Damn.
"We have the greatest respect for the journalist Glenn Greenwald used to be"
I mean, sure, him going all in on the Hunter Biden stuff seems appropriately like his big break from reality moment, but he's also seemingly had some pretty decent positions on issues and I think that while it seems like he went head over hills too far in attacking the Russian interference, I do think some of his criticisms land there just based upon the bit I've been reading up about him and those stories (I think mainstream news media's decisions to run wild with crazy ass Russian stories definitely obscured some of the reality, and I'd agree there were bad tendencies to come off with Russophobic language and opinions as someone who has studied the region quite extensively myself). Like, clearly an individual trending downward and choosing increasingly poor hills to die on including the classic "censorship to a fault" one that catches far too many usually smarter than that people...
But like, "Fuck you, scum of the earth type responses" feel a bit wild for someone who just lost the plot and tanked his own reputation to the point of de-platforming himself.
Sounded like one doesnt mean you are one, but he unequivocally carried the water for them during the lead up to and in the aftermath of 2016. Up to Today.This is stupid, he's just an idiot. Plenty of idiots in the media and on Twitter with bad takes, vast majority of them are not 'Russian agents'.
The American voter seems to agree with you lolHunter Biden isn't running for President, lmao. I don't care what he is or isn't doing lest he's killing people on his father's orders or something crazy.
In a battle of the children: Hunter vs Ivanka, Don Jr, Jared.... in terms of who really been out there doing dirt....that's really the angle Biden's political opponents are taking?!?
Just seems irrelevant.
Greenwald is the kind of person who is so ego-centric that he will go anywhere that will give him praise regardless of the source. Hence why he shows up on Fucker Carlson's White Power Hour, why he goes on Joe Rogan's show, etc. It makes him worthless as a journalist because he cares more about being agreed with than he does about the truth, and it's led him down a spiral of taking increasingly insane positions he refuses to ever back down from.Sounded like one doesnt mean you are one, but he unequivocally carried the water for them during the lead up to and in the aftermath of 2016.
Including unironically acting as a guest of honor at an RT panel on fake news where he spent the entire time, at an RT panel on fake news, decrying US journalism.
Hardly seems like he's worth the absolute vitriol this thread is spitting out towards him. He's a journalist with some seemingly bad takes, but he absolutely did manage to be on the money with others from what I've seen. Just seems like he's insanely critical of modern centrist Democrats and the Russia Investigation and that's why people are so quick to spit fire against him. I'm not super familiar with his work or him, so I'm just going off of what I've read in the past 20 minutes, but uh, why is he a hell spawn that deserves all this hate and effort?
I don't know where Glenn went off track, at times I've thought of him as a really great investigative journalist, but recently man I don't get it. It seems he spends so much time catering to these really weird viewpoints and whining about freeze peach on Twitter. It's really disappointing.
Like you're really going to go out because of this stupid ass Hunter Biden story?
He published the article: https://greenwald.substack.com/p/article-on-joe-and-hunter-biden-censored
I recommend reading it. I'm glad I did.
Two paragraphs in and my eyes are already rolling out of their socketsGreenwald said:One outcome is that the Biden campaign concluded, rationally, that there is no need for the front-running presidential candidate to address even the most basic and relevant questions raised by these materials. Rather than condemn Biden for ignoring these questions -- the natural instinct of a healthy press when it comes to a presidential election -- journalists have instead led the way in concocting excuses to justify his silence.
He published the article: https://greenwald.substack.com/p/article-on-joe-and-hunter-biden-censored
I recommend reading it. I'm glad I did.
His tone is a little bit more conspiratorial and combative than I'd like but he lays out some good points that are incontrovertible.Two paragraphs in and my eyes are already rolling out of their sockets
Greenwald has some well-founded criticisms of the national security state and DC establishment (I share many of them), but it's been clear to me for several years that being anti-establishment is the center of his whole worldview, so to the extent that they are against Trump, he ends up defending Trump.His stuff on Brazil is great, and I will never deny that he's committed to his positions on anti-imperialism and free speech absolutism, but man something about modern left–liberalism and anti-Trumpism just drives him bonkers and to contrarian extremes.
His tone is a little bit more conspiratorial and combative than I'd like but he lays out some good points that are incontrovertible.
