Rolling Stones Matt Taibbi nails media to the wall

[CHEEZY17]

It's official: Russiagate is this generation's WMD
The Iraq war faceplant damaged the reputation of the press. Russiagate just destroyed it

https://taibbi.substack.com/p/russiagat ... -a-million

[AnalHamster]

You understand that Russia actually did interfere in your election right? Every intel agency has firmly concluded this is fact and a bunch of GRU agents got indicted. Are you unaware of these things?

I'm really not understanding the trumpcuck defense line here. Are you unable to recognise that there was russian interference in your election?

It's just really strange how effective the trump propaganda has been. Mueller has concluded that there was russian interference to help trump get elected, but that he can't prove trump was actively conspiring in it. That's a win for you now? Your enemies helped elect your president and you're celebrating that fact. It's really really odd.

Will you support the AG when he suppresses the evidence he is supposed to use to determine whether to charge trump with obstruction? Of course you will.

[Stapes]

Here's another take I love to be buttfucked. It was a very successful investigation exposing plenty of dirty deals and corruption.


https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi ... rt/585631/


The Mueller investigation has been an unmitigated success in exposing political corruption. In the case of Paul Manafort, the corruption was criminal. In the case of Trump, the corruption doesn’t seem to have transgressed any laws. As Michael Kinsley famously quipped, “The scandal isn’t what’s illegal; the scandal is what’s legal.” Lying to the electorate, adjusting foreign policy for the sake of personal lucre, and undermining an investigation seem to me pretty sound impeachable offenses—they might also happen to be technically legal.
Through his investigation, Mueller has also provided a plausible answer to the question that first bothered me. Trump’s motive for praising Putin appears to have been, in large part, commercial. With his relentless pursuit of Trump Tower Moscow, the Republican nominee for president had active commercial interests in Russia that he failed to disclose to the American people. In fact, he explicitly and shamelessly lied about them. As Trump’s former personal attorney Michael Cohen implied in his congressional testimony, Trump ran his campaign as something of an infomercial, hoping to convince the Russians that he was a good partner. To enrich himself, Trump promised to realign American foreign policy.

This is the very definition of corruption, and it provides the plot line that runs through the entirety of Trump’s political life. The president never chooses to distinguish—and indeed, may be temperamentally incapable of distinguishing—his personal interests from the national interest. Why has he failed so consistently to acknowledge Russian interference in the election? Because that interference was designed to benefit him. Why did he fire James Comey and, let’s use the word, obstruct the investigation into election interference? Because he wanted to protect himself from any investigation that might turn up material that reflected badly on him and his circle. (And whatever Mueller’s ultimate conclusion about collusion, his investigation has proved to be an unending source of damning revelations about the president and the men who constituted his closest advisers. )
Along with Trump’s stalwart defenders, many left-wing critics of hawkish foreign policy have been quick to tout Attorney General William Barr’s letter as exoneration. Matt Taibbi has compared the coverage of the Russia scandal to the media’s gullible reporting about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. The accusation is that the media are prone to parrot whatever self-serving conspiracy the national-security state has to offer. But Mueller has apparently endorsed the fundamental underlying case emanating from the intelligence community: The Russians were actively working to secure Trump’s victory. What makes their interference so horrifying is that it involved the theft of information and the active manipulation of public perceptions. All of that is arguably far worse than Watergate.

But Trump makes for a slippery figure to study—and here’s why Taibbi’s WMD analogy isn’t entirely wrong. Just as Saddam Hussein acted as if he possessed verboten weaponry, everything about Trump’s behavior suggested that he was guilty of instances of collusion worse than anything the public could observe. That’s undoubtedly a major reason so many intelligence-community honchos were so worried. The other reason, which Barr cited again today, is that the Russians were actively seeking a partnership with the campaign. That such a partnership never materialized is a relief. But the fact that we’re not staring at the worst-case scenario of guilt is hardly a reason for giving the president any credit.

[CHEEZY17]

You understand that Russia actually did interfere in your election right? Every intel agency has firmly concluded this is fact and a bunch of GRU agents got indicted. Are you unaware of these things?

I'm really not understanding the trumpcuck defense line here. Are you unable to recognise that there was russian interference in your election?

It's just really strange how effective the trump propaganda has been. Mueller has concluded that there was russian interference to help trump get elected, but that he can't prove trump was actively conspiring in it. That's a win for you now? Your enemies helped elect your president and you're celebrating that fact. It's really really odd.

