Rachel Maddow is Bill O'Reilly

Of course she is. Anyone with a functioning brain stem and discernment knows this.

Except for the fact that she backs up her "stories" with facts, data, analysis and ultimately, responsibility for what she says. Otherwise, yeah, just another O'liely.

That excerpt doesn't exactly prove the claim, OP.

R2 can you read? She pushed the now debunked FAKE story about Russians offering bounties for American troops

Rachel Maddow is an obnoxious bitch with a dyke haircut.

Matt Taibbi is as reliable these days as Glenn Greenwald.

To wit, after everyone said that her coverage of Russian collusion in the 2016 election was overblown, it was confirmed by the State Department that everything she said was true and accurate. There was, in fact, a direct pipeline between Trump's campaign chairman Manafort and the Kremlin via Konstantin Kolimnik, proving collusion.

God I used to love Rachel. She ran me off though, literally ran me into the arms of Bill Maher.. and I feel guilty about that. But she's a fucking nutcase.

Gays get so upset about gender non-conforming gays and lesbians. That’s okay, they’re transing out.

[quote]can you read? She pushed the now debunked FAKE story about Russians offering bounties for American troops

Maybe the full article lays that out, but the excerpt doesn't.

Like at R5.

Erm, the Trump administration didn’t exactly push back on that. Unconfirmed doesn’t exactly mean untrue.

[quote] She pushed the now debunked FAKE story about Russians offering bounties for American troops

Actually, no. The story has not been debunked; the State Department simply didn't find evidence definitive enough to sanction Russia for it, specifically. That does not mean it didn't happen, nor does it mean that the evidence won't eventually emerge proving it happened.

ANd here's the kicker: if it is proven that the bounties did not happen, Maddow will admit it and publish a full retraction, taking responsibility for it. When did anyone on Fox do that?

I know, MAGAts don't do nuance.

R7 that’s nonsense. A “direct pipeline” has most certainly NOT been proven. It’s what they think MAY have happened. But keep telling yourself that. Mueller spent millions and millions of dollars and found nothing.

Anybody irrational enough to compare Rachel Maddow to Bill o’Reilly has zero credibility. About anything.

Maher is now buddies with Steve Bannon. You should be ashamed of watching him.

Maher is no longer liberal or progressive. He's another Dennis Miller, bound for Hollywood obscurity (which he will complain about for the rest of his life, naturally).

R13 it’s been debunked. It was a fake story. And even if it wasn’t debunked, why was Rachel pushing an unconfirmed rumor so hard? Aren’t journalists supposed to fact check?

[quote]Mueller spent millions and millions of dollars and found nothing.

We don't know what Mueller found out because his report has never been fully released. We only found out what Bill Barr wanted us to find out about, which was nothing.

R14, so how do you know what was in Mueller’s report when Barr hid so much of it?

Please provide the whole thing!

[quote]She pushed the now debunked FAKE story about Russians offering bounties for American troops

It wasn't a "fake" or "debunked" story at the time she reported it. It was being reported in reputable sources.

So, no, that isn't the same thing as people on FoxNews just making shit up, like the Jan 6 Capitol riots were Antifa.

And what a stupid comparison. Bill O'Reilly is irrelevant. And using Fox News of the Bush-era (instead of the Trump/Post-Trump era) is pointless and Fox is MUCH more irresponsible about saying BS than it was even in the Bush era.

R19 typical liberal brain rot. If mueller found something we would know. Those senators wouldn’t keep quiet.

[quote]Mueller spent millions and millions of dollars and found nothing.

That is not true. He got many convictions. And proved that Trump obstructed justice.

But he was thwarted at every step by Trump people who refused to cooperate and/or destroyed evidence. And by a DOJ that refused to act on criminal referrals.

Just this past week, we find that Manafort did collude with the Russians and Russian intelligence used information provided to them by the Trump campaign.

