Matt Taibbi

Rank 21 of 47
|
Score 40
2/14/2024, 4:27:52 AM
X
In reply to:
Andrew Myers
@AG_Myers
·
711d
@mtaibbi Why do you guys keep pretending to be this obtuse? Are you familiar with Paul Manafort and Roger Stone? It seems like every few months you need it all spelled out for you again.
Matt Taibbi
@mtaibbi
·
711d
@AG_Myers Which suspicions were warranted? They never found one iota of evidence of conspiracy and didn’t even come close to bringing a case for fraud, election-fixing, espionage or any of the other stuff they claimed to be looking for (and they had no cause to look for it either).
Andrew Myers
@AG_Myers
·
711d
@mtaibbi Except, all of their suspicions proved warranted? You guys just living in an alternate universe on this topic, super bizarre.
Matt Taibbi
@mtaibbi
·
711d
They did not find evidence, which is why they had to rely on invented/manufactured evidence from Steele to push for FISA authority. It’s also why the unmaskings were improper: no legitimate national security reason.
slayer of the left
@PershingStrike
·
711d
@JesseBWatters @shellenberger @mtaibbi I don't get it. So they spied on the 26. But did they find evidence or plant evidence?

The statement is part of a complex conversation involving multiple users discussing the legitimacy of investigations into alleged conspiracy and coordination between political figures and foreign entities. The tone of the conversation is contentious and politically charged, with participants expressing skepticism and criticism of the investigations and the evidence or lack thereof. The image attached to the conversation shows a news anchor with a graphic titled 'SPY GAME EXPOSED' featuring political figures, which suggests a narrative of scandal and conspiracy. The conversation as a whole is a debate on the integrity of political processes and the use of intelligence and law enforcement in political contexts.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not appear to cause harm but is part of a heated debate which could potentially lead to polarized views.
  2. Principle 2:
    I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
    The statement respects the privacy and dignity of others by not revealing personal information or engaging in personal attacks. [+1]
  3. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement lacks empathy and compassion due to the confrontational nature of the debate, but it does not directly engage in hate speech. [-1]
  4. Principle 4:
    I will engage in constructive criticism and dialogue with those in disagreement and will not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments.
    The statement attempts to engage in constructive criticism by presenting an argument, but the overall conversation may not be conducive to productive dialogue.
  5. Principle 5:
    I will acknowledge and correct my mistakes.
    The statement does not acknowledge mistakes but rather defends a position in the debate.
  6. Principle 6:
    I will use my influence for the betterment of society.
    The statement uses influence to argue a point in a public forum, which could be seen as contributing to public discourse.
  7. Principle 7:
    I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.
    The statement upholds free speech by participating in a public debate, but the responsibility and integrity of the platform could be questioned given the contentious nature of the discussion.