Glen Greenwald 's Intercept has long had bias here. It doesn't surprise me they are trying to spin this a a free speech issue . I give him extra points for attempting to leverage anti Trumpian sentiment in order to further Trump/Putin's agenda.

Putin's propagandists couldn't have written this better.

Oh wait......

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/taibbi-russiagate-trump-putin-mueller-and-targeting-dissent-w517486

Not as informative as Greenwald's recent piece on Hamilton 68, but you just gotta love Taibbi's style.

"By an extraordinary coincidence, virtually all the "anti-system" movements and candidates that so terrified the political establishment two years ago have since been identified as covert or overt Russian destabilization initiatives, puppeteered from afar by the diabolical anti-Western dictator, Vladimir von Putin-Evil."


And on this decade's most effective propaganda effort so far, the Hamilton 68 dashboard:

"That these people now are being upheld as heroes of liberalism is incredible. Only a few short years ago they were widely derided as the very dumbest people in the country, raving paranoiacs who humped every false lead from Niger to Ahmed Chalabi's hotel suite in order to justify invasions, torture, secret prisons and the establishment of a monstrous, intractable, and illegal surveillance regime. And now we're letting these same people dominate every news cycle when this time, years early, they're already admitting they might be wrong?"

Award for Rant of the Day goes to Caitlin Johnstone, again, for today's piece called Establis
hment Loyalists Spent Yesterday Circulating Blatant Lies About Glenn Greenwald.

"The fact-free McCarthyist feeding frenzy that has engulfed political discourse in America is what has emboldened these horrible creatures to start promulgating complete works of fiction about their critics and expect no pushback whatsoever."

I found one thing extremely interesting in *2* separate interviews with Assange when he was asked whether or not there was any Russian involvement -- including the one with Hannity shown early in the video here:

Hannity: Did Russia give you this information? Or anyone associated with Russia?
Assange: Our source is not a state party.

Very close to verbatim that exchange appeared in a print interview a week or two ago. The resulting headlines: "Assange denies Russian Involvement in the Leaks", etc.

But look at that answer. It is very carefully worded, but it doesn't directly answer the question. "Our source is not a state party" doesn't rule out that the source is Russian. It sort of rules out a source with known associations with the government (of Russia or anywhere else), but it could be an independent / private individual at face value that got the information from state parties.

I find it odd that nobody (as far as I've seen) has brought up that carefully worded answer, when it stuck out like a sore thumb to me the first time I saw it in print.


That being said, I 100% agree with Greenwald when he suggests that accusations are not proof. And the CIA and other agencies have a massive track record of shady dealings done in the name of "national security", as defined by whoever is in charge. Taking them at their word seems pretty hopelessly naive at this point.


But beyond all of that, I honestly don't care who did the hacking and what their motivations were. The government seems happy to record and analyze everything we say and do, and to claim that people like Edward Snowden are traitors for simply telling us about it. Well, get used to some of your own goddamn medicine. If you are running for public office, you should expect that your rights to privacy are going to be challenged much more strongly than those of Joe Average. You're a person of interest -- for pretty legitimate reasons.

Assume that absolutely everything you've ever said on the record (and lots OFF the record) is going to be gone over with a fine-toothed comb. If you've got any skeletons in your closet, expect that there is a good chance they will get exposed. And probably at the worst possible time.

What should both parties take away from this? Gee, it might be a good idea to choose candidates that can stand up to at least a basic level of scrutiny. Backing slimy weasels that look great and charismatic after a quick once-over might come back to bite you in the ass.

@radx and @enoch

radx said:
Painting Truthout, Truthdig, Counterpunch, Alternet, BlackAgendaReport, NakedCapitalism and others as stooges of the Kremlin is such an obvious attempt to discredit dissenting voices that it's, quite frankly, rather offensive.

enoch said:
i have considered his works and found them informative and reflective of our current situation.

just as i have found:howard zinn,noam chomsky,amy goodman,jeremy scahill,laura poitrus,glenn greenwald,paul jay,richard d wolffe.

