Could be.

Mr. Sumners.

not be paid to be there.

criticism of HRC for giving away her speaker's fees to charity, I'd like to see the same standard applied.

Who knows? It would be interesting to hear, though, I'm sure. Greenwald has a way with words. He can even use Manichean in a sentence. Not correctly, of course, but he does know the word and has an inkling of what it means.

Yes, I'd like to hear this speech. I guess he made a deal with NCPA to keep it on the hush-hush. Imagine that...

But something tells me today is not that day.

He spent 10-20 minutes slamming government surveillance before the interview. Spin? Its going in the other direction.

Not his preferred line of conversation, of course, but, upon exiting onto the not-so-free streets of Moscow afterwards, he could have been excused for wondering if his life has become slightly absurd.

I saw the piece and I don't understand how you read it as any sort of condemnation of Snowden or an exoneration of NSA domestic intelligence.

He literally told Snowden to his face no one gives a shit and Snowden was unable to counter it. It's unfortunate. Because he's right. They dropped the ball.

The focus should've been the secret FISA courts not data collection.

they are focused on things like the statue and talking about oscars.

I recommend it to everyone.

media, which will interrupt a discussion on this topic to go to news about Justin Bieber. That was the point of putting everything in the context of 'dick pics'.

I think Oliver criticized him releasing classified materials, that may be harmful, with even reading them. I think he was making the point that a Snowden has to OWN that... Something he consistently failed to do.

I think he also agrees that NSA programs may be too intrusive, but that the simplistic portrayal of Snowden as an uncomplicated hero is facile and shallow.

Snowmen may have exposed some information in the public interest. He also was extremely irresponsible and a dupe. Greenwald played him like a fiddle.

and he's got to own the fact that he fucked up the reveal. He's made himself irrelevant.

I think Greenwald used him, terribly.

to Bernie Sanders or...

There are a lot of things he could have done that would have had more positive results on every front.

was in. I think Greenwald cooked up the specious "Let's send an email to someone asking about Executive Orders"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025020127#post1

And I think Snowden was stupid enough to fall for it, thinking it was an ass-covering. The fact is, Greenwald should have told Snowden to get a frickin' lawyer. But that would have interfered with the money making.

Any late twenty something without legal training who decides himself an expert and whistleblowing hero on an issue regarding a complex and debated portion of Constitutional law is a sophomoric jerk with delusions of grandeur. To then willy-nilly (and I define willy-nilly as not having read them first and not carefully deciding what to release) release tens of thousands of classified documents because of this hubris makes him a criminal.

Greenwald definitely deserves a huge amount of blame. There is no excuse for a journalist who is also a degreed and former practicing attorney not planning out a course of action that gets his client/source what he wants without committing multiple crimes and thoroughly exposing himself in the process. I wonder if there might be a strong case for Snowden to sue Greenwald because of that.

is a mark of some intelligence agency. The Russians, the Chinese.....heck, he could be a pawn in an internecine battle between the CIA and the NSA. He is just stupid and clever enough, with the right amount of hubris thrown in, to think he's in his own spy movie. I have no doubt he was manipulated...but he is responsible for being manipulated.

As for Greenwald, I think he simply took a calculated risk that he would not prosecuted...and I have no doubt that GG was chosen by whoever set Snowden in motion, because he's good in his role. Greenwald is responsible, however, for not being a decent human being and securing Snowden a lawyer.

As for Snowden suing Greenwald, well, I'd buy tickets.....

covert info though. In fact, he pointed that out to Snowden on the video.

Snowden should have stopped with revealing domestic spying.

I trust both Snowden and Greenwald to report fairly. I think Snowden did the right thing. I think Greenwald, however, went about it the wrong way, and went for a money grab as opposed to a civic solution.

I don't doubt anything much of Greenwalds reporting, I don't think Snowden had bad intentions (and I think it's still possible Snowden is playing both sides and that would blow fucking minds if that turned out to be true since the blowback has been effectively nil, though LIHOP is more likely).

