Trump’s extremism does not entitle Clinton to waltz into power without serious scrutiny.
In his New York Times column yesterday, Paul Krugman did something that he made clear he regarded as quite brave: He defended the Democratic Party presidential nominee and likely next U.S. president from journalistic investigations. Complaining about media bias, Krugman claimed that journalists are driven by “the presumption that anything Hillary Clinton does must be corrupt, most spectacularly illustrated by the increasingly bizarre coverage of the Clinton Foundation.” While generously acknowledging that it was legitimate to take a look at the billions of dollars raised by the Clintons as Hillary pursued increasing levels of political power — vast sums often received from the very parties most vested in her decisions as a public official — it is now “very clear,” he proclaimed, that there was absolutely nothing improper about any of what she or her husband did.
Krugman’s column, chiding the media for its unfairly negative coverage of his beloved candidate, was, predictably, a big hit among Democrats — not just because of their agreement with its content but because of what they regarded as the remarkable courage required to publicly defend someone as marginalized and besieged as the former first lady, two-term New York senator, secretary of state, and current establishment-backed multimillionaire presidential front-runner. Krugman — in a tweet proclamation that has now been re-tweeted more than 10,000 times — heralded himself this way: “I was reluctant to write today’s column because I knew journos would hate it. But it felt like a moral duty.”
True fact: I was reluctant to write today's col because I knew journos would hate it. But it felt like a moral duty https://t.co/ldee224frl
— Paul Krugman (@paulkrugman) September 5, 2016
As my colleague Zaid Jilani remarked: “I can imagine Paul Krugman standing in front of the mirror saying, ‘This is *your Tahrir Square* big guy.’” Nate Silver, early yesterday morning, even suggested that Krugman’s Clinton-defending column was so edgy and threatening that the New York Times — which published the column — was effectively suppressing Krugman’s brave stance by refusing to promote it on Twitter (the NYT tweeted Krugman’s column a few hours later, early in the afternoon). Thankfully, it appears that Krugman — at least thus far — has suffered no governmental recriminations or legal threats, nor any career penalties, for his intrepid, highly risky defense of Hillary Clinton.
That’s because — in contrast to his actually brave, orthodoxy-defying work in 2002 as one of the few media voices opposed to the invasion of Iraq, for which he deserves eternal credit — Krugman here is doing little more than echoing conventional media wisdom. That prominent journalists are overwhelmingly opposed to Donald Trump is barely debatable; their collective contempt for him is essentially out in the open, which is where it should be. Contrary to Krugman’s purported expectation, countless Clinton-supporting journalists rushed to express praise for Krugman. Indeed, with very few exceptions, U.S. elites across the board — from both parties, spanning multiple ideologies — are aligned with unprecedented unity against Donald Trump. The last thing required to denounce him, or to defend Hillary Clinton, is bravery.
That wasn’t true at first: For a long time, journalists refused to take the dangers posed by Trump’s campaign seriously. In March 2016, I wrote a column denouncing the U.S. media for venerating feigned neutrality over its responsibility to sound the alarm about how extremist and menacing Trump’s candidacy really is. But in the last few months, Trump’s media portrayal has been overwhelmingly (and justifiably) negative; his shady business scams have been endlessly investigated and dissected (often on the front page of the NYT); he and his surrogates are subjected to remarkably (and fairly) harsh interviews; his pathological lying has been unequivocally chronicled by numerous media outlets; and few journalists have suppressed their horror at his most extremist policies. As BuzzFeed’s Tom Gara put it last month: “My Twitter timeline is now just a continuous rolling denunciation of Donald Trump.”
New gold standard for TV news: Fact-checking Trump while he speaks. @CNN pic.twitter.com/kFCac0rjHD
— Christina Wilkie (@christinawilkie) June 2, 2016
That American journalists have dispensed with muted tones and fake neutrality when reporting on Trump is a positive development. He and his rhetoric pose genuine threats, and the U.S. media would be irresponsible if it failed to make that clear. But aggressive investigative journalism against Trump is not enough for Democratic partisans whose voice is dominant in U.S. media discourse. They also want a cessation of any news coverage that reflects negatively on Hillary Clinton. Most, of course, won’t say this explicitly (though some do), but — as the wildly adored Krugman column from yesterday reflects — they will just reflexively dismiss any such coverage as illegitimate and invalid.
It should be the opposite of surprising, or revealing, that pundits loyally devoted to a particular candidate dislike all reporting that reflects negatively on that candidate. There is probably no more die-hard Clinton loyalist in the U.S. media than Paul Krugman. He has used his column for years to defend her and attack any of her critics. Indeed, in 2008, he was the first to observe that — in his words — “the Obama campaign seems dangerously close to becoming a cult of personality,” comparing the adulation Clinton’s 2008 primary opponent was receiving to the swooning over George W. Bush’s flight suit. He spent the 2016 primary maligning Sanders supporters as unstable, unserious losers (the straight, white, male columnist also regularly referred to them — including female and LGBT Sanders supporters — as “bros”). And now he’s assigned himself the role as Arbiter of Proper Journalism, and — along with virtually all other Clinton-supporting pundits and journalists — has oh-so-surprisingly ruled that all journalism that reflects poorly on Hillary Clinton is unsubstantiated, biased, and deceitful.
The absolute last metric journalists should use for determining what to cover is the reaction of pundits who, like Krugman and plenty of others, are singularly devoted to the election of one of the candidates. Of course Hillary Clinton’s die-hard loyalists in the media will dislike, and find invalid, any suggestion that she engaged in any sort of questionable conduct. Their self-assigned role is to defend her from all criticisms. They view themselves more as campaign operatives than journalists: Their principal, overriding goal is to ensure that Clinton wins the election. They will obviously hate anything — particularly negative reporting about her — that conflicts with that goal. They will jettison even their core stated beliefs — such as the view that big-money donations corrupt politicians — in order to fulfill that goal.
But it would be journalistic malpractice of the highest order if the billions of dollars received by the Clintons — both personally and though their various entities — were not rigorously scrutinized and exposed in detail by reporters. That’s exactly what they ought to be doing. The fact that quid pro quos cannot be definitively proven does not remotely negate the urgency of this journalism. That’s because quid pro quos by their nature elude such proof (can anyone prove that Republicans steadfastly support Israel and low taxes because of the millions they get from Sheldon Adelson and the Koch brothers, or that the Florida attorney general decided not to prosecute Trump because his foundation and his daughter donated to her?). Beyond quid quo pros, the Clintons’ constant, pioneering merger of massive private wealth and political power and influence is itself highly problematic. Nobody forced them to take millions of dollars from the Saudis and Goldman Sachs tycoons and corporations with vested interests in the State Department; having chosen to do so with great personal benefit, they are now confronting the consequences in how the public views such behavior.
