Matt Taibbi

Rank 34 of 47
|
Score -30
9/5/2024, 9:41:22 PM
X
In reply to:
Matt Taibbi
@mtaibbi
·
502d
BLACKMAIL - BOGUS!

That means all of these stories were horsheshit:
Matt Taibbi
@mtaibbi
·
502d
THE IC REPORT TURNED INTO...

The section of the ICA containing the bogus pee tape and "well-developed conspiracy" claims were presented to Trump by four intel chiefs who knew they were bogus. They then leaked word of the meeting....
Matt Taibbi
@mtaibbi
·
502d
IT WAS GOOD ENOUGH FOR THE INTEL COMMUNITY!

The Director of National Intelligence put both claims - conspiracy of "at least five years" and Russia having a "a compromising dossier" on Trump - in a January 2017 Assessment that kickstarted Russiagate:
Matt Taibbi
@mtaibbi
·
502d
BUT WAS THAT GOOD ENOUGH FOR THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY?

The two main claims in Steele's reports - the "compromising" pee romp and the "well-developed conspiracy - were easily proved false. The CIA knew this; they discounted Steele's reports as "internet rumor":
Matt Taibbi
@mtaibbi
·
502d
THE SOURCE FOR THE "WELL-DEVELOPED CONSPIRACY" STORY IS...

Steele blamed at the sub-source; the sub-source essentially blamed Steele.

Literally, the "pointing Spiderman" meme.
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!

The statement is a critical response to a news story, questioning its credibility and the sources used. The tone is dismissive and uses strong language to express disagreement. The intent appears to be to discredit the story and its claims.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement uses strong language ('bogus,' 'bullshit') which can be seen as harmful and disrespectful, thus violating the principle of striving to do no harm with words and actions. [-2]
  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 respect the privacy and dignity of others, particularly the journalist mentioned, and can be seen as engaging in cyberbullying or harassment. [-2]
  3. 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. Instead, it resorts to personal attacks and dismissive language, violating the principle of engaging in constructive criticism and dialogue. [-2]