Smdh. The first paragraph: Based on evidence that
at least seven of the 15 lawyers have previously given money to
Democrats, it appears, the administration is gearing up to make the argument that Mueller’s team is biased and thus unable to reach impartial legal conclusions.
Now, I didn't say that their contributions mean that they are "biased and thus unable to reach impartial legal conclusions." So, on its face the thesis of the article does not apply to my post nor my question of where you see "belief bias."
Let's look at what else this opinion piece says:
Lawyers tend to be liberal.
Our research has shown that 68% of lawyers who have made any political contributions have given more money to Democrats than to
Republicans.
Of attorneys who graduated from the country’s most selective law schools — the “
Top 14,” as they’re often called — 76% of those who make political contributions have given more money to Democrats than to Republicans.
Okay, now let's look at what I said in the post where you claimed to have found "belief bias":
He not only hired an attorney who had several convictions overturned by the Supreme Court because of prosecutorial misconduct but also hired an attorney who represented the Clinton Foundation. Even if someone believes that HRC and the Clinton Foundation are innocent and will ultimately be exonerated, they have to admit that there's enough evidence to warrant an investigation. Hiring several attorneys who've made contribution to HRC and other Democrats while hiring none who have made contributions to Republican candidates certainly suggests a one-sided political motivation.
Now, some facts should jump out at any reasonable reader: 1) I offered three points of evidence from which I inferred that Mueller was not an honest broker, 2) reference to political donations was the third and least significant, and 3) I did not refer to them in the way addressed by the article.
Please look again at how I referred to the donations: several who contributed to Democrats and "none who have made contributions to Republican candidates." Now, based on the article, you might expect 70 - 75% of those who made donations to have been to Democrats, what we have is 100%. Obviously, it's a very small sample size, but when you combine it with the other two facts I mentioned, it's at least worthy of consideration.
Your link may not have directly responded to my post and so not shown "belief bias" on my part, but it definitely proves your point about your own.