[quote]how do you know what was in Mueller’s report

I'm a policy wonk and news junkie. I read a lot of obscure reporting, evaluate it based on the what it says and the author's history for accuracy and credibility. What they were and are saying is that there was collusion between the Trump campaign(s), and the verification by intelligence professionals that was revealed this week confirms the fact that Mueller knew about the collusion pipeline from Manafort to Kilimnik. Mueller, however, was cut off at the knees by Trump and the GQP, so he put it all in the report knowing that one day it will all be made available, unredacted and documented.

I bet she knows the difference between a loofah and falafel. Not like that provincial LI Irish trash.

[quote][R19]typical liberal brain rot.

This is the equivalent of a drunken, wife beater telling someone they need help with their drinking problem because they added an extract to their cooking. Have a seat, you terrorist, insurrectionist, conspiracy-spreading klan rally, ignorant asshole.

[quote]Those senators wouldn’t keep quiet.

Yes, Miss Lindsay (for those of you unaware, he chaired the Senate Intelligence committee, and thus, what the Senate was allowed to publicly confirm) is always out there revealing the truth.

R25 why would democratic senators hide the truth? Give it up. There was no collusion

Did Rachel drag her wife down the stairs in front of the children after knocking back too much Cutty Sark, too?

[quote]Give it up. There was no collusion

My favorite part of the report, other than Sarah Huckabee Sanders admitting that she makes shit up, is when they concluded as a matter of law that Don, Jr. was probably too stupid to collude with anyone.

Remember when Rachel said that the Russians controlled our power sources and they were going to plunge the whole country into darkness forever?l

Remember when Laura Ingraham said that gay are disgusting?

Google how Matt Taibbi’s newspaper was shut down by Putin and he fled Russia in fear, only to become Russia’s defender now. Carrot and stick both firmly up his ass.

Or Matt simply respects the truth and is a true journalist who fact checks

Re the bounty allegations, Maddow merely reported on the issue as did every news agency and even Biden himself in one of the debates. It's only recently that the allegation has been questioned although not completely dismissed.

R29 - Even though I watch Maddow's show, I don't know what you're talking about. So my answer would be, "No."

Matt Taibbi is a hack who has lost any credibility he might have ever had. He posted a story recently telling the plight of some group who’s Google rankings dropped because of Google censorship. Google recalibrated things all the time. And everyone’s views goes down. That’s basic SEO. You’re not being targeted honey. You’re not special.

The bounty story was debunked awhile ago after some actual journalists did some deep diving and found absolutely zero evidence that that happened. Even the Army said it didn’t happen. And only now is the state department basically saying the same thing.

It’s just one of the MANY sketchy stories that Rachel has pushed with little to no evidence. Remember how she was humiliated when she got one page of Trump’s taxes and she spent two days hyping it up?

[quote]It’s just one of the MANY sketchy stories that Rachel has pushed with little to no evidence.

It was in the New York Times and the Washington Post.

It was completely responsible to comment on what they were reporting.

And you aren't fooling anyone by pretending you care about journalism or sourcing.

hmmm ... i wonder what rightwinger wrote the article.

*checks*

ah yes.

[quote]It’s just one of the MANY sketchy stories that Rachel has pushed with little to no evidence. Remember how she was humiliated when she got one page of Trump’s taxes and she spent two days hyping it up?

Any yet . . . we found out that the Trump taxes story was very valid. That is showed he had not paid income taxes for many years, paid exactly the same amount ($750 --LOL) in two years, and had messed with the values of properties and his father's estate to cheat on his taxes.

This has led to active criminal investigations. So Maddow was definitely onto a real story.

MSNBC is the left’s version of Fox News. Pure propaganda and essentially an arm of the DNC. Look no further than their coverage of Bernie Sanders.

Maddie was ABSOLUTELY CORRECT about Russia-Gate.

The GOP trying to pretend it was a lie doesn’t make it so.

Heck, even the bipartisan Senate investigation agreed.

[Quote] MSNBC is the left’s version of Fox News. Pure propaganda and essentially an arm of the DNC. Look no further than their coverage of Bernie Sanders.

