Matt Taibbi

Rank 34 of 47
|
Score -30
9/5/2024, 9:41:17 PM
X
In reply to:
Matt Taibbi
@mtaibbi
·
502d
"WELL-DEVELOPED CONSPIRACY, PART 2?" But when they asked the primary sub-source about the "well-developed conspiracy," he said there was "nothing bad" in the relationship between Trump and Russia...
Matt Taibbi
@mtaibbi
·
502d
"WELL-DEVELOPED CONSPIRACY?" When the FBI looked for the source of Steele's famous claim that Trump was part of a "well-developed conspiracy" with Russia lasting five years, Steele told both the FBI and the IG the detail was "provided by" his primary sub-source...
Matt Taibbi
@mtaibbi
·
502d
"NO PROOF" Note that Steele's primary sub-source not only didn't expect him to put his information in report, but that he "made it clear to Steele" that he had "no proof" for his reports:
Matt Taibbi
@mtaibbi
·
502d
PEE TAPE: "JUST TALK" OVER "BEERS" AND IN "JEST"

Horowitz noted the sources of Steele's spiciest revelations, like the "pee tape," were tracked down and stunned they'd been taken seriously. They laughed the story off as "just talk" told over "beers" in "jest":
Matt Taibbi
@mtaibbi
·
502d
"CORROBORATED LIMITED INFORMATION... MUCH OF THAT WAS PUBLICLY AVAILABLE."

There is NOT ONE piece of original reporting in the Steele dossier that turned out to be true. The only "confirmed" details were from prior public news reports, and even got some of those wrong...
Matt Taibbi
@mtaibbi
·
502d
THE STEELE DOSSIER IS BULLSHIT BECAUSE:

Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz, a Barack Obama appointee, conducted an extensive investigation of the issuance of four FISA warrants that required an in-depth review of the Steele dossier:
https://www.justice.gov/storage/…

The statement and the accompanying images engage in a substantive discussion about the credibility and sources of information in the Steele dossier, which is a matter of public concern. The tone is critical and aims to question the validity of the dossier's claims by highlighting inconsistencies and lack of corroboration from primary sources.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not appear to cause harm directly but could contribute to public skepticism about the dossier and its implications.
  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 of individuals by not revealing personal details beyond what is already public knowledge. [+1]
  3. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement promotes understanding by providing specific evidence to support its claims, though it could be seen as lacking empathy towards those who might be unfairly implicated by the dossier.
  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 engages in constructive criticism by questioning the validity of the dossier based on documented evidence, avoiding personal attacks. [+1]
  5. Principle 6:
    I will use my influence for the betterment of society.
    The statement uses its platform to inform the public about potential issues with the dossier, aiming to contribute to a more informed public discourse. [+1]
  6. Principle 7:
    I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.
    The statement upholds free speech principles by critically analyzing a public document and its sources, doing so responsibly with evidence. [+1]