Not a big CNN fan, but this is a very well-done dissection.

  • wagoner@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    134
    ·
    10 months ago

    The strategy here is to be able to say Biden was impeached, just like Trump was, when it comes to 2024. Devalue the process. Neutralize Trump’s impeachments. You say Biden’s is illegitimate? So does trump about his.

    It doesn’t matter to this strategy if the claims have any value. It doesn’t matter if they never get voted on, either. Just having an inquiry could be enough.

    • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      38
      ·
      10 months ago

      Conservatives love this shit. Every time the left starts using a new term, after about a six month lag the right will start using it, but they’re so goddamn stupid they don’t know what it means so they just use it as a general insult.

    • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      10 months ago

      The strategy here is to be able to say Biden was impeached, just like Trump was, when it comes to 2024. Devalue the process. Neutralize Trump’s impeachments.

      We as a society have a real problem, when one side loses the culture wars, and decides a pyrrhic victory is the way to go, what happens to all of us then.

    • June@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      10 months ago

      Yep, 100% delegitimizing impeachment that doesn’t include removal from office. Though, they did that with Clinton already.

    • Ibex0@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      10 months ago

      Absolutely, minimize the whole concept of impeachment AND if you get any new information, (like Hillary’s email server being revealed during Benghazi hearings) that’s a bonus.

  • ZeroCool@feddit.ch
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    59
    ·
    10 months ago

    Turns out that it’s extremely difficult to provide damning evidence for imaginary crimes you’ve dreamed up.

  • Jordan Lund@lemmy.one
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    55
    ·
    10 months ago

    So much emphasis on the FBI 1023 form by people who either have no idea what that form is, or people who intentionally misrepresent what it is:

    https://socxfbi.org/SFSA/SFSA/Featured-Articles/Message-from-the-FBI-on-the-FD-1023-Request-from-Congress.aspx

    “As many of you know, the FD-1023 is the form our special agents use to record raw, unverified reporting from confidential human sources (CHSs). FD-1023s merely document that information; they do not reflect the conclusions of investigators based on a fuller context or understanding. Recording this information does not validate it, establish its credibility, or weigh it against other information known or developed by the FBI in our investigations.

    Bolding mine.

    It’s literally the FBI equivalent of “Some-body once told me…”

  • twelvefloatinghands@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    10 months ago

    I’ve been thinking that fact checking alone is not enough. Are there any projects focused on identifying the sources of false talking points?

      • dudinax@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        10 months ago

        I don’t think so. Much of it gets funneled or even created from the top.

        I was surprised in 2020 by how many “grassroots” election conspiracy theories became popular because they were promoted by the Trump team.