Video & Multimedia
Related: About this forumGlenn 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.
Eliot Rosewater
(31,097 posts)He lost any credibility as a journalist a long time ago as a result.
still_one
(91,968 posts)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)he's progressive.
But his economic beliefs are like the most rightwing tea party people.
TomCADem
(17,378 posts)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 Im deeply ambivalent about the courts ruling. There are several dubious aspects of the majoritys 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 Courts 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, its not really relevant. Either the First Amendment allows these speech restrictions or it doesnt. In general, a law that violates the Constitution cant be upheld because the law produces good outcomes (or because its invalidation would produce bad outcomes).
JHan
(10,173 posts)No curation in the data dump, and he relished dissecting them all. He gave Wikileaks a pass, so much for his journalistic integrity.
The attack on our institutions is complete it would seem:
By obsessing over the individuals here, and justifying the invasion of their privacy because they're "Powerful" , he ignores the precedent this sets. He doesn't understand that revelations like this don't upset the status quo and aren't enlightening. All they do is provide a blueprint on how to crush dissident groups.
Cicada
(4,533 posts)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)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)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)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)...and if you refer to the consensus of scientists, they dismiss this as liberal media bias.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)TomCADem
(17,378 posts)...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 shouldnt have. Ive followed the issue of Iraqs WMD programs for 20 years, and won a $1,000 bet in 2003 that if the U.S. invaded, we would find nothing. Theres 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. Cheneys speech had not been vetted by the CIA, and John McLaughlin, the CIAs 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 agencys reaction to Cheneys 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.
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)can be called a progressive.
frazzled
(18,402 posts)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.
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):
"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)...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 plaintiffs 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 courts 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)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)...so I guess we can congratulate Mr. Greenwald?
tomp
(9,512 posts)....the aclu. Are they progressive?
Not defending greewald, just defending logic.
kysrsoze
(6,010 posts)truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)nycbos
(6,033 posts)pansypoo53219
(20,908 posts)Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(107,112 posts)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.