General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsGreenwald running cover for Russia?
Last edited Sun Dec 11, 2016, 04:16 PM - Edit history (2)
https://theintercept.com/2016/12/10/anonymous-leaks-to-the-washpost-about-the-cias-russia-beliefs-are-no-substitute-for-evidence/
...
He did work his ass off to make sure Hillary didn't get elected after all.
On edit...for transparency I did have a personal encounter with him recently.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10028282801
And Snowdon and Assange.
Abu Pepe
(637 posts)SHRED
(28,136 posts)http://www.juancole.com/2016/12/america-russia-yourself.html
onecaliberal
(32,902 posts)SHRED
(28,136 posts)He could stroll down the avenue hand in hand with his husband and see how the government treats him.
onecaliberal
(32,902 posts)FarCenter
(19,429 posts)His boyfriend was elected to the city council in 2016.
lapucelle
(18,351 posts)He's a holier than thou, judgmental, bluestocking who helped to ensure the Trump win.
Response to lapucelle (Reply #5)
SHRED This message was self-deleted by its author.
SHRED
(28,136 posts)You certainly hit a raw nerve with the saintly Mr. Greenwood. He and Comey are cut from different ends of the same cloth.
flamingdem
(39,328 posts)That gang has always had a soft spot..
Katrina vandenHeuvel @KatrinaNation 11m11 minutes ago
Anonymous leaks to the WashPost about the CIA's Russia beliefs are no substitute for evidence https://interc.pt/2hpqxYM by @ggreenwald
Generator
(7,770 posts)Maybe he's turned. Blackmail by Russians? Snowden? Nothing is certain anymore. He freaking actually sounds like he's working for Russia. Double holy shitcan. He links to Tucker Carlson. Good god. The sneering tone of that peace is unbelievable as well!
SHRED
(28,136 posts)KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)He's not the brightest bulb on the tree, but it has to have dawned on him he was the proverbial useful idiot.
JI7
(89,276 posts)Generator
(7,770 posts)AT ALL. He and intercept attacked viciously this group on twitter propornot that is uncovering Russian propaganda. He claimed it was McCarthyism because some of the sites were possibly good but that wasn't the point. He's lost me. http://www.propornot.com/p/home.html
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)gulliver
(13,197 posts)They both fed mistrust of the American government. Now look what's happened.
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)SHRED
(28,136 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Cicada
(4,533 posts)Anonymous us govt sources often lie. Greenwald has always pointed out they are unreliable. This is not proof he is pro Russia.
pnwmom
(108,995 posts)and he helped Snowden go there.
Trump and his deplorables also argue on behalf of Russia -- and they're wrong, too.
Cicada
(4,533 posts)Russia has 10 military bases outside Russia. The US has almost 800. We kill vastly more people than Russia does. We invade far more countries. We interfere in far more foreign elections.
We also do more goods things than Russia does by far.
But maybe it is reasonable to criticize the US more than Russia.
And Snowden should get the Nobel Peace Prize in my opinion. He revealed secrets hidden from the US public kept secret to hide government misbehavior from the public. Our enemies already knew most of what Snowden revealed.
Greenwald seems on the mark as far as I can tell.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)I for example don't expect much from deplorables, and a lot from DU.
pnwmom
(108,995 posts)to be harder on Hillary than on DT, and that was a grievous error.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)to positions they cared about are why Trump won. Right.
We demand more from people who are capable of it, and that's as it should be.
pnwmom
(108,995 posts)As if speeches to Goldman Sachs in return for donations to her charitable foundation were comparable to DT's long history of corruption and fraud.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)is full of corruption and fraud, right? That lobbyists for corporations write laws--and "gold-standard" treaties--through legislators their employers donated to, right? That much of what Nixon was almost impeached for is now legal, right? Legalized bribery is rampant in the US system and for many it seems making it legal makes it right, or even normal. It doesn't and it isn't.
There is no doubt that DT is corrupt to his core, personally and in his business dealings. But Hillary's speeches to Goldman Sachs are not a nothingburger (unlike the emails). She knew she was running for president--she'd been running for years--and so did her audience. To profit from that, given the economic debacle only a few years before, caused in large part by her audience...that raises questions about her judgment, her lack of connection and even her morality.
I'm sorry she lost, but she was a lousy candidate.
And yes, before you accuse, I voted for her. I wasn't happy about it, and I'm even more unhappy now.
pnwmom
(108,995 posts)Did you even listen to any of her speeches? Yes, they were definitely nothingburgers, if you're a white guy but the money helped a real charity.
Hillary Clinton's speech to Goldman Sachs: "Proving the Case for Women Entrepreneurs."
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)Hillary personally profited from her speeches to GS: 3 speeches, $675,000, paid to her, not the Foundation.
