Long read, but well worth it. Glenn, your summation of how the Democrat Party has abandoned core tenets of the US Constitution should be required reading. Incredibly concerning that so many in the US see the Constitution as antiquated.
Right, now let us do something about it and put Glenn's book back on the shelf.
He offers no solutions and frankly who really can trust a man who still has not released the promised Snowden files in entirety, who took a job with Omydyar at the Intercept, obviously a psyop and finally who blatantly defended Nazis in court, not once but multiple times pro bono and himself was disciplined by the Court for illegal judicial conduct?
Yo do not need to hold him up to the light to see right through him.
I am confused with your post. So what if he "defended Nazis in court?" In case you skipped civics class that day, our Constitution protects the rights of accused criminals. Lawyers defend guilty people every day. That's their job. It doesn't mean that defense lawyers approve of their client's conduct or share their client's politics. Are you like 6 years old?
I saw the psychotic 56 page long JDO pdf and saved it and reviewed it as well as read through the rest of what you wrote. I question your being an attorney after seeing that slime bucket stuff in the PDF.
No, but he did it “blatantly”, JB. I mean if he’d defended them “discreetly” that would be another thing...
Having lived through the Skokie episode all those years ago, I’m still amazed that so many people can’t grasp that what’s being defended at these trials is not the Nazi’s, or cannibals, or Klaatu, for god’s sake, but the principles and freedoms at play. That’s what is being defended. Blatantly, even.
You are confused either because you are uneducated or because you did not read the post or both.
I am a lawyer, having been one for almost as long as Glenn has been alive.
I believe everyone deserves a day in Court with legal, competent representation.
What you fail to see, for your assumptions are so dear that to actually engage in self justification has become your delusion.
By the way, he supports the positions of Barr, Flynn et. al.
"Greenwald and William Barr
From The Emptywheel 2020
“Two points about this. First, after I made it clear I was working on this in conversations with Glenn, he wrote this post, once again claiming to know details of what I shared with the FBI and what their response to that was, which I assume was an attempt to bully me into withholding this post. Ironically, The Intercept is fundraising off that post, celebrating a post that gets key details wrong. That is their prerogative. Glenn will apparently continue to make these claims; while there are baseless claims in it, I will continue to focus on correcting his baseless claims about other issues more central to current affairs.”
GLENN GREENWALD’S INVENTED CLAIMS IN DEFENSE OF BILL BARR AND MIKE FLYNN
Back to Greenwald and his defense of Nazis.to one, look for Nazis to represent pro bono, repeatedly represent them pro bono, lose my license over representing them pro bono, break judicial rules, representing them pro bono.
But Greenwald did. Again and again.
Greenwald defended Matthew Hale, pro bono for years.
CHICAGO (AP) — An attorney for jailed white supremacist Matthew Hale, who has been a focus of the investigation into the killings of a federal judge's husband and mother, said Wednesday that Hale's mother asked him late last year to relay a coded message from Hale to one of his supporters.
Greenwald also made illegal tape recordings of witnesses in another matter involving Hale. That's right--Glenn Greenwald, self-proclaimed civil rights lawyer, violated the civil right of witnesses. The New York Bar later wrote a clarifying opinion on the ethics of said taping, referencing this case--
It wasn't enough that Glenn took the case, which was his right to do. No--he had to insult the Plaintiffs--shooting victims. unethically taped the witnesses he subpoenaed, even directing their statements.
A court found that he violated TWO separate rules--
"The magistrate judge granted both motions, finding defense counsel's conduct unethical under two separate rules: Local Rule 83.58.4(a)(4), prohibiting "dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation;" and Local Rule 83.54.4, stating "a lawyer shall not ... use methods of obtaining evidence that violate the legal rights of person." Anderson v. Hale 159 F.Supp.2d 1116 (2001).
He also attempted to manipulate the witness statements, per the magistrate's findings of fact
A 52-page transcript of one conversation showed defendants' counsel steered the conversation by eliciting particular responses to detailed questions, leading to more detailed questions, to lure the witness into damning statements for later use." Anderson v. Hale, 202 F.R.D. 548 (N.D.Ill. 2001)
That's right--Glenn Greenwald, self-proclaimed civil rights lawyer, violated the civil right of witnesses. The New York Bar later wrote a clarifying opinion on the ethics of said taping, referencing this case.
Greenwald said. In a press release, Hale said he will use the lawsuit as a way of gaining compensation and finally getting his much awaited-for law license.
Glenn also fought for the Constitutional Right of the Church of Creativity’s associate group, the National Alliance, to incite the beating of Hispanic workers .
This is an outright Nazi group. Why defend them again and again?
Would Glenn represent pedophiles with such indulgence?
This is what transpired: In September 2000, two local racist skinheads posed as homebuilding contractors to lure two Mexican day laborers to a warehouse where the white supremacists stabbed and nearly beat the immigrants to death. One of the assailants was tattooed with swastikas. The other had a tattoo on his stomach of a skinhead menacing a kneeling Jew. Perez and Escamilla were Mexican/Chicano day laborers residing in Farmingville, New York. Slavin and Wagner Escamilla was bludgeoned by Slavin until he lost consciousness; Perez too was clubbed by Slavin and was stabbed several times by Wagner.
Constitutional Rights has filed suit against the white supremacist group it claims is responsible for the two-state tear that left two dead and nine wounded.
In a federal lawsuit filed here Tuesday, lawyers for a Decatur pastor wounded during the spree allege World Church of the Creator leader Matthew F. Hale not only encouraged, but conspired with shooter Benjamin Nathaniel Smith to "commit wholesale acts of genocidal violence in furtherance of their self-proclaimed 'racial holy war' against any and all African-Americans, Jews, Asians and other ethnic groups.".
Greenwald said, "I find that the people behind these lawsuits are truly so odious and repugnant, that creates its own motivation for me."
He was talking about the Center for Constitutional Rights, you fool!
Couch sloucher.
Do your homework before you present your rank arrogance and belittle those who have done their work when it comes to Greenwald. He is not to be trusted.
You pointed out above, "I believe everyone deserves a day in Court with legal, competent representation."
But then you go on...
1) "[O]ne, look for Nazis to represent pro bono, repeatedly represent them pro bono, lose my license over representing them pro bono, break judicial rules, representing them pro bono. / But Greenwald did. Again and again. / Greenwald defended Matthew Hale, pro bono for years."
I'm confused here. Are you saying he committed malpractice specifically by defending someone *repeatedly*, that is, as a lawyer? "Break[ing] judicial rules" is another matter, but it's abundantly clear here that what *you're* concerned with is his defense of Nazis "for years" ... so you hunt for whatever levers you can use.
2) "This is an outright Nazi group. Why defend them again and again?"
