NOTE FROM GLENN GREENWALD: The corporate media has worked very hard to propagate the liberal-pleasing narrative that COVID has become a partisan disease due to vaccine hesitancy on the right, often ignoring the inconvenient truth that large percentages of politically diverse groups, principally African-Americans and Latinos, remain resistant to vaccination. Recent reporting from The New York Times serves to further this distorted narrative, dubbing the positive correlation between support for Donald Trump and COVID death rates “Red COVID,“ and brandishing it as evidence of a partisan pandemic. But the Times’ report misleads readers through statistical manipulation and data games, as illustrated by this meticulous analysis, presented in an Outside Voices contribution by Jeremy Beckham:
The view that the unvaccinated are all stupid, primitive and ignorant is getting more difficult to sustain, especially as liberal policy contradicts its own core premises.
If you were surprised to see the ACLU heralding the civil liberties imperatives of „vaccine mandates” and „vaccine requirements” — whereby the government coerces adults to inject medicine into their own bodies that they do not want — the New York Times op-ed which the group promoted, written by two of its senior lawyers, was even more extreme. The article begins with this rhetorical question: “Do vaccine mandates violate civil liberties?” Noting that „some who have refused vaccination claim as much,” the ACLU lawyers say: “we disagree.” The op-ed then examines various civil liberties objections to mandates and state coercion — little things like, you know, bodily autonomy and freedom to choose — and the ACLU officials then invoke one authoritarian cliche after the next (“these rights are not absolute“) to sweep aside such civil liberties concerns:
The memoir of Rhodes, now appropriately an MSNBC contributor, is an incredibly self-serving homage to himself that repeatedly attempts to demonstrate his own importance and accomplishments. The passage about Rhodes’ conduct regarding Snowden is very much aligned with those goals. While repeatedly emphasizing how traumatic the Snowden revelations were for the Obama administrations, Rhodes boasts of the crucial role he played in preventing Snowden from leaving Russia as the NSA whistleblower was desperately attempting to do so — exactly the opposite of what people like Rhodes and Hillary Clinton were telling the public about Snowden.
It is really beyond words how willing these people are to lie.
Glenn Greenwald analyzes the reactions to the horrific terror attack in Kabul this morning, and debunks the propagandistic talking points used by Deep State operatives and their media allies to push the US into indefinite war.
That is particularly true given how heavily the U.S. had Afghanistan under every conceivable kind of electronic surveillance for more than a decade. A significant portion of the archive provided to me by Edward Snowden detailed the extensive surveillance the NSA had imposed on all of Afghanistan. In accordance with the guidelines he required, we never published most of those documents about U.S. surveillance in Afghanistan on the ground that it could endanger people without adding to the public interest, but some of the reporting gave a glimpse into just how comprehensively monitored the country was by U.S. security services.
Questioning the FBI’s role in 1/6 was maligned by corporate media as deranged. But only ignorance about the FBI or a desire to deceive could produce such a reaction.
While I used my social media platforms to denounce the false accusations voiced by Uygur and Kasparian against Maté, none of this would merit an article or stand-alone commentary if not for the fact that the two weapons they chose — false accusations that someone is a paid Russian agent and exploited sexual harassment accusations — have become extremely commonplace in Democratic Party politics, liberal circles and U.S. politics more broadly. It is long past time — way past time — that these tactics be rejected and scorned by everyone regardless of ideology or personality preferences.
The IG’s conclusion could not be clearer: the media narrative was false from start to finish. Namely, he said, “the evidence did not support a finding that the [U.S. Park Police] cleared the park on June 1, 2020, so that then President Trump could enter the park.” Instead — exactly as Hemingway’s widely-mocked-by-liberal-outlets article reported — “the evidence we reviewed showed that the USPP cleared the park to allow a contractor to safely install anti-scale fencing in response to destruction of Federal property and injury to officers that occurred on May 30 and May 31.” Crucially, “the evidence established that relevant USPP officials had made those decisions and had begun implementing the operational plan several hours before they knew of a potential Presidential visit to the park, which occurred later that day.“
One of the primary plagues of corporate journalism, which I have documented more times than I can count, just reared its ugly head again to deceive millions of people with fake news. When one large news outlet publishes a false story based on whispers from anonymous security state agents with the CIA or FBI, other news outlets quickly purport that they have “independently confirmed” the false story, in order to bolster its credibility (oh, it must be true since other outlets have also confirmed it).
