Matt Taibbi

yes, its name is John Kerr

7yxWY6vubZknda875toEURP8MlnD4ChruA5MkGAY4

this is really good

― treeship., Monday, October 14, 2019

It's not.

yeah, it's pretty bad.

The whistleblower whose complaint against Trump has led to an official impeachment inquiry is a CIA agent. Let's just sit a moment with that, shall we?

this line of argument is so fucking dumb. dan ellsberg worked for the pentagon and the rand corporation, ed snowden worked for the CIA (as a subcontractor), and mark felt held the second-highest position at the FBI. does andrew o'hehir know what a "whistleblower" is?

shall we?

The only reason to cite the connection of the whistleblower to the CIA would be to bring their credibility into doubt. But the WH released a transcript of the phone conversation, so we now have ample and reliable evidence of the crime, coming not from the CIA, but direct from the WH. Consequently, at this point in the proceedings the whistleblower's credibility is kind of not a question any more. As for their motive for exposing Trump as a criminal, who the fuck cares?

i think it's fair to 1.) want trump gone, he's a lunatic and 2.) be wary of people using his lunacy as an opportunity to consolidate power for themselves.

But treesh, where do you see anyone consolidating power? Power would be moved to Mike Pence if Trump was impeached, and... That's basically it, everything else is speculation?

I think it’s kind of odd that liberals love james comey and people like this now honestly. And the line that trump is bad bc he is a putin asset—which i STILL see, especially as an explanation for the abandonment of kurdish allies—is gratingn, because it seems like a way to fundamentally misunderstand the problem with trump. He is not a foreigner sent to undermine our democracy. I wish he was bc then the problem he represents would be easier to solve, but he is a very realand homegrown far right nativist who managed to capture the presidency. Needs to be faced

That’s not what Taibbi is doing. His position is full on #2 because he thinks the country deserves and wants Trump.

I read plenty of liberal-ass shit and they all hate Comey.

Treesh, that's not wrong, but I don't see what it has to do with impeachment. Trump was abusing his office to help his reelection chances, that needs to be impeached. Unless you are arguing that the rules should be suspended, so that he can be defeated in another way you would find more effective. And I'm not sure that's a good argument, for a multitude of reasons.

Trump won because of American problems and not foreign intervention. Sure (it's not actually that certain, but let's say it is). He was still trying to get foreign involvement to help him next time. If that's allowed to pass, then it could very well be that the fight against American problems won't succeed, because that can't beat foreign involvement. And what's the worst case scenario in removing Trump without defeating the underlying problem? It's that the problem just pops back up, but if you think it can be defeated, well, then defeat it then. There's no argument here for not fighting against what is clearly an abuse of power.

I think it’s kind of odd that liberals love james comey and people like this now honestly.

xxp This is confused thinking, similar to the idea that if someone does something stupid, they must be a stupid person. James Comey is a great example of someone whose limited and oversimplified understanding of the world around him can show up in his actions as both bad and good, depending on whether the complexity of the situation exceeds his grasp of it.

In the case of Trump, the situation was not complicated, and his system of ethics responded adequately, for which he deserves credit. This does not make him any more reliable or loveable. He's as likely to clumsily screw things up as he ever was. However, the fact that he no longer holds a position of power makes his potential to screw things up less threatening.

I think it’s kind of odd that liberals love james comey and people like this now honestly.

wait what? Which liberals? Name'em.

That definitely *was* true, I think it's mostly worn off, thankfully. Then again he is getting a miniseries.

I'm with Fred on this one. If someone is trying to use their office to circumvent elections, they cannot be removed by... an election.

Trump won because of American problems and not foreign intervention. Sure (it's not actually that certain, but let's say it is)

hmmmmmmmmmmmm

idk i still think there's a big block of #resistance dorks that love when he posts pictures of himself gazing wistfully at the ocean with a semi-cryptic allusion to trump or some dorky quote about Honor

now he's getting the Jeff Newsroom treatment

It's impossible to measure the impact of Russian hacks on an election that was this close, but it's completely besides the point.

Pretty sure the electoral college was a bigger factor by several orders in any case and that is An American Problem

True, but so what? That doesn't prove he would have won without Russia. Because that is impossible to prove or disprove. And besides the point.