That Donald Trump is an uber-nationalist, bigotry-exploiting demagogue and unstable extremist does not remotely entitle Hillary Clinton to waltz into the Oval Office free of aggressive journalistic scrutiny. Nor does Trump’s extremism constitute a defense to anything that she’s done. It is absolutely true that Trump has at least as many troublesome financial transactions and entangling relationships as the Clintons do: These donations to the Florida attorney general are among the most corrupt-appearing transactions yet documented. Even worse, Trump has shielded himself from much needed scrutiny by inexcusably refusing to release his tax returns, while much of the reporting about the Clintons is possible only because they have released theirs. All of that is important and should be highlighted.
But none of it suggests that anything other than a bright journalistic light is appropriate for examining the Clintons’ conduct. Yet there are prominent pundits and journalists who literally denounce every critical report about Clinton as unfair and deceitful, and band together to malign the reporters who scrutinize the Clintons’ financial transactions. Those prominent voices combine with the million-dollar online army that supreme sleaze merchant David Brock has assembled to attack Clinton critics; as the Los Angeles Times reported in May: “Clinton’s well-heeled backers have opened a new frontier in digital campaigning, one that seems to have been inspired by some of the internet’s worst instincts. Correct the Record, a Super PAC coordinating with Clinton’s campaign, is spending some $1 million to find and confront social media users who post unflattering messages about the Democratic front-runner.”
All of this means that any journalists reporting negatively on Clinton are instantly and widely bombarded with criticisms denouncing their work as illegitimate, as they’ve started noting:
Clinton backers' shaming of the press for reporting anything the Clinton campaign dislikes is rapidly approaching self-parody territory.
— Kenneth P. Vogel (@kenvogel) September 4, 2016
Is there anyone whinier than Clinton supporters? Her unpopularity is always someone else's fault.
— Josh Barro (@jbarro) August 31, 2016
No one in the media should do another story remotely questioning anything Hillary has done until the NYT accuses Trump of bribery on Page 1.
— Jon Ralston (@RalstonReports) September 6, 2016
So little upset here at Clintons for decisions like taking $18 million from for-profit college. Only upset at press for daring to point out.
— Alec MacGillis (@AlecMacGillis) September 6, 2016
Or just look at the outrage directed last night at New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman — who has written story after story investigating Donald Trump — for the crime of innocuously noting a Washington Post story about Bill Clinton’s multimillion-dollar payday for a largely no-show job from a for-profit college:
Well-reported deep dive into @billclinton multi-million-dollar honorary chancellor role with Laureate https://t.co/EHNrVnv89i
— Maggie Haberman (@maggieNYT) September 6, 2016
It’s very common for political factions to believe that they’re persecuted and victimized. Even with the overwhelming bulk of the national media so openly aligned against Trump — with an endless array of investigative stories showing Trump to be an unscrupulous con artist and pathological liar — Clinton supporters seem to genuinely believe that the media is actually biased against their candidate.
The reality is that large, pro-Clinton liberal media platforms — such as Vox, and the Huffington Post, and prime-time MSNBC programs, and the columnists and editorialists of the New York Times and the Washington Post, and most major New York-based weekly magazines — have been openly campaigning for Hillary Clinton. I don’t personally see anything wrong with that — I’m glad when journalists shed their faux objectivity; I believe the danger of Trump’s candidacy warrants that; and I hope this candor continues past the November election — but the everyone-is-against-us self-pity from Clinton partisans is just a joke. They are the dominant voices in elite media discourse, and it’s a big reason why Clinton is highly likely to win.
That’s all the more reason why journalists should be subjecting Clinton’s financial relationships, associations, and secret communications to as much scrutiny as Donald Trump’s. That certainly does not mean that journalists should treat their various sins and transgressions as equivalent: Nothing in the campaign compares to Trump’s deport-11-million-people or ban-all-Muslim policies, or his attacks on a judge for his Mexican ethnicity, etc. But this emerging narrative that Clinton should not only enjoy the support of a virtually united elite class but also a scrutiny-free march into the White House is itself quite dangerous. Clinton partisans in the media — including those who regard themselves as journalists — will continue to reflexively attack all reporting that reflects negatively on her, but that reporting should nonetheless continue with unrestrained aggression.
Mr Greenwald:
Noteworthy that you, as a citizen of another country, should take such a degree of interest in our politics. In this regard, it seems that you and Mr Murdoch have much in common!
Best regards,
Jim Aoyama
Greenwald lives in Brazil but is a United States citizen.
Krugman is in the bag for the Clinton’s. Highly recommend he read Clinton Cash book. Both Hildabeast and slick willie are as dirty as they can be. Hildabeast has taken so much money from Middle Eastern types, I hate to think how much of America she would have to give up should she become POTUS. Ugh what a horrible thought.
Check out the readers comments following Sunday’s “The Truth About False Balance” by NYT public editor Liz Spayed.
What enraged very nearly all of the 379 (at last count) responders was the manner in which The NYT covers Hillary. The headlines are pure click bait implying controversy and promising revelations of misdeeds and buried in the content is the fact that there was NOTHING found.
But if you were inclined to skim and just read headlines, you would come away with the impression that Hillary is endless scandal. THAT is the issue that rankles so many of us. Not the scrutiny, but the repeated failure to vindicate her and their foundation when it’s appropriate. So far, there is no there, there. But no one will say that in a headline because that doesn’t compel clicks and sell ad space.
None of this matters because after today, she is finished. She wouldnt miss a Hollywood fundraiser unless she was incapable functioning. Theres no hiding the obvious. Something is medically wrong with her.
She had pneumonia—hardly a surprising development in someone traveling continuously and working as hard as she is but hardly a permanent affliction.
hrc HAS pneumonia-
hrc also has an issue with the system that allows blood to flow and function…
hrc also has serious issues with her immune system
http://endocrineethicsblog.org/category/hypothyroidism/
Or you could go read NBC or Daily Kos if you wish/instead-
Send hrc Love/Light because that is about all that can assist in turning the tide of consequences of all the hidden extreme action-
Apologies and condolences if you actually do care about her, and are knot just parroting with the intent to serv-self
What I find amusing is that Mr. Greenwald seems to believe that Trump is more dangerous that Clinton. Trump may be a racist, a chauvinist and done many shady deals but let’s be serious. Let’s consider what a Clinton presidency represents:
1. Economy – Clinton will continue the naked wealth extraction of wealth for the population for the less than 1%. As with Obama, no crime by any large corporation will ever be prosecuted (especially those who have given “donations” to the Clinton foundation). There will be token gestures possibly to some trade unions but at the same time she will pass TTIP and TPP. Once they are passed, real growth will cease to exist. Few if any business will be developed and those that are will be crushed via regulatory capture by large corporations. With Trump, yes he has deeply flawed views about the economy and the economy will most likely suffer do to that but he will not sign off on TTIP and TPP.