Equating accusations with proven fact is reckless and repressive. It is also standard behavior in liberal politics, whereby they ruin lives without a second thought.
This new political battle does not break down along left v. right lines. This is an information war waged by corporate media to silence any competition or dissent.
For our eighth episode, we spoke with Glenn Greenwald to discuss his political work and his philosophical roots. Co-founder of The Intercept and current author of the Glenn Greenwald Substack, Glenn is someone whose opinions we want to know when it comes to important topics, as Kyle points out in the episode. That’s why we were thrilled to sit down with him for the following discussion.
Read how Chomsky, in 1981, object to the attempts to have a tenured professor in France fired for Holocaust revisionism, because Chomsky knew that that framework, once implanted, would be used against people like him, Edward Said, Howard Zinn, etc.:
I’ve been resisting the conclusion that this is Liberals‘ 9/11 because it at first seemed hyperbolic, even though they’re using the same weapons against their critics (if you question all the new powers they want, it means you love the Terrorists).
But this is Liberals‘ 9/11.
Those who do not seek to meaningfully dissent or subvert power will usually deny — because they do not perceive — that such dissent and subversion are, in fact, rigorously prohibited. They will continue to believe blissfully that the society in which they live guarantees core civic freedoms — of speech, of press, of assembly, of due process — because they have rendered their own speech and activism, if it exists at all, so innocuous that nobody with the capacity to do so would bother to try to curtail it. The observation apocryphally attributed to socialist activist Rosa Luxemburg, imprisoned for her opposition to German involvement in World War I and then summarily executed by the state, expresses it best: “Those who do not move, do not notice their chains.”
Also ridiculing „rigged elections“ and „fake news“ — two other weapons used on him — the Vermont Senator’s relationship to the Democratic Party descends from loyal support to abject subservience.
The richest and most powerful country on earth — whether due to ineptitude, choice or some combination of both — has no ability to perform the simple task of counting votes in a minimally efficient or confidence-inspiring manner. As a result, the credibility of the voting process is severely impaired, and any residual authority the U.S. claims to “spread” democracy to lucky recipients of its benevolence around the world is close to obliterated.
Das Phänomen, dass sich als „links“ einordnende Journalisten gemeinsam mit dubiosen Geheimdienst-Mitarbeitern Enthüllungen über Biden sabotieren, erklärt Greenwald in dem Interview folgendermaßen, und er weist dabei auf die Gefahren dieser Koalition hin:
„Die CIA hat sich vom ersten Tag an dem Ziel verschrieben, die Trump-Regierung zu sabotieren. Aus diesem Grund wurden die CIA und die Akteure des Deep State zu Helden der „liberalen Linken“. Die Unterstützer der Demokratischen Partei sind nun in einer starken Verbindung mit Neocons, Bush-Cheney-Mitarbeitern, der CIA, dem Silicon Valley und der Wall Street. Diese starke Machtgruppe – gemeinsam mit den Medien des Mainstreams – wird bei einem Wahlsieg mindestens einen Teil der Macht erringen, wenn nicht die ganze Macht.“
The last twenty-hours have been exhilarating. I had no idea what to expect when I decided to leave The Intercept and move my journalism here, but the outpouring of support — both words of encouragement from readers and those subscribing and supporting my work here — has been beyond what I can describe and it is incredibly gratifying and appreciated. Thank you to everyone who has subscribed and reached out.
All of these new materials, the authenticity of which has never been disputed by Hunter Biden or the Biden campaign, raise important questions about whether the former Vice President and current front-running presidential candidate was aware of efforts by his son to peddle influence with the Vice President for profit, and also whether the Vice President ever took actions in his official capacity with the intention, at least in part, of benefitting his son’s business associates. But in the two weeks since the Post published its initial story, a union of the nation’s most powerful entities, including its news media, have taken extraordinary steps to obscure and bury these questions rather than try to provide answers to them.
I had no objection to their disagreement with my views of what this Biden evidence shows: as a last-ditch attempt to avoid being censored, I encouraged them to air their disagreements with me by writing their own articles that critique my perspectives and letting readers decide who is right, the way any confident and healthy media outlet would. But modern media outlets do not air dissent; they quash it. So censorship of my article, rather than engagement with it, was the path these Biden-supporting editors chose.
