Admittedly, they are seeking input from disaffected people at a time when Republicans hold the presidency and both houses of Congress, but it seems they are so completely biased they think their examples are "non-partisan."
My experience under the Reagan, Bush1, Clinton, Bush2, and Obama administrations leads me to believe that there is plenty of misconduct on both sides of the aisle that should be exposed. You don't have to look very hard to find examples - it just takes listening a little bit to the other side occasionally, and not automatically disregarding everything they say.
It looks to me like the party that abuses power more is the party that has more of it at the time.
And yes, the Republicans have a worrisome amount of power at this time, so there is a lot of discussion on those potential abuses. The apocalyptic rhetoric is very similar (but of opposite polarity) to that in 2009 and other times, back at least to 1993.
On a personal level, Greenwald probably is somewhere between liberal and libertarian, but I'm quite sure he's neither Democrat nor Republican, and just as sure he favors neither "team" in his reporting.
They're (imo) a bit on the tinfoil hat side of reporting, but they're hardly partisan. The simple fact is that now the administration is Republican, so any comments on the current administration are going to be about a Republican administration.
"Becoming a whistleblower is not an easy decision, but sometimes it is the right thing to do."
https://www.democracynow.org/2016/9/14/obamas_war_on_whistle...
http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/10/09/mouths-wide-shut-obam...
Did the "nonprofit, nonpartisan" Intercept publish similar instructions over the last 8 years? For a "journalistic piece" it's odd there is no author of the article. They don't have any contact links beside an onion address and a PO Box.
Who funds the Intercept anyway?
I think Greenwald, a self described liberal, has been fair in calling out other liberals in their hypocrisy, especially the Obama admin.
http://www.alternet.org/glenn-greenwald-remember-when-obama-...
So the answer to your question is "No, but...".
Pierre Omidyar funded The Intercept. He got wealthy as the founder of eBay.
The intercpt, and glen greenwald, were a thorn in the obama administration's side with their reporting. Now they intend to be a thorn in Trump's side. That sounds non-partisan, at least in the sense of republican and democrat, to me.
And debate schedules purposely designed by DWS to keep them off of prime time TV.
I don't like Trump, but I'm glad he won; the DNC and Clinton needed a lesson taught.
That's a bit like complaining that I only invite my friends to my birthday party.
You're doing a really, really good job of making my point for me. I suspect the Democrats aren't all that moved by the argument "Trump supporters should be allowed to help pick the Democratic nominee!"
I'm not a Trump supporter; I voted against Clinton, and my vote was first to Sanders. I'm happy with my vote; Trump winning has galvanized progressive coalitions in a way that wouldn't have happened if Clinton had won.
Establishment Democrats who aren't progressive enough need to die off faster. Then the Demoractic party might run candidates worth voting for.
Shouldn't the republicans be taught some lesson as well?
Actively fighting him provided them no purchase; the (republican) public still won.
(video of "democracy" at the NV caucus)
Was it "rigging"? That depends on your interpretation, but it obviously wasn't a functioning democracy.
> If President Trump tries to turn public institutions against the people they are intended to protect and serve, then leaking will be more important than ever.
This is a conflicted statement. Whistle blowing, or leaking if you must, is always important and should not be weighed on a single individual's threat to the people. It is always important to report a biased judgement against others, but the importance should not be indicated in the same breath as stating "if" someone does something it's "more" important.
This "twist" in conflicted logic in the statement makes it a blaming statement against Trump, which might indicate it's biased. That's not to say Trump isn't biased, but that's another problem entirely.
Misinformed statements like these are what somewhat dismissive of democracy. If you would have put in the slightest bit of effort and done some research instead of spouting off the first thing that came to your mind. If you don't want to do the research, you don't have to have a strong opinion on things that you have little domain knowledge in. He is especially dubious of Russia's involvement in election hacking and deems it a sideshow.
Read something, anything written by Glenn Greenwald in the past 4 years. There is probably no greater, substantive critic of Obama The Drone reports would be an excellent start.
It gave Breitbart a happy:
http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/01/02/greenwald-wapo-stor...