There's something wrong with that kid.

Yet makes it a point to say that none of this is planned!

Yeah, something's wrong with him, indeed.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]

I feel sorry for him, really.

I wonder if he walks down the street leaning to the right...


walkey walkey walkey BAM...FUCK I hit another pole!

Hitler had plans.".


Who is this guy?

Anyone who isn't smart enough to understand that

the US government drove Aaron Swartz to committ suicide;
that the CIA killed Michael Hastings by hacking into his automobile computer to cause a fatal wrec;
and that the pornography charges against Matt DeHart are merely a ploy to deport him from Canada so Obama's thugs can resume torturing him to snitch on the great patriots who make up the Anonymous collective

will probably fall victim to the propaganda that Brown is a bitter former rich kid and a self-promoting blowhard with a tendency to drug-use who gets his kicks by threatening federal agents

instead of seeing him as a brilliant journalist suffering from unjust persecution

eeeek!

It's perfectly descriptive of the fanbois and fangrlls.



Sid

That's funny.

He's got that going for him.

Time to take a shot at Obama when the thread has nothing at all to do with him. Oh well at least you are consistent.

You are so right, Andy823. My mistake was defending the guy by not mentioning Obama.

And my mistake for recognizing that Greenwald didn't jail reporters for exposing illegal NSA spying, illegal CIA torture, illegal FBI investigation, illegally shielding war criminals...

As you said: It really is all about Obama, because the President and Constitutional scholar doesn't quite think the law applies the same to those in office as to those who are not. Must be some serious Top Secret stuff he knows that I don't.

Criminals protectors have..

I'd be happy if he got the same sentences all those criminals got.

'No one is above the law' unless they have influential friends.

The Greenwald hatred has reached mammoth proportions.

And all because he tells the truth and always has told the truth.

So is War Inc.

Which reminds me, why isn't that fourth generation warmonger who lied America into an illegal war in prison? That also happens to be the same guy who gave Wall Street everything they wanted after his cronies looted the banks in 2008.

For the record, then-Senator Obama voted with pretzeldent Bush and for the bailout.

Admit it you just have to bash Obama.

Here's why I support Greenwald:

It was GREENWALD who called out Bush and Cheney on ILLEGAL N.S.A. Spying back in 2007!

If the rest of the press had carried half as much water as Greenwald, these two would have long ago been in front of a Grand Jury.



Here's what Greenwald wrote on the subject of NSA abuse by them, when the story broke in 2007. In his story, Greenwald raised questions about the Comey visit to Ashcroft that have still to be answered -- six long warmongering profiteering years later:

Before he was against them, and I really don't care if you support Greenwald, but you really have a problem with bashing the president, even if you can't admit it.

BTW: "Bash" is a loaded term, useful for mischaracterization.

Of COURSE they can never point out where you bash Obama...that would require proof and we all know how the usual suspects hate facts and the truth.

I'm surprised that one trick pony actually works on people.

This is a political discussion forum, not a 'let's bash other members of the forum'. So let's try to talk about politics.

What is your opinion of the contract that was up for bid on Greenwald, who at the time was just a blogger, by Bank of America?

Why would a Bank want to start a Smear Campaign against a blogger who was writing about them, unless they had a whole lot they didn't want anyone talking about?

The plot was exposed by Anonymous when they leaked the emails leaving no doubt about how these smear campaigns targeting writers, whistle blowers, bloggers and anyone who dares to write or talk about the corruption they were involved in.

That contract bid, by HB Gary presumably failed after its exposure.

But do you think someone else got the contract? The attempts to smear Greenwald, which you are participating in possibly inadvertently, are remarkably similar to what was intended.

So my opinion is that another Security Contractor got that contract to smear Greenwald.

So my question is, do you agree with the practice of buying smear campaigns against journalists and bloggers by Wall St Banks?

Remember...he threatened the children of the FBI agent investigating him, stating that he was going to "look into them."

He then gave an email address, and taunted the FBI agent, stating "send all info on Agent (RS) to (gmail account) so FBI can watch me look up his kids."


http://www.dmlp.org/sites/dmlp.org/files/2012-10-01-Brown%20indictment.pdf

Defense of someone who thinks that tracking down the minor children of an LEO is acceptable, is, in my opinion, against the TOS here.

What's any of that have to do with what I wrote?

Any DUer can use the helpful search box provided by the admin to read your posts concerning Mr. Brown.