Pretty sure the electoral college was a bigger factor by several orders in any case and that is An American Problem

― Simon H., Monday, October 14, 2019

and voter suppression in North Carolina and especially Wisconsin.

yes, another American Problem that predates Trump by at least a few cycles.

this country is kind of fucked up in very many ways

this country is kind of fucked up in very many ways

It produced Matt Taibbi, after all.

Trump won because of American problems and not foreign intervention. Sure (it's not actually that certain, but let's say it is). He was still trying to get foreign involvement to help him next time.

His extremely urgent and clumsy attempt to get foreign intervention again strongly suggests that he, for one, does not believe he could have won without foreign intervention last time.

Pretty sure the electoral college was a bigger factor by several orders

Both campaigns knew about the electoral college and both strategized around its effect on the election. US voters have to hear endlessly about "swing states" during campaigns. It's hard to believe the Internet Research Bureau wasn't informed enough to know about the electoral college, too.

It is reasonable to think such basic knowledge of US elections would have guided some of their activities, especially since we know the Trump campaign was trying to get their own recent internal polling data in their hands. Saying that the EC was a big factor is not saying much. It's always a big factor and always has been. Russian troll farms have not always been added to that mix before. It was a new wrinkle in a very close election.

Well, Taibbi's...whatever you want to call it has been picked up by Breitbart, Instapundit, Scott Adams (FYI, the Dilbert dude is a full-on right-wing crazy), Mark Steyn, Ace of Spades and Pamela Geller.

I wish him all the best in his sure-to-be-lucrative career as a third-tier Trump-fellating grifter.

"even the Liberal Matt Taibbi says..."

This is a dumb line of attack not supported by the actual writing.

guys

Tatt Maibbi
^when i'm thinking about getting a tat

don't confuse unperson or Tombot with the writing

their Pavlovian response to M.T. is far more elusive and mysterious

We've seen this story play out over and over. Taibbi's in the "love bombing" phase of flipping to the Right, which narcissists like him are incredibly vulnerable to. I give him less than a year before he's photographed wearing a MAGA hat and shaking hands with big T in the oval office.

how much?

"narcissists" is such a popular label to assign anti-Trumpists who aren't full-blown Pelosians

anti-Trumpists who aren't full-blown Pelosians

So on your world Nancy Pelosi represents the far fringe of anti-Trump sentiment?

The highway center line, where all the roadkill ends up

If Trump loses in 2020, Taibbi’s main target for his vitriolic contrarianism will have to be the Democratic nominee and the party leadership, so he’s basically just hedging his bets, I suppose.

People who don’t believe in anything just aren’t very interesting to me anymore.

The highway center line, where all the roadkill ends up

Pithy, but it doesn't work as a simile because the roadkill I've observed is more often nearer the shoulder of the highway than the middle. Maybe the highways that abound in NYC are different.

People who don’t believe in the established military-industrial hegemony just aren’t very interesting to you anymore.

lol aimless i spent a day on whether to type "do you even DRIVE bro?" but decided morbs has enough fans

cheezit it's the metaphor police!

if i drove i'd be dead

uhhh

This NYT story about the opening of a criminal probe into the origins of Russiagate sounds like it was written by the defense lawyers of the investigation’s targets. https://t.co/Gp43Xxg9TJ

— Matt Taibbi (@mtaibbi) October 25, 2019

guy fuckin sucks imo but whatever

https://taibbi.substack.com/p/temporary-coronavirus-censorship

Instead of asking calmly if hydroxychloroquine works, or if the less restrictive Swedish crisis response has merit, or questioning why certain statistical assumptions about the seriousness of the crisis might have been off, we’re denouncing the questions themselves as infamous. Or we’re politicizing the framing of stories in a way that signals to readers what their take should be before they even digest the material. “Conservative Americans see coronavirus hope in Progressive Sweden,” reads a Politico headline, as if only conservatives should feel optimism in the possibility that a non-lockdown approach might have merit! Are we rooting for such an approach to not work?

Amen! It's been goddamn impossible to sort through any information and COVID-19 because of this shit.

and=about

this guy is a rapist

fuck him & all associates

not true.

But good job illustrating his point perfectly.

Well, I imagine the actual story behind the Sweden headline would be “conservatives hoping that non-disastrous data from a measured non-lockdown approach in a vastly different and more progressive society could justify forcing poor people to go back to work with minimal assistance or testing.”