All of the outlets and authors listed above have been very thorough or exhaustive in documenting the evils of America or Capitalism(as represented by America). The length, depth and detail they have all given and time spent documenting any and every instance is almost breath taking. For a long time, I sort of sat closer to you both by looking at the merits of each instance and case weeding through which stories were accurate, which ones were complete, which ones were misleading or fair. Lots and lots of the coverage from those groups and individuals were very accurate.

Here's the counter balance though, how much time, detail and effort have all of those groups combined given to any positive outcomes of America or Capitalism(as represented by America). How much time, detail and effort have all of those groups combined given to the evils of any alternatives or opposing forces that would or did fill the voids were America isn't involved? It's crickets all around.

Chomsky's work alone could fill a library with the thorough documenting of America's evil corporate execution of class war on the workers of the world. How many books and documentaries can we count form the entire group that attempt anything similar for China, Russia, Middle Eastern nations, heck, the rest of the world combined?

I don't draw attention to this to point out that anything they have all observed is even wrong or incorrect. I draw attention to the glaring omission of similar documentation of alternatives. As it stands, a country like Russia couldn't dream of a better and more effective propaganda coup than the work of these groups and individuals. That doesn't in anyway say any of them are in allegiance with Russia, or even like anything about Russia. It still stands that even if Russia set out to discredit and smear America and leave itself looking clean, it couldn't pay people to do a better job of it. That's something worth considering and the deep, deep absence of balance and perspective that the listed sources represent is DAMAGING when taken in isolation.

Perhaps more pointedly, is the problem with Breitbart merely with it's fact checking department? They are, in as close as investigated them both, about on a Howard Zinn level for accuracy/honesty. None the less, it's the facts they willingly and knowingly leave out that makes them so damaging. The fact they fall right wing instead of left wing doesn't make their damage so much more appalling to me.

@newtboy
can you show me where hedges promoted russian propaganda?
i ask this sincerely,because i have not seen any evidence of what you are accusing him of.

i get that we disagree,but hedges has earned my respect for his journalistic veracity.

you have earned my respect for being a decent human being,who i happen to agree with more often than not,but in this case i will not simply disregard hedges stellar work because you accuse him of being a propagandist.

i have read his books.
watched his lectures.
and sifted through his sources.

you have openly admitted you have done none of these things,yet..you have formed an opinion on his work by the venue he has chosen.you have even gone as far as to presume his intent on WHY he is on that venue.

now..you are free to speculate all you wish in regards to hedges motivations,and even be skeptical of his work due to him being on RT atm (he was also on Telesur,and al jazeera english).


i do not find this skepticism unwarranted nor unreasonable.i understand why you may feel this way.

but i am the captain of my own ship.
i do consider hedges respectable and worthy of consideration,because i have considered his words,read his books and watched his lectures.

i have considered his works and found them informative and reflective of our current situation.

just as i have found:howard zinn,noam chomsky,amy goodman,jeremy scahill,laura poitrus,glenn greenwald,paul jay,richard d wolffe.

does this equate to everything that they postulate the unerring word of GOD?

of course not.
i can disagree with someone and still respect them for their views.

example:@bcglorf

i really do not see an issue here.
i also do not understand why i am being put in a position to defend why i may respect a reporter/journalist for the good works they have produced.

i am sure there are authors/journalists/academics that you admire and trust their work,because they have earned that trust by being consistent with their methodology.

so i do not see a rub at all.
i see you making conflations and comparisons based loosely on associations,and not tangible and concrete evidence.

if you have evidence,and i am simply being biased and residing in my own bubble.then by all means..pop that bubble...i am human after all,and just as prone to confirmation bias as the next person.

Glenn Greenwald has some very interesting things to say on the subjects of 'fake news' and 'Russian interference'.

*doublepromote

Superb quality, this one.

The Blame Cannons are already in firing position. It's the fault of Glenn Greenwald and David Sirota, of Abby Martin and Kevin Gosztola, of Bernie and his BernieBros, of WikiLeaks and Assange, and Putin most of all.

Anything but 40 years of fuck-the-plebs politics.