Um... because there are so few lawyers courageous enough to continuously uphold the principle that "everyone deserves a day in Court with legal, competent representation"? This isn't rocket science.
3) "Would Glenn represent pedophiles with such indulgence?"
I dunno. Would you? Or are you too frightened of the consequences to your reputation of doing this kind of heavy lifting to support a system of law?
4) "This is what transpired: In September 2000, two local racist skinhead ..."
Why do we need to know this here? We don't. You just don't get it. Or more likely, because you are sufficiently intelligent, you want to FUD us with the facts of a specific criminal case (i.e. the characteristics of the defendants and their alleged actions), which are *irrelevant* in determining the crucial issue here, which is whether the defendants deserve a criminal trial. You're certainly implying they don't deserve that.
5) "Greenwald said, 'I find that the people behind these lawsuits are truly so odious and repugnant, that creates its own motivation for me.' ... / He was talking about the Center for Constitutional Rights, you fool!"
Are you seriously trying to tell us that the *name* of the organization provides us sufficient reason to support it over Greenwald's likely sophisticated opinion? Frankly, I'd like to know *why* Greenwald said that. Do you? Or do you want to cover that up?
------------------------
In sum, you keep conflating Glenn's actual legal violations (a legitimate avenue of criticism) ... and that he's defending Nazis *in court*. But by repeatedly identifying the defendants' characteristics as a reason to avoid their getting a good legal defense, the latter is clearly your real complaint. A complaint that has no place in a well-functioning democratic republic. So the next time you do your FUD, if you want to convince this audience, I suggest you clean it up a lot better.
This is a first for me. I have never been called a "couch sloucher." Thank you. I read your rambling diatribe and I am even more confused. Please take more time editing your comments before you post. Clear writing is important if you are trying to make a point.
Q: "Should a Jewish defense lawyer defend accused Nazis?"
ChatGPT: "As an artificial intelligence, I do not have personal beliefs or opinions. I am here to provide information and answer questions to the best of my ability based on the data and knowledge that I have been trained on.
In the United States and other countries, all individuals have the right to a fair trial and the right to legal representation, regardless of their beliefs or actions. This includes individuals who identify as Nazis or who are accused of crimes related to Nazi ideology. It is up to individual defense lawyers to decide whether or not to accept a case, and they may choose to do so for a variety of reasons. Some lawyers may feel that it is important to defend the rights of all individuals, regardless of their beliefs or actions, while others may have personal or ethical objections to representing certain clients.
It is important to note that defense lawyers do not necessarily agree with the beliefs or actions of their clients, and their role is to provide a defense within the boundaries of the law. It is ultimately up to the judicial system and the jury to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused." - ChatGPT
Gotcha, am able to read, but what a waste of my time, I will never get back. Now, call Castro's I mean Trudeau's minions, perhaps they would be interested in having you in their corner. God knows, they need all the help they can get. No disrespect to you, but what purpose was that long point you were making? Yes, in your opinion Andrew McCabe was a choir boy, innocent in all doing. Your insert, means your opinion, if that meaning is correct. Govna and more govna. Cheers. Happy Blessed New Year.
Read my answer to Bill below and then you will not be confused.
And as for these celebrity journalists, this is what you get when there is no movement for socialism, only self-promoting Kardashian commentators calling themselves journalists.
Oh wow, name calling says it all, according to my faith, Serbian Christian Orthodox. My late priest from many years ago, would kick you out of our Bible Study hour. No need for that response, but it does go well with who and what you represent. Cheers.
What is so hillarious is that you are asking that I be censored while at the same time bemoaning censorshop and howling YEAH to Musk and the twitter leaks.
By the way celebrity journalists make good money. Taibbi is also a limited hangout who made one million last year from substack.
The point: when the institutions fall, when there is no legitimacy in any of the institutions, when there is no justice for people and when democracy is dead and capitalism and monopolies reign, it is not hard to get people to adopt heroes.
Celebrity journalists do just that. they provide the Comic book character people hope will save them.
And need I add that if I talked to you like this on old Twitter, you would instantly rat me out and demand that I be silenced forever. It would have worked too.
"[Glenn] blatantly defended Nazis in court, not once but multiple times pro bono"
Whoosh ...
"He offers no solutions"
Even where this is true, it is completely irrelevant. It is quite clearly also up to *us*, his readers, to come up with, and implement, solutions. Or, do you like to sit back and just do what you're told?
"[W]ho really can trust a man who still has not released the promised Snowden files in entirety, who took a job with Omydyar at the Intercept"
If you want to make accusations here, do so on the content of Glenn's article, and lay out your actual evidence. Not deflections and insinuations; otherwise, you're the psy-op here.
Glenn never at any point promised to release all the files. In fact Snowden specifically asked him NOT to do that, as he wanted them curated and reviewed for relevancy and so as not to get someone killed.
If Snowden had just wanted to dump the files, there would have been no need to contact Glenn or Gellman, or anyone.
Buddy picked the wrong place to lie, impugn and bullshit.
"Buddy picked the wrong place to lie, impugn and bullshit."
Agreed, rather sloppy. They need to get better people on their payroll. I suppose the fires are now moving everywhere, and their offensive defense is spread thin. So much to FUD, so little time...
Seems I cannot read a Substack (even Glenn's own) without reading ad hominem attacks against Glenn. Is there a paid army out there trolling Substacks dropping Glenn's name any time the Stack discusses an issue Glenn cares about, like free speech or the war in Ukraine. Glenn ought to ask Matt to interview him, and ask him the same questions he asked Matt. You know you are doing something right if the trolls are out in force.
What does any of that have to do with what the man wrote? Nothing, just deflection and whataboutism.
How anyone who is an attorney in the US would simply deflect from the fact that the democrat party is now a fascist regime in league with media, wall street, the military-industrial complex, and uncountable slush-fund NGOs, et al, to "but but but the Nazis," is a laughable and contemptuous person.
Defend or attack the article or STFU. to be honest, your deflection adds impact to the article.
I look forward to your attacks on dem mega-donor george soros, who didn't defend nazis in court, he worked with them or biden and his working with the Ukrainian nazis.
Thank you Glenn for what you do. I enjoy watching and reading, have outmost respect. Wishing you, your husband a Happy Healthy Prosperous New Year!! God Bless.
You mean an age where men get pregnant and women have penises? Where it doesn't matter what you are but what you identify with? That is the age of the DNC, or more appropriately, the regressive left. You have been clutching at straws and making a fool out of yourself. And to think you are paying to do so.
Great article, but I'd like to see some exploration of how this same unholy alliance of corporate media, big tech and government intel agencies has been actively suppressing free speech not just in the are of political discourse, but in other areas as well, with science/medical reporting being the poster boy here.
