Schitt and Swalwell were leaking classified information. They did so on occasions too numerous to count during the Russia Hoax. Both continuously lied and fed the media a steady diet of fantasy and fiction and conspiracy. Greenwald doesn't care. Apparently we should allow public officials to violate the law anytime they want.
Schitt and Swalwell were leaking classified information. They did so on occasions too numerous to count during the Russia Hoax. Both continuously lied and fed the media a steady diet of fantasy and fiction and conspiracy. Greenwald doesn't care. Apparently we should allow public officials to violate the law anytime they want.
How do you support your claim that "Greenwald doesn't care" about the possibility that Schiff and Swalwell leaked classified information? He wrote "An investigation is certainly warranted to determine the propriety of these subpoenas.", which shows that he admits the possibility that the subpoenas were warranted.
Glenn's main point is that Schiff, Swalwell, and others are being hypocritical in complaining about being the targets of a government investigation.
A fitting and appropriate admonishment mon ami, six days hence the idea of the opposition practicing heart abuse must have sent me past the edge of patience.......however hypothetically speaking(;-}) if one considers the aforesaid elapse of time, a still remaining "lonely heart", and the fact that any poster can only award one heart per comment (which they alone can only cancel), it may be likely considered that the "lonely heart" is the result of the actions of a lonely narcissist.
Yes, I agree with your analysis. Now, if I may bend your ear a bit more concerning lonely hearts:
My wife and I lost our (real) lonely hearts some 20 years ago, and yet we are still so quaint as to share a desktop computer. She has a work laptop, but not I. In beautiful marital compromise, I have agreed to turn off notifications of Substack responses/earned-hearts, lest my "popularity" here fill up OUR in-box. No problem, I return to the forum often enough, but still, I know not who is sending forum-love my way. To speed up my "scanning," I use a low bar-of-agreement in bestowing my own hearts (sometimes I like posts just for avoiding the gratuitous insulting!), so I can avoid unnecessary rereading.
To wit: Many lonely hearts were bestowed by me, or another weird poster, but I pledge that none of my many lonely-heart posts were hearted by me (even though I tend to like my posts, AND I love myself).
Why CAN a poster self heart? Seems like it should be easy to dis-allow it.
Certainly no response (even a lonely heart, since I can only wonder its source) is necessary, M. Ethan, to these meanderings.
In fact, Greenwald says above in a reply that "spying on members of Congress can present unique dangers and abuses and that's why an investigation is needed". Greenwald is perfectly ok with Members releasing classified information and lying to the press. Greenwald seems to think Members are above the law. What a surprise.
Equating "an investigation is needed" with "it's perfectly okay" is not a reasonable argument. If you want to criticize Glenn, at least do it based on what he wrote, not on your unwarranted inferences about what he believes.
Lol. Greenwald wants to investigate the DOJ which was attempting to identify the sources of leaked classified information. We now know that Schitt and Swalwell peddled fraudulent information for a year and a half. And they knew they were lying. They did it in a naked pursuit of power. Greenwald doesn't care about them. If he did he would call for an investigation into those two members. But he doesn't. Leaking classified Intel is of no concern. He had ample opportunity to say so.
The statement from Glenn that I already quoted implies that he's open to two possibilities: the subpoenas were proper, or they were improper. The former case implies openness to the possibility that Schiff and Swalwell engaged in illegal acts. You're simply refusing to acknowledge that what Glenn wrote does not imply what you concluded about his beliefs.
You also claim that Glenn "doesn't care about" Schiff and Swalwell. He clearly cares about their hypocrisy, given that he took the time to write an article about it. But I suppose you mean to say that he's indifferent to the fact that they may have illegally leaked classified information, or that he is more generally indifferent to any such leaks. Your argument seems to be that he didn't explicitly say that there are cases when he thinks leaks are improper. But his article is about the hypocrisy of Schiff and Swallwell; it's not a discussion of the ethics of leaks. Moreover, it's difficult and often unfair to infer what someone believes from what they *didn't* say.
Furthermore, your claim about Glenn's beliefs is inconsistent with his past declarations. For example, in a 2014 interview, Glenn said "So clearly, I believe тАФ and actually Edward Snowden was vehement about the fact тАФ that not all of this information should be published, that some of this is kept secret legitimately, that the NSA has the right and the duty even to spy on al-Qaida and other groups that are genuinely threatening to the United States." He also spoke of "weighing the value of the disclosure for the public interests versus the potential harm it may have to innocent people."
Is English your first language. It is VERY clear that Glenn believes that an investigation of the DOJ as to the legality of the subpoena's is warranted. Leaking is a crime that probably needs to be investigated --- legally and under current constraints. But he does not agree with the very broad powers for spying on Americans that both these morons voted for was a predictable result of their actions. What is good for American citizens should apply to these two " very important' political figures. There are always problems with one Party weaponizing the investigative process for political reasons and that presents unique problems not encountered in normal investigations.
Sort of a "Bonus-22" (along the lines of a "Catch-22") for politicians with intelligence clearances, eh? Whatever info they are privvy to, they use to their selfish politcal agendas, and later just claim they had to "lie" to protect precious State secrets.
Schitt and Swalwell were leaking classified information. They did so on occasions too numerous to count during the Russia Hoax. Both continuously lied and fed the media a steady diet of fantasy and fiction and conspiracy. Greenwald doesn't care. Apparently we should allow public officials to violate the law anytime they want.
