Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

TomCADem

(17,378 posts)
Fri Dec 23, 2016, 01:42 PM Dec 2016

Glenn Greenwald On Fox Attacking Coverage of Russian Interference in Election - Not a Progressive!

I do not know why Glenn Greenwald keeps on being called a progressive.

First,he has both attacked Comey for not filing charges against Hillary, then was mum and defended him when he sent his letter to Congress a few days before the election.

Second, despite being a so-called believe in liberty against Government spying into private e-mails, Glenn Greenwald happily relied on the e-mails without discussing questions about how they were obtained, and used them to push a Trump narrative that the election was rigged. Naomi Klein criticized Greenwald's reliance on such government hacked materials.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/glenn-greenwald-wikileaks-emails-clearly-show-serious-media-impropriety/

http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/naomi_klein_criticizes_glenn_greenwalds_20161019

Finally, you have Glenn Greenwald on Fox News now attacking the CIA and the media for reporting on assessments of Russian involvement in hacking the DNC and the Hillary Campaign.



Glenn Greenwald is not a progressive. His comments are frequently featured on Brietbart, which I will not bother to link to. He has also defended the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United. Quite frankly I see him as being far closer to Rand Paul, then to Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders.
24 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Glenn Greenwald On Fox Attacking Coverage of Russian Interference in Election - Not a Progressive! (Original Post) TomCADem Dec 2016 OP
Glenn seems to have personal vendettas not unlike those of Assange. Eliot Rosewater Dec 2016 #1
It is interesting that he subscribes to the same view as Jill Stein in jumping to the defense of still_one Dec 2016 #2
He's a libertarian, so he's pro-pot and that makes some people think pnwmom Dec 2016 #3
Greenwald - It's best for the government to stay out of the business of restricting political speech TomCADem Dec 2016 #11
Greenwald infuriates me and he lets his vendetta against who he dislikes cloud his judgement: JHan Dec 2016 #4
Some progressives don't trust intelligence agencies Cicada Dec 2016 #5
Those progressives should really hate Putin then since that is where his experience comes from. stevenleser Dec 2016 #23
I am not defending The clearly evil Putin Cicada Dec 2016 #24
That depends on how you define "progressive".... Spitfire of ATJ Dec 2016 #6
Sort of Like Climate Change Deniers Demanding Evidence... TomCADem Dec 2016 #8
Actually, it's more like demanding evidence of WMDs and being accused of loving Saddam. Spitfire of ATJ Dec 2016 #9
Ironically, Greenwald's Own Site Notes It Was Bush Administration, Not CIA... TomCADem Dec 2016 #13
No one with libertarian views on the free market and taxation pnwmom Dec 2016 #17
He also had a long record frazzled Dec 2016 #7
"Pro Bono" Does Not Mean He Did It For Free... TomCADem Dec 2016 #10
Oh, a legal distraction frazzled Dec 2016 #14
Well, the White Supremacists Are Now Running The Country... TomCADem Dec 2016 #18
defending the freedom of speech of white supremacists makes him kind like.... tomp Dec 2016 #22
His true colors show - red and yellow from the hammer and sicle kysrsoze Dec 2016 #12
iz that like chiclets? truebluegreen Dec 2016 #19
I remember when anyone who questioned him before was attacked for being a neocon. nycbos Dec 2016 #15
i NEVER jumped on this glen bandwagon. i sniffed troll from the start. pansypoo53219 Dec 2016 #16
I've known that for a long time Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin Dec 2016 #20
Glenn Greenwald is a pompous bully utterly bereft of integrity. nt SunSeeker Dec 2016 #21

Eliot Rosewater

(31,097 posts)
1. Glenn seems to have personal vendettas not unlike those of Assange.
Fri Dec 23, 2016, 01:47 PM
Dec 2016

He lost any credibility as a journalist a long time ago as a result.

still_one

(91,968 posts)
2. It is interesting that he subscribes to the same view as Jill Stein in jumping to the defense of
Fri Dec 23, 2016, 01:49 PM
Dec 2016

Russia that there is no evidence showing Russia tried to interfere with our election:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=8393974

So Russia is above reproach, while President Obama, Harry Reid, the FBI, the CIA, and others are wrong.

