Cont: All things Trump + Russia Part 2

[Skeptic Ginger]

[snipped more words not to the point] What have I said that implies that I don't believe this?

It's not relevant. I asked you to make your point clear. Move on.

I believe, based on the recent new reports (and the fact that they fit in with much other previously known info) that Russians bought quite a lot of targeted ads. This was already known, so the existence of a warrant is not the thing that reveals this.

OK.

.... What do I think they DON'T prove? [snipped more wasted words]...

1. I am not making any claim at this time about what the ads do or do not prove.
2. I am not arguing, in any way, that Russia did not interfere.
3. I am not arguing that there was not collusion. Or that there was. (I lean towards yes, but am not sure we have enough to meet the burden of proof in a courtroom. Maybe Mueller does. I hope he does.)

What I am saying, [snip] is the following:

Some people are reading too much into the existene of a warrant.

For example here is an excerpt from one of the articles cited earlier in the thread:

Care to quote a post of someone here saying that?

...[snip]

Going forward, my claim is only as follows

I am saying that while I hope this to be true, I am not convinced that the fact of judicial review truly and honestly means that Mueller has enough information that he gained from other investigations beside the facebook revelation, and which is tied to specific people to charge them in a court or law.

Who said the warrant meant Mueller was close to charging anyone?

My assessment, you imagine people in the thread are saying something they are not saying.

If you would have clarified what you meant by "something" sooner you could have saved yourself a lot of keystrokes.

 

[beren]

What's wrong with the quote i provided that was from an article under discussion in this thread?


I clarified my meaning repeatedly. For some reason this want enough. My apologies.
Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

What's wrong with the quote i provided that was from an article under discussion in this thread?...

From your quote:

here is an excerpt from one of the articles

I simply asked you to quote someone in the thread who was claiming the warrant meant more than Mueller was looking at Russia's ad buys.

As for the quote itself:

... and their link to a potential crime to justify forcing [Facebook] to give up the info," she said. "That means that he has uncovered a great deal of evidence through other avenues of Russian election interference."

It also means that Mueller is no longer looking at Russia's election interference from a strict counterintelligence standpoint — rather, he now believes he may be able to obtain enough evidence to charge specific foreign entities with a crime.

Where does that say anything beyond what you already agreed we know: Russia interfered with the election and Mueller is investigating that crime?

 

[sunmaster14]

Just because a news report may not be entirely accurate doesn't make it fake. Clearly CNN do not have proof that a warrant was obtained, but they concluded that it must have been. Other news reports have simply condensed this conclusion. It may turn out that in fact a warrant was not issued, and Facebook violated their own policies by handing over information without one. But that doesn't make it 'fake news'.

Perhaps, but an 'embarrassing' correction does not equal 'fake news'.

Is it 'fake news' if 31 people are reported dead in an earthquake, and the dead toll is later updated to 36? Or just an honest mistake? Is the correction 'embarrassing' or simply a way to improve accuracy as better information comes to light?

fake 1 (fāk)

adj.
Having a false or misleading appearance; fraudulent.
n.
1. One that is not authentic or genuine; a sham.

v. faked, fak·ing, fakes
v.tr.
1. To contrive and present as genuine; counterfeit: fake a signature.
2. To simulate; feign: faked his death so his wife would collect insurance money.
3. Music To improvise (a passage).
4. Sports To deceive (an opponent) with a fake. Often used with out.
v.intr.
1. To engage in feigning, simulation, or other deceptive activity.​

Unless you can show that there was a deliberative attempt to deceive, you cannot honestly call this article 'fake news'.

News reported in a mainstream media source is supposed to be vetted. Both CBS and the Independent reported that CNN confirmed the existence of a warrant. CNN has done no such thing. If even, I, an internet talking head with no professional responsibility to confirm the accuracy of the claims I publish, can see that CNN has not confirmed the existence of a warrant, surely a journalist at CBS or at the Independent can.

Whether it was deliberate or not (and it might be deliberate) is irrelevant. The shoddy vetting is enough to make it "fake" news. The journalists responsible "faked" doing their due diligence.

 

[sunmaster14]

What a world, where potentially incorrect conclusions are declared "fake news" by Internet talking heads.

sunmaster14... If your conclusion turns out to be incorrect, will you grant us the pleasure of forever dismissing you as a trashy source of fake news?

You need my permission? By the way, I did not dismiss CBS and the Independent forever as trashy sources of fake news. I identified an example of fake news that each propagated. When non-fake news sources publish fake news, it is far more damaging than if a fake new source publishes fake news.

Few people believe thoroughly made-up news unless they are strongly inclined to believe it anyway. In which case, who cares if somebody with strong confirmation bias gets his bias confirmed? It doesn't really tilt the playing field.

A plausible story about CNN confirming the existence of a warrant, coming from credible news sources, can quickly become accepted as conventional wisdom. That kind of thing really does tilt the playing field.

