The entire Russia collusion vs. FBI corruption battle of narratives has proven to be a rush to judgment through "cognitive bias," legal expert Jonathan Turley wrote in an opinion piece for The Hill.
And it all started with the FBI's use of the Democratic-funded dossier fueling a fire still burning, with the media fanning the flames, Turley wrote.
"The result is two separate narratives that fed off the actions of each other," Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, wrote. "There likely was bias in the initial assumptions, with a willingness at the FBI to believe Trump would be a tool of the Russians, and a willingness by Trump to believe the FBI would be a tool of the Clintons.
"Every move and countermove confirmed each bias. Trump continued to denounce what he saw as a conspiracy. The FBI continued to investigate his obstructive attitude. One side saw a witch hunt where the other saw a mole hunt."
Now, in a political tug of war, neither side can own up to that bias – in fact, both might entirely be figments of respective politicized imaginations – making it possible there is no collusion with Russia and no deep state, Turley surmised.
"Of course, neither side can accept at this point that they may have been wrong about the other side," he wrote. "In economics that is called path dependence. So much has been built on the Republican and Democratic sides on these original assumptions that it is impossible to now deconstruct from those narratives.
"In other words, there may have been no Russian mole and no deep state conspiracy."
Without a concrete answer, both sides have merely consolidated their original convictions, further polarizing it all, he added.
"Moreover, the motivations may not have been to obstruct either the Trump administration or the Russia investigation," Turley concluded. "Instead, this could all prove to be the greatest, most costly example of cognitive bias in history, and now no one in this story wants to admit it."
© 2024 Newsmax. All rights reserved.