Clintons remarks during paid speeches to Goldman Sachs, Deutsche Bank, Morgan Stanley, and other groups were leaked online Friday afternoon by WikiLeaks. Clinton, who was paid upwards of $225,000 per speech, earned more than $22 million on the paid speaking circuit after resigning as secretary of state.
--https://theintercept.com/2016/10/07/excerpts-of-hillary-clintons-paid-speeches-to-goldman-sachs-finally-leaked/
I'd call that a profit, myself.
Another thing: if they were nothingburger speeches, just what was GS et al paying for?
pnwmom
(108,995 posts)because the economic philosophy of libertarians is the opposite of socialism. They are against Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and every other aspect of what they call the "nanny state."
Other than being pro-choice and pro-pot, most Dems have little in common with them.'
And that article was lumping Hillary's Foundation speeches together with her personal speeches.
Did you listen to her speech? What was so offensive about it?
http://zfacts.com/2016/02/clinton-speaking-fees/
Over the negative din of politics, it can be hard to hear whats positive. Hillary Clinton has given $17.6 million of her speaking fees to charity (see below). Thats 26 times as much as she made on her three Goldman-Sachs speeches combined, or 50% more than she made on her 51 speeches in 2014 and 2015. Before presenting the details, let me summarize.
Her fees were not the least bit unusual given her stature.
Over 100 lesser known Americans are also in the $200,000+ category.
The Goldman Sachs fees were below her average fee.
She gave $17.6 million of her speaking fees to charity.
Charging Goldman Sachs less would have just meant more profits for them and less for charity.
There is simply no evidence, or logic, supporting the idea that she would sell out her whole career and deceive her huge base of supporters with a fake proposal to rein in Wall Street (a proposal that Elizabeth Warren supports). That she would do all this in return for three below-average fees from Goldman Sachs is beyond absurd.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)Fortune? The Fiscal Times? All of those links also came up when I did the google. But thanks so much for the education on libertarianism. Totally news to me. Or not.
I said her actions gave rise to questions about her motivations and honesty. That is the fact. Whether she intended to sell out her whole career is moot. I don't understand how she missed the lesson that politics is all about appearances. Her speeches and her stubborn stance not to release them, her carefully-worded position on TPP (not in favor "as written" , her stupid server (how easy would it have been, and how much less trouble, to keep work and personal emails SEPARATE?).
Sadly for all of us, her care and caution seemed more focused on protecting her privacy, and not her reputation.
pnwmom
(108,995 posts)And you didn't provide any link except for an extremely misleading piece in Greenwald's rag.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)I get it. You love Hillary. You defend her every day, against any and all criticisms, justified, constructive or otherwise. I regard that as a noble, but misguided effort. We will never agree. Good night.
pnwmom
(108,995 posts)I'm not going to chase a phantom -- sites that aren't Glenn Greenwald's that support your views.
But I did post a link to another site discussing Hillary's speeches, and you didn't bother to read it.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)I had time to waste today and it was time wasted. Because it is water over the dam and it doesn't matter anymore. It doesn't matter! She is not going to be president and everyone is going to have their own theory, blaming group x, y, z or this story or that, whatever. You think she was a great candidate, I don't. That won't change. What matters is what happens next. One "next" thing is maybe to read sites that don't always support your views; echo chambers are bad. Just a suggestion.
My "next" is going to bed; it is quite late here. Again, good night.
eleny
(46,166 posts)They provide plenty of reason to thoroughly probe all angles of wtf happened in MI, PA and WI including the possible Russian intervention.
These thoughts of his aren't passing the smell test.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)but the fact remains that that is not the determining outcome and never has been. Racking and stacking millions of votes in some states and effectively ignoring the "determining" states was arrogant and stupid.
Seriously, chasing Arizona and Georgia but not locking down Wisconsin? WTF?
eleny
(46,166 posts)I don't think they're a salve for hurt feelings, either. What I said was that they are a reason to look into what happened.
I wish you wouldn't use my posting as a springboard for your finger wagging. Just have the guts to start a thread of your own with those thoughts. I'm not in the least interested in debating them.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
BzaDem
(11,142 posts)Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that the CIA compromising sources and methods would not help with the CIA's ability to collect evidence in the future? What a concept.
Arneoker
(375 posts)Anyone for America, bad! Anyone against America, good! Shows his insufferable moral superiority!
Don't get me wrong, where the U.S. or the U.S. government is wrong, they need to be called out for it. We have plenty of things to atone for, as do people in all countries. But the U.S. is hardly uniquely evil, and is facing opposition from governments are relatively high on the scale of evil.
We should hardly give the CIA the ultimate in credibility, but my sense is that they have something here, and that the FBI is full of shit.
UTUSN
(70,744 posts)SHRED
(28,136 posts)Because that asshole didn't lift one finger to elect Hillary my wife and I will most likely lose our health coverage now that tRump is in.
No it's not Glenn's fault but you catch my drift.
Must be nice to be an elite like Glenn and pontificate from your lofty perch.