Republican witness Matt Taibbi had a very bad day when Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz got her five minutes to question him on journalistic ethics.
Matt Taibbi, Meet Your Own Petard.
Published
Tidewater News and Opinion Forum
A place for civil discussion of the events of the day for Tidewater residents without the limitations imposed by media forums.
Tidewater News and Opinion Forum 
How did Matt Taibbi have a bad day?
LikeLike
He got his ass handed to him using his own words. That is having a bad day.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I saw the exchange. Debbie Wasserman Schultz is an idiot. Her comments proved nothing.
LikeLike
Sexism or anti-Semitism? Which one are you brimming today? Or is it a touch of both?
LikeLike
Don’t be ridiculous, Mr. Green.
LikeLike
Touch a nerve, Mr. Roberts?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sure. It always touches a nerve when you behave like a fool.
LikeLike
If I behave like a fool, in your opinion, what harm does it to you?
Or are you afraid to HONESTLY answer my question?
LikeLike
RE: “Or are you afraid to HONESTLY answer my question?”
Not at all. The answers are No and Neither. You couldn’t figure that out?
LikeLike
Not by your words. Calling a Female Jewish Congress Person “an idiot” leads me to believe you have issue with her for one or both.
LikeLike
“Debbie Wasserman Schultz is an idiot. ”
Well, I will not try to argue with such an insightful analysis.
But, whether she is and idiot or not, she has a staff that did their homework, found the evidence, and made poor little Matt Taibbi look like the money-grubbing, hypocrit poseur that he has become.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “But, whether she is and idiot or not, she has a staff that did their homework, found the evidence, and made poor little Matt Taibbi look like the money-grubbing, hypocrit poseur that he has become.”
Again, how did she do that?
LikeLike
“Again, how did she do that?”
Uh, just watch the video again. If you do not see how skillfully she used his own words to skewer what he is doing as a Musk’s messenger boy, then I cannot help you.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “Uh, just watch the video again.”
I take it you are capable of expressing the thought that a thought exists, but not of describing the thought itself.
Ms. Shultz made a lot of assertions, but didn’t substantiate a single one. What, exactly, do you think she accomplished?
LikeLike
As I already said, I cannot help you. I doubt that anyone can.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well, I tried to give you a chance. It is now clear you can’t help anyone.
LikeLike
That was nothing but ad hominem, and weak at that. Did Woodward and Berstein not profit?
Note that she could not refute what was released.
Only weak minds are convinced by ad hominem alone.
LikeLike
“Only weak minds are convinced by ad hominem alone.”
You obviously do not even know what “ad hominem” means.
She did not even try to refute anything released with her line of questions. There was nothing released that needs to be refuted. She just made it clear that it was cherry-picked and spun into conspiracy nonsense by a paid partisan hack who violated his own stated journalistic principles to do it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “She just made it clear that it was cherry-picked and spun into conspiracy nonsense by a paid partisan hack who violated his own stated journalistic principles to do it.”
She failed at that.
LikeLike
“She failed at that.”
Believe what you want.
I say it was a damned effective questioning.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Effective at what?
LikeLike
She attacked Taibbi’s motives instead of refuting what he reported.
LikeLike
She attacked his methods – accepting cherry-picked information.
Besides there is nothing in the Twitter files that needs to be refuted. If there is, maybe you can state what it is?
LikeLiked by 1 person
It is evident by the responses that the best our conservative posters could muster “ad hominem” and Wasserman was an “idiot”…ad hominem also, no?
True, she is, and always has been sharp tongued. But taking his own quote from a live broadcast about his journalistic ethics of taking reports without question, and then doing precisely that apparently is no problem. And implying the FBI paid 3.4 million to censor was also a lie.
So, no disagreement from the right here, just she is an idiot.
Usually when personal insults are the only comeback, a nerve has been jangled.
As Bush the Younger once said (misquoted and fumbled to great amusement) “fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice shame on me”. No one likes to be shamed.
MAGA in a nutshell, perhaps. IMO
LikeLiked by 2 people
RE: “But taking his own quote from a live broadcast about his journalistic ethics of taking reports without question, and then doing precisely that apparently is no problem.”
Who says Taibi took “reports without question”? Shultz never even gave him the chance to reply.
LikeLike