The collusion of Big Pharma with Big Tech and the government public health agencies and the same Democratic Party stalwarts who are wetting their pants over Musk's acquisition of Twitter is as big a story as the suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story. Wherever you stand on the issues, the whole handling of the Covid pandemic has been an economic, social, and public health disaster, and the fact that many reputable scientists and journalists have been muted or silenced for straying from the official CDC/NIHAID narrative is a disgrace which needs to be exposed.
My own personal relationship with the Democratic Party is now permanent ruptured. I was always skeptical of its prescriptions, but was generally supportive of many of its leaders and members because of what we all thought was a bedrock, fundamental commitment to free speech and a promotion of tolerance and diversity, not just of skin color, but of viewpoints. Now that the fig leave had fallen away.....so have I.
Yes, it's just as bad as you thought it was. But somehow the media doesn't want to talk about how they enabled censorship that literally killed people in order to ensure Pharma profits.
Thanks for that. I've heard about the Fauci/NIHAID emails regarding the suppression of the story about the origins of COVID virus/lab leak and the silencing and reputation-destroying of the authors of the Great Barrington Declaration but haven't heard anything else really like the stuff you wrote about.
I'm not trying to make the perfect the enemy of the good here---I really like reading GG and Taibbi and Bari Weiss----, but I really wish that they would explore the full reach of censorship that has been going on regarding COVID treatment protocols, the vaccine debacle, and so on. I also must admit I don't read every post, by far, and I am not on every medium, so maybe they already have or are planning to.
I liked Matt Taibbi's observation that journalists used to relish "sticking it to the man." Today the corporate media are Toadies for the man. And they like sticking it to you. Wow. Things have changed.
One problem we, the free-speech advocates, are having is our continued dependence on the idea of accessible truth. We often advocate for free speech rights on the "when it's our turn" argument. But really, that explanation is vacuous, a deflection from the real problem.
We shouldn't protect free speech so that the "good guys" -- you know, the ones who supposedly "actually have the real truth" -- will always have the right to speak it. We should protect free speech because *all* content is, and always will be, a candidate for "truth". And *that's* the hardest pill to swallow.
I do think it's our Achilles' heel. If we don't get out beyond it, and get our heads straight on the impossibility of unimpeachable knowledge, we're doomed.
Excellent monolog and great interview. But we're overlooking the real oppression -- freedom of speech is just a tool which is controlled by the use of force. They aren't interested in our speech, only their power to control our speech and every other aspect of your life. Sentimental poets and professional speakers like to dream that "the pen is mightier than the sword." It's not. The sword can destroy the pen, or the hand that wields it or the head that directs it, if we allow it. As we are. The dems did not acquire their power by speech, though it may have attracted a few simpletons, who their predecessors called useful idiots. They acquired power by force, and intimidation. Hiliary is widely believed to have killed her adversaries. The rampaging mobs that destroyed so many cities are all dem storm troopers. They're allowed to rampage at will because it supports the dem rise to power. We allow it because we are prisoners of our fears. Prisoners who speak up are still imprisoned. The only way to overcome them is not to whine, however poetically, but to react with greater force. As long as we hold our civility and propriety in greater regard than our freedom, we will lose all freedom to those who are less inhibited. At some point, we'll decide to fight back. Until them, we'll talk about our oppression, and the oppression will continue. Speech is just another word for surrender.
I liked your post there , DW. I'm thinking the proper way to fight back "re-elect Trumpty". Elon gave a big Boost and the doors are now open. Nice and easy...so as not to disconcert.
And the patriots are very disorganized. We got to this situation because half the country supports the oppressions, and the failures. Trump beat hiliary razor thin, and lost to joe razor thin. If we want change, we need to convince our neighbors. Our elections would be landslides with competent voters. The real problem is We the People.
I don’t know why you refer to these people as “left liberals”, they are not liberals at all. They represent the totalitarian “successor ideology” of progressivism, which wears the language and tropes of liberalism as a skin suit to confuse actual liberals into thinking they are on the same side while simultaneously subverting the pillars of liberalism -- tolerance, belief in free speech and due process, and the values of the Enlightenment generally.
I make a two-sided ledger list of current political party positions I find repugnant, disgusting and dangerous.
The Democrat list is long. It includes the attacks on free speech, support of the corrupt deep state, COVID authoritarianism, wokeism and the clear racism contained within, war mongering, corporatism, defunding police, open borders, abuse of government power for politics, etc., etc., etc.,
My list for Republicans is two things... abortion bans beginning at conception, and failing to fight to stop the Democrats from doing all the previous.
There is a simple reason the American Left has lost interest in freedom of religion and freedom of speech. They no longer have any religion, and they have nothing interesting to say, so they can’t imagine that systematic infringement of these rights could ever affect them.
I love it when folks completely forget about blasphemy and heresy laws. The right is infamous for assuming that Law and Order only applies to others…not themselves.
So, serious question: Have there ever been heresy laws in this country? Seems unlikely, but I could be wrong. Are there blasphemy laws right now? That also seems unlikely, but if there are they are evidently unenforced.
"Right now" is the critical part of my question, as we are wondering why it is that the Left does not care about the first and second amendments any more. They used to and now they don't.
The Mainstream Media is committing Acts of Omission in their lack of attention to the Twitter Files.
The MSM is censoring again by failing to cover the Twitter Files with objectivity. That means that the Wikipedia entry for the Twitter Files was initially suggested to be deleted. It wasn't, due to some editors arguing that it remain. But coverage only permits MSM citations and if MSM doesn't cover a topic, the coverage is minimal.
Wikipedia is the #1 site in the world where people get information (like it or not) so having accurate coverage of the "Twitter Files "at Wikipedia is important.
To understand how Wikipedia works in real time you can read the Talk Page discussions at Wikipedia about the Twitter Files. You can see discussion of what reliable sources are here:
A huge thanks for the incredible efforts of Kathleen McCook to place Twitter Files on Wikipedia and defending that huge and so needed work from attempts to remove it.
It is well known that Wikipedia is penetrated by "deep state" -- just like Twitter and all US corporate and social media, including see statements about that by Wikipedia founder.
What I less understand -- there is a site for Twitter Files and another about Talk: Twitter Files -- about reactions -- mostly by deep state proponents of censorship and by attempts to modify or corrupt Kathleen's enormous efforts.
How many Twitter sites there are now by Kathleen on Wikipedia? Perhaps a guidance and explanation would be helpful.
And -- once again, my gratitude to Kathleen for her heroic efforts that should be maximally supported.
Many of my efforts were reverted because I could not find reliable sources writing about the Twitter Files.--as defined by Wikipedia. I tried to cite a WSJ editorial, but it was not accepted because an editorial is not seen as neutral. This gets back to the brick wall of the MSM articles not addressing the Twitter files critically. This is what you see on the Talk Pages. The Talk pages are where editors (an editor is anyone who edits) discuss what can and can't be included in the actual article.
