3 ms·

In addition to the lies I listed in my other comment, Taibbi also lies about what he calls the "now-discredited Steele dossier" in this piece. Here are the fac

by Bud 6y ago

In addition to the lies I listed in my other comment, Taibbi also lies about what he calls the "now-discredited Steele dossier" in this piece. Here are the facts: not a single significant conclusion in the Steele dossier has ever been discredited or proven false to date. Not one. Anyone who read Taibbi during the W Administration, and who reads him again now, can readily discern that someone got to him. It's not the same guy. He's flown off the handle and spouts readily-falsifiable information at a truly alarming rate. You can Google for 30 seconds and find lie after lie. It's the same with Glenn Greenwald, who Taibbi is now allied with.

imgabe 6y ago
You can Google for 30 seconds and find a source that supports anything you want to believe. I'm not saying you're wrong, but simply saying you can find contradictory information on Google isn't sufficient.
uxp100 6y ago
I’m not sure how it could be “proven” false. This is always the problem with accusations of conspiracy. A particular man is accused of being involved in a conspiracy. There is no way to prove you weren’t at a secret meeting in a secret location at some time. You can’t prove non existence of a pee tape. There always could be a pee tape. You could provide evidence that the information was fabricated, but it probably wasn’t. That doesn’t mean it’s entirely accurate. The FBI doesn’t seem to think it is that credible, but I’m really not sure how much that is worth.
gameswithgo 6y ago
people seem to just get that way as they approach/enter their 50s, nobody has to get to them.
ethagnawl 6y ago
> It's the same with Glenn Greenwald, who Taibbi is now allied with. Greenwald equated Michael Flynn's plea deal with the plight of poor folks being forced into bad deals by disinterested public defenders/overextended court systems on a recent episode of The Intercepted podcast. I no longer recognize the person I used to look forward to seeing as a guest on Democracy Now.
- readams 6y ago
  Much has been made in the media that he plead guilty so therefore there could be no possibility that his prosecution was unfair, unreasonable or political. But we know that many people plead guilty for reasons other than guilt. Facing a biased judge and prosecutors out for blood is certainly one of them. Fighting in such a case, even if you're right, is very risky. You may gain a sense of schadenfreude that even one of the formerly powerful could be forced into that same grim calculus faced by a poor person railroaded by the system. But this is not justice in either case.
ponker 6y ago
No, factual assertions are discredited by not being able to come up with proof. If I say that Mister Rogers raped a goat in a field in Pennsylvania in 1988, and am unable to come up with any proof, my assertion is discredited.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  “substantiated”, “unsubstantiated”, and “discredited” are three different positions, not two.
chlodwig 6y ago
It was discredited, Steele's own source reported to the FBI that the stuff in the report was full of hearsay, rumor, misstatements, and exaggeration: 'the Primary Sub-source told the FBI that he/she had not seen Steele's reports until they became public that month, and that he/she made statements indicating that Steele misstated or exaggerated the Primary Sub-source's statements in multiple sections of the reporting. 336 For example, the Primary Sub-source told the FBI that, while Report 80 stated that Trump's alleged sexual activities at the Ritz Carlton hotel in Moscow had been "confirmed" by a senior, western staff member at the hotel, the Primary Sub-source explained that he/she reported to Steele that Trump's alleged unorthodox sexual activity at the Ritz Carlton hotel was "rumor and speculation" and that he/she had not been able to confirm the story....In addition, the FBI interviews with the Primary Sub-source revealed that Steele did not have good insight into how many degrees of separation existed between the Primary Sub-source's sub-sources and the persons quoted in the reporting, and that it could have been multiple layers of hearsay upon hearsay. For example, the Primary Sub-source stated to WFO Agent 1 that, in contrast to the impression left from the election reports, his/her sub-sources did not have direct access to the persons they were reporting on. Instead, the Primary Sub-source told WFO Agent 1 that their information was "from someone else who may have had access." The Primary Sub-source also informed WFO Agent 1 that Steele tasked him/her after the 2016 U.S. elections to find corroboration for the election reporting and that the Primary Sub-source could find none. According to WFO Agent 1, during an interview in May 2017, the Primary Sub-source said the corroboration was "zero."' This is all in the Horowitz Report. There is zero reason to believe anything in the Steel Dossier.
- Bud 6y ago
  Absolutely none of those items are primary conclusions from Steele. Nobody cares about "how many degrees of separation existed" between sources. That's just a bunch of Republican misdirection. This is really the best you can do? What about the actual relevant points in his report? Is there a reason you didn't even mention any of them?