You smearing me for doing so is un-democratic.

Because it diminishes whatever else I say in regards to Greenwald, it also is un-democratic.

Why do you do that?

against the children of the agent investigating him.

Now, if you didn't know that, I ask "Why?" Was it perhaps because you relied on sources, like Greenwald, who aren't invested in the truth?

of course, then took a federal plea. A HERO!!!

I hope he gets help for his obvious addiction.

What if Robert Smith's children are adults? It has been reported in some outlets as a fact but I am unable to verify it.

YouTube rant (posted above) where Mr. Brown not only talks about looking into the agent's kids, but solicits information about the family?

Any DUer can click the link above and read the indictment.

You've been given the You Tube rant and the GJ indictment. Are you now saying that Mr. Brown didn't make threats? Then why did he plead guilty to making threats?

It says "kids", therefore they could be adults, so it's okay to threaten them.

wild claim, with NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER, that Barrett Brown threatened minor children.

threatened minor children but you haven't backed that up with one shred of evidence.

And so I ask you if you think it's okay to threaten LEO's children....as long as they are adults?

I asked if there was any evidence that they were. You still haven't provided any proof.

just how did Mr. Brown know the Agent had "kids?"

So have I. Your hypocrisy is showing.

Apparently he hit a nerve.

Look, you and I have tangled before. But think about something...this guy, regardless of how you feel about his politics, has threatened children.

Don't you think that crosses a line?

Last edited Tue Dec 16, 2014, 09:18 PM - Edit history (1)

You had to build a series of flimsy suppositions to spring that one. It was like a rhetorical Rube Goldberg machine.

section of TOS that suggests we not go "overboard."

I'm guessing you didn't watch the videos--especially the part where he uses homophobic slurs to taunt Smith?

How do you defend that?

I'm talking about your ridiculous categorization of the other poster's comments as a 'defense' of the actions you allege. They were nothing of the sort. And now you're doing it again; another hopelessly scattershot insult, suggesting that my pointing out the absurdity of your claim is the same as defending homophobic slurs.

It's just dishonest and desperate. I mean, when you defend Bill Clinton's economic policies, are you advocating adultery?

on others. A man who linked to stolen credit cards and pled guilty.to that is deserving of support?

What a hero!

He pled guilty to Count One in your linked indictment and two Counts One and Two in the Superseding Indictment linked below.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/216012753/Barrett-Brown-Superseding-Indictment

it looks like his criminal defense attorney was smart enough to insist that the count against the children and family be dropped. This has implications both for sentencing but also for his housing during his time in prison. It would also affect his post release conditions.

You do realize that getting a charge dropped doesn't mean you didn't do it? Also the judge can still consider the dropped charges against you when you are up for sentencing on the charges that you've pled to.

It seems as though Mr Brown has had very good counsel..... he's looking at about 8 years which is minimal given what he's pled guilty to.

that mentions the agent's kids. You are assuming that his kids are children.

there....but as Mr. Brown's threats towards the agent's children are quoted, and you've been provided the video feed, I can only wonder at your defense of this man.

And it wasn't even a threat of physical violence but rather one of doxing.

Is that really the defense you are putting forth for Mr. Brown? Well played.

I don't think so.

And why is that always to be assumed to be like the worst thing ever? All of us have an interest in the economy continuing to run.

He had to sleep in the same bed with his mother, who taught him meditation.

You'd be on heroin, too, with that kind of a past!
[hr][font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font][hr]

Sid

I don't condone his threatening Smith to "look into his kids," but I also don't condone what the fucking feds did to him. I guess only the DOJ, FBI, CIA and NSA are allowed to fuck with people.

She's not so much interested in the case as she is in getting Octafish banned. Surely you can understand that the little details like accuracy don't matter nearly as much as keeping your eyes on the prize.

for crop circles, JFK assassination theories, and 9/11 CT on DU.

His threads are legendary.

I stand behind what I write. I source the information I post so others can see for themselves. And I've got my journals on DU3 and DU2.

My writings are not perfect, I am pressed for time. However, my journals are representative of what I' have posted on DU over the years and they are true to the best of my knowledge. And when they aren't, there are plenty of people who kindly remind me. You are not among that group, msanthrope.

starters.

That oughta be against TOS.

Of course fucking with the feds is always good. Enforcement of the law is so wrong! How dare they?

as well as the folks upthread DESPERATELY trying to make this OP, somehow, about OBAMA.