Facts have a liberal slant. MSNBC reports on facts while Fox News has to twist them

R38 the page of taxes that Rachel got was one sheet from the year Trump and Melania were married. It was a total non story and it was probably leaked to her by the Trump White House just for a laugh. The NY Times is who got the REAL tax returns and uncovered that story

[Quote] Give it up. There was no collusion

Um, the Senate Investigation disagrees with you

R40 have any proof that Russiagate is real? Any documents you can source? I’ll wait

There was collusion, and it’s just the tip of the iceberg. The Trumpster tears are going to be delicious. Buckle up, Trump and company are going down like a five dollar whore, or in this case, like Melania on a typical weekday.

R45 that’s what liberals were saying during the mueller investigation LOL

R46 Even when Donald is indicted, you'll still be too stupid to realize how much trouble he is in. LOL, indeed.

Joy Reid is tucker Carlson. Total race baiter and she’s anti-white

Consider the source, OP.

And the answer to the headline is "No, she's not."

No, R48.

Seriously, WTF is wrong with you people?

Here's the thing: There is nothing Maddow could have done or will do to come close to the damage the right-wing has caused. The attempt to equate anything she has done with anything FOX does during one broadcast is sickening.

If Matt wants to go after "MSM," how about he start with the history of normalizing right-wing hate and conspiracy? Start with the "birther" crap or giving a platform to Trump even after his bigotry and racism were evident? How about continuing to host right-wing swine who are proven liars?

[quote]Joy Reid is tucker Carlson. Total race baiter and she’s anti-white

Tucker's show is vastly better than the unwatchable Reid.

R52 has to be Defecto.

If you're not, you're just another shit on here. No one has to like Reid, but you're scum of the earth to in any way attempt to normalize that Neo-Nazi shit who brushes away January 6th when we all know what that parasite would've said if it were ONE person who was Muslim, black or Hispanic who accidentally trespassed.

Filth.

the difference is the Right, all of it, invented a mythical Obama who was racist, socialist, treasonous, anti-American.

The Left may have gotten some stories wrong, but were totally accurate in seeing Trump as a fuckup, grifter, utterly self-centered, pathologiccally lying, authoritarian Russian agent. The details may be wrong very occasionally, but the overall story was all too accurate.

[quote]If you're not, you're just another shit on here. No one has to like Reid, but you're scum of the earth to in any way attempt to normalize that Neo-Nazi shit who brushes away January 6th when we all know what that parasite would've said if it were ONE person who was Muslim, black or Hispanic who accidentally trespassed. Filth.

What an idiot you are.

Nazi? That just reveals your low IQ.

R54, frankly, no one even has to attach political ideology to know that Trump is just a garbage individual in every way. One should reassess their own life if Trump is someone you admire. What a damaged person one must be to think that pile of shit is to be worshiped.

[quote]who brushes away January 6th

Please post any clip of Carlson brushing away Jan 6th. He fully condemned what happened.

What he did do was put things in perspective, not following the unhinged narrative of CNN and MSNBC.

[quote]Nazi? That just reveals your low IQ.

No, it reveals that you clearly share his mentality right down to "replacement theory" and eugenics. Are you such an idiot that he has to literally be shoving people into ovens to have the mentality of a Nazi? He's clearly a white supremacist at the least. He dehumanizes people who are not white.

[quote]What he did do was put things in perspective, not following the unhinged narrative of CNN and MSNBC.

Wrong, you shithead. It's quite easy to see his reaction to Portland or anything BLM-related vs a literal attempt to stop our democracy via violence and murder. There are side-by-side videos of him showing what a hypocritical pile of shit he is in his reactions. No one needs to watch CNN or MSNBC to know what Tucker is and that if you don't see it, it's because you're shit like he is.

Why are you pretending we don't all know what the right-wing reaction would be if a single POC or "liberal" did what thousands of right-wing parasites did on January 6th?

They didn't cover the Boulder shooting until they found out the guy was Muslim. Stop pretending FOX doesn't have an agenda when it comes to scapegoating people who are not white and Christian. It's their bread and butter. No one could listen to or know about Trump and think he should be among civilized society, let alone president.

I had a family member who worked at FOX for eight years ("it was just a paycheck" according to him). Don't tell me I don't know what their agenda was, because I know.

