Greenwald running cover for Russia?

[SHRED]

Last edited Sun Dec 11, 2016, 04:16 PM - Edit history (2)

Needless to say, Democrats — still eager to make sense of their election loss and to find causes for it other than themselves — immediately declared these anonymous claims about what the CIA believes to be true, and, with a somewhat sweet, religious-type faith, treated these anonymous assertions as proof of what they wanted to believe all along: that Vladimir Putin was rooting for Donald Trump to win and Hillary Clinton to lose and used nefarious means to ensure that outcome. That Democrats are now venerating unverified, anonymous CIA leaks as sacred is par for the course for them this year, but it’s also a good indication of how confused and lost U.S. political culture has become in the wake of Trump’s victory.

https://theintercept.com/2016/12/10/anonymous-leaks-to-the-washpost-about-the-cias-russia-beliefs-are-no-substitute-for-evidence/

...

He did work his ass off to make sure Hillary didn't get elected after all.




On edit...for transparency I did have a personal encounter with him recently.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10028282801

[MFM008]

1. Yes

And Snowdon and Assange.

[Abu Pepe]

2. Yeah. He is the third member of the unholy Trinity of Putin apologists and anti - US agit prop. nt

[SHRED]

3. And apparently Juan Cole sadly

No, America, it wasn’t Russia: You did it to Yourself

http://www.juancole.com/2016/12/america-russia-yourself.html

[onecaliberal]

4. He's a huge piece of shit

[SHRED]

12. Maybe he should live in Russia?

He could stroll down the avenue hand in hand with his husband and see how the government treats him.

[onecaliberal]

20. He definitely should

[FarCenter]

23. Isn't he still in Rio de Janeiro?

His boyfriend was elected to the city council in 2016.

[lapucelle]

5. Greenwald is useless.

He's a holier than thou, judgmental, bluestocking who helped to ensure the Trump win.

[SHRED]

10. Check this out

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10028282801

[lapucelle]

13. Wow.

You certainly hit a raw nerve with the saintly Mr. Greenwood. He and Comey are cut from different ends of the same cloth.

[flamingdem]

6. The Nation's Katrina Vandenheuvel retweeted his story

That gang has always had a soft spot..

Katrina vandenHeuvel ?@KatrinaNation 11m11 minutes ago

Anonymous leaks to the WashPost about the CIA's Russia beliefs are no substitute for evidence https://interc.pt/2hpqxYM by @ggreenwald

[Generator]

9. Holy shitcan

Maybe he's turned. Blackmail by Russians? Snowden? Nothing is certain anymore. He freaking actually sounds like he's working for Russia. Double holy shitcan. He links to Tucker Carlson. Good god. The sneering tone of that peace is unbelievable as well!

[SHRED]

11. He didn't like what I told him

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10028282801

[KittyWampus]

32. You hit a nerve. He's got to be uncomfortable knowing he was used by Russia.

He's not the brightest bulb on the tree, but it has to have dawned on him he was the proverbial useful idiot.

[JI7]

17. she is a career leftist

[Generator]

8. I don't know but I don't trust him anymore

AT ALL. He and intercept attacked viciously this group on twitter propornot that is uncovering Russian propaganda. He claimed it was McCarthyism because some of the sites were possibly good but that wasn't the point. He's lost me. http://www.propornot.com/p/home.html

[KittyWampus]

31. Thanks for the link.

[gulliver]

14. Greenwald is a complete asshole. Snowden too.

They both fed mistrust of the American government. Now look what's happened.

[KamaAina]

15. Your autocorrect snuck a question mark in there for some reason

[SHRED]

16. Now that's funny right there

[bettyellen]

18. Anything to smear all Dems from a safe place in South America

[Cicada]

19. Greenwood has consistently warned about anonymous govt sources

Anonymous us govt sources often lie. Greenwald has always pointed out they are unreliable. This is not proof he is pro Russia.

[pnwmom]

22. No, but he's consistently harder on the US than Russia,

and he helped Snowden go there.

Trump and his deplorables also argue on behalf of Russia -- and they're wrong, too.