I don't think this is Deep State but just that more people who decide to edit have--over time--identified which sources they will accept.
Becoming adept at Wikipedia takes some time. There are a lot of rules. You have to go through tutorials and generate a record. All of one's edits are recorded. I've barely done 5,000 edits. Many editors have over 100K.
The only way to change this is for reliable sources to cover the Twitter Files and then they can be cited.
Also, more people need to edit. The main rule is to have what Wikipedia calls NPOV--neutral point of view--but as anyone who writes anything knows the selection of citations has an effect.
Think about how often people look at Wikipedia for a quick overview of any topic. This is why I keep commenting about this. Until the MSM covers the "Twitter Files" the Wikipedia article will be the overview most people will read.
Much of my Wikipedia work is usually unchallenged as I mostly write about books and libraries. To give you an idea here is a link to my total contributions to Wikipedia. It is impt. before you edit to know that everything you add or discuss is recorded. Your permanent Wikipedia record will be reviewed if you are challenged so it is important to be calm. When I started, I was not always calm. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Kmccook
Only the alphabet press are reliable sources in Wikiland. It creates an anti-intellectual atmosphere of circular reasoning...if CNN is backed by ABC which is backed by NPR which is backed by CNN, they all remain 'reliable.'
After all of the 'Big' stories of the last 6 years, from Russiagate, the Steele Dossier, Durham Investigation, Trumps tax returns and all the rest that the Media masturbated over, the Twitter Files is the only one that actually delivered the goods, and hopefully will continue to do so. All of the other stories were the definition of Nothingburgers.
I really hate the use of the term "left-liberal". The trends noted here are real, and have long been the reason that I value your work, Glenn, but I'm not comfortable with any use of categories that large. I much prefer it when you stick to specifics instead of sweeping whole categories of people into one huge container.
I think the terms 'regressive left' and 'regressive right' for the censorship types is more fitting, with the free speech crowd being the liberty left and liberty right.
I would suggest spending some time on Tribel.com. It’s an eye-opener to how repugnant Democrats have become.
From Geraldine Ferraro’s racist bleats against Barack Obama, to the PUMAs, to Madeleine Albright’s “there’s a place in hell for women who don’t support each other”, to Clinton's loss in 2016, the Democrats have become repugnant.
Naw... they won't learn because they are a cohort of people that are fundamentally dysfunctional. They are not truly rational... they feel first and then weave rhetorical defense to protect their feelings. They are narcissistic, depressed, needy, anxious, and often psychotic people. I live among them and confirm it on a regular basis. Basically, God did not intend liberals to be in positions of authority.
Long read, but well worth it. Glenn, your summation of how the Democrat Party has abandoned core tenets of the US Constitution should be required reading. Incredibly concerning that so many in the US see the Constitution as antiquated.
Right, now let us do something about it and put Glenn's book back on the shelf.
He offers no solutions and frankly who really can trust a man who still has not released the promised Snowden files in entirety, who took a job with Omydyar at the Intercept, obviously a psyop and finally who blatantly defended Nazis in court, not once but multiple times pro bono and himself was disciplined by the Court for illegal judicial conduct?
Yo do not need to hold him up to the light to see right through him.
I am confused with your post. So what if he "defended Nazis in court?" In case you skipped civics class that day, our Constitution protects the rights of accused criminals. Lawyers defend guilty people every day. That's their job. It doesn't mean that defense lawyers approve of their client's conduct or share their client's politics. Are you like 6 years old?
His lot have been saying this literally for years now. It's easily refuted anti-constitutional nonsense. But never mind.
What it does show is that Glenn believes in the US Constitution and is a man of principle. But never mind.
They never stop saying it.
It's all they got.
*ACCUSED Nazis
Right well that person writing the whine about Glenn probably also supports arming Nazis overseas.
Of course he does!
Arming Nazis is now a Liberal value.
No, read my reply to Bill. go do the research. You just react, you have no idea what transpired and no interest.
Read my lengthy comment to Bill and then ask yourself if you really think Greenwald is a bonafide journalist.
I saw the psychotic 56 page long JDO pdf and saved it and reviewed it as well as read through the rest of what you wrote. I question your being an attorney after seeing that slime bucket stuff in the PDF.
Read my reply, you might learn something
A lawyer?
And you attack a defence lawyer for defending accused people?
Seriously?
Marci Wheeler? The faux journalist who turned in a source to the FBI?
Now you raise some new bullshit as a smokescreen.
I pity the fool who hires you.
No I attack a defense lawyer for defending Nazis multiple, yes multiple times for free.
It is all spelled out but you cannot accept it for it does not fit with your self justifying belief system.
Your country is finished anyway so really no matter.
Just send Glenn money and entertain yourself alone at home
No, but he did it “blatantly”, JB. I mean if he’d defended them “discreetly” that would be another thing...
Having lived through the Skokie episode all those years ago, I’m still amazed that so many people can’t grasp that what’s being defended at these trials is not the Nazi’s, or cannibals, or Klaatu, for god’s sake, but the principles and freedoms at play. That’s what is being defended. Blatantly, even.
Yes, I found that qualifier really odd.
But what else to expect from an irrational democrat troll who is masquerading as lawyer himself?
Even the most degraded prosecutor accepts the fact that accused persons not only deserve, but require, a defence against legal charges.
This one of the most basic tenets of English Common Law.
Just for you
You are confused either because you are uneducated or because you did not read the post or both.
I am a lawyer, having been one for almost as long as Glenn has been alive.
I believe everyone deserves a day in Court with legal, competent representation.
What you fail to see, for your assumptions are so dear that to actually engage in self justification has become your delusion.
By the way, he supports the positions of Barr, Flynn et. al.
"Greenwald and William Barr
From The Emptywheel 2020
“Two points about this. First, after I made it clear I was working on this in conversations with Glenn, he wrote this post, once again claiming to know details of what I shared with the FBI and what their response to that was, which I assume was an attempt to bully me into withholding this post. Ironically, The Intercept is fundraising off that post, celebrating a post that gets key details wrong. That is their prerogative. Glenn will apparently continue to make these claims; while there are baseless claims in it, I will continue to focus on correcting his baseless claims about other issues more central to current affairs.”
GLENN GREENWALD’S INVENTED CLAIMS IN DEFENSE OF BILL BARR AND MIKE FLYNN
https://www.emptywheel.net/2020/05/19/glenn-greenwalds-invented-claims-in-defense-of-bill-barr-and-mike-flynn/
Back to Greenwald and his defense of Nazis.to one, look for Nazis to represent pro bono, repeatedly represent them pro bono, lose my license over representing them pro bono, break judicial rules, representing them pro bono.
