hopefully Trump will turn it around.

I tried to see the video of you but couldn't find the link.  What/where is it?

[Alan Klein]

Glenn Kessler's column in the Washington Post is thorough in this regard and though he does award Pinocchio's, the analysis is always fair.  He has gone after both Democrats and Republicans. 

BTW, did you mean 'interpretation?'

The WP has turned into a rag sheet.  It use to be up there like the NY Times even if liberal like them.  But it's gotten so political in its news, that it will eventually destroy its reputation.  The NY Times also is biased.  They put Trumps bad stuff on page 1 and his successes buried on pg 47.  Then they claim that they tell both sides.  I do admit they're a little more classier, especially the people who write comments to their articles on the internet compared to the WP.  The WP commenters are just vile.  The paper does nothing to filter them out.  They ought to take some lessons from LULA. 
 

[Alan Goldhammer]

I think there's been a concerted effort and a probably rogue behind the scenes effort to smear Trump since he ran two years ago.  The media and establishment Republicans hate him as much as the Democrats because he is an outsider.  He wants to overturn their cozy, incestuous relationship in  Washington.  The Republicans hired the British spy to smear him and only stopped after he won the Republican nomination.  It was then that Hillary took over the effort with the dossier using Russian KGB disinformation.  His enemies used it to start the campaign and got the special prosecutor to follow up.  Even if they find no collusion, they've done enormous damage to the president and the Republican congress.  The Russians win no matter what happens.  Hopefully Trump will turn it around.

I tried to see the video of you but couldn't find the link.  What/where is it?

The video link doesn't work and I don't know why.  It's supposed to be an archive by the Senate of the hearing as they record all hearings.  You can read my "wonderful" testimony by clicking on the pdf link.  The damage to the Republican Congress you allude to is self-inflicted.  It's not so much the Senate as they are behaving like grown ups but the House is out of control.  I think they suffered a lot of damage in the hearing last week with Peter Strzok who came off better than his inquisitors.  I doubt the Democrats will be much better if they win in November as Maxine Waters will try to exact a pound of the President's flesh for the way he has been treating her.  Trump could do a lot to diffuse the situation but he can't and maybe it is because of his own insecurities.  How many times must we hear from his own mouth that he won the election?

[Alan Klein]

The video link doesn't work and I don't know why.  It's supposed to be an archive by the Senate of the hearing as they record all hearings.  You can read my "wonderful" testimony by clicking on the pdf link.  The damage to the Republican Congress you allude to is self-inflicted.  It's not so much the Senate as they are behaving like grown ups but the House is out of control.  I think they suffered a lot of damage in the hearing last week with Peter Strzok who came off better than his inquisitors.  I doubt the Democrats will be much better if they win in November as Maxine Waters will try to exact a pound of the President's flesh for the way he has been treating her.  Trump could do a lot to diffuse the situation but he can't and maybe it is because of his own insecurities.  How many times must we hear from his own mouth that he won the election?

Sorry about the video link.  I wanted to see it.  It's interesting. Strzok came off better on liberal anti-Trump MSNBC and CNN.  They said he was being picked on.  It was an inquisition.  Fox's pro-Trump attitude played it that he was acting in contempt toward Congress, snooty and had an air of "who are you to ask the FBI questions?" forgetting that Congress funds the FBI, pays his salary and has oversight.  So the truth lies somewhere between the two.

The best part was when the Republican congressman questioned Strzok's fidelity to his wife that he cheated on.  All the Democrats booed the Republican for getting so personal.  Then a black Democrat congresswomen  spoke up directing her contempt to the Republican questioner, "Congressman, why haven't you taken your medications today?"  The Republican congressman sat the stunned in silence.  I laughed hysterically and nearly pissed in my pants.

[Alan Goldhammer]

The best part was when the Republican congressman questioned Strzok's fidelity to his wife that he cheated on.  All the Democrats booed the Republican for getting so personal.  Then a black Democrat congresswomen  spoke up directing her contempt to the Republican questioner, "Congressman, why haven't you taken your medications today?"  The Republican congressman sat the stunned in silence.  I laughed hysterically and nearly pissed in my pants.

Yes, that was Representative Gohmert from the first district in Texas.  I wonder what he thinks of Trump's infidelities to his various wives.

[Alan Klein]

Yes, that was Representative Gohmert from the first district in Texas.  I wonder what he thinks of Trump's infidelities to his various wives.

What happened to the good old days when the press protected politicians.   Eisenhower cheated with his Amrny driver, Kennedy with Marilyn Monroe and a woman from Chicago who also was the girlfriend of a mafioso Don, Clinton with, well we all know that story, and Trump.

Actually it's good that everyone knows Trump cheated.  He can't be blackmailed with that at least.   I'm surprised the FBI didn't take away Strzok's Top Secret security clearance.  He could have been fired.  It's a major policy violation to cheat on your spouse.  It opens you up to blackmail.  He was a counter intelligence manager, just the kind of person foreign governments would love to blackmail.  If you're found out cheating, the Agency would usually pull your clearance.  Yet no one is talking about that.  Congress thinks it's too personal.  That shows you how out of the loop they are with how the intelligence world really works.