Michael Schellenberger

Rank 25 of 47

Score 18

-4

What’s more, FBI General Counsel James Baker, “unlike his colleagues, did not dismiss the credibility” of the Russian reports that Obama had pressured Attorney General Loretta Lynch to pressure the FBI to drop the investigation into Hillary Clinton's emails, particularly given

7/31/2025, 3:51:20 PM

In reply to:

Michael Shellenberger

@shellenberger

42d

In contrast to the CIA, the FBI rejected the intelligence and invented flimsy reasons not to trust it. The FBI's dismissive attitude also contrasts sharply with the FBI's credulousness toward any evidence that implictated the Trump campaign.

Michael Shellenberger

@shellenberger

42d

The newly declassified appendix to the Durham report is game-changing. It showed that the CIA believed Russian intelligence memos, which analyzed hacked emails and alleged a Clinton Plan to vilify Trump by linking him to Russia, were credible.

"The CIA prepared a written

Michael Shellenberger

@shellenberger

42d

The newly declassified documents on the Trump-Russia collusion hoax are a "nothingburger," say the media. But now, newly declassified intelligence strongly suggests that the FBI helped the Clinton campaign orchestrate the hoax to distract from its investigation into her email.

The statement discusses allegations of political interference in FBI investigations, touching on issues of credibility and bias within intelligence agencies. It implies a contrast between the FBI's and CIA's handling of intelligence related to political figures, suggesting potential bias or misconduct.

Principle 1:
I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
The statement could potentially cause harm by spreading unverified claims about political figures and institutions, which may undermine public trust. [-2]
Principle 2:
I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
It raises privacy concerns by discussing sensitive information about individuals and their alleged actions without clear evidence. [-1]
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 criticism of public figures and institutions, but it lacks constructive dialogue and relies on unverified claims, which could be seen as a personal attack. [-1]