But Greenwald did. Again and again.
Greenwald defended Matthew Hale, pro bono for years.
CHICAGO (AP) — An attorney for jailed white supremacist Matthew Hale, who has been a focus of the investigation into the killings of a federal judge's husband and mother, said Wednesday that Hale's mother asked him late last year to relay a coded message from Hale to one of his supporters.
Greenwald also made illegal tape recordings of witnesses in another matter involving Hale. That's right--Glenn Greenwald, self-proclaimed civil rights lawyer, violated the civil right of witnesses. The New York Bar later wrote a clarifying opinion on the ethics of said taping, referencing this case--
http://www2.nycbar.org/Publications/reports/show_html.php?rid=122
It wasn't enough that Glenn took the case, which was his right to do. No--he had to insult the Plaintiffs--shooting victims. unethically taped the witnesses he subpoenaed, even directing their statements.
A court found that he violated TWO separate rules--
"The magistrate judge granted both motions, finding defense counsel's conduct unethical under two separate rules: Local Rule 83.58.4(a)(4), prohibiting "dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation;" and Local Rule 83.54.4, stating "a lawyer shall not ... use methods of obtaining evidence that violate the legal rights of person." Anderson v. Hale 159 F.Supp.2d 1116 (2001).
He also attempted to manipulate the witness statements, per the magistrate's findings of fact
A 52-page transcript of one conversation showed defendants' counsel steered the conversation by eliciting particular responses to detailed questions, leading to more detailed questions, to lure the witness into damning statements for later use." Anderson v. Hale, 202 F.R.D. 548 (N.D.Ill. 2001)
That's right--Glenn Greenwald, self-proclaimed civil rights lawyer, violated the civil right of witnesses. The New York Bar later wrote a clarifying opinion on the ethics of said taping, referencing this case.
Greenwald said. In a press release, Hale said he will use the lawsuit as a way of gaining compensation and finally getting his much awaited-for law license.
Glenn also fought for the Constitutional Right of the Church of Creativity’s associate group, the National Alliance, to incite the beating of Hispanic workers .
This is an outright Nazi group. Why defend them again and again?
Would Glenn represent pedophiles with such indulgence?
This is what transpired: In September 2000, two local racist skinheads posed as homebuilding contractors to lure two Mexican day laborers to a warehouse where the white supremacists stabbed and nearly beat the immigrants to death. One of the assailants was tattooed with swastikas. The other had a tattoo on his stomach of a skinhead menacing a kneeling Jew. Perez and Escamilla were Mexican/Chicano day laborers residing in Farmingville, New York. Slavin and Wagner Escamilla was bludgeoned by Slavin until he lost consciousness; Perez too was clubbed by Slavin and was stabbed several times by Wagner.
Constitutional Rights has filed suit against the white supremacist group it claims is responsible for the two-state tear that left two dead and nine wounded.
In a federal lawsuit filed here Tuesday, lawyers for a Decatur pastor wounded during the spree allege World Church of the Creator leader Matthew F. Hale not only encouraged, but conspired with shooter Benjamin Nathaniel Smith to "commit wholesale acts of genocidal violence in furtherance of their self-proclaimed 'racial holy war' against any and all African-Americans, Jews, Asians and other ethnic groups.".
Greenwald said, "I find that the people behind these lawsuits are truly so odious and repugnant, that creates its own motivation for me."
https://masternotions.com/docs/jewish-defense-organization-dossier.pdf
He was talking about the Center for Constitutional Rights, you fool!
Couch sloucher.
Do your homework before you present your rank arrogance and belittle those who have done their work when it comes to Greenwald. He is not to be trusted.
You pointed out above, "I believe everyone deserves a day in Court with legal, competent representation."
But then you go on...
1) "[O]ne, look for Nazis to represent pro bono, repeatedly represent them pro bono, lose my license over representing them pro bono, break judicial rules, representing them pro bono. / But Greenwald did. Again and again. / Greenwald defended Matthew Hale, pro bono for years."
I'm confused here. Are you saying he committed malpractice specifically by defending someone *repeatedly*, that is, as a lawyer? "Break[ing] judicial rules" is another matter, but it's abundantly clear here that what *you're* concerned with is his defense of Nazis "for years" ... so you hunt for whatever levers you can use.
2) "This is an outright Nazi group. Why defend them again and again?"
Um... because there are so few lawyers courageous enough to continuously uphold the principle that "everyone deserves a day in Court with legal, competent representation"? This isn't rocket science.
3) "Would Glenn represent pedophiles with such indulgence?"
I dunno. Would you? Or are you too frightened of the consequences to your reputation of doing this kind of heavy lifting to support a system of law?
4) "This is what transpired: In September 2000, two local racist skinhead ..."
Why do we need to know this here? We don't. You just don't get it. Or more likely, because you are sufficiently intelligent, you want to FUD us with the facts of a specific criminal case (i.e. the characteristics of the defendants and their alleged actions), which are *irrelevant* in determining the crucial issue here, which is whether the defendants deserve a criminal trial. You're certainly implying they don't deserve that.
5) "Greenwald said, 'I find that the people behind these lawsuits are truly so odious and repugnant, that creates its own motivation for me.' ... / He was talking about the Center for Constitutional Rights, you fool!"
Are you seriously trying to tell us that the *name* of the organization provides us sufficient reason to support it over Greenwald's likely sophisticated opinion? Frankly, I'd like to know *why* Greenwald said that. Do you? Or do you want to cover that up?
------------------------
In sum, you keep conflating Glenn's actual legal violations (a legitimate avenue of criticism) ... and that he's defending Nazis *in court*. But by repeatedly identifying the defendants' characteristics as a reason to avoid their getting a good legal defense, the latter is clearly your real complaint. A complaint that has no place in a well-functioning democratic republic. So the next time you do your FUD, if you want to convince this audience, I suggest you clean it up a lot better.
Every word! Thanks!
This is a first for me. I have never been called a "couch sloucher." Thank you. I read your rambling diatribe and I am even more confused. Please take more time editing your comments before you post. Clear writing is important if you are trying to make a point.
Even an AI is smarter than you are.
From ChatGPT
Q: "Should a Jewish defense lawyer defend accused Nazis?"
ChatGPT: "As an artificial intelligence, I do not have personal beliefs or opinions. I am here to provide information and answer questions to the best of my ability based on the data and knowledge that I have been trained on.
In the United States and other countries, all individuals have the right to a fair trial and the right to legal representation, regardless of their beliefs or actions. This includes individuals who identify as Nazis or who are accused of crimes related to Nazi ideology. It is up to individual defense lawyers to decide whether or not to accept a case, and they may choose to do so for a variety of reasons. Some lawyers may feel that it is important to defend the rights of all individuals, regardless of their beliefs or actions, while others may have personal or ethical objections to representing certain clients.
