Jim Wagner
A bias against bias
By Jim Wagner
The Democrats are crowing now, claiming that the inspector general did not find any evidence of bias in his investigation of the FBI's handling of certain warrant applications to the FISA Court. Is there any logic behind their celebrations? It is to be expected that they fail to acknowledge he was speaking only of "testimonial or documentary evidence." But that is a small point, signifying no more than that those he questioned refused to admit to bias in their statements or writings, and refused to implicate their accomplices in bias.
I was in Las Vegas last week on business, and while I was there I decided to make some money at the roulette tables. With $17,000 to spend, I calculated that my best chance to win real money was to put it all on red. And that is what I did. I bet a thousand dollars for each spin of the wheel, seventeen times in a row, on red. And to quote Quid Pro Quo Joe, "Son of a B!" Would you believe it? The wheel landed on black every single time? That was an expensive lesson.
I asked the croupier if his wheel might somehow be biased against me. "Do you have documentary or testimonial evidence to prove bias," he replied?
"Why no," I stammered, "but it just seems improbable that the wheel would turn against me like that seventeen times in a row unless...."
At that point I was interrupted by the bouncer, who had slapped a rear naked choke around my neck and was dragging me toward the parking lot. But if I hadn't passed out, here is what I would have said: "The odds against a fair wheel spinning black seventeen times in a row are less than the odds of Madonna being a virgin (or even like one) and offering to marry you before the end of your shift."
More specifically, those odds are exactly 131,072 to 1 against 17 straight roulette spins landing on black. When each outcome, as in a coin toss or the color upon which a roulette wheel will land, must be one or the other of only two possibilities, statistically speaking that is called a binomial distribution. The chances of a roulette wheel landing on black on the first spin are 50:50. Twice in a row the odds are one in four. Three times in a row it is one in eight. And so forth. The odds of that roulette wheel landing on black seventeen times in a row can be expressed as two to the seventeenth power, or 217. That is one in a hundred and thirty one thousand and change.
The same goes for the odds against the FBI falsifying and mishandling evidence 17 times in a row, and every single time to the detriment of candidate and then President Trump. There were only two possibilities. The FBI "mistakes" could either favor the president's position, or they could harm it. Curiously, those "mistakes" always went against the president.
Ok, I agree that the roulette example is too abstract for today's typical liberal. So let's put it in terms she can understand. Let's say – and I am speaking to you, Ms. Pink – that you are an apartment owner with 17 units to rent, and for each unit you receive applications from one white couple and one black couple. If you were to rent each of your 17 units to white couples, and none to black, how would you explain that to the Fair Housing Commission? Would you try to tell the investigating commissioner that he had "no evidence of bias?" Good luck! In civil rights matters, bias is inferred from the outcome. In such matters we use our common sense. That was your idea, and it is why we have quotas.
Or let's say you were being investigated for insider trading because you had made 17 long shot bets in a row on cattle futures and walked away with a cool hundred grand each time. "Just lucky?" That is your explanation? It had nothing to do with your friends at Tyson Meats? Please! You are insulting our intelligence! That is what the Securities and Exchange Commission would tell you on your way to the hoosegow.
But we can turn that one around. What if you made just one long shot investment, and in prosecuting you the SEC committed 17 "mistakes and errors" by presenting false evidence against you and withholding exculpatory evidence that redounded to your innocence. Don't try to tell me the prosecutors were biased against you in that case, Ms. Pink! Unless, of course, you are ready to admit that the FBI was biased against Trump in the Russia-Collusion hoax!
By the way, I placed "mistakes" and "errors" in quotation marks in order to accent them as classical examples of begging the question. In logic, the fallacy of "begging the question" occurs when an argument's premise assumes the truth of the conclusion instead of supporting it. In this case, Horowitz's referring to the improper conduct of the FBI as "erroneous" or "mistaken" presumes that it was not biased, which is precisely the point in question. If that reasoning is unclear, just imagine how the left would have howled if Horowitz had referred to the same conduct on the part of the FBI as "criminally biased and corrupt!"
Had I been in the Senate today, I would have asked Inspector Horowitz a single question: "Where are the FBI "mistakes" and "errors" that worked in Trump's favor? Of course there weren't any. And that is why his assertion that 17 successive "errors" all working systematically against Trump do not evidence bias amounts to such an odious insult to our intelligence. Where is the real evidence against Trump that the FBI and Mueller carelessly overlooked? The question answers itself. Horowitz did not find any examples of that kind of "sloppiness" for the simple reason that there were none.
It was announced today that Inspector Horowitz will now be looking into a broad range of FISA applications to determine whether or not such "errors" have been systematic. Either way, just think of the implications! If the Inspector General finds that there have been systematic abuses (I just can't bring myself to call them errors any longer), then the upper echelon of the FBI has been systematically and criminally corrupt for some time. On the other hand, if such abuses are isolated to the abortive Russia-Collusion investigation against Trump, then even Ms. Pink will be forced to acknowledge the obvious, that the investigation of Trump was driven by political bias.
So take your pick! Either the FBI has been guilty of endemic corruption, or else it has engaged in a unique and special exhibition of criminal bias against Trump. Either way, those responsible for the abuses should be in prison. And Inspector Horowitz should be dragged kicking and screaming back to that peculiar asylum where obviously deliberate and purposeful misconduct is described as "errors and mistakes."