I wouldn't in any way suggest that Olberman's credibility is unassailable, however i wouldn't put it one iota above wikileaks anymore.

Your own fairly strong bias not withstanding, i completely understand why wouldn't trust government bodies. However Greenwald's article (as much as i got through) seem to hing entirely on that premise that you can't prove this all hatches from some shadowy russian agency or from the desk of Putin himself. And on that he is probably right, even if US intelligence has proof they'd like not publicly air it.

But to ignore the body of trump's comments, people who've worked for him, his own dealings and associations, isn't 'helping' either. And to do it you have to really want to believe in an organization which increasingly fails to meet its promises and seems to be operating under its own agenda, and a man who seems far more interested in promoting his brand.

To me the point of the video is to demonstrate how easily it is to manipulate Trump, and certainly nothing i saw in that article you posted dissuades me from that.

Thanks Rad. I would still imply that there IS a purpose to the refrigerator angle and "rant" form rather than "report" form. The opinion is strong but the reporting is meh.

Glen Greenwald is weak. A journalist should only breach privacy if there is a crime or significant damage to "public interest" involved (oversimplified). What is the crime?

Lee Fang - I see his point on banks and fracking and being a two-faced liar. I understand how exposing this is worthwhile to hurt Hillary. I just see this as repeating the words "email scandal" ad nauseam without enough substance.

You cant read your neighbors mail, hoping to prove they killed someone, and then inform the public that the mail proves they are an unpleasant person.

The claim "if someone had stolen the e-mails sooner she might have lost to Bernie" is just plain funny.

That's not "underground" reporting. It's Jordan Chariton of TYT, providing additional content besides the more professional coverage straight from the trail. Unlike CNN, they don't have the personnel to create everything in a studio, so it's either this sort of coverage through Facebook videos or no coverage at all.

And frankly, I prefer this less-than-professional coverage with actual content over CNN's professional coverage without content.

As for the question whether it's ok to expose these emails, Glenn Greenwald covered it yesterday.

Finally, whether or not there's anything worth reporting: Lee Fang on Democracy Now.

Good article, but Greenwald is missing one key point:
it's not just the "media elite" who can't understand the Leave vote. Most "normal" people outside England and Wales are perplexed by this too.

Talk to the average person on the street in Ireland, Scotland, France, Germany, etc. and they'll tell you the same things:
a) the leave vote was the wrong decision
b) it was brought about through fear mongering and lies

So that leaves two possibilities:

1. the rest of the EU are media-brainwashed idiots and the people who saw the light were Nigel Farage and Boris Johnson and the kind of people now screaming racist abuse at "foreigners" (aka anyone non-white or with a foreign ancestry even if they were born in the UK).

or

2. it really was a dumb idea.

Glenn Greenwald's (The Intercept) take on the Brexit vote.
https://theintercept.com/2016/06/25/brexit-is-only-the-latest-proof-of-the-insularity-and-failure-of-western-establishment-institutions/

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Glenn Greenwald would agree with Mark Blyth.
https://theintercept.com/2016/06/25/brexit-is-only-the-latest-proof-of-the-insularity-and-failure-of-western-establishment-institutions/

There was an interview on ABC that I was watching at work, and the lady being interviewed made more or less the same points as this article from the Grauniad, Dilma Rousseff: Brazilian congress votes to impeach president http://gu.com/p/4tdg9/stw

She said that many of the minor parties spent a lot of time explaining their votes, and that many of them had nothing to do with either corruption or Rousseff... so many Brazilians think it's all politicised and partisan and little to do with any real wrongdoing.

It'll possibly show up here in a day or so - http://www.abc.net.au/transcripts/ (I think it was probably ABC News, Series 2016 | Episode 77). I kinda wish I'd paid more attention to the who/what/when/where/why/how.

The end of this BBC News report highlights something that Greenwald said, which is that the supporters of impeachment are rich and white, and those who oppose it are poor and likely to be mixed race (skip to 1:37):



p.s. This isn't the transcript I was talking about, but yesterday is missing from the list (?!?) It does have some details I haven't seen much elsewhere: http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2016/s4445246.htm