36 Comments
User's avatar
⭠ Return to thread
Matt Taibbi's avatar

Here's a brief 6,000-word summary of just the early media errors on Russiagate: https://taibbi.substack.com/p/russiagate-is-wmd-times-a-million

Here's a summary of the errors and deceptions involving the FISA warrants, which resulted in public reporting that Carter Page was an "agent" of a foreign power (he was not) https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/political-commentary/horowitz-report-steele-dossier-collusion-news-media-924944/

That case also resulted in nearly a year of stories claiming Devin Nunes had lied in his memo on FISA abuse -- he did not

Intelligence sources who said Trump was guilty of "treason," or had been in "constant contact" with Russian intelligence, were spectacularly wrong. So was Adam Schiff when he said there was "more than circumstantial" evidence of collusion. We were lied to repeatedly about the Steele dossier. I could go on.

I say all of this as someone who dislikes Donald Trump intensely.

Expand full comment
GSN's avatar

Are you saying there was no there there in the Mueller report because it wasn’t All there? Obstruction of justice and bungled attempts at holding hands with Russian influentials doesn’t count? Yes, the liberal press & Democrats were looking for collaboration between Russia & the campaign that never eventuated, but Mueller said a couple things, something like ‘if I could of exonerated him I would have and conviction is above my pay grade, it is up to the house & senate’.

Expand full comment
Sherman Homan's avatar

Mueller had a year and a half to find any criminal activity involving Trump and found nothing. Mueller is a prosecutor, he cannot exonerate anyone. It was up to the house and senate and the house's charges were vapor, there was nothing there. The senate correctly voted not guilty. Trump did nothing wrong.

Expand full comment
Patrick Lovell's avatar

Wow. So appreciative of the thread. Will dive in to the above soon but to me, just because the investigation was wrong in every direction doesn't make the obvious, that Chump-stain was and will always be in cahoots with whomever serves his greater interests. Saudi Arabia should be every bit as investigated as Russia, or outed, or however we want to frame it, but WTF, it's hard to keep up. It's like a fast-break of bullshit.

Expand full comment
Ian Bagley's avatar

Matt, is Patrick correct that the investigation was “wrong in every direction”? Patrick, you lived through that period as I did. Presumably you know the investigation was not “wrong in every direction.” So why are you saying it?

Expand full comment
RedBull's avatar

No one is coming to save you.

Expand full comment
Ian Bagley's avatar

Well there are actually plenty of people who have reported the facts on this. But Matt Taibbi won’t help, that’s for sure. As far as his readers know the Mueller investigation was “wrong in every direction”. It does not reflect well on him

Expand full comment
Patrick Lovell's avatar

Seriously, you're a dick.

Expand full comment
RedBull's avatar

I know that appeals to you. But I’m not that kind of sailor. You’ll have to settle for Ian’s reach-around.

Expand full comment
Ian Bagley's avatar

Diapers Redbull! Do diapers again! That was just hilarious!

Expand full comment
Patrick Lovell's avatar

Because, no one FOLLOWED THE MONEY!

Expand full comment
Ian Bagley's avatar

There was more than circumstantial evidence of collusion. Even if you disagree with Schiff about what the word “circumstantial” means, he wasn’t “spectacularly wrong.” Meanwhile, you’re talking about errors, but in the comments below you refer to an elaborate effort to deceive the American people. I will tell you honestly I think you know there was no such effort. I think you’re lying about it

Expand full comment
Gilbert Gélinas's avatar

Ok, so show us the « more than circumstantial evidence of collusion »

Expand full comment
Patrick Lovell's avatar

Gilbert. Deutsche Bank you twit!

Expand full comment
Ian Bagley's avatar

Why doesn’t Taibbi present evidence of the elaborate effort by intelligence to deceive the American people to think Trump colluded with Russians? Am I nuts to be asking for evidence of this?

Expand full comment
Ricky Roma's avatar

Ian. You are a bit dim. There is a mountain of evidence that the collusion narrative was a hoax. You are clearly only interested in confirming your priors, not finding out the truth. Trump can be a vile awful person AND not a treasonouy colluded with Russia. Why is this so hard for you. Did you read the Horowitz report? Get some critical thinking skills dude! You’re acting like an imbecile.

Expand full comment
Ian Bagley's avatar

You pivoted too quickly from the substance to name-calling. The Horowitz report does not say the investigation was a hoax. Right Matt?

Expand full comment
John Dub's avatar

Yes it does. Try reading it, not listening to what liars tell you is in it.

Expand full comment
Kevin's avatar

Smh.... You're insufferably and willfully blind.

Expand full comment
Patrick Lovell's avatar

Jesus Christ, not one of you can give even a remotely worthwhile assessment of Deutche Bank and Russian. You're freaking clueless.

Expand full comment
RedBull's avatar

Maybe if you learned to spell and improve your grammar.

Expand full comment
Ian Bagley's avatar

RedBull that wasn’t good enough. Say the diapers thing again that was hilarious!

Expand full comment
Jane's avatar

"Prove it to me" is a typical troll technique. Go back to your trainers for some new ideas, Pat.

Expand full comment
RedBull's avatar

Do you need Tabbi to change your diapers too?

Expand full comment
Patrick Lovell's avatar

Redbull, you mean nothing.

Expand full comment
Ian Bagley's avatar

RedBull is terrific. That bit about the diapers was just hilarious. Thanks RedBull, keep it up

Expand full comment
RedBull's avatar

I’m here all day.

Expand full comment
Patrick Lovell's avatar

No. Not nuts.

Expand full comment
Ian Bagley's avatar

Trump on tv asking Russia to hack Hillary’s emails is an obvious example.

Expand full comment
Adam's avatar

Asking someone to do something on public TV is by definition not collusion. You might want to consider refreshing your memory on what the term actually means.

Expand full comment
Ian Bagley's avatar

Ha! Nice try but Trump asking the Russians to hack Hillary’s emails is evidence of collusion, even if it isn’t collusion itself.

Expand full comment
Caliman's avatar

He didn't ask them to hack her emails. He asked anyone who had the emails to come forth and truthfully publish them. Ta see the difference?

Expand full comment
Jeremiah's avatar

I saw that live and it was obviously a joke and it's telling if that's all you can come up with. Trump is the worst president in history there's no need to make up lies.

Expand full comment
Ian Bagley's avatar

I can “come up with” plenty of evidence of collusion. It’s all in the Mueller report. You’re saying it was “obviously a joke” but the Russians launched an interference effort the very next day, right?

Expand full comment
John Dub's avatar

It was a joke you demented moron.

Expand full comment
John Dub's avatar

Again you dont believe senate testimony declassified transcripts etc.

But any old bollocks that Mensch/Abramson come out with is gospel.

Go away and try and have your head removed from your arse.

Expand full comment
ErrorError