“Wow, partisan bias much? I’m a scientist, I’m just staying open to data and various explanations for it.”
It is convenient to cry “partisan bias” when you are propagating disinformation (or at least misinformation) and want to create a false equivalence. But two men pointing at the sky, one saying it’s blue and the other saying it’s red, are not expressing equally valid interpretations.
You ask me to stay open to data and various explanations. I urge you to do likewise. Are you equally open to the conventional interpretation of the Russiagate story — the one represented by the consensus of the US IC and the much-maligned MSM — as you are to the QAnon take?
“I find your certainty about who’s a villain and who’s “impeccable,” and what exactly has been going on in the DC swamp, absurdly black-and-white.”
I by no means claim to know all the facts. But one can and must make judgments about what is rational and plausible and supported by the available evidence, as opposed to what is wishful thinking — no matter how ideologically pleasing — and little more than wild conjecture. As a scientist, presumably you do that on a regular basis, yes? The facts support an impression of Barr as a liar and Mueller as a straight shooter. I welcome evidence to the contrary.
“Maybe you haven’t followed the alternate story at all, you’re unfamiliar with the evidence, and you’re just trying to bluster your way through a pronouncement on it? You don’t actually have to do that.”
Actually, I am very familiar with the “alternative facts” version of the Russiagate / SCO story (as spread in a mediasphere utterly lacking in credibility); I simply don’t find it at all plausible. In my last comment I cited several of things in your unified field theory that beggar fiction, IMHO. No bluster necessary.
We each find the other’s view of events “absurd.” History will not prove both of us right.