Will you support the AG when he suppresses the evidence he is supposed to use to determine whether to charge trump with obstruction? Of course you will.

Nobody is denying Russia tried to influence the election, dippy. Of course they did. Thats what countries do. And nobody denies that a bunch of Russians got indicted. So stop with the straw man. I still, and always will, support the full release of everything that can legally be released.

[AnalHamster]

You understand that Russia actually did interfere in your election right? Every intel agency has firmly concluded this is fact and a bunch of GRU agents got indicted. Are you unaware of these things?

I'm really not understanding the trumpcuck defense line here. Are you unable to recognise that there was russian interference in your election?

It's just really strange how effective the trump propaganda has been. Mueller has concluded that there was russian interference to help trump get elected, but that he can't prove trump was actively conspiring in it. That's a win for you now? Your enemies helped elect your president and you're celebrating that fact. It's really really odd.

Will you support the AG when he suppresses the evidence he is supposed to use to determine whether to charge trump with obstruction? Of course you will.

Nobody is denying Russia tried to influence the election, dippy. Of course they did. Thats what countries do. And nobody denies that a bunch of Russians got indicted. So stop with the straw man. I still, and always will, support the full release of everything that can legally be released.

It's not a strawman, it's the simple response when you say the whole investigation was an invalid witch hunt. It was not, it was about the Russian interference in your election that you concede did in fact happen.

[AnalHamster]

You understand that Russia actually did interfere in your election right? Every intel agency has firmly concluded this is fact and a bunch of GRU agents got indicted. Are you unaware of these things?

I'm really not understanding the trumpcuck defense line here. Are you unable to recognise that there was russian interference in your election?

It's just really strange how effective the trump propaganda has been. Mueller has concluded that there was russian interference to help trump get elected, but that he can't prove trump was actively conspiring in it. That's a win for you now? Your enemies helped elect your president and you're celebrating that fact. It's really really odd.

Will you support the AG when he suppresses the evidence he is supposed to use to determine whether to charge trump with obstruction? Of course you will.

Nobody is denying Russia tried to influence the election, dippy. Of course they did. Thats what countries do. And nobody denies that a bunch of Russians got indicted. So stop with the straw man. I still, and always will, support the full release of everything that can legally be released.

It's not a strawman, it's the simple response when you say the whole investigation was an invalid witch hunt. It was not, it was about the Russian interference in your election that you concede did in fact happen.

No collusion. Own it, bitch boi

Uh huh, only attempted collusion with the hostile foreign power that actively interfered in your election to get your president elected. You sad fucking traitor.

[Cassandros]

Good read, two points:

The president never chooses to distinguish—and indeed, may be temperamentally incapable of distinguishing—his personal interests from the national interest.

This should have been obvious -to everyone- from the beginning.

Just as Saddam Hussein acted as if he possessed verboten weaponry, everything about Trump’s behavior suggested that he was guilty of instances of collusion worse than anything the public could observe. That’s undoubtedly a major reason so many intelligence-community honchos were so worried.

There should never have been an investigation unless the there was a direct link to him and an actual crime.

'Looking guilty = investigation' was a terrible precedence to set.

[AnalHamster]

Good read, two points:

The president never chooses to distinguish—and indeed, may be temperamentally incapable of distinguishing—his personal interests from the national interest.

This should have been obvious -to everyone- from the beginning.

Just as Saddam Hussein acted as if he possessed verboten weaponry, everything about Trump’s behavior suggested that he was guilty of instances of collusion worse than anything the public could observe. That’s undoubtedly a major reason so many intelligence-community honchos were so worried.

There should never have been an investigation unless the there was a direct link to him and an actual crime.

'Looking guilty = investigation' was a terrible precedence to set.

So you think the investigation that has resulted in indictments for dozens of Russian GRU agents for interfering in your election and a half dozen trump appointees for perjury should never have happened? Should the indictments be dropped and the guilty be let out of prison?

[Cassandros]

Good read, two points:

The president never chooses to distinguish—and indeed, may be temperamentally incapable of distinguishing—his personal interests from the national interest.

This should have been obvious -to everyone- from the beginning.

Just as Saddam Hussein acted as if he possessed verboten weaponry, everything about Trump’s behavior suggested that he was guilty of instances of collusion worse than anything the public could observe. That’s undoubtedly a major reason so many intelligence-community honchos were so worried.

There should never have been an investigation unless the there was a direct link to him and an actual crime.

