What a humiliating indictment of the Intercept. Utterly shameful. If the Intercept had any integrity it would issue a public apology to their readers collectively, and to Glenn personally. Which is precisely why no such apology will ever be forthcoming. I am so pleased that Glenn is now free from the constraints of the Intercept's political censorship.

Expand full comment

This is 11 months old. Anyone with an IQ north of 83 knew this was a story that was destroyed by the Establishment in order to get Biden over the finish line.

And here we are. Not a single policy area of this Administration that's succeeding, and nearly every policy has taken a backward turn since 1/20/21.

I only wonder how James Clapper and John Brennan are able to walk the streets of America with the amount of shame they have hovering over them.

I could care less if Trump gets made whole. He used us and we used him and that transaction worked out well for everyone.

I want America to be made whole. I am cautiously optimistic about the Durham Report but when you look at the Slow Roll around the 1/6 "special congressional committee"...there is no way they will conclude their business before November of 2022; the mid term elections.

They used Mueller and Russia to get control of the House in 2018 and now they intend to use 1/6 and Trump to keep control of the House in 2022.

And if we let that happen as a population, we deserve what we get.

Good and hard.

Expand full comment

Our country is going down the drain for many reasons. But the two most immediate and important ones are (a) big money in politics, and (b) propaganda media. We cannot fix the first problem easily because both parties will oppose any change (notwithstanding their rhetorics). But the second one is completely in our own hands. JUST STOP READING, WATCHING AND LISTENING TO any and all legacy media outlets (that includes NPR).

Expand full comment

It must be exhausting having to prove the obvious all the time.

Expand full comment

The usual suspects squawking against this and shutting down discourse about the info, in combination with 40 years of Biden family behavior were enough verification for me. Like many politicians on "both" sides - how did Joe Biden become a multi-millionaire in "public service" for 4 decades?

Expand full comment

"the documents they blocked millions of Americans from learning about were clearly true and authentic."--I knew the day you quit the Intercept that all this was worse than ever imagined.

Expand full comment

Big government and traditional free speech tolerant liberalism are mutually exclusive. While traditional liberalism can align with a government that ensures NO entity is so powerful it can control society through anti-trust/ anti-monopoly regulations, big government in and of itself demands authoritarianism, and authoritarianism demands censorship. It doesn't matter is its a king, a dictator, or the "most popular president in history," those who seek big government must necessarily demand the human flaws of its leadership be hidden from public view.

We are all unique individuals and there will never be a universal agreement on what is "fair" or "equitable." As a result, there will never be a government with socialist, communist, or far left ideology that includes big government which can also supports individual freedoms and open debate. While you can have expanded socialized programs, the reality is that when the dollars follow the government, and not the beneficiary, the programs are just as illiberal and anti-individual. Government run healthcare dictates health priorities for everyone. Apply that to any program where the "benefit" is provided as a direct service rather than dollars to spend in a certain area (education, healthcare, etc).

Centralized governments that directly control the services provided for huge segments of the population cannot make individual choices, and yet we will always be individual humans.

Alternatively, a government that was primarily intended to prevent the concentration of power, and for which the decisions on how to spend the dollars from redistribution was left in the hands of the recipients with only guardrails to ensure the benefits are spent on something akin to the spirit in which they are intended, could support a very open, prosperous, and liberal society. That would require tolerance that those on the political left don't have - they would have to tolerate those who chose alternative medical treatments, they would have to tolerate those that chose religious education, they would have to tolerate those who spend those benefits in ways many may disagree with. At its heart, that tolerance is the core of liberalism, but it is absent from Democrat policies. No one political ideology has all the answers, and no big centralized government has ever embraced traditional liberalism.

I walked away from Democrats once I realized this (though I have always known socialism in any form is bound to fail as human nature depends on rewards to put out effort and take risks). The problem is too few traditional liberals have truly walked away, and even fewer are willing to admit the way to embrace liberalism in society is limiting government to being the referee ensuring a fair playing field, particularly for the genuinely vulnerable, regardless of individual outcomes which we should all be free to chose. To the extend redistribution is necessary, the government should facilitate the transaction, not direct every aspect of how individual beneficiaries spend those funds, and it certainly shouldn't be directly providing services that must be tailored to individual needs.

Traditional liberals too often support government controlling the outcomes which can only be accomplished by limiting individual opportunities. The Democrats position on school choice and centuries old obsession with dividing society by skin tone should be evidence of the party's deep rooted illiberalism. Because Democrats support big government, the hugely powerful agencies that depend on big government to yield power and gain wealth will always support Democrats - and now they fully control them.

I do actually know much of what Mr. Greenwald has said in the past, and the political ideology he (has or does - don't know there) supports. What I have never heard is how a government charged with redistribution to determine outcomes could ever be liberal and promote the freedom to explore different outcomes, different ideas, and different priorities for different individuals based on their unique being as an individual?

I asked because I spent most of my 20's deeply exploring if this was possible, studying the history of those who have tried it, learning about the power of biological instincts, and paying close attention to outcomes. It took until my mid 30's to admit to myself I was wrong to think that government was the answer to societies woes as government creates a majority of them, and has solved virtually none throughout human history. It is individuals who create progress, individuals that help others, individuals who compose our society. We aren't an ant colony and don't thrive under dictatorship.

Expand full comment

I am just becoming numb to it all.......and thats exactly what they want.

Expand full comment

Glenn, great stuff laying this out. One point you didn’t include - we know that after the IC letter on 10/19/20 claiming without evidence that the Post story was “Russian disinformation”, multiple media outlets pushed it as you document. But the culmination was *Biden himself*. At the POTUS debate, only days later on 10/22, Biden repeated the lie before tens of millions of people (see link below). He was not only the beneficiary of the fraud but the also the end user and an active participant.


