Edit: Jesus christ those replies. This is what I'm talking about. You're reaching North Korea levels of indoctrination.
I used to have a lot of respect for Greenwald, it's been disappointing to see his evolution since the Snowden revelations.
Anyway here's the intercept's response. Will you read it?
https://static.theintercept.com/amp/glenn-greenwald-resigns-...
"We have no doubt that Glenn will go on to launch a new media venture where he will face no collaboration with editors — such is the era of Substack and Patreon. In that context, it makes good business sense for Glenn to position himself as the last true guardian of investigative journalism and to smear his longtime colleagues and friends as partisan hacks."
Honestly, coming from not known who ether party was in this before this hackernews post. The intercept comes off as in the wrong to me. However, I could be being manipulated.
I am interested. Do you think these emails will come out as faked? I think even if they are real it doesn't change who should be president. But shouldn't we always be watching our elected leaders closely? What is the line between not publishing something because it is wrong and not publishing something because it might be true, but it goes too far against your beliefs.
The problem however is the convenience of whatever bullshit-du-jour is on the menu just in time for the election, by an administration that's been crying wolf at every corner since before it even started.
You can't get your "leader watch" news from agencies that are so blatantly corrupt, especially when they conveniently protect the leader who's got it way worse than the one they're accusing.
That this is a discussion is mind blowing to me. Your house is on fire and half the people in it are shit-talking the firefighter.
DKIM is already confirmed by an independent security researcher: https://github.com/robertdavidgraham/hunter-dkim. This is why Biden is not denying this, he knows the entire _three_ troves are real, dick pics and all. Graham, by the way, stated on October 14 that he's voting for Biden.
I... kind of think this wouldn't be the first time?
Greenwald rose to fame on the back of Snowden's revelations, and I don't want to downplay how important that was. But much of his journalism since then has had, well, a pretty conspiratorial no one else is writing this because THEY don't want you to know the TRUTH! slant to it, and he is always specifically -- often, it seems, exclusively -- concerned with failings of The Left, either "The Left is baselessly accusing The Right of something" (cf. Russian interference with the 2016 election) or "The Left is suppressing an important story that makes them look bad" (cf. Hunter Biden's magical mystery laptop).
And, look, sometimes THEY don't want you to know the TRUTH! is true! It was true with Snowden! But the boring, pedestrian reality is that most of the time when someone is the lone voice with the "big story" that other major news outlets are "suppressing," it's not because those other outlets are afraid to offend their Deep State, it's because the story doesn't have a lot of there there.
I mean, the Hunter Biden laptop story starts with asking us to believe that he dropped off three personal laptops for repair at a small computer repair shop, in a different state than he lived or worked in, and then forgot about those laptops, and that then those laptops were subpoenaed by the FBI and the shop owner illicitly made copies of the laptop's hard drive and that made its way to a tabloid -- the only publication that would run it, apparently -- by way of Rudy Guiliani. I'm just saying, it's not hard to imagine reasons other than they're part of the deep state conspiracy, man! that the Washington Post took a pass on this.
The thing is, this kind of story appeals to Greenwald because he's become -- or maybe always was -- the kind of person who doesn't believe he's doing his job properly unless he's taking the contrary position. Well, actually, there's no evidence Russia wanted Trump to win the election, they really wanted Clinton. Well, actually, there are no far-right conspiracies promoted by Trump, just far-left conspiracies against Trump. As New York (the magazine) put it a couple years ago,
It is of course important to keep one’s own side honest and to prevent conspiracy theories or bad arguments from taking hold. The problem is that the search for anti-Trump conspiracy theories is the whole of Greenwald’s analysis. He sees, or allows himself to see, nothing but crazy charges against Trump, to the point where there is no room in his field of vision for Trump himself. And so it seems obvious for him to casually observe that the conspiracy theories of the far right have disappeared, when in reality they have more power and influence than ever before.
That was written in 2018,[1] but I don't see much sign of that attitude changing since. Glenn is now stomping out of The Intercept because they challenged him to back up his "well, actually, this Hunter Biden stuff is a really big deal" contrarian take, which proves that they're part of the deep state conspiracy theory too, man.