2. War – A guaranteed war against Russia because as the less than 1% know with the more than $600 trillion in derivative exposure and the absolute impossibility for the debt to be paid off, the only way to save the less than 1% (except maybe the Rothschilds) is through money printing and government decrees that can only be done through a major crisis such as a war. If you want to see what would await the so called less than 1% look at what’s happen to the Espirito Santo family in Portugal after the fall of their bank. Trump although he might continue the war on terror most likely will not start a war with Russia.
3. Health – This is one of the most serious areas of concerns because even those in the alternative media space including Mr. Greenwald have been brainwashed to believe that health is something that it is not. Your body has about 200 different types of cells and they need 11 different categories of nutrients (i.e. 24 amino acids, Carbohydrates or glycogen, Essential Fatty Acids (EFA’s), 16 vitamins, 72 plus minerals, Enzymes (catalysts which make everything else work), Phytonutrients (pro-oxidants instead of antioxidants coming from green plants which have the chlorophyll), Sunshine or photon light (electromagnetic pulse waves which come from the sun), Glyconutrients (essential glycosugars and glycolipids needed for cellular communication), Oxygen and Water) to function correctly. There is only one illness cellular malfunction. Depending on the cells it will manifest different symptoms that are given different names but the underlying problem is the same. And there are only two sources of this, nutritional deficiency or being exposed to toxins. No amount of tar derived petrochemicals is going to restore your health if you are nutritionally deficient or are suffering due to toxic exposure. This is the delusion that the majority of the population lives under. That somehow they are going to find a magic bullet to restore your health. Given this reality, you might not have noticed it but the less than 1% have been trying to destroy our health and most important our intellect. Consider what they are doing to both the food supply by dousing our food in pesticides which for example glyphosate binds to most of the nutrients rendering them unavailable for human absorption. As well they are endocrine disruptors affecting people’s growth and reproductive abilities among other things. Consider what they are doing with vaccines. If most people would take the time to read the label, they would discover that they are pumping into their childrens’ blood neurotoxins that are orders of magnitude higher than what is considered safe for an adult. Consider what they are doing with GMO foods. The toxins added via GMOs are not only altering our DNA but also exposing our bodies to toxins on a more profound level and providing “food” that has no nutrients whatsoever since the GMOs are specifically designed to be used with pesticides. You might as well be eating plastic. 100% certain Clinton will extend this via TTIP, TPP, Fracking, Factory Farming, Laboratory created foods, etc. Trump we don’t know about at least in terms of vaccines has shown himself aware of their nefaste effect.
4. Environment – See above.
5. Immigration – I think you pointed this out how Trump says out in the open what Clinton, Obama and others say through coded language. They will do the same things but it will be somewhat hidden with Clinton (such as getting Mexico to build a wall on its southern border rather than having the US build one.
6. Racism – Although Trump has shown himself to be clearly racist in his language, not only is Clinton shown herself to be more racist in her acts (i.e. Libya, Guatemala) but also has shown clearly through the body trail that exists that she will sell anyone down the river who could impede her ambitions.
I find it rather strange that you would choose the surety of someone who will not only implement the agenda for the less than 1% but will also lead us into another world war over someone whose policy choices are not only not clear in many areas but who obviously scares the bejesus of the establishment. Although I refuse to vote because I’m a political atheist, for me, the choice is along the lines of what the Germans say (i.e. like choosing between cholera (Trump) and leprosy(Clinton). And the wise person given no other choice would chose cholera because at least their is a treatment.
What a reliefn thank you!
Clinton, with Obama, destroyed Libya and then armed terrorists in Syria in a war that destroyed 400,000 lives. And they also pulled a coup in Ukraine and call for jingoistic ‘new cold war’ against Russia.
She is a war criminal who should be tried at the Hague.
That Greenwald prefers Hillary to Trumps shows that he too is, deep down, a Zionist supremacist.
That’s why we are canceling subscriptions to, The New Your Times, Washinton Post, and getting our TV from SLING and other non-cable companies. We are sick and tired of the propaganda and quit frankly some of us are totally offended by what everyone calls “a journalist” these days. It is so pathetic.
Glenn Greenwald, one of the very few legit journo voices against the Hillary fandom. I hope you keep at it.
My “conspiracy” theory on The Krugster’s unrelenting Hillary promotion is that he wants to be the Treasury Secretary in a Hillary administration. or the head of the Fed. Very sad to have a true Progressive voice go off the deep end like this. I can’t believe anything he writes about anymore. I have to put it through a Krugman filter, throw a pond of salt over my shoulder and then look for other opinions.
Pick your battles. We all know she is partially corrupt. Like it or not HRC is one of two (albeit bad) choices. Our focus needs to be forcing the spicific policy change we want from her.
I will not reward the Democratic Party with a vote for their presidential candidate after what they have pulled all year. I will not support a second corrupt right wing party. They can have my support again if they improve.
There. Battle picked. Done and done.
Wow, this thread is full of bots and trolls, on both sides. Hope I can get a word in edgewise.
Glenn, I think the point of Krugman’s article (and the source of the overall “journo backlash” lately) isn’t that partisans want zero negative coverage of Clinton- it’s that when a “scandal”- like the emails, like the Clinton Foundation, like Benghazi- has been investigated and reported on to death, when HRC+Co have been open and transparent, and when NOTHING actually illegal has been found, the story should die, and die decently.
Krugman’s point is that there is a drip-drip-drip of negative news focused on both candidates- but only one candidate actually has a steady drip-drip of negative actions/revelations/law-breaking, while the other has seemingly been exonerated of wrongdoing (if you’re not sure who’s who, you’re not paying attention).
Not only has intense scrutiny and tireless investigation led to countless “nothingburgers” on HRC, but we have daily revelations that Trump has engaged in the exact rule-bending and influence peddling everyone has been accusing HRC of, in the Trump Foundations gifts to the Attorney Generals of two separate states considering legal action against him. Last time I checked, a “normal person” would be finding themselves facing prosecution for multiple felonies.
It’s an incredible double-standard that is being shamelessly applied by almost every outlet in the mainstream, seemingly to maintain the horse race. God forbid that the horse die in August.
Journalists and press entities are right to question and soul-search this cycle- I’m not going to pretend I’m not a partisan, but as has been pointed out by so many in this election cycle, we all need to ask ourselves, how did we get to this place?
We understand that there is a very vocal minority who want change-at-any-cost, who want to “blow up the system”, or are only interested in the bread-and-circuses nature of Trump’s campaign- they revel in his bigotry and love how his rampage against “political correctness” allows them to be the jerks they normally have to keep in the privacy of their own homes.
The real question journalists need to ask now, and will be asking long after this election is over, is how we got to this point- how a free and responsible press got taken along for the Trump carnival ride, complete with the fortune-tellers and freak show behind the curtain. Was it because Hillary Clinton is a deeply flawed candidate? Partly. But is it also because journalists of all stripes also love the spotlight? Keeping Trump quasi-legitimate allows you to keep criticizing him, and each other.
