2 ms·
Why do you think it's the "current regime" that's going after FB? Before Barr, the "current regime" couldn't even launch investigations into fake "dossiers" and
by m0zg 7y ago
Why do you think it's the "current regime" that's going after FB? Before Barr, the "current regime" couldn't even launch investigations into fake "dossiers" and things of that nature, and this stuff with FB started back in 2016. Could be the deep state. Could, in fact, be both, competing with each other. Not being able to control public opinion is a pretty terrible thing for all of them. In the good old days you could resolve all this shit quietly by having a few conversations with the owners of the "free" press. Nowadays Zuck is less compliant.
- dboreham 7y agoTypo: fake "investigations" into dossiers.
- m0zg 7y agoBut the dossier was literally fake, and moreover, paid for by the Clinton campaign.
- karatestomp 7y agoIs Steele's dossier what we're talking about? What I'm finding squares with my understanding that almost all of it's 1) pretty solidly corroborated, or 2) isn't confirmed but is plausible as supported by surrounding events, often with a lot of smoke-but-no-as-yet-discovered-fire sorts of public info surrounding it. Where's the info so thoroughly discrediting its claims that it makes sense to call the whole thing "fake"? Again, what I'm seeing (normal-ass sites and Wikipedia, not like The Nation or something, if that's a concern) strongly supports pretty much the polar opposite of that, and even a fairly strong refutation of much of that would still leave so much that labelling the whole thing "fake" would be unfair. What's up?