But where is the proof that he's "Greenwald's hero?" Who exactly is this man?

in Greenwald's tweet, you would have known that…

A short clip from Greenwald's link:

You and Octafish seem to be the only ones interested in anything more than half-truths.

Sad ain't it?

legal situation.

He was a journalist who'd written for HuffPo, Vanity Fair and The Guardian when he got interested in Anonymous.

http://www.thenation.com/article/174851/strange-case-barrett-brown

First, let me state what I shouldn't need to, but given the low level of reading comprehension that DU sometimes exhibits, I'll put it up front: I do not support harassment of an FBI agent's minor children. I also do not support harassment of an FBI agent's children who've reached adulthood. Indeed, I don't support the harassment of anyone who's being harassed on the basis of someone else's misdeeds.

Now, as to Greenwald's very valid point from this March, 2013 article:

[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

It's been termed "assault with a deadly lawsuit." The prosecutor brings bogus or overblown charges against you, confronting you with the danger of 25 years in prison. Here's how you're punished:
1) Your best-case scenario is that you're acquitted, but only after spending thousands of dollars on attorney's fees, having your life disrupted for months or years, and possibly spending time in prison before the acquittal because you couldn't make bail or you were held without bail.
2) Going to trial in these circumstances is an awful risk, even if you're innocent. Juries have convicted innocent people before. Many, many defendants in this situation decide that they'd better take a plea deal. Without any jury or judge ever finding you guilty, you pay a fine, serve six months in prison (instead of 25 years), after which you have a period of probation, and you have a permanent criminal record, with multiple adverse consequences.

The grand jury (in)actions concerning the deaths of Michael Brown and Eric Garner have us all thinking about the problem of inadequate prosecution of servants of the state. Let's remember the other problem, though: the excessive prosecution of adversaries of the state.

So sick of delusional twerps trying to act like some protagonist in a shitty, low-budget thriller movie.

This is real life. Fucking grow up and snap out of it.

The same "real life" corruption in our government that a handful here chooses to mock and derail. When one suggests a journalist should be put in a cage because he's exposing the corruption of the Bush Crime Family, YOU are part of the problem. His work is out there for all to read and if one took the time to do so, you would see he's one of the good guys...unless of course you're a member of the corrupt apparatchik.

Brown is a message from the oligarchs to all activists. If you try to organize and expose our corruption, we will come after your leaders and their families. The Nation put it quite succinctly:

It appears the narrative is that he is being unjustly punished for merely publishing a link! And was held without bail for a year! More evidence of the persecution of the whistleblower! He pled guilty though, which makes no sense in that context.

He was interviewed saying he knows he is doing what is illegal but he is doing it for the good of all and only to those who deserve it. When asked who deserves it, we see that, like Eddie, he makes that determination, not us or our elected officials or their appointees.

homophobic tactics as part of their criticism of him and that their cohort never, ever objects to those tactics. I know that it is perfectly possible to be harshly critical of any minority member in the public eye without sinking to bigoted tactics, and so when such tactics are used I know they are used by choice.
I know that one of the people who was a major Greenwald detractor on DU has also admitted to DU that he spent years on right wing websites writing horribly bigoted things about LGBT people. He says he's sorry for that now, and it is in his Journal so it is fair to speak of it. Is it coincidence or a pattern? Should I give a shit? No, because the larger community of detractors never stepped up to stop the 'Oh my God, Greenwald is gay!' threads nor the comments about his living in Brazil, comments about his partner, nor about the comments that tried to tie all gay people to Greenwald. They all just sat there amused at the attacks.
I assume those same people, when they want to criticize a person of color, do not mind using bigoted rhetoric associated with people of color, nor would they mind being associated as they do so with posters who have admitted to years of bigoted posts about people of color. Why do I assume this? Because those who would use shitty, bigoted tropes against someone over a political disagreement are those who would do that to anyone.
And again, it is fully possible to roundly and soundly criticize a gay person or other minority member without ever bringing up their minority identity, because that identity should not have a thing to do with your political disagreement, so bringing it up or alluding to it in any way is just nothing but bigotry, even if the target is Alan West or that French gay activist who is all right wing and racist. And everybody knows this is true, including those who use the shitty tactics.

So Greenwald would have to do something really bad for me to think worse of him than I do of many of his detractors on DU.