When all of this is over, I predict that the appointment of Mueller as special counsel will be shown to have been a result of fake news (first created by former CIA Director John Brennan, and then propagated by Democrats with bylines, a.k.a mainstream journalists).

 

[TheL8Elvis]

This is a good example of fake news:

www.independent.co.uk reported:
FBI Special Counsel Robert Mueller reportedly obtained a search warrant for records of the "inauthentic" accounts Facebook shut down earlier this month and the targeted ads these accounts purchased during the 2016 election.

The warrant was first disclosed by the Wall Street Journal on Friday night and the news was later confirmed by CNN.


I think it's poor wording, but it's not "fake news"

I can't read the WSJ article, but apparently this is their claim:
information that the social network's own policy dictates would only be turned over via search warrant, those sources told the publication.

so:

• FB policy says only turn over a certain kind of information under warrant
• A certain kind of information was turned over
• Therefor, a warrant had been obtained.

The WSJ has an article which leads one to the logical conclusion a warrant was obtained based on sources.

http://money.cnn.com/2017/09/15/media/facebook-mueller-ads/index.html

Special counsel Robert Mueller and his team are now in possession of Russian-linked ads run on Facebook during the presidential election, after they obtained a search warrant for the information.Facebook gave Mueller and his team copies of ads and related information it discovered on its site linked to a Russian troll farm, as well as detailed information about the accounts that bought the ads and the way the ads were targeted at American Facebook users, a source with knowledge of the matter told CNN.
CNN directly reports a warrant was obtained, this confirming the conclusion the WSJ wrote - that a warrant was obtained.

and this too:

Other outlets are reporting that CNN confirmed the search warrant, but CNN has only published one article on the story, and that story - as I have shown - doesn't claim that CNN confirmed the search warrant's existence.

You are playing semantic games.

http://money.cnn.com/2017/09/15/media/facebook-mueller-ads/index.html

Special counsel Robert Mueller and his team are now in possession of Russian-linked ads run on Facebook during the presidential election, after they obtained a search warrant for the information.Facebook gave Mueller and his team copies of ads and related information it discovered on its site linked to a Russian troll farm, as well as detailed information about the accounts that bought the ads and the way the ads were targeted at American Facebook users, a source with knowledge of the matter told CNN.
CNN is reporting a warrant was obtained based on their source. Again, that "confirms" the conclusion of the WSJ reporting, that a warrant was obtained.

Neither of these are examples of "fake news"

 

[TheL8Elvis]

We have seen several different paths investigated, which have no yielded fruit. And when each path seems to reach a dead-end, a new path is tried instead.

You see this, right here? This is what people are complaining about. How do you know they have not yielded fruit? How do you know they are dead ends?

You've flipped from saying that we just can't possibly make any inferences at all over what the bare facts are, no matter how opprobrious they may appear, to concluding that the investigation is running into dead ends, presumably because you personally haven't heard the story in the news for a while.

I'm sure you can think of a good reason for your sudden abundance of credulity, but it doesn't escape anyone's notice that it happens along partisan lines.

I would be nice if EC would address this.

 

[sunmaster14]

www.independent.co.uk reported:
FBI Special Counsel Robert Mueller reportedly obtained a search warrant for records of the "inauthentic" accounts Facebook shut down earlier this month and the targeted ads these accounts purchased during the 2016 election.

The warrant was first disclosed by the Wall Street Journal on Friday night and the news was later confirmed by CNN.


I think it's poor wording, but it's not "fake news"

I can't read the WSJ article, but apparently this is their claim:
information that the social network's own policy dictates would only be turned over via search warrant, those sources told the publication.

so:

• FB policy says only turn over a certain kind of information under warrant
• A certain kind of information was turned over
• Therefor, a warrant had been obtained.

The WSJ has an article which leads one to the logical conclusion a warrant was obtained based on sources.

http://money.cnn.com/2017/09/15/media/facebook-mueller-ads/index.html

Special counsel Robert Mueller and his team are now in possession of Russian-linked ads run on Facebook during the presidential election, after they obtained a search warrant for the information.Facebook gave Mueller and his team copies of ads and related information it discovered on its site linked to a Russian troll farm, as well as detailed information about the accounts that bought the ads and the way the ads were targeted at American Facebook users, a source with knowledge of the matter told CNN.
CNN directly reports a warrant was obtained, this confirming the conclusion the WSJ wrote - that a warrant was obtained.




You are playing semantic games.

http://money.cnn.com/2017/09/15/media/facebook-mueller-ads/index.html

Special counsel Robert Mueller and his team are now in possession of Russian-linked ads run on Facebook during the presidential election, after they obtained a search warrant for the information.Facebook gave Mueller and his team copies of ads and related information it discovered on its site linked to a Russian troll farm, as well as detailed information about the accounts that bought the ads and the way the ads were targeted at American Facebook users, a source with knowledge of the matter told CNN.
CNN is reporting a warrant was obtained based on their source. Again, that "confirms" the conclusion of the WSJ reporting, that a warrant was obtained.