[quote]No, it reveals that you clearly share his mentality right down to "replacement theory" and eugenics.

Once again: you do not know what you are talking about. Carlson's segment on the issue was well reasoned.

[quote]Stop pretending FOX doesn't have an agenda when it comes to scapegoating people who are not white and Christian.

Nowhere near as bad as Joy Reid and her hate of anything white.

ALL of these cable news shows have to be watched through a filter.

I exclusively watch MSNBC and CNN through the day. But I do tune into Carlson.

I used to like Taibbi’s reporting back in Rolling Stone, where he most accurately described Goldman Sachs. But these days he seems more and more about taking down mainstream media as a blatant arm of the Democratic Party, a la Glenn Greenwald.

When did they start hanging out? Are they cruising the same school playgrounds looking for young trade?

A very tainted paycheck, r59.

Matt Taibbi the author of the linked article is John Grisham a decent fiction writer.

OP is a total waste of carbon.

R60, did you ever actually watch John Oliver's segment on Tucker Carlson? If not, you should. If you have and still think Carlson's normal, then you clearly harbor prejudice and you think it's perfectly acceptable that actual human beings who live, work and pay taxes in this country who are not white have to deal with the consequences of Carlson constantly polluting the minds of predominantly white people who will constantly feel they are being wronged by their fellow Americans who aren't white. Tucker serves solely to justify manufactured grievances.

R65 I adore John Oliver but I don't need him to explain Carlson for me. I watch Tucker's show.

You actually should, R66. Perhaps you would then see the glaring hypocrisy in how he covers events. I think all MSM is shit, but I know Tucker Carlson is dangerous and your apathy is why he gets away with what he does.

I guess you feel you're immune from his toxic narratives and couldn't care less that others are subjected to the garbage he spreads. You're witnessing the demise of this country at the hands of people like Carlson who've allowed genuinely stupid, dangerous and evil people like Trump and MTG to ascend to higher office and who win using hate and political ads holding an assault rifle at the heads of their now colleagues. Non-white women who've been dehumanized and turned into nefarious caricatures by FOX and Carlson. They've gotten death threats over it. And for what? Because they believe in accountability and universal healthcare.

R62, I can't disagree. He used to be ashamed when people asked where he worked because he knew the reaction he'd get most of the time and he had no respect for anyone who thought it was great that he did work for them.

Matt Tiabbi has gone way, way, way down-hill over the last 5-10 years. He's a complete piece of shit now.

Matt’s point is that Rachel spends weeks pushing conspiracy theories and promoting fake stories with sketchy sources and then when she’s proven wrong she does not acknowledge it or apologise for lying to her audience. Just moves onto the next conspiracy theory

R70, this would be a scandal if that was in fact what she did and does... but that's just more gaslighting lies from a failed greenwald wannabe like Tiabbi. He's full of shit, and more guilty of what he accuses Maddow of than Maddow.

R70, are you Canadian or European? I won't do the "Boris" thing, but you're clearly not American-born and you clearly don't watch Maddow because with the exception of Trump's taxes -which were a big dud- most of what she does is cover stories in-depth, usually breaking from WaPo or NYT.

Get back to me when her lawyer defends her by saying no one in their right mind could take her seriously. Are you going to deny that, too, about Carlson and his lawyer?

You still going to pretend any lucid person could take Carlson seriously?

[quote]Non-white women who've been dehumanized and turned into nefarious caricatures by FOX and Carlson.

What non-white woman has been turned into a nefarious caricature by Carlson? I guess I missed that show.

R73 Lawyers do what they gotta do to save a client from a lawsuit.

R74, enough. We get it. You prefer to believe your lying eyes and ears. You're not American-born and you love Tucker.

Weak, R75. So weak.

Absolutely. Matt Taibbi is really good.

[quote]If Matt wants to go after "MSM," how about he start with the history of normalizing right-wing hate and conspiracy?

Because he's trying to build his SubStack subscriber base and covering the same thing every one else is won't help him stand out.

So instead, he's being "provocative" and "edgy," hoping to gin up social media mentions and get people to check out his newsletter.

John Oliver...