He couldn't give a shit about you or anyone else in the country. I mean, he used Snowden and threw him away. He couldn't give a shit about fair reporting. He cares about getting his name in the headlines and money in his pocket. Libertarian politics is just the avenue to make that happen.

I mean... Glenn Fucking Beck? Yeah... That's where people interested in fair reporting go....

changed post the President's speech 3 weeks prior to the revelations when he said he wanted to have a dialogue concerning how much is too much domestic intelligence gathering, drones, etc.

That would have been the perfect time for Greenwald and Snowden to sit down with a deputy chief of staff and say, "Look, these are the concerns we have. Does the President really want this dialogue?"

But there is no sensation in that, and there is nothing there for a wannabe hero. So instead we have this sensationalized release of information most of which Snowden himself says he never read. And instead of a real dialogue with everyone sitting down to figure out what is the best way to deal with the threats going forward while minimizing any concerns of privacy, the agencies involved go into self preservation mode, the white house goes into self preservation mode, and every kind of possible change slows to a crawl.

But that's OK for Greenwald and Snowden. They got the notoriety they wanted out of it.

court-packing. HE was denied a berth because even by 1937 standards, he was considered a disgusting racist, whose views on racial politics tracked more closely with Mr. Hitler's.

(He did support court packing, though.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Black
<<During his Senate career Black consistently opposed the passage of Anti-Lynching legislation.[24] In 1935 Black lead a filibuster of the Wagner-Costigan anti-lynching bill.[25] The Pittsburgh Post Gazette reported that when a motion to end the fillibuster was defeated "[t]he southerners- headed by Tom Connally of Texas and Hugo Black of Alabama - grinned at each other and shook hands."[26]>>

own.

It appears he wasn't as outspoken in his bigotry, however.

actual lynching itself.

"I yield to no man my hostility and antagonism to the crime of lynching." Wagner-Costigan debate.

HEre is Walter White of the NAACP describing his relationship with Hugo Black and the issue of lynching.... (no googling who Walter White is! That's cheating!)


https://books.google.com/books?id=E941yjPRAQEC&pg=PA177&lpg=PA177&dq=hugo+black+lynching&source=bl&ots=umCFhs1kAE&sig=cqPN_ND1Ir4_jw4Z-ZwSdFwGK9k&hl=en&sa=X&ei=y-UjVbeOKs_jsASdlYDQBw&ved=0CDQQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=hugo%20black%20lynching&f=false

I think Hugo Black was wrong. But to compare his stances with a man who advocated lynching.....is to abuse history.

"just" oppose anti-lynching legislation (if the goal posts have now changed)-- James Byrnes.

This is what Walter White said about Byrnes: “a notorious South Carolina Negro-hater” whose “hostility” to African-Americans was “unbroken.”
http://tinyurl.com/lystdyh

<<Byrnes played a key role in blocking anti-lynching legislation, notably the Castigan-Wagner bill of 1935 and the Gavagan bill of 1937.[10] Byrnes even claimed that lynching was necessary "in order to hold in check the Negro in the south", saying "rape is responsible, directly and indirectly, for most of the lynching in America".[11] >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_F._Byrnes

<<Byrnes was certain the growing hesitancy of black men to defile white women could be traced, in part, to the very existence of lynching and the “certainty of punishment,” which has brought “fear to the hearts of the criminal Negro.” >> http://tinyurl.com/lystdyh

<<Earlier, as a Congressman in 1919, he asked the attorney general to prosecute editors of [the] Crisis and Messenger because they demanded equal rights for Negroes.” He said, “this is a white man’s country, and will always remain a white man’s country.”
>>http://tinyurl.com/lystdyh

He actually left the Supreme Court for other pursuits, including (a few years later) the governorship of South Carolina, where he opposed desegregation of schools:

"Ending segregation," Governor James F. Byrnes of South Carolina warned, "would mark the beginning of the end of civilization in the South as we have known it."