[Cicada]

25. The US probably does more bad things than Russia

Russia has 10 military bases outside Russia. The US has almost 800. We kill vastly more people than Russia does. We invade far more countries. We interfere in far more foreign elections.

We also do more goods things than Russia does by far.

But maybe it is reasonable to criticize the US more than Russia.

And Snowden should get the Nobel Peace Prize in my opinion. He revealed secrets hidden from the US public kept secret to hide government misbehavior from the public. Our enemies already knew most of what Snowden revealed.

Greenwald seems on the mark as far as I can tell.

[MineralMan]

40. WTF?

[truebluegreen]

26. Aren't we harder on those we expect more from?

I for example don't expect much from deplorables, and a lot from DU.

[pnwmom]

27. We often are and that's dumb. That led many progressives

to be harder on Hillary than on DT, and that was a grievous error.

[truebluegreen]

29. Yes, all those people wanting Hillary to commit

to positions they cared about are why Trump won. Right.

We demand more from people who are capable of it, and that's as it should be.

[pnwmom]

33. All those people guilty of false equivalence.

As if speeches to Goldman Sachs in return for donations to her charitable foundation were comparable to DT's long history of corruption and fraud.

[truebluegreen]

35. You do understand that our entire government

is full of corruption and fraud, right? That lobbyists for corporations write laws--and "gold-standard" treaties--through legislators their employers donated to, right? That much of what Nixon was almost impeached for is now legal, right? Legalized bribery is rampant in the US system and for many it seems making it legal makes it right, or even normal. It doesn't and it isn't.

There is no doubt that DT is corrupt to his core, personally and in his business dealings. But Hillary's speeches to Goldman Sachs are not a nothingburger (unlike the emails). She knew she was running for president--she'd been running for years--and so did her audience. To profit from that, given the economic debacle only a few years before, caused in large part by her audience...that raises questions about her judgment, her lack of connection and even her morality.

I'm sorry she lost, but she was a lousy candidate.

And yes, before you accuse, I voted for her. I wasn't happy about it, and I'm even more unhappy now.

[pnwmom]

37. Hillary did not "profit" from any of the funds given to her charitable foundation.

Did you even listen to any of her speeches? Yes, they were definitely nothingburgers, if you're a white guy but the money helped a real charity.

Hillary Clinton's speech to Goldman Sachs: "Proving the Case for Women Entrepreneurs."

[truebluegreen]

38. Uh, never said a word about the Foundation

Hillary personally profited from her speeches to GS: 3 speeches, $675,000, paid to her, not the Foundation.

Clinton’s remarks during paid speeches to Goldman Sachs, Deutsche Bank, Morgan Stanley, and other groups were leaked online Friday afternoon by WikiLeaks. Clinton, who was paid upwards of $225,000 per speech, earned more than $22 million on the paid speaking circuit after resigning as secretary of state.
--https://theintercept.com/2016/10/07/excerpts-of-hillary-clintons-paid-speeches-to-goldman-sachs-finally-leaked/

I'd call that a profit, myself.
Another thing: if they were nothingburger speeches, just what was GS et al paying for?

[pnwmom]

39. The Intercept is a libertarian site which shouldn't be linked to here,

because the economic philosophy of libertarians is the opposite of socialism. They are against Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and every other aspect of what they call the "nanny state."

Other than being pro-choice and pro-pot, most Dems have little in common with them.'

And that article was lumping Hillary's Foundation speeches together with her personal speeches.

Did you listen to her speech? What was so offensive about it?

http://zfacts.com/2016/02/clinton-speaking-fees/

Over the negative din of politics, it can be hard to hear what’s positive. Hillary Clinton has given $17.6 million of her speaking fees to charity (see below). That’s 26 times as much as she made on her three Goldman-Sachs speeches combined, or 50% more than she made on her 51 speeches in 2014 and 2015. Before presenting the details, let me summarize.

Her fees were not the least bit unusual given her stature.
Over 100 lesser known Americans are also in the $200,000+ category.
The Goldman Sachs fees were below her average fee.
She gave $17.6 million of her speaking fees to charity.
Charging Goldman Sachs less would have just meant more profits for them and less for charity.
There is simply no evidence, or logic, supporting the idea that she would sell out her whole career and deceive her huge base of supporters with a fake proposal to rein in Wall Street (a proposal that Elizabeth Warren supports). That she would do all this in return for three below-average fees from Goldman Sachs is beyond absurd.

