Matt Taibbi

Rank 25 of 47
|
Score 11
1/12/2025, 12:17:23 AM
X
In reply to:
BabbleBee
@ThankElon
·
257d
@mtaibbi In fact, the pre-bunking is a way to ENSURE that you would find no emails or slack messages about it. When it happened, everyone knew exactly what to do.
BabbleBee
@ThankElon
·
257d
@mtaibbi Matt, you are too kind. The war game pre-bunking at the Aspen Institute was evidence of the FBI influencing Hunter Biden coverage.
Matt Taibbi
@mtaibbi
·
257d
First of all, even the Twitter executives who testified about Trump requests didn’t have those emails. Neither did I. I was told that by good sources and reported it.

Meanwhile we did see a huge amount of traffic between the Biden campaign and/or Democrats and Twitter, which…
Slim Jim
@jim_enloe
·
257d
@hind_site @mtaibbi Taibbi "Requests from both Donald Trump's White House and the Biden campaign were received and honored." He does not provide examples of tweets the Trump team flagged to Twitter only Biden.

Huh

The statement engages in a discussion about potential government involvement in media coverage, specifically regarding the Hunter Biden story. It questions the presence of law enforcement at a meeting, suggesting a lack of transparency or accountability. This constitutes public discourse as it addresses concerns about government influence and media integrity.

  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 implies potential misconduct by suggesting law enforcement involvement without evidence. This could be seen as harmful if unfounded. [-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 privacy and dignity by not naming individuals or engaging in hate speech, but it implies misconduct by unnamed state actors.
  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, as it focuses on suspicion and potential wrongdoing. [-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 dialogue about a contentious issue but does not provide evidence or engage constructively, potentially leading to misinformation or misunderstanding. [-1]