If you had done your jobs right the first time, these articles wouldn’t need to be written- we could be having a substantive debate about whether a conservative or progressive leader is best for the country.
Instead we’re left with !emails, maybe! vs !broke the law, actually! As we’ve been hearing so much lately, SAD!
HRC has been the prime press target for rumors and phony scandals from Vince Foster to emails. The press can’t help itself because it’s driven by corporate profit centers. She is the perfect misogynistic target.
Exactly! The media has been letting Trump get away with everything short of murder. He does or says something outrageous. They cover it briefly and then move on to the next outrageous thing. There is rarely any serious follow-up. We KNOW The Donald has broken the law multiple times, because he has told us so himself. He has been engrossed in countless scandals that are actually real, not political. So where is the media? Busy parsing every word that Hillary has said for the millionth time. Most recently Matt Lauer wasted a third of her time at the national security forum rehashing “her damn emails” (B. Sanders). Greenwald has definitely jumped the shark on this one.
“when HRC+Co have been open and transparent, ” I guess there is a first time for everything. Let us know when that happens.
A poorly disguised Hillary infomercial…
Clinton’s pay to play took place while she was Secretary of State, Trump’s hanky panky took place in the business world/political world, False equivalency, Clinton’s hanky panky far more serious,
Look know Trump says dangerous things, however Clinton has and will continue to make very deadly decisions,
Who is responsible for bringing on more death and destruction, Proven…Hillary. Iraq, Libya, Syria…deadly
Great article Mr. Greenwald! I guess anyone who isn’t a party sheep has seen this all along. The criticism of Matt Lauer makes it obvious how much The Times and Post among many other corporate media are really in her corner.
funny to come back and reread this after watching the brutal cannibalization of matt lauer on most news outlets today. even on canadian news. good times.
apparently his “sin” was not checking trump on a few lies or whatever. because you go to a morning show host when you want a “frost v nixon” moment. meanwhile cnn played a clinton interview in israel where she said “ISIS wants trump to win cuz i heard it on twitter”. and of course sanctimony by the ton over trump’s (mostly true) putin statement and giant moving continents of condescension for gary johnson’s aleppo “senior moment”.
they did at least give coverage to both jill stein and the dakota pipeline protests…at the same time for 2 minutes when she had an arrest arrant out for spraypainting someone’s precious bulldozer. so when will they internet finally kill off TV again? soon? please?
Right. Friendship with Russia is a threat to national security. Hostility to a country with 7,300 nuclear warheads will keep us safe.
“Do you now feel, or have you ever felt, friendly toward Russia?”
Most hilariously, see this video from the Dems in 2012: Mitt Romney’s Statements on Russia – Failing the Commander-in-Chief Test Then, they rightly rejected Cold War Hysteria 2.0.
As people started tweeting this, the Hillbots started shrieking: “B-b-but Putin hadn’t done bad things yet!” Please, invasion of Georgia anyone? Or clearly supporting Assad?
That’s amazing! Now I understand why objectionable Putin moves from the Bush years go unmentioned by Democrats.
Russia is a huge reason why I simply cannot vote for HRC, as ghastly as Trump is. She’s absolutely taking positions on Russia that could start WWIII.
That’s very funny. The Michele Fluornoy comment, “It’s a really curious statement, given that the Cold War has been over for some time,” is perfect for this moment.
BTW, the “invasion of Georgia” made the people of South Ossetia sleep much better at night and ought not to be viewed uncritically as presented by Western media.
As for Assad, well, he is the head of a legitimate government that the US has been trying to overthrow. Just saying, as the kidz write on the interwebs.
Just read this in Foreign Policy: The Kremlin Really Believes That Hillary Wants to Start a War With Russia. The author is an American and visiting researcher at Russia’s Foreign Ministry. It’s scary as hell.
Sheesh. Scary for sure — and the Kremlin can hardly be blamed for believing that.
How dangerously crazy can politicians get? This year, we seem to be setting new records week after week.
Are you saying Putin did invade Georgia and that Assad is the bad guy?
If so,it just shows the power of prejudice and BS on small minds.
An exposure of Mona’s lack of mental faculty,and her hatred for people who hold honor above propaganda.
What’s also funny is conservatives around the world, mimicking Trump….all the while denying that they are mimicking Trump.
It’s funny how Muslim immigrants to the West don’t share….(place the country name here) values. They don’t share the history of anti-Semitism of French Christians, (peaking in Vichy but still present). They don’t have to answer for the genocide of the American Indians (still ongoing). They didn’t value the UK’s Iraq war that brought so many to Calais as refugees. They don’t even value the contribution Canada made to the bombing campaign that made Libya a chaotic nightmare.
And now in Canada, we see a proposal to adopt Trump’s “extreme vetting”. (because how else but by testing potential Muslim immigrants for “values” can Canada, end the “barbaric practices” that threaten to overwhelm America’s northern neighbour?)
@bahhummingbug
The National Post has a subsequent interview of Snowden up, and they ask about those brave Hong Kong refugees who took him in:
This stuff is so moving I can’t even. Respect also to that wonderful barrister, Robert Tibbo.
It is funny, the American progressives scratching their heads: “why doesn’t Clinton bring us on her team? Why didn’t she make Warren or Sanders her running mate? Why is she courting Kissinger and not us?”
Warren and Sanders have good intentions towards “the people” and would bring opposition to the evil plans she and her legion has. Kissinger will be the next president if her health goes sour. So, WW3 would be a sure thing.
JILL STEIN is the best candidate I know for all (HUMANITY). At least, she would not end the world, and would bring a lot opposition to the evil legion in power. Please check Jill’s presidential plans.
I feel sorry for Putin and Russians, getting a lot blame for something that was an “inside job”.
I love the way the American media is jumping all over Trump’s “take the oil” remarks as if it hadn’t already been implemented, albeit at a higher reading comprehension level than Trump has demonstrated.
Yes Dick Cheney’s report warned, not of “WMD” but of Iraq using the ever so scary “oil weapon”.
(Iraqis would have flung the oil at them and millions of Americans surely would have died, slipping on oil patches, perhaps???)
That is what Bush and Blair killed thousands for, the “oil weapon”.
But isn’t Trump awful, taking about taking the oil!!!! As if the West were so barbaric!!!!
Glenn,
I will be a Clinton voter, but that doesn’t make me a Clinton shill. My problem with the media, esp. over the past 18 months, was/is the absurd amount of air time Trump received/receives and the lack of balance in content. When my morning drive, listening to NPR, includes – hearing that Trump in Mexico “looked presidential”, along with speculation over, not if, but how much, damage additional emails being released will affect Clinton’s approval numbers – I get irritated.