It is important to note that defense lawyers do not necessarily agree with the beliefs or actions of their clients, and their role is to provide a defense within the boundaries of the law. It is ultimately up to the judicial system and the jury to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused." - ChatGPT
Gotcha, am able to read, but what a waste of my time, I will never get back. Now, call Castro's I mean Trudeau's minions, perhaps they would be interested in having you in their corner. God knows, they need all the help they can get. No disrespect to you, but what purpose was that long point you were making? Yes, in your opinion Andrew McCabe was a choir boy, innocent in all doing. Your insert, means your opinion, if that meaning is correct. Govna and more govna. Cheers. Happy Blessed New Year.
Read my answer to Bill below and then you will not be confused.
And as for these celebrity journalists, this is what you get when there is no movement for socialism, only self-promoting Kardashian commentators calling themselves journalists.
What's your real name?
So now I am to feed personal information into your data base.
You poor slob.
What is my real name? Maricata
It's all about credibility. It's about owning what you say.
Anyone can cower in the shadows and lob smears.
That's easy.
Standing up for your beliefs though? Being a mensch?
You should try it sometime.
"What is my real name?"
"Agent Smith."
Oh wow, name calling says it all, according to my faith, Serbian Christian Orthodox. My late priest from many years ago, would kick you out of our Bible Study hour. No need for that response, but it does go well with who and what you represent. Cheers.
Reviewing some of this late: Note that Maricata has succeeded in derailing a huge chunk of the conversation.
That's what trolls are in it for. Don't feed the troll.
What is so hillarious is that you are asking that I be censored while at the same time bemoaning censorshop and howling YEAH to Musk and the twitter leaks.
By the way celebrity journalists make good money. Taibbi is also a limited hangout who made one million last year from substack.
The point: when the institutions fall, when there is no legitimacy in any of the institutions, when there is no justice for people and when democracy is dead and capitalism and monopolies reign, it is not hard to get people to adopt heroes.
Celebrity journalists do just that. they provide the Comic book character people hope will save them.
The Weimar Joe movement is over.
Fascism is next.
Read history.
Binary thinking. Calling those that disagree with you trolls. This is an ad hominem fallacy that infects American culture.
Not one thing I stated did you refute, acknowledge, make counter claims, nothing.
It is always easier to call people names than critically engage thinking.
Musk is a limited hangout or worse.
It is so obvious.
He is backed by DARPA and the military and is the largest military contractor in the world.
He is being used to both build a Third Position movement in the US and for use in the riisng international fascist movement worldwide.
He now owns the town square and we are supposed to believe he is our hero!
Maybe neurolink will help you understand but this new video certainly should:
https://www.corbettreport.com/interview-1778-johnny-youtuber-defends-elon-musk/
Ha ha ha.
So weak.
You wannabe agents have been flogging these shitty fact-free arguments for years now.
Get a life.
Or at least get a better argument.
What a loser you are.
Defending accused people is what defence lawyers do. Are you really this stupid?
And need I add that if I talked to you like this on old Twitter, you would instantly rat me out and demand that I be silenced forever. It would have worked too.
Amen Amin!!
Maricata is wrong, altogether wrong and likely dishonest but fully within her right to speak. (Kinda Glenn’s point yes?)
Ignore "Maricata" -- he is an obsessive (and probably paid) troll seeking attention....
Whoever is paying him should demand their money back.
"[Glenn] blatantly defended Nazis in court, not once but multiple times pro bono"
Whoosh ...
"He offers no solutions"
Even where this is true, it is completely irrelevant. It is quite clearly also up to *us*, his readers, to come up with, and implement, solutions. Or, do you like to sit back and just do what you're told?
"[W]ho really can trust a man who still has not released the promised Snowden files in entirety, who took a job with Omydyar at the Intercept"
If you want to make accusations here, do so on the content of Glenn's article, and lay out your actual evidence. Not deflections and insinuations; otherwise, you're the psy-op here.
Glenn never at any point promised to release all the files. In fact Snowden specifically asked him NOT to do that, as he wanted them curated and reviewed for relevancy and so as not to get someone killed.
If Snowden had just wanted to dump the files, there would have been no need to contact Glenn or Gellman, or anyone.
Buddy picked the wrong place to lie, impugn and bullshit.
"Buddy picked the wrong place to lie, impugn and bullshit."
Agreed, rather sloppy. They need to get better people on their payroll. I suppose the fires are now moving everywhere, and their offensive defense is spread thin. So much to FUD, so little time...
Or as I often tell them, "You'll need to send in the A Team!" lol
Seems I cannot read a Substack (even Glenn's own) without reading ad hominem attacks against Glenn. Is there a paid army out there trolling Substacks dropping Glenn's name any time the Stack discusses an issue Glenn cares about, like free speech or the war in Ukraine. Glenn ought to ask Matt to interview him, and ask him the same questions he asked Matt. You know you are doing something right if the trolls are out in force.
Imagine spewing that mindless complicit nonsense in public and then pretending that you made an argument.
Stupid trolls are like that though. No self-awareness at all.
What does any of that have to do with what the man wrote? Nothing, just deflection and whataboutism.
How anyone who is an attorney in the US would simply deflect from the fact that the democrat party is now a fascist regime in league with media, wall street, the military-industrial complex, and uncountable slush-fund NGOs, et al, to "but but but the Nazis," is a laughable and contemptuous person.
Defend or attack the article or STFU. to be honest, your deflection adds impact to the article.
I look forward to your attacks on dem mega-donor george soros, who didn't defend nazis in court, he worked with them or biden and his working with the Ukrainian nazis.
Found the OGA poster
Let's face it, if he had released the docs in their entirety then you'd try to beat him with that stick too, "Greenwald has blood on his hands!"
So much nothing.
He is a grift. $50 to read Omydyar's golden boy's comments. This is not journalism it is commentary.
bu t it works in the Age of Dominance and Illiteracy
Thank you Glenn for what you do. I enjoy watching and reading, have outmost respect. Wishing you, your husband a Happy Healthy Prosperous New Year!! God Bless.
Small potatoes, a picayune argument that all together misses the point and all together myopic.
"it works in the Age of Dominance and Illiteracy"
You mean an age where men get pregnant and women have penises? Where it doesn't matter what you are but what you identify with? That is the age of the DNC, or more appropriately, the regressive left. You have been clutching at straws and making a fool out of yourself. And to think you are paying to do so.
Happy New Year to you, from who you call a fool! Cheers, have a good one. I am not a Demonrat fyi.