On the other hand, Byrnes did support court packing (and the New Deal, for the most part). Whatever Roosevelt may have personally felt about civil rights (and mob murder), his main priority (before the war) was to get the New Deal passed, and he needed the racist southern Democrats (on the Court and in the Congress) to accomplish that.

your history lesson.

Maybe you could get a job with James O'Keefe? You seem to share the same skill set.

work the Google?

that's so predictable.. they don't like the message so they blame you. Poor things.



Glen and Glenn look so happy there.. ol greenwald was out trying to Not get Obama elected in 2012.. he did a piss poor job.

Details please.

Haven't watched the Oliver clip yet. I have it bookmarked.

Found by Google search...

isn't done beating that horse yet.....

But what I want is a transcript.....the memorial lecture is honoring a pro-lynching Congressperson. I'd like to know what he said about that.

...we can continue to bash and defame him for that until we get a 'transcript' - can't we? That makes perfect sense...doesn't it? I mean, if you disagree, anyway, with his warnings, revelations, admonitions about the government spying on Americans and others, this is a golden opportunity. No need at all to bring up those pesky remarks he actually made about government tyranny, lies, and betrayal.

from the Greenwaldian message that 'government isn't the solution to the problem, government is the problem?'

He is a libertarian, not a progressive.

...a good line for the disinformation campaign, though.

It serves the defenses of the intelligence regime within our government to define Greenwald outside of the progressive movement, but his admonitions against the security state - which was opportunistically bolstered and developed in the wake of 9-11 with the passage of the Patriot Act - are very much in line with progressive values in defense of individual liberty, privacy, and due process of law.

to do anything about any problem.

Global warming? Radio silence. Infrastructure? Radio silence. The ACA and Medicaid? Radio silence. Regulation of Wall Street? Radio silence.

It's always, "the government is bad, the government can't be trusted, the government needs to be rolled back, the government needs to be weaker, smaller, and less intrusive."

Or, as Greenwald himself said:

...but my interest is still in his revelations about the government spying. I believe much of this effort to denigrate him personally is intended to detract from those revelations. I think that's why most of these character attacks on Greenwald are conspicuously void of any discussion of the government abuses and crimes that he uncovered - or summarily and immaterially dismissive of them.

I do think other aspects of his politics is fair game for attack, but I doubt, very much, that he was defending lynching, promoting lynching, or serendipitously celebrating lynching with this appearance. What's been reported are his standard criticisms of government surveillance tactics. I'm quite certain detracting from all of that is the main impetus of the op in distorting the nature and substance of this appearance. It's a profundity of prevarication which is a curious and contradictory way to cast aspersions on the subject's own veracity.

any and all prominent Democrats. Case in point:

...the subject of his remarks.

That type of deliberate distraction from the content of his remarks against the security state is par for most criticisms of Greenwald. It's unlikely and improbable that he'd get a scant of attention to those remarks you've highlighted without the campaign against his revelations (and also his anti-militarization writings) and the co-opting of those denigrating efforts by defenders of this administration and the previous one.

It's also typical of criticisms of Greenwald to portray his remarks as 'anti-government.' To paraphrase Pres. Obama, he's not against federal government, he's against dumb (and corrupt) federal government.

Verbatim quote from his remarks, according to the post earlier in this thread.

More Barry Goldwater than Russ Feingold. This is how the libertarians troll Democrats. They pick issues of agreement, and use them to sow general hostility and distrust of the federal government.

If you really want proof of what a libertarian troll Greenwald is, and how he explicitly wants to help Republicans win elections, I give you this: (26:18)

...and attempting to discredit his findings by pointing to his political views has been the standard defense of government conduct from administration supporters; both Obama supporters and Bush's, as well.

Those political views of his are certainly open to criticism, but they are not a credible defense against his findings of government overreach and intrusion. It's a rather transparent effort by defenders of the government's intelligence ops to exploit the wedge between his political views and those who associate themselves with the Democratic party. However, I'm satisfied and encouraged that his efforts to expose and highlight the government abuses and misconduct have found support from many disparate political quarters.