'Looking guilty = investigation' was a terrible precedence to set.

So you think the investigation that has resulted in indictments for dozens of Russian GRU agents for interfering in your election and a half dozen trump appointees for perjury should never have happened? Should the indictments be dropped and the guilty be let out of prison?

All of those indictments came from established crimes where the evidence lead to the perp.

I know you are smart enough to see the difference...

[Burn1dwn]

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". Isn't that how it goes?

[Burn1dwn]

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". Isn't that how it goes?

Stay strong, cucky

I was referring to the comparison to WMD fiasco. I have not given any fucks about any of this bullshit. Just glad it is over.

[AnalHamster]

Good read, two points:

The president never chooses to distinguish—and indeed, may be temperamentally incapable of distinguishing—his personal interests from the national interest.

This should have been obvious -to everyone- from the beginning.

Just as Saddam Hussein acted as if he possessed verboten weaponry, everything about Trump’s behavior suggested that he was guilty of instances of collusion worse than anything the public could observe. That’s undoubtedly a major reason so many intelligence-community honchos were so worried.

There should never have been an investigation unless the there was a direct link to him and an actual crime.

'Looking guilty = investigation' was a terrible precedence to set.

So you think the investigation that has resulted in indictments for dozens of Russian GRU agents for interfering in your election and a half dozen trump appointees for perjury should never have happened? Should the indictments be dropped and the guilty be let out of prison?

All of those indictments came from established crimes where the evidence lead to the perp.

I know you are smart enough to see the difference...

They all came from the same investigation. I know you are dumb enough to ignore this again. You just can't modify or drop your start conclusion.

[CaptQuint]

I thought Mueller was going to find something, I truly did. If Mueller cannot prove it I accept his report because Mueller is a credible person and Trump is not.

[CHEEZY17]

You understand that Russia actually did interfere in your election right? Every intel agency has firmly concluded this is fact and a bunch of GRU agents got indicted. Are you unaware of these things?

I'm really not understanding the trumpcuck defense line here. Are you unable to recognise that there was russian interference in your election?

It's just really strange how effective the trump propaganda has been. Mueller has concluded that there was russian interference to help trump get elected, but that he can't prove trump was actively conspiring in it. That's a win for you now? Your enemies helped elect your president and you're celebrating that fact. It's really really odd.

Will you support the AG when he suppresses the evidence he is supposed to use to determine whether to charge trump with obstruction? Of course you will.

Nobody is denying Russia tried to influence the election, dippy. Of course they did. Thats what countries do. And nobody denies that a bunch of Russians got indicted. So stop with the straw man. I still, and always will, support the full release of everything that can legally be released.

It's not a strawman, it's the simple response when you say the whole investigation was an invalid witch hunt. It was not, it was about the Russian interference in your election that you concede did in fact happen.

You seem to be under this false impression that it is only a few odd folks here on UJ that think this wasnt worth it. As this article shows, I have just provided you with documented proof that there are actual investigative journalists, who also happen to be quite Liberal, that think the same thing. I suppose in hammy world theyre just dupes too.

[AnalHamster]

You understand that Russia actually did interfere in your election right? Every intel agency has firmly concluded this is fact and a bunch of GRU agents got indicted. Are you unaware of these things?

I'm really not understanding the trumpcuck defense line here. Are you unable to recognise that there was russian interference in your election?

It's just really strange how effective the trump propaganda has been. Mueller has concluded that there was russian interference to help trump get elected, but that he can't prove trump was actively conspiring in it. That's a win for you now? Your enemies helped elect your president and you're celebrating that fact. It's really really odd.

Will you support the AG when he suppresses the evidence he is supposed to use to determine whether to charge trump with obstruction? Of course you will.

Nobody is denying Russia tried to influence the election, dippy. Of course they did. Thats what countries do. And nobody denies that a bunch of Russians got indicted. So stop with the straw man. I still, and always will, support the full release of everything that can legally be released.

It's not a strawman, it's the simple response when you say the whole investigation was an invalid witch hunt. It was not, it was about the Russian interference in your election that you concede did in fact happen.

You seem to be under this false impression that it is only a few odd folks here on UJ that think this wasnt worth it. As this article shows, I have just provided you with documented proof that there are actual investigative journalists, who also happen to be quite Liberal, that think the same thing. I suppose in hammy world theyre just dupes too.

I'm not clear on what you think wasn't worth it. Are you conceding that the Russians interfered in your election and saying that there should not have been an investigation of that?

