Matt Taibbi is an A**clown

[Hindsight was 2020]

Honestly the thing about Taibbi that really bugged me was when the Barr letter came out, Taibbi did  this victory lap in the Rolling Stone comparing Russiagate to the WMD story and on Chapo Trap House about how vindicated he was. And in both the article and on Chapo he kept using this term of media “not questioning power” on Russiagate and it pissed me off because he was basing said victory lap on taking Barr's letter at face value. Then in what was like a couple of days we find out about the letter Mueller sent to Barr saying he lied and the later we got the actual report showing Barr lied but Taibbi has never acknowledge this or his massive hypocisy on the issue. It's like he acts the Mueller report doesn't exist and we live in a world were Barr's letter is the only conclusion we got from Russiagate

[Hindsight was 2020]

I’m sorry I was wrong and Taibbi was right clearly nothing was going on with Trump and Russia
https://mobile.twitter.com/ShimonPro/status/1194273359409958914

[Hindsight was 2020]

Bumping this old thread up thanks to Matt once again being an a**clown
https://mobile.twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1260646963126493185
https://mobile.twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1259116572838371328

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Bumping this old thread up thanks to Matt once again being an a**clown
https://mobile.twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1260646963126493185
https://mobile.twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1259116572838371328

Reminder (not that you necessarily need it, but I think it's important to remind everyone reading that there is a lot of evidence linking the Russians to election interference, at least as much as their is showing that the coward Donald Trump is a crook who has constantly violated his Oath of Office): Dutch spies 'caught Russian election hackers on camera'

Dutch spies reportedly broke into computers used by a Russian hacking group that interfered in the US election, even watching the Kremlin-backed outfit on their own office surveillance cameras.

In an extraordinary counter-espionage operation agents in the Netherlands penetrated the systems of the Russian cyber unit known as Cozy Bear in mid-2014 and monitored them for at least a year.

The Dutch also monitored the Russian hackers as they tried to undermine unclassified computer systems in Congress and the White House.

Are we supposed to believe that the Dutch were onboard with Obama's conspiracy because he used his time machine to show them what a clown the coward Donald Trump would send them as an ambassador?

I find it sad how Taibbi (and other ostensibly "left-wing" journalists) have let their (very understandable) dislike for the US establishment turn them into nonsense-spouting socks for people who are everything they claim to oppose.

[Fuzzy Bear]

https://mobile.twitter.com/LemieuxLGM/status/1183785869573947392
Welp he’s done it. Matt has dropped the facade and admitted he likes Trump

Taibbi does not like Trump, not even in the sense of the enemy of one's enemy being one's friend.  But he's a "whistleblower" of a sort himself. 

Taibbi has essentially put forth the challenge for liberals to decide to what degree the ends justify the means.  This is no small matter; what people say they're OK with now will have an impact on what will be OK governace if their party takes control of the Congress, or gains the White House.  Democratic apologia for ends-justifying-means measures to drive Trump from office will give license to the GOP to carry out the same sort of Witch Hunts against Adam Schiff, James Comey, and a long list of Deep Staters.  That these people are all scumbags, every last one of them, does not justify that our Congress drop everything to investigate them.  That the GOP started this with their e-mail and Benghazi snoopapaloozas against Hillary Clinton doesn't make what Democrats have done, and plan to do, OK. 

The reaction to Taibbi by much of the left here reminds me of the Right's condemning The Dixie Chicks when they openly criticized George W. Bush at a performance during the Iraq War.  The hue and cry over this wasn't because of what Natalie Maines SAID; it was because who The Dixie Chicks WERE and what was expected of them.  They were Coumtry Music, they were on "Team W".  Didn't they know that?  The right could care less what Green Day might say, but this was a defection from the team.  That's how Taibbi's criticism is viewed; it's heresy from a team member.  That, of course, begs the question of what "team" a working journalist is suppost to be on.

[emailking]

If there was an attempt to remove Trump by illegal means he might have a point. But impeachment is a legal means of removal even if you disagree with the grounds for it. We've yet to remove a President. Maybe when we've removed 3 in a row his argument may have some merit.

[Greedo punched first]

Taibbi should just make an appearance on F0cks N00z (perhaps Hannity or F0cks and Fr1endz). He's pro-Trump.

[Hindsight was 2020]

Fresh update:
https://mobile.twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1295901485272883201

[Landslide Lyndon]

Taibbi and Greenwald are more insidious than Hannity and Ingraham because they pretend to be serious investigative reporters and not just buffoonish TV entertainers.

[Progressive Pessimist]

Taibbi and Greenwald are more insidious than Hannity and Ingraham because they pretend to be serious investigative reporters and not just buffoonish TV entertainers.

Not just pretended to be though. They actually had well-deserved credibility for many years.

[Hindsight was 2020]

Bump
https://mobile.twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1317483078336630785

[Hindsight was 2020]

Excellent read, thank you for sharing https://mobile.twitter.com/daveweigel/status/1317491583726587905

Except it isn’t. His whole premise is the definition of bad faith case in point
https://mobile.twitter.com/daveweigel/status/1317491583726587905
https://mobile.twitter.com/daveweigel/status/1317493558778146817
https://mobile.twitter.com/michaelbd/status/1317501968399634432

[Lief 🗽]

Matt Taibi should be in prison for multiple, confessed acts of sexual assault.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Watch in a few years progressives trying to explain why they made a hero out of this sexist prick, like they do now for Tulsi Gabbard and Tim Canova.