I have no problem with the press holding Clinton’s feet to the fire, (please do), as long as Trump’s are feeling the same intensity of flames. Today, on MSNBC, someone mentioned “name calling”, which has long been Trump’s specialty, the commentator forcefully declared, is happening on “both sides”.
I feel like Trump is being graded (covered) on a curve. Clinton has more experience & knowledge in/about government, so she gets “X” amount of coverage & quality of analysis. Expectations are adjusted down for Trump, since he is an utter novice.
Just for fun I thought I could see if I could show you are actually a shill in less than 5 minutes of looking and voila.
You claim that NPR said that Trump “looked presidential” in Mexico. That’s too easy! I knew they wouldn’t have claimed that. A few seconds on Google and here we go. Yeah, a real ringing endorsement from NPR as we see here, shill:
*****
E. J. DIONNE: Here is Trump trying to look, in quotes, “presidential” down with the president in Mexico. And then he comes back and gives this absolutely vicious speech when he gets to the United States. And the Clinton campaign, I think, really called him out on something, which is he said again in the speech that Mexico would pay for the wall, but somehow didn’t have the guts, or whatever it was, to bring that up with the president of Mexico.
SHAPIRO: They used the favorite Trump word – he choked.
It is so nice when folks are honest about their support for the war criminal Clinton. Very refreshing. Own it! Be proud! I hope they are paying you well.
Assuming you have the slightest grasp of geography, this story is funny:
For those who don’t grasp geography, isn’t it awful the way Russian war planes continually buzz around the coast of Texas??? It’s so unprofessional!!!!
Meanwhile…the “Wall” idea knows no political boundaries:
There is an antidote to the failed humanity of the Calais wall
Build a wall … A great wall. But will it be high enough, big enough, thick enough? Will it be Trump-size, visible from space? Will it keep out the undesirables ? Will it protect the lorry drivers and nervous holidaymakers? Will it look nice if we put a few plants around it? Are the French going to raze the Jungle to the ground just as they did Sangatte?
I do not know whether Robert Goodwill, the immigration minister who announced the grand folly of a £1.9m wall in Calais – “We’ve done the fences, now we are doing a wall” – has a clue what he is talking about but this is part of a £17m security package that “we” are partaking in with the French to tackle the problem of the camp in Calais. This is the ultimate in closed thinking.
…So this wall is a symbolic gesture to be built with taxpayers’ money. That money could surely be used to fund centres for the processing of asylum claims. But something unforgivable is happening when we cannot even let in the unaccompanied children from the camps. Stella Creasy, MP for Walthamstow, went over with Alf Dubs to try and do something about this. Those kids, with their strange “protectors” lurking behind them, haunt me. These are traumatised children, left to rot and be exploited. The volunteers do the best they can, but the situation is at breaking point.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/sep/07/there-is-an-antidote-to-the-failed-humanity-of-the-calais-wall
Apparently the neo-fascists trending in Europe and America haven’t heard of the adage: “show me a fifty foot wall and I’ll show you a fifty-one foot ladder”. It seems appropriate here.
excuse the typo…
Let’s get Greenwald straight: Trump is a piece of shit. Hillary is a slightly smaller piece of shit. The MSM won’t allow anyone to say the latter, but would set things right if it did. Then we can vote for Hillary, because it’s always better to vote for a smalkler piece of shit than a bigger piece of shit. Thanks Glenn. Brilliant reporting!
Hillary is a proven Neocon warmonger guilty of promoting war crimes in the Middle East at the behest of her Zionist pals in Israel.
Trump is a decent man guilty of committing word crimes.
No contest – Vote Trump.
Trump is a hero and the most qualified candidate in history.
More Qualified than John Adams ?
The Beutler New Republic article does a good job of reminding readers of useful nuance in GG and Krugman articles. Unfortunately, this is where Beutler himself ends up:
“But news consumers gauge the relative importance of stories through their framing, and the weight news outlets place on them. Last week, a casual news consumer wouldn’t have come away thinking Clinton’s and Trump’s sins were equivalent; they would have instead learned that Clinton’s sins were real and Trump’s trivial or non-existent.”
This is a fancy way of saying “but…Trump!”. Beutler’s “casual news consumer” would have to have not even had “casual” acquaintance with the news for weeks on end to arrive at this outcome.
“casual consumer”
There’s a lot of blame to go around. There’s the casual neo-cons and Wall Streeters backing Clinton, causing millions to die in the middle east an millions to lose their homes in America. There’s the casual media barons investing in faux news and reality TV who are behind Trump.
And Beutler thinks the solution is to dumb down the news even more? To what? “elite-splain” how Clinton-corruption doesn’t really matter…in the grand “Trump-scheme” of things?
Yes, Beutler’s assessment leads us right back to a silly place beloved by “objective” journalists. This leads to stupid time-wasting and it is easily abused. For example, every interview with a peace activist trying to head off the Iraq War of 2003 had to include the following “objective” questions: 1) Isn’t Saddam a really bad dictator? and 2) Don’t you support the troops?
This way the time that could have been spent covering what the peace activist had to say was blessedly cut to nearly nothing, and soon it was tah tah, peace activist, & now back to the full-time war cheerleading.
So, if every critical article about Trump or Clinton “must” include some mention of how the other candidate did ____, then that’s a waste of space. No, we don’t need that shit in every article. Quite the opposite in fact.
Did you mean to say Jill Stein? Because every other article is about Hillary and how she is being picked on instead of what she is sayin and doing.
The media has a bias FOR Clinton!?!?!? With the blatant hypocrisy of the media’s treatment of the Clinton Foundation vs the Trump Foundation to BS health scandal that is Swift Boat Vets all over again? WHAT SMUG REALITY DO YOU LIVE IN!?!?
Oh and Paul Krugman is a million times the journalist you are, you suicide-leftist hack.
Trump is a loud mouth who makes racist remarks that hurt people unfairly. And Hillary knowingly sets events in motion that needlessly killed 250,000 Her ultra nationalist religious ethnicity obsessed patrons like Haim Saban are themselves racist deadly monsters – versions of Trump and Donald Sterling willing to pay for genocide in most of the countries surrounding Israel in exchange for helping her ascension to the presidency. All of her supporters know this even if they are in denial about it. You see it’s easier to commit mass genocide and dismantle civil rights in the USA to comport with Israeli Apartheid then to tell Israel to knock their sh!t off and put them on a forced peace plan. It is insane and they are as awful as Trump. Even their lies about diversity and peace and love ring hollow with the back drop of the blood bath that both Clinton and Obama have committed. It is now surprise they are friends with Bush. The real story is there are no parties; simply one monolithic Government Corporate Roman-like entity. They are even marrying off their children to each other to create family alliances now. The USA is now run like a Hollywood studio. Politicians are the actors and journalism is reduced to “Entertainment Tonight!”