[CHEEZY17]

Dude, there is nothing to concede because nobody is saying that the Russians didnt interfere. So again, stop with the straw man. I will try to make this very clear so you can grasp it:
Yes, the Russians interfered.
Yes, Russians got indicted.
Nobody here is saying anything different.
Do you, right now, think that the UK doesnt have a whole division of folks dedicated to figuring out who would be the preferred candidate for your country in various elections throughout the world? Do you, right now, think that the UK doesnt try to influence elections?
Just admit it, you wanted desperately for ol' Donny to be taken down and it didnt happen and now youre butthurt. lolz.

[AnalHamster]

Dude, there is nothing to concede because nobody is saying that the Russians didnt interfere. So again, stop with the straw man. I will try to make this very clear so you can grasp it:
Yes, the Russians interfered.
Yes, Russians got indicted.
Nobody here is saying anything different.
Do you, right now, think that the UK doesnt have a whole division of folks dedicated to figuring out who would be the preferred candidate for your country in various elections throughout the world? Do you, right now, think that the UK doesnt try to influence elections?
Just admit it, you wanted desperately for ol' Donny to be taken down and it didnt happen and now youre butthurt. lolz.

So then the investigation was necessary and worthwhile. You can't have it both ways, there was in fact something to investigate. I don't think the UK does interfere much any more, though the US does. Does that mean it's fine to you for Russia to interfere in your election?

I actually pointed out a while back that damaging ongoing investigations would be preferable to impeachment. Impeachment gets you Pence and a stronger chance of a reelect. The inevitable attempt to suppress the report and the gradual emergence of the details of his collusion and obstruction will drag on until the election now.

[CHEEZY17]

Dude, there is nothing to concede because nobody is saying that the Russians didnt interfere. So again, stop with the straw man. I will try to make this very clear so you can grasp it:
Yes, the Russians interfered.
Yes, Russians got indicted.
Nobody here is saying anything different.
Do you, right now, think that the UK doesnt have a whole division of folks dedicated to figuring out who would be the preferred candidate for your country in various elections throughout the world? Do you, right now, think that the UK doesnt try to influence elections?
Just admit it, you wanted desperately for ol' Donny to be taken down and it didnt happen and now youre butthurt. lolz.

So then the investigation was necessary and worthwhile. You can't have it both ways, there was in fact something to investigate. I don't think the UK does interfere much any more, though the US does. Does that mean it's fine to you for Russia to interfere in your election?

I actually pointed out a while back that damaging ongoing investigations would be preferable to impeachment. Impeachment gets you Pence and a stronger chance of a reelect. The inevitable attempt to suppress the report and the gradual emergence of the details of his collusion and obstruction will drag on until the election now.

Is it "fine"? Of course not. I'd prefer they didnt but I live in the real world where countries sometimes stick their noses where they shouldnt. That includes my own country. Hell, we actively pursue "Regime Change". It would be incredibly hypocritical of me to get indignant about Russia meddling in our affairs when we basically do it all over the fucking world on a daily basis. And I promise you we DO have entire groups dedicated to determining who is our preferred candidate and how we can help them.

[CaptQuint]

The US engages in regime change because the US wants leadership in foreign lands that will benefit the US. So why would Russia want Trump over Clinton?

[beagleboy]

So why would Russia want Trump over Clinton?

MSNBC probably didn't cover this for you. Gee, I wonder if the Clinton's were ever involved in deciding any Russian elections. Let's think about it for a few minutes.

[CaptQuint]

So why would Russia want Trump over Clinton?

MSNBC probably didn't cover this for you. Gee, I wonder if the Clinton's were ever involved in deciding any Russian elections. Let's think about it for a few minutes.

I don't watch MSNBC. So Hillary picked Putin, then Putin's pet. Then Putin again?

[Cassandros]

Good read, two points:

The president never chooses to distinguish—and indeed, may be temperamentally incapable of distinguishing—his personal interests from the national interest.

This should have been obvious -to everyone- from the beginning.

Just as Saddam Hussein acted as if he possessed verboten weaponry, everything about Trump’s behavior suggested that he was guilty of instances of collusion worse than anything the public could observe. That’s undoubtedly a major reason so many intelligence-community honchos were so worried.

There should never have been an investigation unless the there was a direct link to him and an actual crime.

'Looking guilty = investigation' was a terrible precedence to set.