[Hindsight was 2020]

Excellent read, thank you for sharing https://mobile.twitter.com/daveweigel/status/1317491583726587905

Except it isn’t. His whole premise is the definition of bad faith case in point

You can make the argument that social media companies should censor content that hurts your side within a set time period of an election but I certainly don't think that invalidates his point.

Yes it does. Throwing aside the fact the Steele Dossier has more public interest information in it then what the Post published. He’s arguing that the Steele was held to some unfair lower standard when the rebuttal tweets sHow that isn’t the case

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

Could any of the red avatars explain why Jim Clapper was never prosecuted for the same crime that nearly all of the so-called "Russian conspirators" were charged with? The obvious answer seems to be that sufficiently connected deep state goons are beyond the reach of the law.

[Hindsight was 2020]

You can make the argument that social media companies should censor content that hurts your side within a set time period of an election but I certainly don't think that invalidates his point.

Yes it does. Throwing aside the fact the Steele Dossier has more public interest information in it then what the Post published. He’s arguing that the Steele was held to some unfair lower standard when the rebuttal tweets sHow that isn’t the case

You realize that Dougherty's tweet is not making that point, yes? He's pointing out that, even though there was lots of specific, easy-to-find evidence that undercut the veracity of the dossier, those specific inaccuracies were not noted when it was published; they just slapped on a disclaimer instead of attempting to verify the accuracy of the material they were publishing. Dougherty is arguing that Steele was held to a lower standard; I am glad we all agree on this point!

The Post had never put a disclaimer on this garbage so by default Steele wasn’t held to a low standard and I like how you along with the Greenwald’s and Taibbi’s of the world rip on the Steele dossier as debunked when the Senate GOP itself released a final report on Russiagate confirming a lot of what Steele said along with the NYT’s Trump tax returns

[Landslide Lyndon]

The people who gleefully promoted the Tara Reade story, and didn't even have the decency to admit their mistake and apologize, are in no position to talk about journalistic ethics.

[Hindsight was 2020]

https://mobile.twitter.com/themattdimitri/status/1364074096871436291

[Hindsight was 2020]

2022 edition:

https://mobile.twitter.com/themattdimitri/status/1364074096871436291

[The Houstonian]

I'm referring to legal corruption... Super-PACs, getting overpaid for Wall Street speeches, etc etc. Corruption of political mission to sell out for money to tje rixh and corporations, legal or not.

Do you think she should have turned down the speeches? I've never understood this criticism. Like who would turn down 6 figures to give a speech?

I would definitely not give paid speeches to Goldman Sachs if I were in her position, as I would risk indebting myself to Goldman Sachs by doing so, and find myself under pressure to repay that debt through my actions in public office. This would conflict with my duty as an officeholder to make impartial decisions, rather than decisions that are partial towards Goldman Sachs.

[GeneralMacArthur]

I'm referring to legal corruption... Super-PACs, getting overpaid for Wall Street speeches, etc etc. Corruption of political mission to sell out for money to tje rixh and corporations, legal or not.

Do you think she should have turned down the speeches? I've never understood this criticism. Like who would turn down 6 figures to give a speech?

I would definitely not give paid speeches to Goldman Sachs if I were in her position, as I would risk indebting myself to Goldman Sachs by doing so, and find myself under pressure to repay that debt through my actions in public office. This would conflict with my duty as an officeholder to make impartial decisions, rather than decisions that are partial towards Goldman Sachs.

Why would you be indebted to them?  You gave them a speech in return for money.

People are so damn thick about this sometimes.

[The Houstonian]

I'm referring to legal corruption... Super-PACs, getting overpaid for Wall Street speeches, etc etc. Corruption of political mission to sell out for money to tje rixh and corporations, legal or not.

Do you think she should have turned down the speeches? I've never understood this criticism. Like who would turn down 6 figures to give a speech?

I would definitely not give paid speeches to Goldman Sachs if I were in her position, as I would risk indebting myself to Goldman Sachs by doing so, and find myself under pressure to repay that debt through my actions in public office. This would conflict with my duty as an officeholder to make impartial decisions, rather than decisions that are partial towards Goldman Sachs.

Why would you be indebted to them?  You gave them a speech in return for money.

People are so damn thick about this sometimes.

Why do you think members of Congress are not allowed to get paid for speeches? The answer is that they would be paid not for their speeches per se, but rather for political influence, with the speeches serving as a pretext for the payment. Hillary Clinton, as someone who was looking to run for President, was also in a position to sell political influence, but she was not restrained by the same rules. Since Goldman Sachs is known for buying political influence, having spent a total of $6.4M in lobbying (i.e. influencing politicians) in 2019 and 2020, it is highly likely that the purpose of Hillary Clinton collecting speaking fees from them was to sell political influence.

[emailking]

Why can't you just take all the speech money and then run your Presidency any way you want? Not like they can hold you accountable for ignoring their purchase.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

Why can't you just take all the speech money and then run your Presidency any way you want? Not like they can hold you accountable for ignoring their purchase.

This is theoretically possible and does happen to an extent, but the system isn't conducive to it. You're less likely to get invited to more or better-paying speeches if you don't give previous attendees a good ROI.