Trump is a non ideologue who destroyed the rethugs in the Rep party and will destroy the demoncrat party in November.
And then you call Trump awful?
WTF?
What were the Clinton’s paid for if not influence ?
Companionship?
Bent dicks old companion ML said that the last Clinton administration left a bad taste in her mouth.
Two quid’s, one pro, and and option on all future quo’s.
Correction: Zachary Quinto did meet Glenn Greenwald in person before portraying him in the film
Last nite some of us here were discussing a new article out about Edward Snowden, one that chronicles how he escaped from Hong Kong. The subject of Oliver Stones’s movie, Snowden, also arose — the film will be out next week.
I had said, as per the article, that Quinto had not met Glenn. This is wrong, as our friend “Shenebraksan” just informed me on Twitter with a link to a short interview of the three actors playing Snowden, Lindsay Mills, and Glenn. (Moreover, and as I think about it, I believe the two met several years ago while both were appearing on a TeeVee show.)
Mona is a lapdog whose job is to jump for his master.
Can you please ask TI to ban me so you can prove my point?
This is hilarious:
You stated you knew me and I wanted to harm you in real world. You stated that YOU know I am not Muslim and I even despise Muslims. Then, you claim you even know my state of mind. If that does not make somebody laugh!
This why you want me banned. The other lapdog claimed that if Clinton cared about Haiti then the foundation would have helped the healthcare center to rebuild.
1) that is a distorted logic. The lapdog concludes that a foundation does not care about an issue because they did not do ( or she thinks they did not do) what she would have liked them to do.
2) The foundation not only helped the healthcare center to rebuild, but it went further than that. It helped build a Cholera Center and and a school for that center.
Forget about news reports. I gave you the head of that center number, then call him ask him whether or not I am wrong. If you were really about finding trolls and preventing them from disturbing your “house” then you would have contacted him to prove the whole world how dishonest I am. Instead, as a good lapdog you will continue calling me troll and sooner or later crawl to your master to beg him to ban the one who expose your ignorance with facts.
I have a question. You have been calling me zionist trolls, following me around like a puppy without dignity. But how come you cannot find one statement from me in support of Israel? Come on Mona. It cant be that hard to find one statement in support of Israel from a ” Zionist who despises Muslim”
That is why I found you funny. Please ask your master to ban me. Lol
Mani is a troll, and I have have said I will not respond to him while this thread is still young. Anyone wishing to see his MO can read him in action, and eventually melting down, in this old sub-thread here.
“wanted to harm you in real world”
Mani, The Eternal DumbAss!! what world do you think you are in if not the ‘real’ world?
Do you see other faces besides your own when you look into the mirror? Do you hear voices?
Seek help.
couple things sis …
1. The couple w/ small child who hid cuz Snowden in a 250sqft apt! Snowden leaving $250 under his pillow for them, under those fraught and harrowing circumstances, was … absolutely rock-steady freaking marvelous!
*I’m thinking one of the third<3-way parties in the Presidential election should put Snowden on the ticket … DNI, Dir NSA or sump'in.
2. Why can't 'Shenebraksan' post a comment here? That's ridiculous … and you can tell my protege I said so.
*the way it's going, before long I won't have anybody to play with … except benitoe Mooselina./
*Have read some good reviews about the Oliver Stone flick …
It absolutely was. All of those refugees, Snowden himself, and that lovely man Robert Tibbo (as a Canadian barrister he could be making piles of $$, but dedicates his career to helping these miserable refugees).
We have so few opportunities to admire people, certainly once we are out of our 20s and have a clue about life. That story and accompanying vids actually made me cry.
Matt Lauer the great “journalist” is asking Hillary questions right now about her fucking emails. That’s the first question. Also asks an audience member with the same line of questioning.
I wonder if they’ll ever get to this kind of detail on what she thinks of fracking, what she thinks of the pipeline being disputed right now, with what kind of lens she views Russia, what she’s going to do about the reinstatement of Glass-Steagal, what she thinks about her strategy of disenfranchising Bernie supporters, what she thinks about Jill Stein….etc., etc., etc….
Hillary is less of a problem for the US, than the American media, which is engaged in a deliberate and consistent conspiracy to misinform the American Public. Thank God for the Internet. Thank God for YouTube (even youtube apparently has new ridiculous guidelines on videos they can take down).
Somebody with money, please invest in “OurTube” before they take youtube away from us.
At the town hall:
Clinton’s goal posts have moved, it’s ok to mishandled classified communications,….as long as the mishandling includes the omission of “a header” .
I totally agree the media should be asking specific policy questions. At the same time, she’s the frontrunner. She’s been dodging the press. When she does answer questions about her violation of FOIA rules, she changes her story repeatedly. Now she’s switched back to claiming that the US’s top diplomat, somehow didn’t have ANY confidential emails in her basement server, a complete contradiction of the FBI conclusions. And a contradiction of her previously stating that there was confidential material
In other words, the chronology is, she denied doing it, got found out by the FBI, then admitted it, apologized for it, the FBI concluded it wasn’t her intention to do it, and now she’s back to denying it.
If the Democrats didn’t want questions about it, then they shouldn’t have rigged the nomination process to help such an ethically challenged candidate to win.
Two books people should read to understand the media. The first is “Manufacturing Consent” by Noam Chomsky.
The second and more important is “The Free Press” by Hilaire Belloc, written nearly a century earlier. In it, Belloc attacks the very idea of corporate media as aimed at distorting coverag and protecting the interest of corporate owners and advertisers.
Thanks for the Hilaire Belloc recommendation. I just downloaded it. For anybody interested, the kindle version is free from Amazon.
Brian Beutler has an interesting piece in The New Republic about the issues between Krugman and Greenwald. I don’t agree with all of it, but it’s worth a read: The Media Coverage of Hillary Clinton Is Out of Whack
Excerpt:
Brian Beutler sees “the proportionality problem”.
He wants criticism of Clinton, but not criticism that would sway voters. He wants neutered, ineffectual, “yes Clinton’s bad, but keep in mind…Trump!!” criticisms. Beutler wants journalism that doesn’t risk causing the reader to change their minds. Readers, if they go into a news story supporting Clinton, they should put the paper down, still supporting Clinton. And I can understand why Clinton would want that too. And I can understand why Bush didn’t want the NYT to publish the warrantless wiretap story, until after his reelection. They all want useless journalism.
That’s not what I want. I see the Democrats and Republicans both choosing ethically challenged champions, and I want the press to make valid criticisms.
Jill Stein charged for spray-painting bulldozer in Dakota pipeline protest
https://www.rt.com/usa/358572-stein-vandalism-bulldozer-dakotas/
Jill Stein Visits Standing Rock Reservation
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQFeintf-Gk
Iadmire her for taking a stand.