His tone is a little bit more conspiratorial and combative than I'd like but he lays out some good points that are incontrovertible.
For example, you see many posts in this thread calling the laptop stuff "Russian disinformation" despite the fact that multiple investigative parties have said that there is literally zero evidence of this.
I believe the truth is important and thus far we have no evidence to believe that the laptop is Russian disinformation. No one in Biden's camp has ever claimed the emails and texts aren't real. Both of those factual statements lead me to believe we should be okay with raising questions about the information laid out in the leaked material. If those questions lead to nothingburgers, that's fine. But we shouldn't be afraid of having the questions asked.Uh huh....so you're saying Hunter Biden is never going to be President?
Glenn bags another big game!
I believe the truth is important and thus far we have no evidence to believe that the laptop is Russian disinformation. No one in Biden's camp has ever claimed the emails and texts aren't real. Both of those factual statements lead me to believe we should be okay with raising questions about the information laid out in the leaked material. If those questions lead to nothingburgers, that's fine. But we shouldn't be afraid of having the questions asked.
You could have just posted "I'm just asking questions" and saved us all some time.I believe the truth is important and thus far we have no evidence to believe that the laptop is Russian disinformation. No one in Biden's camp has ever claimed the emails and texts aren't real. Both of those factual statements lead me to believe we should be okay with raising questions about the information laid out in the leaked material. If those questions lead to nothingburgers, that's fine. But we shouldn't be afraid of having the questions asked.
What are the questions you want raised from the leaked emails and photos?I believe the truth is important and thus far we have no evidence to believe that the laptop is Russian disinformation. No one in Biden's camp has ever claimed the emails and texts aren't real. Both of those factual statements lead me to believe we should be okay with raising questions about the information laid out in the leaked material. If those questions lead to nothingburgers, that's fine. But we shouldn't be afraid of having the questions asked.
If you're not going to engage seriously with my posts why even bother asking me to elaborate in the first place?Biden never denied his son eating children either... we better start asking that question too
That's what the article is in a nutshell. Complete waste of a read imo. Could care less about Greenwald's transparent attempts to JAQ off this story.You could have just posted "I'm just asking questions" and saved us all some time.
He published the article: https://greenwald.substack.com/p/article-on-joe-and-hunter-biden-censored
I recommend reading it. I'm glad I did.
If you're not going to engage seriously my my posts why even bother asking me to elaborate in the first place?
I believe the truth is important and thus far we have no evidence to believe that the laptop is Russian disinformation. No one in Biden's camp has ever claimed the emails and texts aren't real. Both of those factual statements lead me to believe we should be okay with raising questions about the information laid out in the leaked material. If those questions lead to nothingburgers, that's fine. But we shouldn't be afraid of having the questions asked.
Do you believe the laptop is Russian disinformation? If so, what leads you to this belief other than a gut feeling?Your elaboration is basically it's almost certainly bullshit but we should talk about it ad nauseum like it's not anyway
Do you believe the laptop is Russian disinformation? If so, what leads you to this belief other than a gut feeling?
Do you believe the laptop is Russian disinformation? If so, what leads you to this belief other than a gut feeling?
His tone is a little bit more conspiratorial and combative than I'd like but he lays out some good points that are incontrovertible.
For example, you see many posts in this thread calling the laptop stuff "Russian disinformation" despite the fact that multiple investigative parties have said that there is literally zero evidence of this.
Glenn Greenwald said:Willis references a post by Kevin Drum at Washington Monthly, which quotes a letter from anti-illegal-immigration Congressman Tom Tancredo to his supporters in which Rep. Tancredo asks for help in what Tancredo calls the "struggle to preserve our national identity against the tide of illegal immigrants flooding the United States." In response to Tancredo's letter, Willis snidely writes:
Hey, Tom Tancredo . . . Just say "white power" and get it off your chest.
So, there's Willis' self-satisfied decree, in its vapid entirety. According to Willis (and many of Drum's commentators, if not Drum himself), anyone who believes that it's important for a nation to be comprised of citizens who have at least some joint national allegiance and a minimal common foundation -- never mind a common language in which they can communicate with one another -- is a White Supremacist bigot.....
.....