Neither of these are examples of "fake news"

Your highlights are misleading. The second highlight does not refer back to the first highlight, since it is in a previous sentence.

Also, I have already argued that the conclusion in the WSJ article (that "some say") is unjustified by the evidence. The article did not claim that the contents of the accounts were revealed by Facebook, only that the ads that were bought, as well as some other information about the accounts. I believe that information would be turned over in response to a subpoena.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Your highlights are misleading. The second highlight does not refer back to the first highlight, since it is in a previous sentence.

I disagree with your interpretation of which claims the "source' applies to.

Also, I have already argued that the conclusion in the WSJ article (that "some say") is unjustified by the evidence. The article did not claim that the contents of the accounts were revealed by Facebook, only that the ads that were bought, as well as some other information about the accounts. I believe that information would be turned over in response to a subpoena.

I've seen how your arguments regarding the law have played out in the real world in other threads, so you'll surely understand when I disregard those arguments.

And, yes, I believe we will find out shortly who is right. I'd wager that CNN will be making an embarrassing correction to its headline and subheadline in the next few days.

So, by Wednesday ?

 

[sunmaster14]

I disagree with your interpretation of which claims the "source' applies to.

That's ridiculous. I don't agree that somebody can disagree in good faith.

I've seen how your arguments regarding the law have played out in the real world in other threads, so you'll surely understand when I disregard those arguments.

Show me where I was wrong. Ever ...

So, by Wednesday ?

They'll probably try to sneak in a retraction on late Friday afternoon. That's what the NY Times would do.

 

[Belz...]

I don't agree that somebody can disagree in good faith.

Generally or specifically?

 

[NoahFence]

News reported in a mainstream media source is supposed to be vetted. Both CBS and the Independent reported that CNN confirmed the existence of a warrant. CNN has done no such thing. If even, I, an internet talking head with no professional responsibility to confirm the accuracy of the claims I publish, can see that CNN has not confirmed the existence of a warrant, surely a journalist at CBS or at the Independent can.

Whether it was deliberate or not (and it might be deliberate) is irrelevant. The shoddy vetting is enough to make it "fake" news. The journalists responsible "faked" doing their due diligence.

Man, you lap up all the talking points, don't you?

 

[sunmaster14]

Generally or specifically?

Yes.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

That's ridiculous. I don't agree that somebody can disagree in good faith.

Great. We can agree to disagree on multiple things.

Show me where I was wrong. Ever ...

Maybe I'll start a new thread on that very topic.

They'll probably try to sneak in a retraction on late Friday afternoon. That's what the NY Times would do.

So when no retraction happens by Saturday, will you have been wrong , or merely mistaken ?

 

[sunmaster14]

Man, you lap up all the talking points, don't you?

What makes you think I'm not the one who writes them?

 

[sunmaster14]

Great. We can agree to disagree on multiple things.



Maybe I'll start a new thread on that very topic.

I predict that you won't.

So when no retraction happens by Saturday, will you have been wrong , or merely mistaken ?

I said I would wager on a retraction. Losing a bet doesn't necessarily mean one was wrong. It could mean there was an element of uncertainty or randomness that went the other way. I don't really have a lot of confidence in the journalistic ethics of CNN, for example.

I am feeling more confident about my claim that CNN did not actually confirm via its sources that a search warrant was issued to Facebook. It would have been stated more authoritatively by now if it were so. All the claims in the news about the search warrant can be traced back to the original (and only, as near as I can tell) CNN article.

 

[Belz...]

Yes.

So both?

It's impossible for anyone to disagree honestly on anything with anyone?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

I said I would wager on a retraction.

You said:

And, yes, I believe we will find out shortly who is right. I'd wager that CNN will be making an embarrassing correction to its headline and subheadline in the next few days.

The wager part was premised on your belief that there is no warrant, and that we would find out the next few days.

Losing a bet doesn't necessarily mean one was wrong. <>

This is why you may be correct and I might not start a thread. All you will do is spend the thread spinning just like the post above.

Back on topic now ... do you have some links to any news sites that make arguments and agree with your claim that there is no warrant ? Or are you flying solo on this particular fake news crusade ?

 

[sunmaster14]

So both?

No.

It's impossible for anyone to disagree honestly on anything with anyone?

No.

 

[sunmaster14]

<snip>

Back on topic now ... do you have some links to any news sites that make arguments and agree with your claim that there is no warrant ? Or are you flying solo on this particular fake news crusade ?

Nope. I'm flying solo. I'm the tip of the spear. I'm the guy in his pajamas who brings down Dan Rather (although I had nothing to do with that).