RE: John Oliver

The flight suit stuff WAS ridiculous and John Oliver did well mentioning it.

The rest of his piece is the usual big nothing, he resorts to personal attacks, things said decades ago etc..

C'mon John, if you are going after Tucker you can do better.

[Quote] have any proof that Russiagate is real? Any documents you can source? I’ll wait

Please actually read the Mueller and Senate Reports

From article in R82–

A sprawling report released Tuesday by a Republican-controlled Senate panel that spent three years investigating Russia’s interference in the 2016 election laid out an extensive web of contacts between Trump campaign advisers and Kremlin officials and other Russians, including at least one intelligence officer and others tied to the country’s spy services.

The report by the Senate Intelligence Committee, totaling nearly 1,000 pages, drew to a close one of the highest-profile congressional investigations in recent memory and could be the last word from an official government inquiry about the expansive Russian campaign to sabotage the 2016 election.

It provided a bipartisan Senate imprimatur for an extraordinary set of facts: The Russian government disrupted an American election to help Mr. Trump become president, Russian intelligence services viewed members of the Trump campaign as easily manipulated, and some of Mr. Trump’s advisers were eager for the help from an American adversary.

[Quote] the page of taxes that Rachel got was one sheet from the year Trump and Melania were married. It was a total non story and it was probably leaked to her by the Trump White House just for a laugh. The NY Times is who got the REAL tax returns and uncovered that story

Except it was real and came far before The NY Times got a copy of the full tax filing.

Because it was the very first time anyone got a copy of a Trump tax form, it was a huge story and important because it showed the lengths he went to get everything right just as Melania was getting citizenship

Please give some concrete examples of Rachel making up stories:

Russiagate was correct. the Trump Taxes were real.

[Quote] The bounty story was debunked awhile ago after some actual journalists did some deep diving and found absolutely zero evidence that that happened. Even the Army said it didn’t happen. And only now is the state department basically saying the same thing.

No where has the bounty story been debunked.

Rachel has never had a lawyer argue on her behalf that what she said no reasonable person could expect to be true.

Tucker has. As have many other Repugs.

All Repugs lie. All the time. It’s all they have, so it’s all they do.

Maddow's lawyers used basically the same tactic in a case against her:

"Media lawyers note this is not the first time this sort of defense has been offered. A $10 million libel lawsuit filed by the owners of One America News Network against MSNBC's top star, Rachel Maddow, was dismissed in May when the judge ruled she had stretched the established facts allowably: "The context of Maddow's statement shows reasonable viewers would consider the contested statement to be opinion."

It doesn't matter what lawyers claim. It is the court to decide. In Carlson's case it was this:

"“The Court concludes that the statements are rhetorical hyperbole and opinion commentary intended to frame a political debate, and, as such, are not actionable as defamation,” Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil noted in her ruling."

Troll thread. Posting from Moscow or Macedonia?

They do have the same hairstyle.

BTW I'm surprised O'Reilly hasn't returned to TV on one of those startup republican networks.

Former heroin addict, former gofer for the Russian military who wrote a book advocating raping women to "put them in their place" has opinions about Rachel's research on Russia being nothing but ungrounded conspiracy theories?

And I give 2/3rds of a flying fuck because...?

[quote]R40 have any proof that Russiagate is real? Any documents you can source? I’ll wait.

Hope you've got time for some background reading, Petrushka.

Senate report Vol. 1

Senate report Vol. 2

Senate report, vol. 3

Senate report, vol. 4.

Senate report, vol. 5.

House Intelligence Committee, Russian Investigation Transcripts and Documents.

[quote]“Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump.”

[quote]Democrats on the Committee affirmed that judgement, as did Special Counsel Robert Mueller, and the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee. Throughout its investigation, the Committee uncovered significant evidence of Trump campaign efforts to seek, make use of, and cover up Russian help in the 2016 presidential election. To date, two witnesses have been convicted and sentenced to prison terms for lying and attempting to obstruct the Committee’s investigation.

