Matt Taibbi

Rank 34 of 47
|
Score -46
7/23/2025, 10:03:38 PM
X
In reply to:
Matt Taibbi
@mtaibbi
·
7d
And the fourth was an assertion supposedly corroborated by multiple sources - all absent.

The "liaison reporting" didn't mention Trump and was anyway from 2014, before he was a candidate.
Matt Taibbi
@mtaibbi
·
7d
"IMPLAUSIBLE - IF NOT RIDICULOUS"

The third was an email with “no date, no identified sender, no clear recipient, and no classification":
Matt Taibbi
@mtaibbi
·
7d
"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
·
7d
One was the Steele Dossier:
Matt Taibbi
@mtaibbi
·
7d
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
·
7d
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."

The statement and accompanying images discuss the credibility and evidence behind claims of Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, specifically regarding Vladimir Putin's alleged preference for Donald Trump. The tone is critical, questioning the validity of the intelligence report and the evidence used to support its conclusions.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement questions the integrity of the intelligence report, potentially aiming to prevent harm by exposing perceived flaws. [+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 by focusing on public figures and official actions 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 challenging the evidence and methodology of the report, though it could be seen as dismissive.