I do think they are worth discussing and merit legislative correction.

But, its importance as an issue is greatly overinflated, compared to the myriad other issues, such as:

climate change
stagnating wages
health care
voting rights
immigration reform

Go ahead and poll people in Brooklyn or Baltimore about what's more important to them, Edward Snowden's NSA claims/revelations or unemployment in their community.

The NSA stuff receives disproportionate attention because it scares privileged, affluent white guys into thinking they might, one day, hypothetically speaking under imaginable circumstances, get 1% of the state-sponsored abuse poor people of color get on a daily basis.

Sure, fix the NSA, but also keep in mind there are much bigger issues at stake in each and every election.

...but as far as Greenwald is concerned, he's not influential in ANY of them in his political choices.

The ONLY significant influence Greenwald has had is in his NSA findings. Railing against him for these political views is fine, but not interesting or productive in the least UNLESS you share his constant critic's agenda in discrediting those NSA revelations. That's been the main impetus for most people for criticizing him. It's obvious and transparent, and part and parcel of an ongoing disinformation campaign to minimize or devalue his findings - much like the op is doing in this thread.

and join forces with the libertarians. He has gone explicitly on the record as stating he hopes he can persuade progressives to cost Democrats elections, knowing full well that it would hurt those who are much less privileged than he is.

he trots out the NSA stuff in his argument to say that Ron Paul would credibly be a preferable than Barack Obama.

http://www.salon.com/2011/12/31/progressives_and_the_ron_paul_fallacies/

(while lying his ass off, of course)

You would be well-advised to avoid ascribing bad faith to those of us who were liberals and progressives back when Glenn Greenwald was a loyal servant of Wall Street, as well as a Pat Buchanan-lite Paleoconservative bashing immigrants and defending white supremacists.

He only writes about the stuff that scares affluent white dudes because that's all he really cares about.

And you really ought to consider what constantly fear-mongering about how evil, out of control, despotic, and untrustworthy the federal government is--you ought to consider whether that serves the agenda of the disadvantaged in society, or the Koch Brothers.

...the revelations are extremely important and he is one of a select few who were privileged with the opportunity and chose to do so.

he is going with this. And it can't be dismissed by calling all of those who hold it as shameless servants of neofascism.

...as much as I care where the government goes with it. Addressing these issues and accounting for these abuses will take a constant vigilance and focus - much of which Greenwald is providing in his advocacy. I don't need to agree with the rest of his politics to support that effort.

and encouraged his blog readers to support them as well. As far as I can tell, he has only endorsed progressive Democratic candidates.

The “split is not so much between conservative and liberal, but between insiders in Washington and outsiders in Washington,” he said.

This is rhetorical nonsense. This scapegoating "Washington" is the kind of thing to say when you really don't have anything relevant to say.

That's why Democratic candidates and Democratic and left leaning journalists and pundits don't say stuff like that. Democratic and Liberal audiences demand actual policy discussion from candidates and pundits.

Whereas... the knuckle-dragging Tea Party crowd eats this kind of stuff up.

First, your description of Greenwald's tour is so biased as to be laughable.

But what you guys really miss is: It Doesn't Matter who Glen Greenwald is, what his personal habits or opinions are, who his friends or allies are, or what talk shows he decides to go on.

What matters is: The Information he releases. His many revelations on the NSA haven't been refuted, simply because they are irrefutable.

Fine for you to hate him if you want to. I understand. He says bad stuff about Clinton and President Obama, both of whom I like, and some of it is untrue. But it's churlish to slam the guy personally every time he reveals an inconvenient truth.

who the messenger is. It matters what their agenda is.....particular when it is someone like Mr. Greenwald, who cherry picks facts to suit that agenda.

Hey...don't believe me? Ask his former coworkers......Matt Taibbi, Ken Silverstien, John Cook, Natasha Vargas-Cooper.....all leaving the sinking ship.

