Matt Taibbi

Rank 21 of 47
|
Score 40
2/14/2024, 5:10:21 AM
X
In reply to:
Beyurself66
@beyurself66
·
710d
@mtaibbi @AG_Myers Is your point to prove no evidence of conspiracy? Or that it was obtained thru illegal means? Because Mueller’s report had lots to say about Russia’s efforts to interfere with our elections… Or are you saying Mueller’s report is bullshit? Cuz either way, you’re trying too hard🤷🏻
Matt Taibbi
@mtaibbi
·
710d
@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
·
710d
@mtaibbi Except, all of their suspicions proved warranted? You guys just living in an alternate universe on this topic, super bizarre.
Matt Taibbi
@mtaibbi
·
710d
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
·
710d
@JesseBWatters @shellenberger @mtaibbi I don't get it. So they spied on the 26. But did they find evidence or plant evidence?

The statement in question is part of a complex and contentious conversation regarding the investigation into alleged interference in the U.S. election system. The tone of the statement is critical and dismissive of the Mueller investigation, suggesting it was a distraction and asserting that it failed to link any Trump figure to Russia's interference activities. The statement also implies wrongdoing by the CIA/FBI without providing evidence. The conversation involves a series of replies that reflect a polarized debate with strong opinions on both sides.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement could be seen as harmful in that it dismisses the findings of an investigation without providing evidence, potentially undermining trust in public institutions. [-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 respects the privacy and dignity of others as it does not target individuals with personal attacks.
  3. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement lacks empathy and does not promote understanding, as it dismisses the investigation's findings without engaging in a constructive discussion of the evidence. [-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 does not engage in constructive criticism or dialogue but rather dismisses the investigation's findings outright. [-1]
  5. Principle 5:
    I will acknowledge and correct my mistakes.
    The statement does not acknowledge the complexity of the issue or the possibility of mistakes in its own assertions. [-1]
  6. Principle 6:
    I will use my influence for the betterment of society.
    The statement does not appear to use influence for the betterment of society, as it may contribute to the spread of misinformation or distrust. [-1]
  7. Principle 7:
    I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.
    The statement may not uphold the principles of free speech responsibly, as it presents a one-sided view without evidence. [-1]