© Jim Wagner
December 19, 2019
The Democrats are crowing now, claiming that the inspector general did not find any evidence of bias in his investigation of the FBI's handling of certain warrant applications to the FISA Court. Is there any logic behind their celebrations? It is to be expected that they fail to acknowledge he was speaking only of "testimonial or documentary evidence." But that is a small point, signifying no more than that those he questioned refused to admit to bias in their statements or writings, and refused to implicate their accomplices in bias.
I was in Las Vegas last week on business, and while I was there I decided to make some money at the roulette tables. With $17,000 to spend, I calculated that my best chance to win real money was to put it all on red. And that is what I did. I bet a thousand dollars for each spin of the wheel, seventeen times in a row, on red. And to quote Quid Pro Quo Joe, "Son of a B!" Would you believe it? The wheel landed on black every single time? That was an expensive lesson.
I asked the croupier if his wheel might somehow be biased against me. "Do you have documentary or testimonial evidence to prove bias," he replied?
"Why no," I stammered, "but it just seems improbable that the wheel would turn against me like that seventeen times in a row unless...."
At that point I was interrupted by the bouncer, who had slapped a rear naked choke around my neck and was dragging me toward the parking lot. But if I hadn't passed out, here is what I would have said: "The odds against a fair wheel spinning black seventeen times in a row are less than the odds of Madonna being a virgin (or even like one) and offering to marry you before the end of your shift."
More specifically, those odds are exactly 131,072 to 1 against 17 straight roulette spins landing on black. When each outcome, as in a coin toss or the color upon which a roulette wheel will land, must be one or the other of only two possibilities, statistically speaking that is called a binomial distribution. The chances of a roulette wheel landing on black on the first spin are 50:50. Twice in a row the odds are one in four. Three times in a row it is one in eight. And so forth. The odds of that roulette wheel landing on black seventeen times in a row can be expressed as two to the seventeenth power, or 217. That is one in a hundred and thirty one thousand and change.
The same goes for the odds against the FBI falsifying and mishandling evidence 17 times in a row, and every single time to the detriment of candidate and then President Trump. There were only two possibilities. The FBI "mistakes" could either favor the president's position, or they could harm it. Curiously, those "mistakes" always went against the president.
Ok, I agree that the roulette example is too abstract for today's typical liberal. So let's put it in terms she can understand. Let's say – and I am speaking to you, Ms. Pink – that you are an apartment owner with 17 units to rent, and for each unit you receive applications from one white couple and one black couple. If you were to rent each of your 17 units to white couples, and none to black, how would you explain that to the Fair Housing Commission? Would you try to tell the investigating commissioner that he had "no evidence of bias?" Good luck! In civil rights matters, bias is inferred from the outcome. In such matters we use our common sense. That was your idea, and it is why we have quotas.
Or let's say you were being investigated for insider trading because you had made 17 long shot bets in a row on cattle futures and walked away with a cool hundred grand each time. "Just lucky?" That is your explanation? It had nothing to do with your friends at Tyson Meats? Please! You are insulting our intelligence! That is what the Securities and Exchange Commission would tell you on your way to the hoosegow.
But we can turn that one around. What if you made just one long shot investment, and in prosecuting you the SEC committed 17 "mistakes and errors" by presenting false evidence against you and withholding exculpatory evidence that redounded to your innocence. Don't try to tell me the prosecutors were biased against you in that case, Ms. Pink! Unless, of course, you are ready to admit that the FBI was biased against Trump in the Russia-Collusion hoax!
By the way, I placed "mistakes" and "errors" in quotation marks in order to accent them as classical examples of begging the question. In logic, the fallacy of "begging the question" occurs when an argument's premise assumes the truth of the conclusion instead of supporting it. In this case, Horowitz's referring to the improper conduct of the FBI as "erroneous" or "mistaken" presumes that it was not biased, which is precisely the point in question. If that reasoning is unclear, just imagine how the left would have howled if Horowitz had referred to the same conduct on the part of the FBI as "criminally biased and corrupt!"
Had I been in the Senate today, I would have asked Inspector Horowitz a single question: "Where are the FBI "mistakes" and "errors" that worked in Trump's favor? Of course there weren't any. And that is why his assertion that 17 successive "errors" all working systematically against Trump do not evidence bias amounts to such an odious insult to our intelligence. Where is the real evidence against Trump that the FBI and Mueller carelessly overlooked? The question answers itself. Horowitz did not find any examples of that kind of "sloppiness" for the simple reason that there were none.
It was announced today that Inspector Horowitz will now be looking into a broad range of FISA applications to determine whether or not such "errors" have been systematic. Either way, just think of the implications! If the Inspector General finds that there have been systematic abuses (I just can't bring myself to call them errors any longer), then the upper echelon of the FBI has been systematically and criminally corrupt for some time. On the other hand, if such abuses are isolated to the abortive Russia-Collusion investigation against Trump, then even Ms. Pink will be forced to acknowledge the obvious, that the investigation of Trump was driven by political bias.
So take your pick! Either the FBI has been guilty of endemic corruption, or else it has engaged in a unique and special exhibition of criminal bias against Trump. Either way, those responsible for the abuses should be in prison. And Inspector Horowitz should be dragged kicking and screaming back to that peculiar asylum where obviously deliberate and purposeful misconduct is described as "errors and mistakes."
© Jim Wagner
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
