Well it looks like Greenwald got his investigation.

The GOPers are now "investigating" the attacks.

were one of the first to solidly convince me that GG was a piece of shit used classified document salesman.

Thank you.

At the time, I lived very close to the West Rogers Park neighborhood where most of the Smith shootings occurred. In fact, I drove through it on my commute to work, though deliberately avoided that while Hale was on the loose. One of his victims was the basketball coach of my alma mater, Northwestern University.

I also lived a few blocks away from Judge Joan Lefkow, close enough to hear the sirens that night going to the scene of the bloodbath.

I've yet to have a single poster on this board describe to me what civil right Greenwald was protecting in his representation of Matt Hale.

That ugly episode created a lot of fear on Chicago's North Side. I'm talking about nice neighborhoods where people moved to raise their kids in one of the city's safest environments. Frankly, Smith and Hale deserved the long prison sentences they got. I also have no idea what civil right needed protecting.

The victims were just ordinary people going about their lives.

I've been asking now for over 2 years on this site for one of his defenders to tell me which civil right of Matt Hale's was defended by Greenwald.

He calls himself a civil rights attorney..... So I'd love to know what civil right of Matt Hale's was being protected there.

Crickets every single time I ask.

Does make you wonder, though.

defending.

Oh.....you'll like this next subthread....once my thread made it out to the Internets, and was reposted on several sites, and GG saw it, this hilarity ensued:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3051961

And my answer...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3053576

certain facts.

Being accused of copying from LGF was quite amusing, though.

The copying charge, well...

I expect threads demanding Bengahzi investigations and posts sourcing RT and Infowars for hair brained Benghazi woo over the next few days. This does now open up the flood gates.

The avid Greenwald supporters here will be taking his side on this?

when it gets uncomfortable so I am anticipating this Benghaz!! thing will be like his supporting Bush and the Iraq war and calling him an eloquent speaker and...... but,

that's

irrelevant because it was


in the past when GG was IGNORANT. But we can be sure that he is not IGNORANT now (*lol, falls off chair and gets back up)

also irrelevent is GG using 'big news' for that NSA memo Snowden sent that was supposed to prove something. It proved Eddie is pretty dumb.


....sorry I can't type when I laughing so


hard.

What a fucking clown.

Sid

"Greenwald echoes GOP talking points on Benghazi, says there should be an investigation"

...if you don't agree with Greenwald on Benghazi, you're a friggin sockpuppet!!!

LOL!

Thanks to Cha for digging this up. He's done everything in his power to bring down this administration. And he & his internet minions are doing the same thing to affect the midterms.

Watch as a Citizens' United lovin' phoney tries his best to predict failure for the administration:

He really wanted Obama to lose.

This was certainly wishful thinking.

That's some of the worst concern trolling I've ever seen.

Pathetic!!!

Last edited Mon Jun 2, 2014, 08:00 PM - Edit history (1)

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

He does think it's big enough to warrant an investigation....so there's that....

Democrats can do complex thinking.

but, without him, how would you know the NSA needs to be regulated?

Greenwald could very well be a piece of shit, but he's done good by exposing the NSA via Snowden.

There's a lot of pieces of shit in this world that have done good. LBJ, for example, among many others.

But NSA abuses are much worse than previously thought, thanks to Snowden and Greenwald. Please show me where it is written that we knew about such abuses prior to the recent revelations by Snowden.

The idea that Snowden exposed anything new just feeds into the artificial hype manufactured by Greenwald in order to boost his book sales. The fact that it harms America, Pres Obama & the Democratic party in the process is just an added bonus.

Pres Obama & the Democratic party and everything to with keeping America from snooping eyes.

So, if I go to the NYT archives, I'll find that forty years ago I was being spied on by the NSA? Thirty years ago? Twenty years ago?

If it's old news, then why all the brouhaha all of a sudden?

It's new to me that the NSA probably has been spying on me and I'm not OK with that, as a matter of fact. I'm pissed off big time about it.

I knew the NSA was listening to telephone calls and monitoring emails, but I thought they were to keep track of terrorists. But this recent revelation has shown they're primarily doing it to Americans, and I'm strongly against the type of surveillance that targets us.

It's definitely not old news. Again, show me where the news is that all this was known prior to this recent revelation. I'm not interested in any random NYT article from the last forty years either.

Which keeps getting circulation - just as long as it damages Pres Obama & the Democratic party. Too bad the same level of concern & effort against this supposed spying wasn't worthy of expression until the black guy got in the White House.