The censored article will be published on this page shortly (it is now published here, and the emails with Intercept editors showing the censorship are here). My letter of intent to resign, which I sent this morning to First Look Media’s President Michael Bloom, is published below.
Greenwald said in his resignation announcement that he will continue to publish on the Substack, which he heralded as a place where journalists „have come in order to practice journalism free of the increasingly repressive climate that is engulfing national mainstream media outlets across the country.“
On Thursday afternoon, he published on Substack the article and the email exchange he had with his editors about it.
Journalist Glenn Greenwald has resigned from The Intercept, seven years after co-founding the online publication, citing censorship by his own editors over an article concerning former Vice President Joe Biden.
Outlets claiming to have “confirmed” Jeffrey Goldberg’s story about Trump’s troops comments are again abusing that vital term.
Co-Founding Editor of The Intercept Glenn Greenwald blasts the Dem establishment for seeking the bipartisan support of former president George W. Bush for Joe Biden.
Greenwald also noted that proponents of the Patriot Act in the wake of 9/11 had assured civil libertarians the law had a sunset provision. Yet, the law remains in effect nearly two decades later as a “permanent part of our political framework.”
“That is the great concern, how do you temporarily vest power in the hands of the state that might be necessary to preserve these liberties in the long term without simultaneously giving them those powers realistically even if you intend for it to be temporary in a way that becomes permanent?” he added.
In the debut episode of The Intercept’s new weekly show, host Glenn Greenwald does an in-depth examination of the Bernie Sanders 2020 primary campaign and the reasons why Sanders is, once again, unlikely to become the Democratic Party’s presidential nominee. Glenn interviews journalist and podcaster Liz Franczac, and Kyle Kulinski, host of the Kyle Kulinski show, about mistakes made by the Sanders 2020 campaign and larger structural issues in the Democratic Party that make it virtually impossible for insurgent campaigns to succeed.
Co-founding editor of The Intercept Glenn Greenwald, shares why he and other staunch advocates for civil liberties are more open to government surveillance during the coronavirus pandemic.
Leite sagte, der Journalist sei durch ein Urteil des Obersten Gerichtshofs aus dem vergangenen Jahr geschützt. Das Urteil lasse zu, dass Greenwald seine Quellen nicht veröffentlichen muss. Der Richter will demnach eine Klarstellung des Obersten Gerichtshofs abwarten, bevor er über eine Anklage entscheidet.
In the absence of the injunction issued by a Supreme Court minister that prohibited investigations into Greenwald related to this case, Leite said he would have let the charges against Greenwald move forward. The judge also said that, if the Supreme Court injunction were to be overturned, he would be open to charging Greenwald.
Die Veröffentlichung der geleakten Kommunikation auf The Intecept Brasil ab Juni 2019 legten nahe, dass Moro und Dallagnol ihre Ämter missbrauchten und unter dem Vorwand der Korruptionsbekämpfung vielfach gegen rechtsstaatliche Grundsätze verstießen, um einen Regierungswechsel zu begünstigen.
In an obvious attempt to retaliate against The Intercept’s critical reporting on abuses committed by Brazilian judicial officials, prosecutors have filed a criminal complaint against our co-founder Glenn Greenwald.
There is no democracy without a free press. We ask advocates for press freedom everywhere to join in condemning the Bolsonaro government’s transparent effort to intimidate and criminalize journalists.
A coalition of more than 40 press freedom and human rights groups from across the globe sent a letter Friday to Brazilian authorities condemning cybercrime charges brought against American investigative journalist Glenn Greenwald earlier this week as a clear intimidation effort for his reporting on key members of President Jair Bolsonaro’s government.
Greenwald, who co-founded The Intercept, lives in Rio de Janeiro with his husband, Brazilian Congressman David Miranda, and their family. The letter (pdf) initiated by Reporters Sans Frontières (Reporters Without Borders) and Freedom of the Press Foundation echoes journalists, politicians, and advocates worldwide who have expressed support for Greenwald since Tuesday.
„Bolsonaro is attacking and threatening journalists all the time. So this is obviously a plan, a goal of this government, to bring repression back to Brazil,“ the U.S. journalist said.