And Hillary Clinton does squat…
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-mckibben-standing-rock-sioux-clinton-20160907-snap-story.html
All unfavorable coverage of the Clintons is to be delegitimized. How Soviet.
Actually what’s Soviet is the constant regurgitation of rumor, innuendo and partisan bullshit masquerading as “news.” Let’s do the investigative work and let’s not pull any punches – but if the facts that arise out of the investigation serve to exonerate, then man up and stop the rumor-mongering.
Washington lobbyists representing the PACs (foreign and domestic), the “DONOR CLASS” and the Clinton Foundation are probably very unhappy over the situation of possibly losing their free access to taxpayer’s money from the US Treasury via the “PAY TO PLAY” US government “NO-BID” contract award system and control of US foreign policy from the elected “Mainstream” Democrats and Republicans in the US congress if Donald Trump is elected!
Hillary Clinton, Ted Cruz and Paul Ryan are only a few of those elected US officials that represent, obey, and speak the “DONOR CLASS” and PAC (foreign and domestic) of US and Foreign citizens that dictate the actions of most of our other elected “Mainstream” Democrats and Republicans in the US congress that participate in “crony capitalism” as our elected representatives accept wine, food, women, song, corporate jobs for their (unemployable) children/wives/girlfriends of the congressmen (and their aids), vacations, cash, pre-paid sexual services, and campaign contributions to entice (bribe) our congressmen to promise to award them NO-BID government contracts paid from the US Treasury, control of US foreign policy, access to secret US missile military technology, and also to pass whatever new legislation that the “DONOR CLASS” and PAC (foreign and domestic) clients of the lobbyists wants the elected officials to create.
Mr. Greenwald does a disservice to his readers by seriously misrepresenting Mr. Krugman’s position. It’s clear to anyone who read Krugman’s article that he wasn’t decrying the fact that the Clinton Foundation was being investigated – he in fact said it was natural to want it and the right thing to do – but was calling foul when the facts that arise out any investigation are ignored by the news media (vs opinion writers) in favor of the continuing campaign of innuendo and rumor. I understand that the facts exonerating the Clintons may not jive with your particular fancy – but Krugman is right to call foul if you ignore them and continue to focus on supposition. My take on it is this: produce the smoking gun or STFU.
I always wonder how folks like you who reason along these lines reconcile all of the other complicated things in life.
I mean, I understand that the facts implicating the Clinton’s may not jive with your particular fancy – but Greenwald is right to call foul if you ignore them and continue to stifle any inquisition that doesn’t include a “smoking gun.”.
Lest we forget this election crisis: Bernie Sanders could have swept the general election and even opened some sealed ALEC states. The criminally irresponsible MSM and DNC/RNC forced Her and It on the world. The Don’t drumpfk should be — whatever it takes to banish the nazi GOP forever.
“His kind must not rise again,” David Plouffe said. “His kind” OWN the media politics of violent ignorance.
How can we end the “PAY TO PLAY” US government way of depleting the US Treasury into the pockets of the PACs, the “DONOR CLASS,” the Clinton Foundation donors and other campaign contributors?
I thought that Donald Trump might be the taxpayer’s best chance to eliminate “PAY TO PLAY” from our US Federal government way of doing business, but I guess that Mr. Trump is now apparently determined to commit political suicide instead of becoming POTUS.
Then there’s Uranium One. Hillary Clinton who, as the Daily Tennesseean notes, “was one of several Obama administration officials who approved the sale of uranium to the Russian-operated company, whose chairman also has donated $2.35 million to the Clinton Foundation.”
A number of other people involved in the deal also gave money to the Clintons.
How can we vote for those US citizens whose spouses sold US Military Rocket Guidance Secrets to our Communist Chinese enemies in return for secret cash into their own pockets?
Foreign Manufacturers and foreign governments probably think that they paid President Clinton for NAFTA and all of that that other Free Trade Agreement legislation, MFNs, PNTRs for Communist China and that Hughes Aircraft Co. secret US Military Rocket Technology for Communist China “fair and square” in accordance with the prevailing INSTITUTIONALIZED federal government “PAY TO PLAY” bribery procedures (google Chinagate Political) to acquire such government actions.
NAFTA? Bill Clinton may have signed that as incoming president, but George Bush did all the heavy lifting for that agreement. Who paid him to play?
But free advertising was the ONLY purpose ever important to drumpfk and msm cartel, so silencing the hideous freak(s) was the only way to unplug the lunatics from civil discourse.
Bust the FCC, Amy Goodman as editor-in-chief for 24/7 public-interest programming, Greenwald chair.??
Glenn – Donald Trump would probably have you criminally prosecuted for a capital crime of reporting the Snowden leaks so you best watch out about making arguments that seem to serve him.
“It doesn’t matter whether a cat is black or white, if it catches mice it is a good cat” (Deng-Xiaopeng)
I disagree with Glenn on the Clinton Foundation: As long as there is no proof to the contrary and there is no proof for pay for play, and furthermore, as proven so far, the Clinton Foundation does good work, I think there is a moral case to defend the Clintons’ fund raising. Just to raise hell, I’d even argue that there is a case to be made that given their unique position, they SHOULD milk the fat cats for Foundation purposes. The appearance of inappropriateness isn’t an excuse.
In politics, appearances are important. If the purpose of the donations was merely an act of generosity, nobody would have quarreled had they been directed to MSF, or UNICEF, or even the William and Melinda Gates Foundation. But they were not; instead they were given to an organization which is controlled by the Clintons, and as such contributes by its very existence to the power of the Clintons. Moreover, these gifts were received while Mrs. Clinton was serving in an official capacity for the US Government. As such, she was obligated to place the national interests above personal gain. It is evident that she did not.
The key fact which no one seems to notice is
there are numerous already existing agencies which the Clintons
could have helped fund. This is also true for other
PRIVATE “foundations” which are unnecessarily competing
with public agencies
(as much as the corporate powers will allow them to be public)
in what appears to be more private corporate vanity while
reducing the funds available for “public” agencies.
This underlying fact is a good reason to be suspicious of
the motives behind the vanity foundations.
It is somewhat similar to Trump University – unnecessary and
blatantly and willfully self promoting.
I think your main point is valid ? to a point. I have doubts along the Deng line of thought: I’d allow for accomodation to the actual status of the world. Unfortunately, in today’s Congress you couldn’t revert to Ike’s (a Republican) time when the top marginal tax rate was 93%, and somehow the fat cats were living quite well (albeit heavily complaining). Also, I would submit to your consideration the Carter-Foundation which your arguments would apply likewise to. Where I definitely disagree is when you compare the Foundation to Trump University. While “unnecessary and self-promoting” Trump U actually hurt its clients which the Clinton Foundation does not.
Congratulations. Yet another Hillary hack embracing the reasoning of Citizens United and Republicans on quid pro quo. Liberals/Democrats had spent decades decrying exactly what you and so many Hillary hacks now embrace: that absent proof of explicit quid pro quo money in politics isn’t a bad thing.