How do you support your claim that "Greenwald doesn't care" about the possibility that Schiff and Swalwell leaked classified information? He wrote "An investigation is certainly warranted to determine the propriety of these subpoenas.", which shows that he admits the possibility that the subpoenas were warranted.
Glenn's main point is that Schiff, Swalwell, and others are being hypocritical in complaining about being the targets of a government investigation.
Greenwald admits no such thing. Come on.
Re: Nosh Itsherlock
You need to work on your reading comprehension, and learn to accept the help being offered herein.
By the way, did you upvote your own posting?
As Usual,
EA
"By the way, did you upvote your own posting?"
Oooh! The ultimate poster-to-poster public pasting! Like upping a dare all the way to Double Dog!!!
(I advise caution, M. Ethan; If the lonely heart was earned honestly, all the adversary need do is add his own to make 2 (two).) ;)
A fitting and appropriate admonishment mon ami, six days hence the idea of the opposition practicing heart abuse must have sent me past the edge of patience.......however hypothetically speaking(;-}) if one considers the aforesaid elapse of time, a still remaining "lonely heart", and the fact that any poster can only award one heart per comment (which they alone can only cancel), it may be likely considered that the "lonely heart" is the result of the actions of a lonely narcissist.
As Usual,
EA
Yes, I agree with your analysis. Now, if I may bend your ear a bit more concerning lonely hearts:
My wife and I lost our (real) lonely hearts some 20 years ago, and yet we are still so quaint as to share a desktop computer. She has a work laptop, but not I. In beautiful marital compromise, I have agreed to turn off notifications of Substack responses/earned-hearts, lest my "popularity" here fill up OUR in-box. No problem, I return to the forum often enough, but still, I know not who is sending forum-love my way. To speed up my "scanning," I use a low bar-of-agreement in bestowing my own hearts (sometimes I like posts just for avoiding the gratuitous insulting!), so I can avoid unnecessary rereading.
To wit: Many lonely hearts were bestowed by me, or another weird poster, but I pledge that none of my many lonely-heart posts were hearted by me (even though I tend to like my posts, AND I love myself).
Why CAN a poster self heart? Seems like it should be easy to dis-allow it.
Certainly no response (even a lonely heart, since I can only wonder its source) is necessary, M. Ethan, to these meanderings.
Enjoying your prose, as usual,
TAS/pop122
In fact, Greenwald says above in a reply that "spying on members of Congress can present unique dangers and abuses and that's why an investigation is needed". Greenwald is perfectly ok with Members releasing classified information and lying to the press. Greenwald seems to think Members are above the law. What a surprise.
Equating "an investigation is needed" with "it's perfectly okay" is not a reasonable argument. If you want to criticize Glenn, at least do it based on what he wrote, not on your unwarranted inferences about what he believes.
Lol. Greenwald wants to investigate the DOJ which was attempting to identify the sources of leaked classified information. We now know that Schitt and Swalwell peddled fraudulent information for a year and a half. And they knew they were lying. They did it in a naked pursuit of power. Greenwald doesn't care about them. If he did he would call for an investigation into those two members. But he doesn't. Leaking classified Intel is of no concern. He had ample opportunity to say so.
The statement from Glenn that I already quoted implies that he's open to two possibilities: the subpoenas were proper, or they were improper. The former case implies openness to the possibility that Schiff and Swalwell engaged in illegal acts. You're simply refusing to acknowledge that what Glenn wrote does not imply what you concluded about his beliefs.
You also claim that Glenn "doesn't care about" Schiff and Swalwell. He clearly cares about their hypocrisy, given that he took the time to write an article about it. But I suppose you mean to say that he's indifferent to the fact that they may have illegally leaked classified information, or that he is more generally indifferent to any such leaks. Your argument seems to be that he didn't explicitly say that there are cases when he thinks leaks are improper. But his article is about the hypocrisy of Schiff and Swallwell; it's not a discussion of the ethics of leaks. Moreover, it's difficult and often unfair to infer what someone believes from what they *didn't* say.
Furthermore, your claim about Glenn's beliefs is inconsistent with his past declarations. For example, in a 2014 interview, Glenn said "So clearly, I believe тАФ and actually Edward Snowden was vehement about the fact тАФ that not all of this information should be published, that some of this is kept secret legitimately, that the NSA has the right and the duty even to spy on al-Qaida and other groups that are genuinely threatening to the United States." He also spoke of "weighing the value of the disclosure for the public interests versus the potential harm it may have to innocent people."
https://www.ijpr.org/2014-05-14/greenwald-on-nsa-leaks-weve-erred-on-the-side-of-excess-caution
Is English your first language. It is VERY clear that Glenn believes that an investigation of the DOJ as to the legality of the subpoena's is warranted. Leaking is a crime that probably needs to be investigated --- legally and under current constraints. But he does not agree with the very broad powers for spying on Americans that both these morons voted for was a predictable result of their actions. What is good for American citizens should apply to these two " very important' political figures. There are always problems with one Party weaponizing the investigative process for political reasons and that presents unique problems not encountered in normal investigations.
Not just leaking classified info. They were purposefully leaking fake and selective info. All for political purposes.
Sort of a "Bonus-22" (along the lines of a "Catch-22") for politicians with intelligence clearances, eh? Whatever info they are privvy to, they use to their selfish politcal agendas, and later just claim they had to "lie" to protect precious State secrets.