Matt Taibbi

Rank 21 of 47
|
Score 40
2/14/2024, 4:28:50 AM
X
In reply to:
Matt Taibbi
@mtaibbi
·
711d
@AG_Myers The Stone case proved there was no conspiracy! If there was coordination between Russia, Trump, and Wikileaks, a “senior Trump Campaign official” would not have been “directed to contact STONE about any additional releases” after the first Wikileaks dump. They would have had…
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 heated exchange on a political topic. The tone is confrontational and dismissive, particularly with the use of 'FFS' (an expletive) and 'How stupid do you have to be to believe in this nonsense?' The intent seems to be to discredit the other person's argument and to express frustration with the ongoing debate.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The use of an expletive and the phrase 'How stupid do you have to be' can be seen as harmful and not striving to do no harm with words. [-1]
  2. Principle 2:
    I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
    The statement does not directly violate privacy or dignity, but the tone is disrespectful. [-1]
  3. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement does not promote understanding, empathy, or compassion. [-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.
    While the statement is part of a dialogue, the confrontational tone does not reflect constructive criticism or dialogue. [-1]