I fully understand there's an effort afoot to make it seem as though Snowden's claims have been effectively countered. But that's just propaganda that goes well with side orders of attempted character assassination (see OP, above). When it comes to detailing the many lies of Ed Snowden, his accusers have nothing.

Haters gotta hate.

In the OP you linked, you did not in any way prove anything about Greenwald. As I recall, Awlaki was used by the Bush Admin as a "good Muslim". You may not agree with Greenwald--in fact, I know you don't--but you did nothing to provide concrete evidence that Greenwald told a lie. That's because he didn't tell a lie. He wrote an article that took the point of view that Awlaki was a moderate in 2001.

Similarly, in my own OP for which I provided you a link, no one, NO ONE, was able to point out a lie that Greenwald has told. The best I got was someone posting that a member of the government SAYS Greenwald was a liar. This is the same government that--you know--lies all the time. No one was able to provide any proof of Greenwalds's alleged lies in that thread.

And isn't it ironic that I'm having this discussion with you? You're an attorney. You run into liars on a regular basis, don't you? You're also a political creature, just like I am. Here's an exercise: name your 4 favorite politicians. Odds are very high that at least 75% of them tell lies on a regular basis. You're swimming in a world of lies, and so am I. So why is it that you and a handful of others burn so, so much energy trying to make Glenn Greenwald into a liar? You're not able to come up with shit against him, and you're virtually surrounded by liars, at least in the political spectrum. By now, you've written pages and pages and pages of screeds against Ed Snowden and Glenn Greenwald (which is a little off in its own right). You've gone to ridiculous lengths to feign outrage at one or the other (a holy gravesite!!!). But you haven't provided a shred of proof for your oft-repeated claims. I won't be coy and rhetorically ask why that is; I already know. But I also understand I'm not your intended audience. You're probably pretty effective with your intended audience.

Finally, let's review standards of proof, at least for our purposes here as they relate to Greenwald's alleged lies:

1. Post something Greenwald has said that you feel to be a lie.
2. Post the actual proof that whatever Greenwald has said is a lie.*
3. Be unambiguous. Don't post a link to a 100-post thread and claim that the proof is in there. Show the actual lie in quotes. Then show the proof of the lie as succinctly as possible. No recursive lookups, no wild goose chases.

*proof is not constituted by you believing in your heart of hearts that your argument was better than Greenwald's.

truthfully about Anwar Awlaki. And nothing will sway you.

I and other have already done what you've asked.....and you've dismissed it. My OP was very clear on Greenwald's demonstrably false claims about Anwar Awlaki......but you seem to believe him.

He wrote something you vehemently disagree with. You've done nothing to disprove Greenwald's opinion. I've been known to retract statements I've made on DU, leaving them for all to see while apologizing for getting my facts wrong. It's not fun to admit it when I'm wrong, but I'm still wrong about things I post from time to time, and I'll admit that when I'm shown the error of my ways. You're not showing me the error of my ways. In fact, you're not even defending your own assertion. Instead, you've chosen to tack in the direction of making this about me and my stubbornness when it comes to admitting being wrong. Well, this is not about me, and if was about me, the preamble above should put that to rest, unless of course you believe me to be a liar. This post, this little part of the thread, is about claims that Greenwald isn't truthful. I'll be glad to answer your charge very specifically if you'll use the space below to iterate exactly where you believe Greenwald is lying, and then post your proof that he is, in fact, lying. Show me those demonstrably false claims Greenwald made about AA and let's discuss.

Perhaps you should reread my OP, since you missed that I proved Greenwald's factual assertion demonstrably false regarding Anwar Awlaki....

Fact, not opinion.

Juan Williams, James Baker, Rick Perry, James Baker, Gingrich, Karl Rove (and many others) - it's telling that Greenwald is the only one that's been criticized on DU for appearing. Seriously, do a search for Hatton Sumners on DU - you get two topics and one post in another topic attacking Greenwald for appearing at the series, and then one mention of Sumners criticism of FDR court packing and one mention of the Hatton Sumners law school.

