Matt Taibbi

Rank 21 of 47

Score 31

Well, my article was about the absence of evidence for an intelligence-aided blackmail scheme, so I guess I made the mistake of assuming you read that before telling me in response to read your reports (which I referenced, by the way).

Ryan Grim

@ryangrim

10d

@mtaibbi Where did I say we reported on a Mossad-aided sexual blackmail scheme? Where did we say he blackmailed the White House?

You're falling into a trap here: Dems want you to think this is all about Trump, and Trump wants to say it's either about Dems or it's a Dem hoax. Don't fall

11/20/2025, 8:32:01 PM

The statement is part of a public discourse involving a debate on the reporting and interpretation of intelligence-related allegations involving Jeffrey Epstein. The tone is defensive and somewhat accusatory, as the speaker addresses a perceived misunderstanding or misrepresentation of their work. The intent is to clarify their position and challenge the other party's interpretation.

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 dialogue with a person in disagreement but carries a defensive tone that could be seen as slightly dismissive, though it does not engage in personal attacks.
Principle 5:
I will acknowledge and correct my mistakes.
The statement acknowledges a potential mistake in assuming the other party had read the article, which shows a willingness to correct misunderstandings. [+1]
Principle 7:
I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.
The statement is part of a broader public discourse on a significant societal issue, and it uses the platform to engage in a debate about the interpretation of evidence, which aligns with responsible use of free speech. [+1]