Matt Taibbi

Rank 36 of 47

Score -51

@randallrungood @kc11knowz It’s very rare and confined to disclosing certain types of classified intelligence, in which case the Espionage Act may come into play. I actually disagree with the legal argument on this and think such prosecutions are unconstitutional, but they have happened

8/6/2025, 4:17:50 PM

In reply to:

r²

@randallrungood

@mtaibbi @kc11knowz almost never

almost

Matt Taibbi

@mtaibbi

@kc11knowz Journalists, I think for good reasons, almost never have criminal exposure in wrong stories. Not speaking of David specifically, I will say there is an awful lot of extremely unusual reporter behavior in this story - like knowingly printing wrong or dubious material, or offering

kk CII

@kc11knowz

@mtaibbi Is he lashing out as he worries about some legal exposure? Did Corn collude in the “Trump is a Russian asset” fraud?

Matt Taibbi

@mtaibbi

David Corn of Mother Jones, the “reporter” who introduced the world to the most famous “phony intelligence report” of our time (the Steele dossier), which was used to spur an actual “sham investigation” and illegal surveillance, tries to complain about the exact same thing. Smh

The statement engages in a discussion about the legal implications of disclosing classified intelligence and the constitutionality of related prosecutions. It reflects a disagreement with current legal practices, suggesting they may be unconstitutional.

Principle 1:
I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
The statement does not directly cause harm but discusses legal practices that could impact individuals involved in journalism or intelligence.
Principle 3:
I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
The statement promotes understanding by sharing a perspective on the constitutionality of certain legal actions, though it could be more detailed. [+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 constructive criticism of legal practices without personal attacks. [+1]