by Bud 6y ago

imgabe 6y ago

You can Google for 30 seconds and find a source that supports anything you want to believe. I'm not saying you're wrong, but simply saying you can find contradictory information on Google isn't sufficient.

uxp100 6y ago

I’m not sure how it could be “proven” false. This is always the problem with accusations of conspiracy. A particular man is accused of being involved in a conspiracy. There is no way to prove you weren’t at a secret meeting in a secret location at some time. You can’t prove non existence of a pee tape. There always could be a pee tape. You could provide evidence that the information was fabricated, but it probably wasn’t. That doesn’t mean it’s entirely accurate. The FBI doesn’t seem to think it is that credible, but I’m really not sure how much that is worth.

gameswithgo 6y ago

people seem to just get that way as they approach/enter their 50s, nobody has to get to them.

ethagnawl 6y ago

> It's the same with Glenn Greenwald, who Taibbi is now allied with. Greenwald equated Michael Flynn's plea deal with the plight of poor folks being forced into bad deals by disinterested public defenders/overextended court systems on a recent episode of The Intercepted podcast. I no longer recognize the person I used to look forward to seeing as a guest on Democracy Now.

readams 6y ago
Much has been made in the media that he plead guilty so therefore there could be no possibility that his prosecution was unfair, unreasonable or political. But we know that many people plead guilty for reasons other than guilt. Facing a biased judge and prosecutors out for blood is certainly one of them. Fighting in such a case, even if you're right, is very risky. You may gain a sense of schadenfreude that even one of the formerly powerful could be forced into that same grim calculus faced by a poor person railroaded by the system. But this is not justice in either case.

ponker 6y ago

No, factual assertions are discredited by not being able to come up with proof. If I say that Mister Rogers raped a goat in a field in Pennsylvania in 1988, and am unable to come up with any proof, my assertion is discredited.

dragonwriter 6y ago
“substantiated”, “unsubstantiated”, and “discredited” are three different positions, not two.

chlodwig 6y ago

It was discredited, Steele's own source reported to the FBI that the stuff in the report was full of hearsay, rumor, misstatements, and exaggeration: 'the Primary Sub-source told the FBI that he/she had not seen Steele's reports until they became public that month, and that he/she made statements indicating that Steele misstated or exaggerated the Primary Sub-source's statements in multiple sections of the reporting. 336 For example, the Primary Sub-source told the FBI that, while Report 80 stated that Trump's alleged sexual activities at the Ritz Carlton hotel in Moscow had been "confirmed" by a senior, western staff member at the hotel, the Primary Sub-source explained that he/she reported to Steele that Trump's alleged unorthodox sexual activity at the Ritz Carlton hotel was "rumor and speculation" and that he/she had not been able to confirm the story....In addition, the FBI interviews with the Primary Sub-source revealed that Steele did not have good insight into how many degrees of separation existed between the Primary Sub-source's sub-sources and the persons quoted in the reporting, and that it could have been multiple layers of hearsay upon hearsay. For example, the Primary Sub-source stated to WFO Agent 1 that, in contrast to the impression left from the election reports, his/her sub-sources did not have direct access to the persons they were reporting on. Instead, the Primary Sub-source told WFO Agent 1 that their information was "from someone else who may have had access." The Primary Sub-source also informed WFO Agent 1 that Steele tasked him/her after the 2016 U.S. elections to find corroboration for the election reporting and that the Primary Sub-source could find none. According to WFO Agent 1, during an interview in May 2017, the Primary Sub-source said the corroboration was "zero."' This is all in the Horowitz Report. There is zero reason to believe anything in the Steel Dossier.

Bud 6y ago
Absolutely none of those items are primary conclusions from Steele. Nobody cares about "how many degrees of separation existed" between sources. That's just a bunch of Republican misdirection. This is really the best you can do? What about the actual relevant points in his report? Is there a reason you didn't even mention any of them?