Great article, but I'd like to see some exploration of how this same unholy alliance of corporate media, big tech and government intel agencies has been actively suppressing free speech not just in the are of political discourse, but in other areas as well, with science/medical reporting being the poster boy here.
The collusion of Big Pharma with Big Tech and the government public health agencies and the same Democratic Party stalwarts who are wetting their pants over Musk's acquisition of Twitter is as big a story as the suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story. Wherever you stand on the issues, the whole handling of the Covid pandemic has been an economic, social, and public health disaster, and the fact that many reputable scientists and journalists have been muted or silenced for straying from the official CDC/NIHAID narrative is a disgrace which needs to be exposed.
My own personal relationship with the Democratic Party is now permanent ruptured. I was always skeptical of its prescriptions, but was generally supportive of many of its leaders and members because of what we all thought was a bedrock, fundamental commitment to free speech and a promotion of tolerance and diversity, not just of skin color, but of viewpoints. Now that the fig leave had fallen away.....so have I.
You can read some of the emails that have already been exposed here:
https://simulationcommander.substack.com/p/emails-reveal-extensive-coordination
Yes, it's just as bad as you thought it was. But somehow the media doesn't want to talk about how they enabled censorship that literally killed people in order to ensure Pharma profits.
Thanks for that. I've heard about the Fauci/NIHAID emails regarding the suppression of the story about the origins of COVID virus/lab leak and the silencing and reputation-destroying of the authors of the Great Barrington Declaration but haven't heard anything else really like the stuff you wrote about.
I'm not trying to make the perfect the enemy of the good here---I really like reading GG and Taibbi and Bari Weiss----, but I really wish that they would explore the full reach of censorship that has been going on regarding COVID treatment protocols, the vaccine debacle, and so on. I also must admit I don't read every post, by far, and I am not on every medium, so maybe they already have or are planning to.
Thanks for your work!
There's other email dumps as well. (For convenience I'll just post all three I know of for people following along)
https://icandecide.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/IR0543-FB-emails-with-OMB-002.pdf (5 pages)
https://freebeacon.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/CDC-Emails-to-Big-Tech.pdf (35 pages, the subject of the above article)
https://ftp.aflegal.org/foia/HHS/COVID%20Disinformation%20-%20CDC%20-%2021-01575-FOIA/2022_12_06_CDC%20Production.pdf (592!!!!!!!!!!!!! pages)
I haven't finished reading the last one, but here's a random snippet I pulled while scrolling for something that wasn't redacted:
To: Payton Iheme; Priya Gangolly; Crawford, Carol Y. (CDC/OD/OADC); Layton, Kathleen
(CDC/OD/OADC); Dempsey, Jay H. (CDC/OD/OADC)
Cc: Airton Tatoug Kamdem; Nisha Deolalikar; Julia Eisman; Athas Nikolakakos; Stephanie Bousheri; LizLagone
Subject: Call or VC- Facebook weekly sync with CDC (CDC to invite other agencies as needed)
When: Thursday, March 18, 2021 3:00 PM-3:30 PM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada).
Where:
-New attendees Intro
-CDC needs/questions
-FB Product updates/feedback request (COVID-HUB)
-COVID-19 Projects- CMU/FB Data Survey Update, Misinfo collab status, other
David Zweig did that article - Taibbi can't do it all, though he's done as much as the others put together. A link to his piece on Free Press is here: https://www.yahoo.com/news/twitter-files-platform-suppressed-valid-200142382.html; that's an OK introduction. I wonder if Yahoo is a "reliable source"?
Sorry if this is a duplication - thought I posted it, but don't see it now.
Thanks for the additional info; I definitely missed that one. I'm surprised to see it covered in Yahoo, but I'll take it.
GG and Matt T together again? It's Christmas on New Year's Eve!
Thanks to BOTH of you for being the best money I spend every year!
I liked Matt Taibbi's observation that journalists used to relish "sticking it to the man." Today the corporate media are Toadies for the man. And they like sticking it to you. Wow. Things have changed.
Toadies for the man indeed.
Just don't try to tell Bari Weiss that! lol
https://youtu.be/jS-sxJFn6O0?t=185
What happened was that liberals got the whip hand.
When they were the ones getting most of the censorship, they didn't like it so much.
This article is so good that the Deep State shit- stirrers are working overtime to discredit it. You/we know who you are.
One problem we, the free-speech advocates, are having is our continued dependence on the idea of accessible truth. We often advocate for free speech rights on the "when it's our turn" argument. But really, that explanation is vacuous, a deflection from the real problem.
We shouldn't protect free speech so that the "good guys" -- you know, the ones who supposedly "actually have the real truth" -- will always have the right to speak it. We should protect free speech because *all* content is, and always will be, a candidate for "truth". And *that's* the hardest pill to swallow.
I do think it's our Achilles' heel. If we don't get out beyond it, and get our heads straight on the impossibility of unimpeachable knowledge, we're doomed.
" If we don't get out beyond it, and get our heads straight on the impossibility of unimpeachable knowledge, we're doomed."
Say it again and again and again...
The go to, "It's a private company and they can do what they want" argument; was only ever one of convenience, the liberal class never believed that.
Because just as soon a Musk took over Twitter they cast it aside like the old tattered coat that it was.
Because all private companies are equal but some are more equal than others.
That is assuming the regressive left doesn't have a prerequisite for a 'private' company to do the bidding of the feds.
Excellent monolog and great interview. But we're overlooking the real oppression -- freedom of speech is just a tool which is controlled by the use of force. They aren't interested in our speech, only their power to control our speech and every other aspect of your life. Sentimental poets and professional speakers like to dream that "the pen is mightier than the sword." It's not. The sword can destroy the pen, or the hand that wields it or the head that directs it, if we allow it. As we are. The dems did not acquire their power by speech, though it may have attracted a few simpletons, who their predecessors called useful idiots. They acquired power by force, and intimidation. Hiliary is widely believed to have killed her adversaries. The rampaging mobs that destroyed so many cities are all dem storm troopers. They're allowed to rampage at will because it supports the dem rise to power. We allow it because we are prisoners of our fears. Prisoners who speak up are still imprisoned. The only way to overcome them is not to whine, however poetically, but to react with greater force. As long as we hold our civility and propriety in greater regard than our freedom, we will lose all freedom to those who are less inhibited. At some point, we'll decide to fight back. Until them, we'll talk about our oppression, and the oppression will continue. Speech is just another word for surrender.
I liked your post there , DW. I'm thinking the proper way to fight back "re-elect Trumpty". Elon gave a big Boost and the doors are now open. Nice and easy...so as not to disconcert.
The opposition is very confused.