House Intelligence Committee: Exposing Russia’s Effort to Sow Discord Online: The Internet Research Agency and Advertisements

[quote]“Defendants, posing as U.S. persons and creating false U.S. personas, operated social media pages and groups designed to attract U.S. audiences. These groups and pages, which addressed divisive U.S. political and social issues, falsely claimed to be controlled by U.S. activists when, in fact, they were controlled by Defendants. Defendants also used the stolen identities of real U.S. persons to post on ORGANIZATION-controlled social media accounts. Over time, these social media accounts became Defendants’ means to reach significant numbers of Americans for purposes of interfering with the U.S. political system, including the presidential election of 2016.”

[quote][The IRA]“[H]ad a strategic goal to sow discord in the U.S. political system, including the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Defendants posted derogatory information about a number of candidates, and by early to mid-2016, Defendants’ operations included supporting the presidential campaign of then-candidate Donald J. Trump (“Trump Campaign”) and disparaging Hillary Clinton. Defendants made various expenditures to carry out those activities, including buying political advertisements on social media in the names of U.S. persons and entities. Defendants also staged political rallies inside the United States, and while posing as U.S. grassroots entities and U.S. persons, and without revealing their Russian identities and ORGANIZATION affiliation, solicited and compensated real U.S. persons to promote or disparage candidates. Some Defendants, posing as U.S. persons and without revealing their Russian association, communicated with unwitting individuals associated with the Trump Campaign and with other political activists to seek to coordinate political activities.”

From the DOJ indictment against Russia's Internet Research Agency:

[quote]Defendants, posing as U.S. persons and creating false U.S. personas, operated social media pages and groups designed to attract U.S. audiences. These groups and pages, which addressed divisive U.S. political and social issues, falsely claimed to be controlled by U.S. activists when, in fact, they were controlled by Defendants. Defendants also used the stolen identities of real U.S. persons to post on ORGANIZATION-controlled social media accounts. Over time, these social media accounts became Defendants’ means to reach significant numbers of Americans for purposes of interfering with the U.S. political system, including the presidential election of 2016.

[quote]5. Certain Defendants traveled to the United States under false pretenses for the purpose of collecting intelligence to inform Defendants’ operations. Defendants also procured and used computer infrastructure, based partly in the United States, to hide the Russian origin of their activities and to avoid detection by U.S. regulators and law enforcement.

[quote]6. Defendant ORGANIZATION had a strategic goal to sow discord in the U.S. political system, including the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Defendants posted derogatory information about a number of candidates, and by early to mid-2016, Defendants’ operations included supporting the presidential campaign of then-candidate Donald J. Trump (“Trump Campaign”) and disparaging Hillary Clinton. Defendants made various expenditures to carry out those activities, including buying political advertisements on social media in the names of U.S. persons and entities. Defendants also staged political rallies inside the United States, and while posing as U.S. grassroots entities and U.S. persons, and without revealing their Russian identities and ORGANIZATION affiliation, solicited and compensated real U.S. persons to promote or disparage candidates. Some Defendants, posing as U.S. persons and without revealing their Russian association, communicated with unwitting individuals associated with the Trump Campaign and with other political activists to seek to coordinate political activities.

[quote]7. In order to carry out their activities to interfere in U.S. political and electoral processes without detection of their Russian affiliation, Defendants conspired to obstruct the lawful functions of the United States government through fraud and deceit, including by making expenditures in connection with the 2016 U.S. presidential election without proper regulatory disclosure; failing to to register as foreign agents carrying out political activities within the United States; and obtaining visas through false and fraudulent statements.

From the DOJ's indictment against Marina Butina:

[quote]As detailed below, the FBI's investigation has revealed that BUTINA, the defendant, was worldng in the United States at the direction of the RUSSIAN OFFICIAL.

[quote]14.The FBI's investigation has further revealed that BUTIN~ and the RUSSIAN OFFICIAL took steps to develop relationships with American politicians in order to establish private, or as she called them, "back channel" lines of communication. These lines could be used by the Russian Federation to penetrate the U.S. national decision-making apparatus to advance the agenda of the Russian Federation.

