Matt Taibbi

Rank 35 of 47
|
Score -49
7/23/2025, 10:03:37 PM
X
In reply to:
Matt Taibbi
@mtaibbi
·
6d
"IMPLAUSIBLE - IF NOT RIDICULOUS"

The third was an email with “no date, no identified sender, no clear recipient, and no classification":
Matt Taibbi
@mtaibbi
·
6d
"FIVE PEOPLE READ IT FIVE WAYS"

The second was a “scant, unclear, and unverifiable fragment” of one sentence that the report’s five CIA authors read “five ways” and left out. @JohnBrennan ordered it back in
Matt Taibbi
@mtaibbi
·
6d
One was the Steele Dossier:
Matt Taibbi
@mtaibbi
·
6d
The report released today, which was conducted eight years ago and has been locked at Langley ever since, reveals that conclusion was based on just four pieces of evidence:
Matt Taibbi
@mtaibbi
·
6d
On December 9th, 2016, @BarackObama ordered a new Intelligence Community Assessment to find out: "what happened" that election year?

News outlets within hours leaked the answer: Vladimir Putin "aspired" to help Donald Trump, for whom he had a "clear preference."
Matt Taibbi
@mtaibbi
·
6d
A brief 🧵 on the new report released by @DNIGabbard today, which conclusively blows up core Russiagate myths:

https://www.racket.news/p/in-bru…

The statement critiques the validity of intelligence reports related to alleged Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. It questions the credibility of the sources and evidence used in the reports, suggesting they were unsubstantiated or misrepresented.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement aims to expose potential misinformation, which could be seen as striving to do no harm by clarifying public understanding. [+1]
  2. Principle 2:
    I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
    It respects privacy and dignity by focusing on the content of reports rather than personal attacks. [+1]
  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 engages in constructive criticism by questioning the evidence and methodology of the reports, though it uses strong language that could be seen as dismissive.