I will make some comments regarding the latest interview of Trey Gowdy on CNN. The interview was actually more like an arrogant interrogation, strengthened the CNN's definite image as a fake news organization.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5gWl8suYuY

First things first, it's very rude to ask a person a question and look at the notes in front of you while the person you asked the question is answering your question. I know that reporters have to do that time to time, but this was a little bit more than that and clearly seemed like an actual attitude towards Trey Gowdy. She seemed like she just didn't listen, and didn't care about anything Trey Gowdy has to say at all. One wonders if you don't care about what the people you interview is going to say, why would you even bother having them on your show, to begin with. It's clear that news organizations like CNN do not look for an actual interview, but a "Gotcha!" moment that will ruin the person's reputation that they interview. This is especially that case when the people they interview oppose their established set of beliefs. If not, then the interview can easily turn into a circle jerk. The sad thing is, it's very rare to see an actual high-quality debate or interview on mainstream media anymore which is one of the fundamental manifestations of a functioning democracy.

After setting that aside, let's look at the content. At 4:00, Erin asks something like "they only see the report created by a Republican member, but they didn't see the actual intelligence". So she implies that without seeing the entire raw intelligence data, the report has no meaning and it will only serve to manipulate the public opinion.

But the problem with that argument is, the report contains a lot of data, including private messages between FBI agents, but it simply doesn't include the parts which may reveal the FBI informants' identity who leaked this information. As Trey Gowdy rightfully states, there is enough substance on the report to at least "have a conversation" about what is going on inside the FBI.

In 7:30, she actually uses the tactic that she implied Republican members of the Intelligence Committee might be using. She cherry picks one message from a very long conversation and based on that single message, she claims the FBI agents who investigate Trump are not biased against him. But the problem with that is, as the viewers, we are abstained from reading the entire conversation that this particular message is part of. They even hide the previous message and seem to have no shame about it. You can't prove someone is "impartial" by showing "one message" from what seems like a very long conversation and prove that, that person has no bias in that investigation.

She actually does the same thing that she is alleging about what the report is doing. Besides, contrary to what she speculates, the report actually contains a lot conversation a lot of conversation in full. Chopping the conversation like she did on the national television easily manifests itself.

Another take on the message that she displays is, it was actually the most retarded message that she could cherry pick for showing that agent was impartial. The message says, Mueller has nothing on Trump-Russia collusion and that's why he doesn't want to join the investigation. He says if there was anything substantial on Trump, he would eagerly join the investigation.

She speculates that the agent is not biased because he doesn't want to join the investigation thinking that there is nothing on Trump. This is retarded logic. Because it seems like her understanding of impartiality is "not manufacturing fake evidence".

An investigation on someone doesn't imply that that person is guilty. On the contrary, in certain cases, people eagerly want to be investigated to clear their names. The agent clearly wants an investigation that would end up impeaching Trump. He doesn't want to be part of an investigation that could end up clearing Trump's name. An investigation is conducted for discovering the truth and an impartial agent starts an investigation hoping to learn the truth. If an agent starts an investigation with "hoping a certain outcome", in that case, "impeaching Trump", that agent is the very definition of a biased person.