[truebluegreen]

44. Would your response be different if I had linked to the NYT article?

Fortune? The Fiscal Times? All of those links also came up when I did the google. But thanks so much for the education on libertarianism. Totally news to me. Or not.

I said her actions gave rise to questions about her motivations and honesty. That is the fact. Whether she intended to sell out her whole career is moot. I don't understand how she missed the lesson that politics is all about appearances. Her speeches and her stubborn stance not to release them, her carefully-worded position on TPP (not in favor "as written&quot , her stupid server (how easy would it have been, and how much less trouble, to keep work and personal emails SEPARATE?).

Sadly for all of us, her care and caution seemed more focused on protecting her privacy, and not her reputation.

[pnwmom]

45. No, I wouldn't be saying the NYTimes is a libertarian site.

And you didn't provide any link except for an extremely misleading piece in Greenwald's rag.

[truebluegreen]

46. You have the google, don't you?

I get it. You love Hillary. You defend her every day, against any and all criticisms, justified, constructive or otherwise. I regard that as a noble, but misguided effort. We will never agree. Good night.

[pnwmom]

47. YOU have "the google" and you didn't use it to support your argument.

I'm not going to chase a phantom -- sites that aren't Glenn Greenwald's that support your views.

But I did post a link to another site discussing Hillary's speeches, and you didn't bother to read it.

[truebluegreen]

48. I read it, along with several others.

I had time to waste today and it was time wasted. Because it is water over the dam and it doesn't matter anymore. It doesn't matter! She is not going to be president and everyone is going to have their own theory, blaming group x, y, z or this story or that, whatever. You think she was a great candidate, I don't. That won't change. What matters is what happens next. One "next" thing is maybe to read sites that don't always support your views; echo chambers are bad. Just a suggestion.

My "next" is going to bed; it is quite late here. Again, good night.

[eleny]

21. As if her almost 3 million more popular votes are nothing but chopped liver

They provide plenty of reason to thoroughly probe all angles of wtf happened in MI, PA and WI including the possible Russian intervention.

These thoughts of his aren't passing the smell test.

[truebluegreen]

28. Those three million votes are a nice salve for our hurt feelings

but the fact remains that that is not the determining outcome and never has been. Racking and stacking millions of votes in some states and effectively ignoring the "determining" states was arrogant and stupid.

Seriously, chasing Arizona and Georgia but not locking down Wisconsin? WTF?

[eleny]

36. I didn't say that those votes were the determining factor

I don't think they're a salve for hurt feelings, either. What I said was that they are a reason to look into what happened.

I wish you wouldn't use my posting as a springboard for your finger wagging. Just have the guts to start a thread of your own with those thoughts. I'm not in the least interested in debating them.

[SidDithers]

24. Only for the last 8 years or so...nt

Sid

[BzaDem]

30. He goes on and on about a "lack of evidence", without ONCE asking why that might be the case.

Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that the CIA compromising sources and methods would not help with the CIA's ability to collect evidence in the future? What a concept.

[Arneoker]

34. Greenwald is just engaging in the old infantile left racket of anti-Americanism

Anyone for America, bad! Anyone against America, good! Shows his insufferable moral superiority!

Don't get me wrong, where the U.S. or the U.S. government is wrong, they need to be called out for it. We have plenty of things to atone for, as do people in all countries. But the U.S. is hardly uniquely evil, and is facing opposition from governments are relatively high on the scale of evil.

We should hardly give the CIA the ultimate in credibility, but my sense is that they have something here, and that the FBI is full of shit.

[UTUSN]

41. I'm with u vs Glen any day

[SHRED]

42. And another thing

Because that asshole didn't lift one finger to elect Hillary my wife and I will most likely lose our health coverage now that tRump is in.

No it's not Glenn's fault but you catch my drift.
Must be nice to be an elite like Glenn and pontificate from your lofty perch.

[UTUSN]

43. Same as with O'Reilly: The choice is for the Little vs the Big - they're always on the Big side