By the same token, both she and greenwald present no evidence to show that the intelligence reports on this are false

They just assume it

pnwmom

(108,925 posts)
3. He's a libertarian, so he's pro-pot and that makes some people think
Fri Dec 23, 2016, 01:54 PM
Dec 2016

he's progressive.

But his economic beliefs are like the most rightwing tea party people.

TomCADem

(17,378 posts)
11. Greenwald - It's best for the government to stay out of the business of restricting political speech
Fri Dec 23, 2016, 02:49 PM
Dec 2016

Here is Glenn Greenwald defending Citizens United, which open the doors to millions flowing into campaigns. He takes a very absolutist view with respect to laws regulating campaign financing that the Koch Brothers would love.

http://www.salon.com/2010/01/22/citizens_united/

The Supreme Court yesterday, in a 5-4 decision, declared unconstitutional (on First Amendment grounds) campaign finance regulations which restrict the ability of corporations and unions to use funds from their general treasury for “electioneering” purposes. The case, Citizens United v. FEC, presents some very difficult free speech questions, and I’m deeply ambivalent about the court’s ruling. There are several dubious aspects of the majority’s opinion (principally its decision to invalidate the entire campaign finance scheme rather than exercising ”judicial restraint” through a narrower holding). Beyond that, I believe that corporate influence over our political process is easily one of the top sicknesses afflicting our political culture. But there are also very real First Amendment interests implicated by laws which bar entities from spending money to express political viewpoints.

I want to begin by examining several of the most common reactions among critics of this decision, none of which seems persuasive to me. Critics emphasize that the Court’s ruling will produce very bad outcomes: primarily that it will severely exacerbate the problem of corporate influence in our democracy. Even if this is true, it’s not really relevant. Either the First Amendment allows these speech restrictions or it doesn’t. In general, a law that violates the Constitution can’t be upheld because the law produces good outcomes (or because its invalidation would produce bad outcomes).



Cicada

(4,533 posts)
5. Some progressives don't trust intelligence agencies
Fri Dec 23, 2016, 01:59 PM
Dec 2016

And some progressives don't automatically attack Russia and other countries opposed to the US.

Not all progressives have the same views as Richard Nixon and Dick Cheney, strange as that may seem.

 

stevenleser

(32,886 posts)
23. Those progressives should really hate Putin then since that is where his experience comes from.
Sun Dec 25, 2016, 02:02 AM
Dec 2016

That is his entire knowledge and experience set.

He clearly has you fooled if you are defending him at the same time you are attacking intelligence agencies.

Cicada

(4,533 posts)
24. I am not defending The clearly evil Putin
Tue Dec 27, 2016, 06:20 PM
Dec 2016

But western powers sometimes lie so I want to see clear proof of their claims. The NSA should have records of all hacking efforts yet no one has mentioned their records as proof. That's a bit suspicious.

 

Spitfire of ATJ

(32,723 posts)
6. That depends on how you define "progressive"....
Fri Dec 23, 2016, 02:03 PM
Dec 2016

I consider a desire for world peace to be a goal.

The Democrats used to be considered the Peace Party but now (thanks to the anti-Russian talk) they're being painted by the Republicans as war mongers.

And, yes, asking for evidence makes people claim your check from Putin must have cleared the bank.

TomCADem

(17,378 posts)
8. Sort of Like Climate Change Deniers Demanding Evidence...
Fri Dec 23, 2016, 02:34 PM
Dec 2016

...and if you refer to the consensus of scientists, they dismiss this as liberal media bias.

TomCADem

(17,378 posts)
13. Ironically, Greenwald's Own Site Notes It Was Bush Administration, Not CIA...
Fri Dec 23, 2016, 02:56 PM
Dec 2016

...that was pushing the idea about Iraq was developing WMDs, but the Bush administration ignored the intelligence. Yet, you have Greenwald repeating the same mistake.

https://theintercept.com/2016/02/18/trump-is-right-bush-lied-a-little-known-part-of-the-bogus-case-for-war/

Trump has subsequently walked it back a bit, but he shouldn’t have. I’ve followed the issue of Iraq’s WMD programs for 20 years, and won a $1,000 bet in 2003 that if the U.S. invaded, we would find nothing. There’s no question that the Bush administration lied enthusiastically about what it knew about Iraq and WMD.