[quote]15. The FBI's investigation has also revealed that BUTINA and the RUSSIAN OFFICIAL planned to advance Moscow's long-term strategic objectives in the United States, in part, by establishing relationships with American political organizations, including the GUN RIGHTS ORGANIZATION. Based on my training, experience and familiarity with this investigation, I believe that BUTINA and the RUSSIAN OFFICIAL took these steps in order to infiltrate those groups and advance the interests of the Russian Federation.

[quote]16. The Russian influence operation included, among other things, (i) taskings from the RUSSIAN OFFICIAL to BUTINA; (ii) meetings between BUTINA and U.S. politicians and political candidates; (iii) BUTINA's attendance at events sponsored by special interest groups, also attended by U.S. politicians and political candidates; and (iv) BUTINA's reporting back to Moscow through the RUSSIAN OFFICIAL the results of the various encounters with the U.S.

There aren't Russian translations of this material available, but I'm sure you can have somebody explain the findings to you.

And here's the kicker: unlike Russia, where you can make criminal charges spun out of pure horseshit stick on the legal grounds of "Putin is unhappy", American courts require things like evidence and proof. The DOJ's indictments against the IRA specify login names, IP addresses, date/time stamps of when users logged on, etc.

[quote]No where has the bounty story been debunked.

To be completely fair, the bounty story hasn't been proven false but it hasn't yet been proven true. Biden's sanctions announcements this week said as such.

There could be concrete proof of the bounties allegations out there, but usgovt hasn't unearthed it yet.

Which, incidentally, I learned from Rachel Maddow this week - that per the Biden administration the story about bounties hasn't been conclusively proven yet.

So OP: take your comparisons of Rachel to Tucker Carlson and shove them up your fat white Russian syphilitic prolapsed butthole.

Shocking. More false equivalencies from a stupid fucking troll.

[Quote] To be completely fair, the bounty story hasn't been proven false but it hasn't yet been proven true. Biden's sanctions announcements this week said as such.

Yes, Biden will wait until there is absolute proof before he uses it as a reason for sanctions, but he’s not totally discounting the possibility in order to suck Putin’s ass.

[Quote] There could be concrete proof of the bounties allegations out there, but usgovt hasn't unearthed it yet.

There is a huge difference between “there isn’t conclusive proof” and “debunked.”

And why is there no conclusive proof? Because Trump did everything he could to sideline and gut our Intel Agencies. Anybody who proved him or herself to be competent and hard-working, was fired!

Omg

Thanks for bumping this troll post, R108, who we are all going to politely pretend ISN'T also the OP, using a different account.

OP posts pro-Trump shit and anti-trans trolling shit, which I doubt will come as a shock to anyone.

OP thanks for posting this. I don't agree with Matt Taibbi about everything but he's an interesting voice.

[quote]Matt Taibbi is really good.

He used to be. He's a tired tin-hatted hack these days.

OP in the 𝗙𝗮𝘂𝗰𝗶 𝗼𝗻 𝗺𝗮𝘀𝗸 𝘂𝘀𝗮𝗴𝗲: 𝗩𝗮𝗰𝗰𝗶𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗽𝗲𝗼𝗽𝗹𝗲 𝗰𝗮𝗻 𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗹𝗹 "𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗱𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘁𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗹𝘆 𝗶𝗻𝗳𝗲𝗰𝘁" 𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿𝘀 thread:

He’s dreaming if he thinks vaccinated people are going to put up with wearing masks for much longer. We were told the vaccines were our tickets out of the pandemic. Let’s start acting like it. It’s extremely poor messaging to tell people who are vaccine hesitant that even if they get the vaccine their lives won’t change. I live in CT and Lamont just announced we are fully reopened by May 19th. Give people something to look forward to.

Shorter R112: "Lie to me."

R112 What a weirdo you are.

[quote] It’s extremely poor messaging to tell people who are vaccine hesitant that even if they get the vaccine their lives won’t change. I live in CT and Lamont just announced we are fully reopened by May 19th. Give people something to look forward to.

Agreed.

[quote]Rachel Maddow is Bill O'Reilly

I told you so.

Fuck off, R112. I’m fully vaccinated and will continue to wear a mask. Don’t like it? Eat shit.