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.
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.
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.