There is an enormous amount of powerful evidence to prove it:

Former Vice President Dick Cheney kicked off the push for war in August 2002 by claiming: “There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us.” Cheney’s speech had not been vetted by the CIA, and John McLaughlin, the CIA’s deputy director, shortly afterward told Congress that the likelihood of Iraq initiating a WMD attack “would be low.” Another CIA official later recalled that the agency’s reaction to Cheney’s speech was, “Where is he getting this stuff from?”

The Bush administration said that aluminum tubes Iraq had tried to import were “only really suited for nuclear weapons programs” — even as Bush himself was being told the State Department and Energy Department believed (correctly, of course) they were intended to be used as conventional rockets.

Bush declared in his 2003 State of the Union address that “Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa,” even though his administration had been repeatedly warned this was dubious (and it turned out to originate with crudely forged documents).

Colin Powell doctored intercepted Iraqi communications for his U.N. presentation to make them appear more alarming.
… and much more.


frazzled

(18,402 posts)
7. He also had a long record
Fri Dec 23, 2016, 02:13 PM
Dec 2016

of voluntarily defending the rights of white supremacists, including the nation's most notorious neo-Nazi leader, Matthew Hale (currently serving 40 years for soliciting the murder of a federal judge). This was not normal legal work: he took it on himself, largely pro-bono. Think about it.

Greenwald also spent roughly five years defending the First Amendment rights of neo-Nazis, including Matthew Hale, the “Pontifex Maximus” of the Illinois church formerly known as the World Church of the Creator, one of whose disciples went on a murderous spree in 1999.
“I almost always did it pro bono,” Greenwald said. “I was interested in defending political principles that I believed in

https://www.buzzfeed.com/jtes/how-glenn-greenwald-became-glenn-greenwald?utm_term=.ty7ZrvrjND#.abk9POPyML


Ask yourself why Glenn Greenwald appears to have stopped practicing law (keeping in mind the story you may remember from 2005 of the murder of the husband and mother of judge Joan Lefkow, who just also happened to be the judge in the trial of Matthew Hale in which Greenwald served as defense attorney):

CHICAGO, March 8 - A lawyer for Matthew Hale, the white supremacist convicted last year of plotting to kill a federal judge whose husband and mother were slain last week, said on Tuesday that Mr. Hale's mother called him a few months ago and asked him to pass on an encoded message to one of Mr. Hale's supporters.

"She said she didn't know what the message meant, but she was going to read it to me verbatim because Matt made her write it down when she visited him," the lawyer, Glenn Greenwald, said in an interview. "It was two or three sentences that were very cryptic and impossible to understand in terms of what they were intended to convey."

Mr. Greenwald, who has represented Mr. Hale and his organization in several civil cases and said he did not believe that his client had anything to do with the recent killings, said he told federal agents last week about the conversation with Mr. Hale's mother,

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/09/us/supremacist-sent-code-from-jail-lawyer-says.html?_r=0

TomCADem

(17,378 posts)
10. "Pro Bono" Does Not Mean He Did It For Free...
Fri Dec 23, 2016, 02:42 PM
Dec 2016

...all this means is that he did not demand a retainer and he should not be getting a cut of the actual damages. However, if you are making a civil rights claims, the prevailing attorney can still recover substantial fees. What is really impressive is when a Legal Aid group provides legal services in cases where there is no prospect of a large attorney fee award.

https://www.isba.org/sections/localgovt/newsletter/2014/10/smallverdictlargeattorneyfeeawardlo

As municipal lawyers know, prevailing plaintiffs in federal civil rights actions brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 are entitled to seek reasonable attorney fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988. What is reasonable is often fiercely litigated following an adverse verdict. A recent Seventh Circuit decision exemplifies how even a small verdict can result in a relatively large attorney fee award.

In Montanez v. Simon, 755 F.3d 547 (7th Cir. 2014), the plaintiff Andy Montanez was arrested for drinking alcohol on a public way by City of Chicago Officers Vincent Fico and James Simon. While being transported to the police station, Montanez got into a verbal altercation with the officers. Officer Fico allegedly punched Montanez in the face in the squad car. Plaintiff subsequently sued Fico for excessive use of force and Officer Simon for failure to intervene. A federal jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff against Fico but against plaintiff in favor of Simon. The jury awarded plaintiff $1,000 in compensatory damages and $1,000 in punitive damages. The plaintiff’s attorney submitted a post-judgment petition for attorney fees in the amount of $426,380. The district court ultimately reduced the attorney fee award to $109,000.