So you think the investigation that has resulted in indictments for dozens of Russian GRU agents for interfering in your election and a half dozen trump appointees for perjury should never have happened? Should the indictments be dropped and the guilty be let out of prison?

All of those indictments came from established crimes where the evidence lead to the perp.

I know you are smart enough to see the difference...

They all came from the same investigation. I know you are dumb enough to ignore this again. You just can't modify or drop your start conclusion.

When crimes are committed and the investigation leads the criminal --> GOOD!

But there was never a crime that lead to Trump. Instead he was added to the investigation 'because he looked guilty' and some intelligence operatives 'had a feeling'; which is not only a deviation of how justice works- it has created a very dangerous precedence that almost certainly will be used against people down the line.

Again, I know you are smart enough to know the difference. The real question is: do you have the intellectual integrity to admit it.

[CaptQuint]

The Special Counsel Investigation was initiated by Trump's own Department of Justice and signed by Trump's own nominee Rod Rosenstein.

[AnalHamster]

Good read, two points:

The president never chooses to distinguish—and indeed, may be temperamentally incapable of distinguishing—his personal interests from the national interest.

This should have been obvious -to everyone- from the beginning.

Just as Saddam Hussein acted as if he possessed verboten weaponry, everything about Trump’s behavior suggested that he was guilty of instances of collusion worse than anything the public could observe. That’s undoubtedly a major reason so many intelligence-community honchos were so worried.

There should never have been an investigation unless the there was a direct link to him and an actual crime.

'Looking guilty = investigation' was a terrible precedence to set.

So you think the investigation that has resulted in indictments for dozens of Russian GRU agents for interfering in your election and a half dozen trump appointees for perjury should never have happened? Should the indictments be dropped and the guilty be let out of prison?

All of those indictments came from established crimes where the evidence lead to the perp.

I know you are smart enough to see the difference...

They all came from the same investigation. I know you are dumb enough to ignore this again. You just can't modify or drop your start conclusion.

When crimes are committed and the investigation leads the criminal --> GOOD!

But there was never a crime that lead to Trump. Instead he was added to the investigation 'because he looked guilty' and some intelligence operatives 'had a feeling'; which is not only a deviation of how justice works- it has created a very dangerous precedence that almost certainly will be used against people down the line.

Again, I know you are smart enough to know the difference. The real question is: do you have the intellectual integrity to admit it.

Yeah, you really don't seem able to grasp what an investigation is. You're wrong in any case, since there were crimes that lead to Trump, but even so, an investigation does not require proof of guilt to begin. You have that backwards. I don't think you are smart enough to grasp this no matter how often I explain it, and are incapable of admitting errors in any case until I've beaten you over the head with them for a dozen pages.

[Cassandros]

Good read, two points:
This should have been obvious -to everyone- from the beginning.
There should never have been an investigation unless the there was a direct link to him and an actual crime.

'Looking guilty = investigation' was a terrible precedence to set.

So you think the investigation that has resulted in indictments for dozens of Russian GRU agents for interfering in your election and a half dozen trump appointees for perjury should never have happened? Should the indictments be dropped and the guilty be let out of prison?

All of those indictments came from established crimes where the evidence lead to the perp.

I know you are smart enough to see the difference...

They all came from the same investigation. I know you are dumb enough to ignore this again. You just can't modify or drop your start conclusion.

When crimes are committed and the investigation leads the criminal --> GOOD!

But there was never a crime that lead to Trump. Instead he was added to the investigation 'because he looked guilty' and some intelligence operatives 'had a feeling'; which is not only a deviation of how justice works- it has created a very dangerous precedence that almost certainly will be used against people down the line.

Again, I know you are smart enough to know the difference. The real question is: do you have the intellectual integrity to admit it.

Yeah, you really don't seem able to grasp what an investigation is. You're wrong in any case, since there were crimes that lead to Trump, but even so, an investigation does not require proof of guilt to begin. You have that backwards. I don't think you are smart enough to grasp this no matter how often I explain it, and are incapable of admitting errors in any case until I've beaten you over the head with them for a dozen pages.

Ahhh, insults. Cute and, unfortunately, expected. Most people who don't have the ability to admit they are wrong resort to this kind of tactic when confronted with uncircumcized truths.

There is a big difference between investigating a crime and seeing what shakes out; and investigating a person in hopes of finding a crime.

The investigation against Trump specifically is an example of the latter, and has now created a precedence that will almost certainly be used sometime in the future (probably by Trump against political opponents). No amount of ad hominem attacks changes this fact. Sorry.