Are you equating with what I wrote as RW libertarian? Just because I disagree with you then all of a sudden you're equating that what I wrote as RW libertarian? The NSA is spying on Americans and Snowden and Greenwald exposed it so it has to be that Greenwald is harming America, Pres Obama & the Democratic party in the process? This has no party affiliation. The fact is the NSA is spying on liberals, conservatives, libertarians, everybody in the USA and our grandmothers to boot. And this pisses me off to no end.

When someone has to start labeling then it's no use to have a serious discussion.

Right wing libertarian? Yeah right.

Otherwise, the shoe fits.

Seriously, why do you think you are being spied on?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"The whole world is a circus if you know how to look at it."
Tony Randall, 7 Faces of Dr. Lao (1964)[/center][/font][hr]

The corporate media wouldn't make it a topic of widespread discussion when articles did come out. They waited till Bush needed it to be deflected onto Obama in time to launch Jeb2016 - because, ya see, "Obama is no different than Bush."

40 years of articles and nothing done.

OR maybe we're all racists.

Yeah, that's it. We're all racists.

BINARY THINKING ERROR

off rw talking points if it means he can get his hate-on the President.. just to show off how fucking clueless he is.

Greenwald ever will.

for his assholery.

He fucking wanted President Obama to lose the 2012 Election so bad.

and I find it strange that GOPers are in love with Putin and ES is there.

except if he said that in May 2013, then he ignores the fact that there was an investigation by then, a number of people including Hillary Clinton had already testified, and that Susan Rice was passed over for Sec. of State because of her appearance. But I do agree with him when he says it was not a huge scandal.

BENGHAZI!!11!

foolishness on Benghazi goes both ways. Both sides have people that don't see anything in Benghazi other than the partisan nonsense.

His politics are questionable at best. And he is without a doubt an opportunist.

And still, I applaud his facilitating and signal-boosting Snowden's leaks. Sun shines on a dog's butt once ans a while. I hope more follow in Greenwald's steps of helping whistle-blowers.

"Subsequently, Greenwald said, President Barack Obama and members of his administration made statements later proven to be false, which needs to be investigated." he so wanted Obama to lose.

In addition to being a "smarmy, self-serving opportunist" who hates Obama and his "cultists".. as he heads the swarmy cult of all things GG that are so wonderful

When Greenwald met Snowden..

conservatives just HATE him...

BENGHAZ!!11!!

did to Clinton. But I do like the way Greenwald pisses people off, almost like his very existence and his reporting hurt their feelings.

And so far, what has the Obama admin lied about in terms of the Benghazi affair? You know, unless you're a fucking idiot.

The single most powerful argument about the latest investigation (the newly appointed House Select Committee) is that there have already been multiple investigations, as a result of which there are no significant unanswered questions that need investigations. Even some House Republicans agree with that.

You take a comment that Greenwald made in May of 2013 and you assert that he "says" there should be an investigation. That's just false. It's as if you quoted me saying "Scott Brown is the duly elected Senator from Massachusetts" and said or implied that I was thereby alleging fraud in Elizabeth Warren's election, without mentioning that I made the statement before November 2012.

At the time of Greenwald's statement, there had already been some investigations. Nevertheless, the FBI investigation was ongoing, with the FBI having released suspect photos just the week before Greenwald spoke. The Senate Select Committee report was still more than half a year in the future.

One is entitled to believe that, even by May of 2013, enough information had been assembled to make it clear that further investigations served no purpose other than political razzle-dazzle. If Greenwald actually endorsed further investigation at that time, there's certainly a valid basis for disagreeing with him, and I would probably join you in disagreeing if I thought it important enough to merit the time to review the reports that were then available. But by posting this soon after the appointment of yet another investigative committee, and by asserting that this is what Greenwald "says", you convey the clear impression that Greenwald's comment is an endorsement of the latest step, whereas in fact it was nothing of the sort.

It's also far from clear that, even as of a year ago, Greenwald called for more investigations. I actually listened to the clip from Bill Maher. The context was that Maher asked what the scandal was. Greenwald, who had already said that it was not the massive scandal claimed by the right, answered Maher that when the government says something that turns out not to be true (whether the error was intentional or unintentional), that merits investigation. It's not clear that he's saying the investigations already held were inadequate and there needed to be more; all that's clear is that he was disagreeing with Maher's implication that no investigation should ever have been held.

I'll admit that I stopped listening to the clip at the 6-minute mark. If there's something in the rest that supports your attack on Greenwald, feel free to enlighten me. Failing that, my bottom line is honesty: You should not misrepresent people's positions. That applies even to someone who, as a lawyer once represented someone you dislike, and who sometimes criticizes Barack Obama, and who supported the Iraq invasion before opposing it. In fact, it even applies to war criminals like Bush and Cheney.