The question of whether the media committed malpractice is not even in dispute. The “why” is always the toughest question. I see three possibilities. One, members of the media believe Trump is sui generis and a threat to the country. That justifies them bending/breaking a few ethics rules to rid the country of what they see as a menace. Two, cowardice. Members of the liberal media didn’t want to be the ones blamed for running a story that influenced an election [in Trump’s favor]. And three - the kindest interpretation - members of the media lost their equilibrium in the Trump years. In other words, they wanted to hold the powerful to account. But who was the powerful? POTUS? Or what we call the “deep state”? The two were clearly at odds.

The most maddening thing about this may not be the malpractice but the failure to account for it. Media outlets including TI, PBS, etc., have not bothered to account for what they did. They are relying on two things. First, if they make an error in a certain political direction, it will be forgiven. Second, they rely on this country having collective attention deficit disorder - this will blow over quickly and the next news cycle will take its place. All they really need to do is keep quiet for a week or two and refuse to comment. Either of these is completely toxic to a healthy media and more fuel for distrust.

Expand full comment

I appreciate the reminder that journalism in the US is essentially nothing but partisan state (globalist) propaganda. They have no credibility and I honestly feel that most critical thinkers automatically assume it is false and not in the least factual. This same distrust is now firmly implanted in the Integrity of elections as well. The fourth turning, full spin.

Expand full comment

When the casualty is truth itself, we are all left to live a lie….

That’s where we are…

No amount of energy will ever be able to restore the media’s credibility and most disturbing, they don’t seem to give one flying F about it either…

Expand full comment

THIS is how US elections are "stolen" or "rigged", in the sense that the results vastly differ from any that could possibly result from an honestly informed electorate. Why would the Demoncrats bother to perpetrate retail fraud at the voting machine and mail-in ballot counting level that should be relatively straightforward to detect and document, when they can much more easily use the MSM microphone at deafening volume to drown out any attempts at an objective comparison of candidates?

Expand full comment

In the modern world of the internet and many information outlets it is almost impossible to censor stories without the cooperation between gov't, big tech and the legacy media. This reality came to the forefront during the Hunter Biden lap top reporting, or non-reporting, as the case may be.

The N.Y. Post was one of the only nationally recognized outlets that published the TRUTH. Most of the others actually KNEW the truth but found that it did not suit their agenda so they suppressed that truth. This violation of common decency should disqualify them from ever again being trusted by anyone. But that is not the case since "news" and reporting is now part of the entertainment business.

Just as when watching a movie we need to suspend our belief system to enjoy the movie Americans now seem to consume information with the same lack of critical thinking skills. When anyone points out that a movie is factually wrong people say "come on it is just a movie." Well that is now how the news and reporting industry is viewed by partisan political individuals. What should be an industry killing trend has morphed into a "come on it is just politics."

All is fair in love and war seems to be the go to morality now prevalent in the news industry. CNN is a political entertainment network with its' seemly braindead anchors and opinionated talking heads. But it is still on the air and is unabashed in its deceit, lies and just stupid reporting. Fredo Cuomo and Brian Stelter would in other times be a comedy act like Abbot and Costello. Yet here they are on the nightly news babbling on and on like two magpies.

Until the American public finds a way to punish this type of lying and politically bias nonsense it will continue just like the fantasy world of Hollywood movies and other entertainment. Problem is just as many, many individuals believe what they see in movies as reality and the same goes true for these media outlets designed to entertain NOT inform. Ms Maddow is probably one of the biggest frauds on TV yet she fills an audience need same as that superhero appeals to people's fantasy about deliverance of justice to whatever is depicted as the villain of the day. Reality has become obsolete in today's world.

Expand full comment

Hi Glenn, another great post. I'll watch your program soon. But I hope that you make the tie that with this scandal added to the Russia hoax lies and scandal we know took place, this was nothing more than a coup from day one of Donald Trump's presidency orchestrated by the Democratic machine and aided by elitist establishment left bureaucrats and some never Trumpers like McCain and I'm sure George Bush and others, who wanted to maintain the corrupt status quo. There has never been any explanation for the coziness of the Bushes and Clintons since they left office. Not to mention what Hillary Clinton did to Tulsi Gabbard. And the death count around these people.... What I don't understand is if courts ruled in WI and other places just alone that these people broke election laws, WHY are these results standing? As well as what we know they did to threaten and censor Big Tech, though I see them as pretty willing conspirators, leftist ideologues. Thank you Glenn. Even someday if I disagree with you politically, I will always take what you say into great consideration. You are one of the few honest reporters doing his job. Incredible the Intercept behaved that way. But you are someone of great integrity. Thank you again. I consider you and Matt and the people I'm reading on substack to be true American heroes. We'll see if they win and rewriting history, the arbiters of Truth.

Expand full comment

The Bidens )metaphysically), are far worse than the Mafia- at least the Mafia has the good grace to not assert they are not criminals.

Expand full comment

mr. greenwald, when talking about big tech, establishment media, and other evildoers, please refer to the owners of these institutions, because THEY ARE THE ONES RESPONSIBLE. you name the "reporters" involved but these are apparatchiks. if they reported honestly, they wouldn't have jobs. facebook should be referred to as "zuckerberg's facebook." nbc/comcast should be referred to as "(brian) roberts' nbc/msnbc." washington post/slate should be "bezos' washington post/slate." politico should be "Allbritton's politico."

Expand full comment