In free societies, journalists play an important role in challenging and criticizing governmental officials and scrutinizing their actions and policies. It is a threat to democracy when authorities use cybercrime laws to punish their critics, as the Brazilian government has done here with Glenn Greenwald, and it discourages journalists from using technology to best serve the public.
Journalist Glenn Greenwald has been charged by the Bolsonaro government in Brazil with the same prosecutorial angle used by the US to target WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.
On Tuesday, a federal prosecutor in Brazil announced a denunciation of American journalist and Intercept co-founder Glenn Greenwald related to his work on a series of stories published on The Intercept and The Intercept Brasil. The denunciation is a criminal complaint that would open the door to further judicial proceedings. It alleges that Greenwald “directly assisted, encouraged and guided” individuals who reportedly obtained access to online chats used by prosecutors and others involved in Operation Car Wash, a yearslong, sprawling anti-corruption investigation that roiled Brazilian politics.
The denunciation will now go before a judge who can approve or deny the request for charges.
Ausführlich schildert der mutmaßliche Hacker, wen er wann anzapfte und, wie er Kontakt mit Greenwald aufgenommen habe. Bolsonaros Attacke hat auch die Interamerikanische Menschenrechtskommission auf den Plan gerufen. „Leider scheint der brasilianische Präsident die Verfassung seines Landes und die internationalen Verträge über die Meinungsfreiheit, die Brasilien unterzeichnet hat, vergessen zu haben“, kommentierte dessen Sonderberichterstatter für Meinungsfreiheit, Edson Lanza. Man werde die Entwicklung weiter beobachten, so der Sonderberichterstatter der zur Organisation Amerikanischer Staaten (OAS) gehörigen Kommission.
The archive we received from our source is vast, and contains many more explosive stories yet to be reported. Just last night, we published another story exposing even more serious improprieties by Judge Moro, widely regarded as the anchor of legitimacy for the Bolsonaro government, that has led for more calls for him to resign. Because of the importance but also complexity of these issues for those outside of Brazil, we created a video explaining what this archive is about, what these revelations mean, and why the consequences of our reporting are so significant not only for Brazil but for the entire democratic world.
Greenwald’s tweet was in response to threats of deportation by Brazilian far-right politician, Carlos Jordy. Last Sunday, Greenwald and a team of investigative journalists published an exposé in The Intercept outlining major judicial irregularities in the alleged corruption case against former President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva that lead to his imprisonment since April 2018.
Gabbard has compiled a record on domestic policy questions that places her squarely within the left populist wing of the party — from advocating Medicare for All, a national $15 an hour minimum wage, various free college programs, and even participating in anti-pipeline Standing Rock protests in North Dakota. Yet her aggressive criticisms of the pieties of the bipartisan foreign policy community — particularly her harsh criticism of regime change operations from Iraq and Libya, to Syria and Venezuela, and her warnings about escalating tensions with Russia and China and the dangers of a “new Cold War” — have further cemented her status as party outsider and heretic from the perspective of Washington Democratic insiders.
Tucker Tonight, Fox News 1/14/18: Tucker asks Glenn Greenwald why Tulsi Gabbard is hated by „Official Washington“
Related: Hillary Clinton 2004: „I believe marriage is not just a bond but a sacred bond between a man and a woman. . https://youtu.be/1sGwGB7lKE0
(7.3.2018) Believe it or not, I’m a fan of Glenn Greenwald, who is one of the very few celebrity journalists who has had the guts to consistently challenge the ridiculous “Russiagate” narrative from the start. And just because The Intercept is owned by a neoliberal oligarch who backed a fascist coup in the Ukraine, micro-financed a few Indians to death, and employs a personal security detail of ex-Secret Service agents and State Department types who will fly him to safety in his private jet in the event of imminent zombie apocalpyse, that doesn’t mean The Intercept staff doesn’t publish important investigative journalism.
No, what struck me as I was suffering through this debate was how utterly divorced from reality it was, whatever “reality” might mean anymore. Watching Greenwald, Risen, and Scahill sitting there, like rational people, “debating” whether Donald Trump might be part of some convoluted Russian conspiracy to destroy America and Western democracy, I felt like I was finally having one of those apocryphal LSD flashbacks.