Snidely spitting out the "racist" insult as part of the illegal immigration debate is nothing more than a cheap and lazy way to irrationally smear people who espouse a certain view for the purpose of shutting down debate. And in this case, the smear Willis attempts -- that to believe in the importance of "national identity" is to make you a "white power" racist -- does not withstand even the most minimal scrutiny.....
......
Current illegal immigration – whereby unmanageably endless hordes of people pour over the border in numbers far too large to assimilate, and who consequently have no need, motivation or ability to assimilate – renders impossible the preservation of any national identity.
Damn.
"We have the greatest respect for the journalist Glenn Greenwald used to be"
He tweeted the emails he was sent "censoring" him, and I don't think this helps his case at all. This reads like completely benign criticism of an overheated article.
Source?What do you think disinformation means? It's very clearly information that Russian sources are filtering through Rudy who is attempting to pass off through sympathetic outlets.
It's not. It's does get disseminated by Russian troll farms, right-wing clowns, and chapo degenerates though. Some of the leaked personal content was shopped around in Ukraine last year. Rudy and his ilk went for it.Do you believe the laptop is Russian disinformation? If so, what leads you to this belief other than a gut feeling?
The "biggest story" to him is how he perceives the media as killing a story presented as a charge with no credibility. Tells you all you really need to know.You know I was about a third of the way into doing a chunk by chunk breakdown of this piece, but its too long, so I'll just say: when your opening thousand words state, essentially, that Biden isn't corrupt, that all the attempts to corrupt him failed, and that no actual misconduct or financial malfeasance took place, you're not standing on the sturdiest of ground for your "biggest story of the election" claim
Gotta get in on that grift money.I'd be happy this fuckface has left but he's just gonna start a patreon and as shown on this page, likely have sadsacks supporting his fucking delusions.
I dont think you understand what disinformation is. It doesn't have to be proven to be originated by shady Russian backroom plotting to be used as such. However, 50 intelligence agents have signed a letter saying this story has all the hallmarks and redflags.His tone is a little bit more conspiratorial and combative than I'd like but he lays out some good points that are incontrovertible.
For example, you see many posts in this thread calling the laptop stuff "Russian disinformation" despite the fact that multiple investigative parties have said that there is literally zero evidence of this.
With an archive of this size, one can never independently authenticate every word in every last document unless the subject of the reporting voluntarily confirms it in advance, which they rarely do. What has been done with similar archives is journalists obtain enough verification to create high levels of journalistic confidence in the materials. Some of the materials provided by the source can be independently confirmed, proving genuine access by the source to a hard drive, a telephone, or a database. Other parties in email chains can confirm the authenticity of the email or text conversations in which they participated. One investigates non-public facts contained in the documents to determine that they conform to what the documents reflect. Technology specialists can examine the materials to ensure no signs of forgeries are detected.
I don't care about the photos at all. I don't think anyone does. Regarding the texts and emails, I think it's fair to ask the question of whether connections to Joe were used as a bargaining chip by the Biden family in dealings with foreign countries. And if so, how much did Joe know about it or was involved in it? I think those are fair questions to ask.Now that's settled. What are the questions you want raised from the leaked emails and photos?
You know I was about a third of the way into doing a chunk by chunk breakdown of this piece, but its too long
Nope, I think you just about nailed it.I feel like we'll be seeing The Intercept and other journalists push back hard against this part about how to establish "high levels of confidence in the materials:
On that subject it seems that:
So the full basis for establishing "high levels of confidence in the materials" seems to be:
- Journalists have not gotten access to the actual files themselves, nor the hardware the files are stored on, so their validity can't be independently confirmed that way
- No technology specialists have examined the files or the hardware
- Non-public facts may confirm that the documents are real; however, none are introduced in the article
Am I missing something here?
- The word of Bobolinski vouching for the email chains he was on
- That the pictures of Hunter seem real, with Glenn asserting "their authenticity is not in doubt"
- That Biden hasn't denied the materials
What deal? When did it happen?I don't care about the photos at all. I don't think anyone does. Regarding the texts and emails, I think it's fair to ask the question of whether connections to Joe were used as a bargaining chip by the Biden family in dealings with foreign countries. And if so, how much did Joe know about it or was involved in it? I think those are fair questions to ask.