I know this is harsh on Greenwald. He's absolutely correct that the conspiratorial mindset isn't something found just in right-wing circles; it's something I noticed occasionally many years ago when I was a more regular listener to Pacifica Radio. The problem is that he has repeatedlty demonstrated his own susceptibility to that mindset, and it's a real hard one to break out of. Removing himself from all editorial constraints and pushback is... not likely to help.
[1]: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/02/how-glenn-greenwald-...
Not only since then, but also before then. Unclaimed Territory was sensational first, news second. I mean I read and liked it, post-9/11 everyone was desperate for any views not drip-fed by the Bush administration. But if you had told me this guy's resignation from his own news startup would be pitched as the presidential-crisis-cum-journalistic-scandal in the 2020 elections I wouldn't've believed a word.
Right now it's an existential referendum and if we choose survival we can return back to to such matters.
All these BS stories are coming out right now, with days to go in the election, so that they can't be debunked and/or placed in context. It's "but what about her e-mails" all over again.
Edit, relevant: https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/security/how-fake-persona-laid-...
"Rosemont Seneca Bohai Morgan Stanley bank records show Hunter Biden, while simultaneously serving on Burisma’s board, received $708,302 between June 2014 and October 2015 from Rosemont Seneca Bohai, for undisclosed reasons, in a series of payments that ranged from $10,000 to $150,979 per month"
https://checkyourfact.com/2019/10/17/fact-check-hunter-biden...
"FBI investigating Hunter Biden over money-laundering allegations: report"
https://nypost.com/2020/10/29/fbi-investigating-hunter-biden...
Imagine that you are in charge the the Biden campaign, and that the story is false. What action would you take? It looks like its not gaining traction on its own, would you really direct the public's attention back to it?
Or you'll have to remind me where Snowden, possibly the most thorough and careful whistleblower of the last century, talked about the "deep state" or any of that QAnon shit.
The revelations with Snowden were in the details of things people already knew at a high level. People knew about the NSA's Echelon program, but didn't know things like how they tapped the un-encrypted intra-datacenter links.
Your current administration.
If your country burns, it takes a lot of other countries with it. You'll understand that we actually want what's good for you.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/russian-in-cyprus-was-behind-ke...
The NY Post is a tabloid. One of their headlines this week was that Miley Cyrus was once chased down by a UFO...
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/political-commentary/s...
The "fake" dossier actually existed, as did its contents. What got leaked was an unfinished internal draft that was never meant to be released. Buzzfeed was the company that published the dossier; the NYT simply reported on the dossier after it became a big issue. Given the nature of the allegations, multiple agencies in the U.S. attempted to verify the allegations. They were able to corroborate some but not all of the allegations in the dossier, as discussed in the Mueller Report.
Shortly after it was published by Buzzfeed: "How a Sensational, Unverified Dossier Became a Crisis for Donald Trump"
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/11/us/politics/donald-trump-...
Reputation trails actions. Overall Greenwald seems like a remarkably average journalist with strong rhetorical chops who lucked into a couple good stories. But he's spent the past few years squandering that social capital on a mix of conspiracy and irrelevance, and this may be his bankruptcy.
> He gave up his career as a lawyer to do what he does.
This means absolutely nothing. If anything lawyers aren't especially known as paragons of truth! (And that's fine for a lawyer where the adversarial system holds, but can make you a bit shit as a journalist.)
Sure, bud. Greenwald, a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist is all of a sudden "average", just because he dared to ask questions and expose near-airtight censorship by mass media and Big Tech.
https://www.newsweek.com/glenn-greenwald-legendary-progressi...
Your seemingly single criterion for trust still doesn't give the weight to Greenwald.
Mediocre people win prizes, and smart people do dumb things. Greenwald is not a reliable person to carry the entire institution of journalism on his shoulders as you keep insisting he does.
(Newsweek, by the way, has been owned and operated by Olivet / David Jang's Community cult for several years now. It has no connection to the previous magazine of the same name.)
I'm not sure I'm entirely convinced by this. some people value influence more than money.