Based on the fact that he presents a conclusion and then works his way backwards from there. Based on the fact that he's very selective in which public reports he chooses to use to support his conclusion, using reports that support him, even reports from dubious sources, and rejects any contrary reports. Based on the fact that he's never done any of his own independent research and has conducted no interviews with any of the principles involved. And, his conclusion is based on the unknown, on a conspiracy theory that began with the super sekrit VIP-only meeting behind closed doors where, despite not knowing a single thing about the meeting, Abramson was able to conclude what was discussed, and did it all based on a hotel booking. In the conspiracy mind-set, even the most mundane details reveal a deeper plot, and bolsters a conclusion, and that's what Abramson engages in.
Mine of course. I only speak for myself. But also anyone who employs a healthy skepticism regarding news stories and outrageous claims. The more outrageous (and complicated) the claim, the more proof required.
Oh really ?
Former ?
Did he surrender his law license or get disbarred ?
Your response, including copy and pasting his self-composed bio, is nearly vertaim the response I expected. In my opinion, I think you are going to great lengths to defend Abramson not only as an authority, but one who should be believed, primarily because you agree with some or all of his conclusions. Be that as it may, he has written in the past about how even as he worked as an attorney that he has never not taken at least one class at a college since graduating from Harvard. He's either been a full-time or part-time student, or a teacher, in academia. He stated that be no longer is a practicing attorney and that he prefers academia to legal work. It's why he teaches digital journalism and creative writing rather than practicing law.
Beyond that, it seems to me that carelessly over-inflating such things can get one in a bit of trouble.
Yep. Carelessly overinflating anything can be problematic.
Like I said: I can't vouch for his credentials (or him personally for that matter) but I do think - as a fan of critical thinking like you are - that any claims he makes deserved to be examined on their individual merits ... rather than simply dismissing them out of hand, just because a few folks in the media don't like him or have leveled some criticism - perhaps even on an unwarranted basis - at him.
You seem to be implying that I would dismiss him out of hand and have not looked at his claims individually, and even worse, suggesting that I have allow myself to be hoodwinked by the clueless clowns of the media. Fact is, I first became aware of him when CNN began using him to push their narrative, and in my research about him and in reading his writings, I have run across very few criticisms of him outside of the MSM, with the exception being, of course, a few wacko bloggers who don't know their ass from a hole in the ground.
It seems to me that such an examination would actually be "sticking to the issues" (as presented by ol' Seth, as he sees them anyways) ... as opposed to character assassination of someone who isn't here to defend themselves.
Those are my thoughts anyways.
Actually, Seth didn't present squat here, you presented Seth's thoughts. It's actually rather rare when we get to read your thoughts, as opposed to links to others' thoughts. If you would like to talk about the theories Seth has proposed, and discuss why you think they're valid, I'd probably be willing to engage in such a discussion. But since none of his grandiose conclusions have yet to be substantiated,
Saying someone isn't credible because you don't believe them to be credible is hardly character assassination. I don't believe him to be credible because he engages in the classic conspiracy theorist's tactics of the idea that every fact is knowable and every speculative suspicion becomes justified, just so long as you make the right connections and assumptions. He uses a lot of
if X then Y reasoning, and
X a lot of the time is a very sketchy source of information. He posted a straight-up lie, that Trump admitted to committing a crime (obstruction of justice), which a lawyer should know better in doing.
Just because someone has a Juris doctorate does not make them an authority on anything, much less that they should be held above reproach. CNN's Jeffrey Toobin and FNC's Jay Sekulow, wingnuts both, drive home that fact on a near-daily basis.