And the patriots are very disorganized. We got to this situation because half the country supports the oppressions, and the failures. Trump beat hiliary razor thin, and lost to joe razor thin. If we want change, we need to convince our neighbors. Our elections would be landslides with competent voters. The real problem is We the People.
yep...and i believe it is the Media who launders the Jargon.
I don’t know why you refer to these people as “left liberals”, they are not liberals at all. They represent the totalitarian “successor ideology” of progressivism, which wears the language and tropes of liberalism as a skin suit to confuse actual liberals into thinking they are on the same side while simultaneously subverting the pillars of liberalism -- tolerance, belief in free speech and due process, and the values of the Enlightenment generally.
They are the regressive left.
I make a two-sided ledger list of current political party positions I find repugnant, disgusting and dangerous.
The Democrat list is long. It includes the attacks on free speech, support of the corrupt deep state, COVID authoritarianism, wokeism and the clear racism contained within, war mongering, corporatism, defunding police, open borders, abuse of government power for politics, etc., etc., etc.,
My list for Republicans is two things... abortion bans beginning at conception, and failing to fight to stop the Democrats from doing all the previous.
There is a simple reason the American Left has lost interest in freedom of religion and freedom of speech. They no longer have any religion, and they have nothing interesting to say, so they can’t imagine that systematic infringement of these rights could ever affect them.
I love it when folks completely forget about blasphemy and heresy laws. The right is infamous for assuming that Law and Order only applies to others…not themselves.
"Right is infamous for..." said with a straight face and worse, believes it.
Shrieking “Jan 6 political prisoners” is just one illustration.
So, serious question: Have there ever been heresy laws in this country? Seems unlikely, but I could be wrong. Are there blasphemy laws right now? That also seems unlikely, but if there are they are evidently unenforced.
"Right now" is the critical part of my question, as we are wondering why it is that the Left does not care about the first and second amendments any more. They used to and now they don't.
“Right now”…The Constitution is over 240 years old.
And…?
The Mainstream Media is committing Acts of Omission in their lack of attention to the Twitter Files.
The MSM is censoring again by failing to cover the Twitter Files with objectivity. That means that the Wikipedia entry for the Twitter Files was initially suggested to be deleted. It wasn't, due to some editors arguing that it remain. But coverage only permits MSM citations and if MSM doesn't cover a topic, the coverage is minimal.
Wikipedia is the #1 site in the world where people get information (like it or not) so having accurate coverage of the "Twitter Files "at Wikipedia is important.
To understand how Wikipedia works in real time you can read the Talk Page discussions at Wikipedia about the Twitter Files. You can see discussion of what reliable sources are here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Twitter_Files
Anyone can edit Wikipedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Editing
A huge thanks for the incredible efforts of Kathleen McCook to place Twitter Files on Wikipedia and defending that huge and so needed work from attempts to remove it.
It is well known that Wikipedia is penetrated by "deep state" -- just like Twitter and all US corporate and social media, including see statements about that by Wikipedia founder.
What I less understand -- there is a site for Twitter Files and another about Talk: Twitter Files -- about reactions -- mostly by deep state proponents of censorship and by attempts to modify or corrupt Kathleen's enormous efforts.
How many Twitter sites there are now by Kathleen on Wikipedia? Perhaps a guidance and explanation would be helpful.
And -- once again, my gratitude to Kathleen for her heroic efforts that should be maximally supported.
O, I didn't succeed very well.
Many of my efforts were reverted because I could not find reliable sources writing about the Twitter Files.--as defined by Wikipedia. I tried to cite a WSJ editorial, but it was not accepted because an editorial is not seen as neutral. This gets back to the brick wall of the MSM articles not addressing the Twitter files critically. This is what you see on the Talk Pages. The Talk pages are where editors (an editor is anyone who edits) discuss what can and can't be included in the actual article.
I don't think this is Deep State but just that more people who decide to edit have--over time--identified which sources they will accept.
Becoming adept at Wikipedia takes some time. There are a lot of rules. You have to go through tutorials and generate a record. All of one's edits are recorded. I've barely done 5,000 edits. Many editors have over 100K.
The only way to change this is for reliable sources to cover the Twitter Files and then they can be cited.
Also, more people need to edit. The main rule is to have what Wikipedia calls NPOV--neutral point of view--but as anyone who writes anything knows the selection of citations has an effect.
Think about how often people look at Wikipedia for a quick overview of any topic. This is why I keep commenting about this. Until the MSM covers the "Twitter Files" the Wikipedia article will be the overview most people will read.
Much of my Wikipedia work is usually unchallenged as I mostly write about books and libraries. To give you an idea here is a link to my total contributions to Wikipedia. It is impt. before you edit to know that everything you add or discuss is recorded. Your permanent Wikipedia record will be reviewed if you are challenged so it is important to be calm. When I started, I was not always calm. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Kmccook
GG, Taibbi, and the other, established journalists working this beat aren't "reliable sources"? That's extremely prejudicial all by itself.
Thanks fo ryour efforts, but my opinion of Wikipedia, except for completely uncontroversial subjects, continues to decline.
Only the alphabet press are reliable sources in Wikiland. It creates an anti-intellectual atmosphere of circular reasoning...if CNN is backed by ABC which is backed by NPR which is backed by CNN, they all remain 'reliable.'
After all of the 'Big' stories of the last 6 years, from Russiagate, the Steele Dossier, Durham Investigation, Trumps tax returns and all the rest that the Media masturbated over, the Twitter Files is the only one that actually delivered the goods, and hopefully will continue to do so. All of the other stories were the definition of Nothingburgers.
I really hate the use of the term "left-liberal". The trends noted here are real, and have long been the reason that I value your work, Glenn, but I'm not comfortable with any use of categories that large. I much prefer it when you stick to specifics instead of sweeping whole categories of people into one huge container.
Would not the term fascist or left-fascist be far more appropriate?
I think the terms 'regressive left' and 'regressive right' for the censorship types is more fitting, with the free speech crowd being the liberty left and liberty right.
I would suggest spending some time on Tribel.com. It’s an eye-opener to how repugnant Democrats have become.
From Geraldine Ferraro’s racist bleats against Barack Obama, to the PUMAs, to Madeleine Albright’s “there’s a place in hell for women who don’t support each other”, to Clinton's loss in 2016, the Democrats have become repugnant.
American left-liberals have rejected old, traditional values because they’re old and traditional.
Eventually they rediscover why those old values were- valuable.
Unfortunately a lot of pain is involved in the process.
Let’s hope they don’t have to relearn the entire lesson of the American Revolution.
Naw... they won't learn because they are a cohort of people that are fundamentally dysfunctional. They are not truly rational... they feel first and then weave rhetorical defense to protect their feelings. They are narcissistic, depressed, needy, anxious, and often psychotic people. I live among them and confirm it on a regular basis. Basically, God did not intend liberals to be in positions of authority.