It's impressive when people are much more interested in gunning for Greenwald than they are in going after people like Romney, Netanyahu, Gingrich, Rove, etc.

that is all...

We often hear how bad Hillary is for speaking to "corporations" and the like. So speaking for an organization that lionized a racist and named a Lecture for him - that seems equally bad. I'm sure the same people are going to come and condemn Glenn for this.

be ranting and raving all over the place and Hell to pay!.. but since it's ol glenn beck.. I mean glenn greenwald, who seems right in his element(Birds of a propaganda feather). It's you who is the bad person,msanthrope.. shame!



Excellent thread.. and Brilliant from LGF, too!

Thank you!

I mean, seriously, applying for a scholarship named after a staunch segregationist? I've even seen some people brag about getting them. Disgusting.

I could not care in the slightest if Glenn Greenwald is an overbearing, shoplifting zoophiliac. It wouldn't change the stories he's reported one iota. I'm sure you understand that, so typing up these little smear pieces over and over and over has got to be a little... I don't know... disheartening? You can't possibly respect the small cadre that shows up to clap excitedly for them.

I mean, I think I'd feel like a megachurch preacher staring out at a bunch of devoted rubes. Yeah, they're cheering, but so what? Know what I mean?

Nothing against the surveillance state has come from Greenwalds reporting. A couple of blockbuster movies, sure. Well made movies. Some book deals. But other than that...

I don't think you've actually watched it. Your comments on this topic make me think you're just repeating what other people have told you about it.

has been nothing short of specious, and thus, his reaction when Awlaki was named in the Charlie Hebdo attacks was not only seen as offensive but unprofessional.

I think a reporter who accepts Koch money has an agenda, don't you?

Bravo

Greenwald since LGF was an Islamaphobic right wing site.

With this new "revelation," we learn Greenwald is not just a Nazi loving Jew, not just a LGBT hating gay man (etc.)... but he is also an ardent ACLU supporter who (by association-- or else why is the life of some long dead guy virtually no one here had ever previously heard of being investigated?) is pro lynching!

Geez. Just engage the actual arguments... or ignore him.

He probably didn't say anything that could be taken out of context, so if you get a transcription, people will go "oh, that's it."

But the association matters. And you can guarantee he didn't step on toes or criticize the people in the room. If he did that I wouldn't care about the association.

that's what I want to hear.

transcripts or videos available....

Mr. Greenwald is prolific on YouTube.

Following up on yesterday’s article on Glenn Greenwald’s appearance on the Glenn Beck show, The Blaze (Beck’s vanity media organization) has posted several video clips at YouTube.

As we noted yesterday, Greenwald attacked people who criticized him for doing this interview, saying he “disagrees” with Beck and comparing himself to President Obama being interviewed by Bill O’Reilly. But if you watch any of the clips posted by The Blaze, you won’t see any disagreement between them — none at all. In fact, this interview was like a meeting of a mutual admiration society, with Greenwald and Beck laughing and smiling together throughout.

In the clip I posted above, get a load of this exchange in which Greenwald agrees with Beck that Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton are “interchangeable.”
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/44488_Followup-_Glenn_Beck_and_Glenn_Greenwald_Agree_on_Pretty_Much_Everything

I have always found that a really dubious part of his character. He seems to use people for "noble" purposes, then cast them aside to their fates.

As for this new revelation about good old GG himself, Wowsers.

I thought for sure someone would tell us!

To say the least.

News flash: he's not the whistleblower! That was Snowden, folks.

Two spin columns in two days (and counting)...He's already crammed in every talking point in his arsenal, and since he doesn't have any dirt to smear Oliver/HBO with, I'm thinking Poitras or some other Greenwald flunky is about to fly out to Moscow to grant a nice, easy "corrective" interview...

The fucked up part is that he acts as if he's some kind of different writer and doesn't spew shit like everyone else does.