The 7th Circuit affirmed the fee award. The Court began its analysis by reaffirming the wide deference given district courts in assessing fee petitions filed by prevailing parties under § 1988, particularly when the prevailing party is only partially successful. The district court had properly used the “lodestar” method, i.e., multiplying the number of hours reasonably expended by a reasonably hourly rate. The district court had “meticulously scrutinized” the fee petition line-by-line and struck entries that were unnecessary, duplicative, excessive or improperly documented. The district court ultimately reduced the total number of hours billed from 1,021 to 869. The district court also reduced the requested hourly billing rates. Partners with 9 to 13 years experience sought rates from $400 to $450 per hour. The district court found that these rates were not justified when compared to qualified lawyers practicing § 1983 litigation in the Chicago market. The district court found that $385 per hour for the two lead attorneys and $175 per hour for second and third year associates were more reasonable. Thus, the district court adjusted the lodestar fee to $217,110.50.

While the lodestar amount is “presumptively reasonable,” a district court may adjust the fee according to factors announced in Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 434 (1983). The most important factor is the degree of success achieved by the prevailing party. A plaintiff who achieves excellent results should receive the entire lodestar amount, but for one who only partially succeeds, the lodestar amount may be excessive. When the court cannot distinguish between work performed on successful versus unsuccessful claims, an “across the board” reduction is sanctioned. Finding that the plaintiff had lost 4 of his 6 claims and was awarded only $2,000 by the jury, the Seventh Circuit in Montanez affirmed the district court’s reduction of the lodestar fee by 50%. The final amount awarded was $108,350.87.

At first blush, the approval of a six-figure attorney fee award based on a $2,000 jury verdict appears outrageous. Is this an outlier because of the how the case was litigated; or, is it the norm? After all, the United States Supreme Court held in Farrar v. Hobby, 506 U.S. 103 (1992), held that a $1 nominal damages award should result in no fee at all. See, also, Frizell v. Szabo, 647 F.3d 698, 702 (7th Cir. 2011) ($1 nominal damages award resulted in no fee); Aponte v. City of Chicago, 728 F.3d 724 (7th Cir. 2013) (award of $100 against one of four police defendants resulted in zero fees). However, earlier this year in Richardson v. City of Chicago, 740 F.3d 1099 (7th Cir. 2014), the Seventh Circuit approved an 80% reduction to a lodestar fee where a plaintiff was awarded $1 nominal compensatory damages and $3,000 in punitive damages. The plaintiff in Richardson had asked the jury for $300,000 and submitted a fee petition for $675,000. After applying the 80% reduction, the Court still approved a fee award in the amount of $123,000.

frazzled

(18,402 posts)
14. Oh, a legal distraction
Fri Dec 23, 2016, 03:07 PM
Dec 2016

Throw a bunch of mumbo jumbo to gum up the works, eh? What does this have to do with the point of the post--that Greenwald spent five years, of his own volition (and, in his own words, working mostly pro bono, whether he recouped any fees or not) to defend white supremacists?

I win this case.

TomCADem

(17,378 posts)
18. Well, the White Supremacists Are Now Running The Country...
Fri Dec 23, 2016, 04:32 PM
Dec 2016

...so I guess we can congratulate Mr. Greenwald?

 

tomp

(9,512 posts)
22. defending the freedom of speech of white supremacists makes him kind like....
Sat Dec 24, 2016, 09:35 AM
Dec 2016

....the aclu. Are they progressive?

Not defending greewald, just defending logic.

Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin

(107,112 posts)
20. I've known that for a long time
Sat Dec 24, 2016, 12:37 AM
Dec 2016

Right after Obama was elected Salon for one reason or another hired him to be the contrary voice to Obama.

I remember him arguing on Bill Maher that people should vote for Rand Paul.

What's liberal about him? The fact that he's gay? Donald Trump has gay supporters though I'll be damned if I know why.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»Video & Multimedia»Glenn Greenwald On Fox At...