Michael Schellenberger

Rank 45 of 47
|
Score -151
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
687d
FBI started spying on the Trump campaign after foreign governments "by chance" discovered evidence that his advisors were colluding with the Russians, the government says. But now, multiple credible sources tell us that the CIA asked foreign allies to spy on 26 Trump associates.
2/13/2025, 4:44:17 AM
X
In reply to:
Hans Mahncke
@HansMahncke
·
322d
@shellenberger @galexybrane I don’t mean to sound harsh, but this is like complaining about Mohamed Atta’s unpaid parking ticket. What keeps getting overlooked is that Russiagate was a coordinated plot to overthrow a future and then sitting president, orchestrated by the CIA and FBI directors with the full…
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
322d
Last week, we reported that the CIA and a USAID-run front group, OCCRP, were behind Trump’s 2019 impeachment. Now, a new investigation finds that USAID’s OCCRP drove the Trump-Russia collusion hoax. Blockbuster new investigation led by @galexybrane

The statement and conversation involve allegations of misconduct by government agencies, which is a matter of public concern and discourse. The tone is accusatory and suggests a conspiracy, which can be polarizing.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement could potentially cause harm by spreading unverified claims, which may contribute to public distrust in institutions. [-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 individuals involved, as it makes serious allegations without evidence. [-2]
  3. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement does not promote understanding or empathy, as it presents a one-sided view without encouraging dialogue. [-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, as it uses strong language and makes personal attacks without substantiation. [-2]