Matt Taibbi

Rank 34 of 47
|
Score -30
9/5/2024, 9:41:18 PM
X
In reply to:
Matt Taibbi
@mtaibbi
·
502d
"WELL-DEVELOPED CONSPIRACY, PART 3?" Not only did the sub-source not confirm a "well-developed conspiracy," he said he didn't know where the info came from!
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...

The statement and the accompanying images engage in public discourse by discussing the credibility and sources of information related to a significant political issue, specifically the Steele dossier and its claims about a conspiracy involving Trump and Russia. The tone is critical and somewhat humorous, using a popular meme to illustrate the perceived blame-shifting between Steele and his sub-source. The intent appears to be to question the reliability of the information and to highlight inconsistencies in the sources' statements.

  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 it does criticize the credibility of individuals involved in the dossier. The use of humor helps to soften the critique, but it could still be seen as undermining the reputations of those involved. [-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 of individuals by not revealing any personal information beyond their involvement in the public issue. However, it does question their credibility, which could be seen as a violation of their dignity. [-1]
  3. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The use of humor and a popular meme promotes understanding and engagement with the issue, making it more accessible to a broader audience. However, it may also trivialize a serious issue. [+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 engages in constructive criticism by pointing out inconsistencies and questioning the reliability of the sources. It does not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments. [+1]
  5. Principle 6:
    I will use my influence for the betterment of society.
    The statement uses its platform to question the reliability of significant political information, which can be seen as an attempt to promote transparency and accountability in public discourse. [+1]