Matt TaibbiVerified account

@mtaibbi

Author of THE DIVIDE, GRIFTOPIA, THE BUSINESS SECRETS OF DRUG DEALING, and HATE INC. My 2019 resolution was no more Twitter vitriol, but that lasted nine days.

Jersey City, NJ
taibbi.substack.com/http://www.rol…
Joined May 2009
255 Photos and videos Photos and videos

Tweets

You blocked @mtaibbi

Are you sure you want to view these Tweets? Viewing Tweets won't unblock @mtaibbi

  1. 7 hours ago

    Early campaign 2020 observation: Sanders picks really interesting bands

    24 replies 7 retweets 81 likes
    Undo
  2. Retweeted
    15 hours ago

    "We have to silence this voice" - Chomsky on the obvious, primary motivation behind the indictment of Assange, cheered by the establishment wings of both main parties in the US & UK. He also discusses the US belief that it can punish people anywhere in the world for reporting:

    23 replies 474 retweets 834 likes
    Show this thread
    Show this thread
    Undo
  3. Retweeted
    15 hours ago

    And here's the greatest whistleblower of the prior generation - Daniel Ellsberg - echoing Chomsky in denouncing Assange's indictment: "It's a very serious assault on the First Amendment, clearly an attempt to rescind freedom of the press"- comparing this to what Nixon did to him:

    22 replies 436 retweets 778 likes
    Show this thread
    Show this thread
    Undo
  4. Apr 12

    Crowd waiting to Feel the Bern in frigid Madison. “I need to feel the warmth,” quips student in audience.

    10 replies 14 retweets 109 likes
    Undo
  5. Apr 12

    Ha! At least in the case of Wall Street regulators, they have real power they could be exercising.

    Replying to @mtaibbi
    Similar relationships: Wall St. and regulators, the Pentagon and fiscal hawks, the Globetrotters and the Generals.
    9 replies 10 retweets 61 likes
    Undo
  6. Apr 12

    That’s exactly right, but transparency is losing in a blowout. Leakers go to jail or remain in exile, while intelligence officials who oversee dubious secret programs and lie to congress end up as cable news commentators!

    Replying to @mtaibbi
    In a democracy there should be a lot of tension between journalists and people who want to keep secrets. They're both right oftentimes. The intelligence agencies should want, and are right to keep their secrets, and journalists are right to want to expose most of them.
    38 replies 305 retweets 858 likes
    Undo
  7. Apr 12

    There are simply too many things kept secret, from the budgets of intelligence agencies to programs like drone assassination and mass surveillance, even the abuse histories of police officers. Secrecy breeds corruption, and we have far too much of it.

    Replying to @mtaibbi
    Should journalists/publishers be able to publish anything they get their hands on without legal consequence - regardless of source, content or methods? I doubt most journalists believe this. Most Americans certainly don't. But that appears to be what you and Greenwald are for.
    109 replies 1,065 retweets 2,829 likes
    Undo
  8. Apr 12

    No, I think outlets should sort, review and explain material as released. Pretty sure Glenn thinks that, too - it’s one of the ideas behind the Intercept. But I also understand the radical transparency argument, especially as secret/classified governance has expanded so fast.

    Replying to @mtaibbi
    Should journalists/publishers be able to publish anything they get their hands on without legal consequence - regardless of source, content or methods? I doubt most journalists believe this. Most Americans certainly don't. But that appears to be what you and Greenwald are for.
    14 replies 24 retweets 121 likes
    Undo
  9. Apr 12

    Total? Because by year, civilian deaths and bombings in the Middle East have gone up. It’s one of the few things the press hasn’t criticized Trump for.

    Replying to @mtaibbi
    honestly trump's kill count is way lower than obama's and what hillary's probably would have been
    14 replies 73 retweets 263 likes
    Undo
  10. Apr 12

    This has nothing to do with 2016. It’s a case about 2010. Think about what he and Manning (and others) were exposing then, then consider which set of actors should have faced rebuke and punishment, and which actually have.

    Replying to @mtaibbi @ggreenwald
    Matt I have always read you seriously. Glenn Greenwald much less so over the years. Assange helped to give us Donald Trump. Assange can’t have believed that there would be no real world consequences from his choices. Did he not care? Many suffer far worse.
    39 replies 140 retweets 591 likes
    Undo
  11. Apr 12

    This piece by about the Assange case lays out in tremendous detail why this is such a dangerous prosecution - a big step en route to a long-standing effort to define national security reporting as conspiracy.

    94 replies 751 retweets 1,435 likes
    Undo
  12. Apr 11

    There’s no other American case I’m aware of.

    . Can you confirm this the only indictment? It seems thin gruel, and contains zero mention of any alleged “conspiracy” w/Russia to get DNC/Podesta emails.
    18 replies 8 retweets 56 likes
    Undo
  13. Apr 11

    Replying to @xychelsea @mtaibbi
    That's great. How do we donate to the prosecutor?
    18 replies 7 retweets 86 likes
    Undo
  14. Retweeted
    Apr 11

    ** Reminder: Chelsea is still in need of funds for her legal expenses. Please donate if you can, and help spread the word so she can have a soft landing when she is finally released!

    99 replies 835 retweets 1,183 likes
    Show this thread
    Show this thread
    Undo
  15. Apr 11

    Wow, that is a bizarre interview even by Holder’s standards. I expected him to ask what year it was in the middle of it.

    Nothing says here makes any sense whatsoever. It's incoherent because the question of whether WikiLeaks acted in conjunction with Russia has nothing at all to do with Trump DOJ's indictment. Holder chose not to prosecute Assange based on the same info Trump DOJ cited:
    14 replies 35 retweets 153 likes
    Undo
  16. Apr 11

    Re that potshot: Obama is the record-Holder for prosecuting leakers using the Espionage Act:

    Replying to @mtaibbi
    Tell me about it. Obama investigated, which seemed like a prudent move, and decided not to pursue it. As such, he should be a hero in the telling to people opposed to what happened today. Yet your column about Assange takes potshots nonetheless.
    12 replies 53 retweets 230 likes
    Undo
  17. Apr 11

    Can nothing get people past partisan politics? This case is the perfect example of how government agencies have imperatives that transcend parties. Donald “I love Wikileaks” Trump just filed charges in a case opened two presidential elections ago!

    Replying to @mtaibbi
    But it's kind of Obama's doing anyway, right? At least that's what the column implied.
    25 replies 54 retweets 238 likes
    Undo
  18. Apr 11

    How is reporting that Mueller never interviewed Assange - which could mean a lot of things - defending “Russian involvement”?

    Replying to @mtaibbi
    Your coverage of the mortgage/financial crisis was unbelievable. I must say, I don’t quite understand your rush to defend everything relating to the Russian involvement with political narratives. It’s almost like you’re going out of your way to defend the Indefensible? It seems
    13 replies 17 retweets 107 likes
    Undo
  19. Apr 11

    There could be more. We just haven’t seen it. You’d really need to see the whole exchange to judge, but what’s been released isn’t much. The Obama DOJ couldn’t/didn’t make a case on this.

    Replying to @MelissaJPeltier @AriMelber
    Did you see the evidence? just published a piece in Rolling Stone in which he cited the "evidence" you are referring to as pretty specious.
    8 replies 12 retweets 59 likes
    Undo
  20. Apr 11

    Special Counsel Robert Mueller never attempted to interview Assange about 2016. A Senate committee made one contact about potential testimony, but never followed through. Details:

    41 replies 193 retweets 330 likes
    Undo

@mtaibbi hasn't Tweeted yet.

Loading seems to be taking a while.

Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.

    You may also like

    ·