What a great woman that Hillary Clinton is — making Democrats into Republicans! She’s even got a reasonably prominent “feminist” saying rape isn’t such a bad thing for a guy to do, and rapists can be good feminists. I’m not kidding. Yeah, Hillary is the “progressive” who “gets things done” alright — she makes progressives into … something else.
Sad isn’t it. George Orwell would dance on his own grave, or something like that.
Wonderful, one post made me a Clinton hack. I am impressed but by your line of reasoning, Glenn Greenwald would be a Republican hack, because he had some rather convincing arguments why – by a whisker ? SCOTUS was right on Citizens United.
Seriously, you don’t know a thing about me other than the one provocative post. The line of implications might be in your mind but it’s a series of non-sequiturs. How would the neo-Duce say: Sad!
Nope. Glenn was correct on that decision, and his reasoning (along with mine) was the same as the ACLU’s. (HINT: On First Amendment matters you are seldom going to see Glenn or me disagreeing with the ACLU’s analysis.) It was not your reasoning above, which is hackish GOP bullshit, now adopted by Hillary hacks.
Sorry Glen; as Bernie used to say, “Enough is enough”! More of the same is not an option for me and millions like me. Yes, Trump is a crook and likely pays little or no taxes like everyone in his position so, of course, he will not show the public this. I just finished David Cay Johnston’s latest book on him and it’s worse than, even cynical me thought. Would many Americans pay more for his clothes if they were manufactured in the USA? I long ago faced the fact that “nice guys finish last” so my concern is; will the next crooked leader be my crook or the crook of the elites. Because of the almost universal negative reaction of the elites toward Trump, it leads me to believe he may be MY crook. I grew up before free trade and the fall of thew wall. We looked forward to automation replacing drudgery allowing a 4 day week and more family time. The elites had to let us have our Unions as a bulwark against us choosing the alternative…socialism. NAFTA destroyed the jobs of the working class and at the same time the small farmers in Mexico driving millions into the USA along with the Central Americans fleeing the American supported Oligarch terrorism and the gangs that came from it. The DE-industrialization of the country along with other negative policies of the Clinton regime screwed over the entire working class with it being especially hard on Black Americans and the rural poor whites. The poor Whites seem to have some idea of who to blame; the Blacks have yet to figure it out but yes the law of supply and demand has decimated wages, Unions and created precarious if any employment conditions. It’s no wonder so many Americans ARE ON DRUGS, the reality of their McLives needs drugs to live through. My only caveats on Trump are climate change but I don’t believe anything substantial will happen here until it’s too late if it isn’t already. The other is a deadlocked ineffective government as we have seen for the last 8 years but that would be likely with Clinton too. Perhaps Trump could bring millions into the streets which is what it will take for REAL change. If you don’t fully appreciate what a failure the Obama regime has been read Bill Presses book “Buyers remorse” & he is a professional liberal. And that followed Bush II, a true disaster and Clinton, a disaster for the working class. By the way; the reason the Stock Market is so high is because it is driven by the foreign surpluses being put there but that has been going on for a very long time and was the idea of Paul Volcker and goes back a long way along with Ayn Rand’s executor, Greenspan. The country has not been well served by it’s elites for a very long time…..WHAT do you have to lose if you are a worker; if it brings on a revolution, even that would be reasonable in the circumstances.
“If it brings on a revolution, even that would be reasonable in the circumstances.”
Be careful of what you wish for. The civil war was the most traumatizing event in America’s history. Unfortunately the impact it had on American life is rarely the focus of history classes. A violent revolution is so horrific that the mere thought of it should make every America get up and put in the work to create a better future.
There is this argument that for decades the press has been pounding on the Clintons. That is is unfair to continue that press rampage against her. Trump has never gotten that long term scrutiny so focusing on Hillary is unfair. The problem is since the early 90’s both Clinton on their own stepped in the national conversation as politicians (and consorts). Part of being part of the national conservation is to ask for scrutiny. Did they think they would not get opposition? Democracy is a contact sport, and the Clintons and their supporters are demanding they not get touched. The 25 years of public scrutiny has in a sense failed miserably has they have parlayed it to become millionaires with one of them at the doorstep of the White House. If the Clintons didn’t want the scrutiny, they should have stayed out of politics.
That headline is hilariously pretentious and contains a blatant strawman argument that is the entire essence of this post. The fact is most of the coverage of Hillary is in fact illegitimate scaremongering (“I’m just asking questions” is literally what Glen n Beck does, that’s not legit journalism) that is only relevant because she’s treated with a double standard.
“all journalism that reflects poorly on Hillary Clinton is unsubstantiated, biased, and deceitful.” Strawman ahoy! You remind me of those conspiracy theorists who insist they aren’t anti-semites, they’re just anti-zionists…yeah right! You’re a real disingenuous douchebag.
For those who haven’t yet chimed in, but willing to share:
If the Presidential election was held today – and as is the case now, neither of the third party candidates hits the 15% threshold – who would you vote for and who would be your second choice out of Trump, Clinton, Stein, and Johnson?
This is just for shits n’ giggles, not to judge or ridicule people’s choices.
Current Results, out of 9 “voters”
First Pick
Jill Stein: 8
Hillary Clinton: 1
Gary Johnson: 0
Donald Trump: 0
None: 0
Second Pick
Jill Stein: 0
Hillary Clinton: 1
Gary Johnson: 3
Donald Trump: 1
None: 4
I’d pick Stein first, and Johnson 2nd.
I would have ecstatically voted for Bernie Sanders. It would have been more interesting than doing my usual 3rd party vote, but maybe this year I will have more company?
explanation of my 2nd choice: I do not approve of most of the Libertarian agenda, but Gary Johnson strikes me as a decent, principled person. He seems to arrive at policies out of some kind of consideration rather than just measuring applause meters and getting lobbied. I wouldn’t want to see a legislature full of these people but I wouldn’t mind one as president these days — our biggest executive branch problems are precisely the kinds of issues he is good on).
Thanks. I caucused for Bernie in my State so I feel your pain. I’d be hopping and skipping to the polls to vote for Bernie instead of my current plan to grudgingly fill in Hillary Clinton on the absentee ballot.
I agree with you on Gary Johnson though; he doesn’t strike me as a heavily dogmatic Libertarian but a guy who merely leans that way. He and Weld did an AMA on reddit yesterday that was really appealing, so I’d suggest checking it out if you haven’t. https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/51ijlj/hi_reddit_we_are_a_mountain_climber_a_fiction/?st=istj7wii&sh=d232b430
Sometimes he comes across as unserious and amateur (calling Trump a “pussy” comes to mind), but those are far from disqualifying attributes in this shitty-option election. Also, Johnson/Weld have extensive governing experience. He seems to have good character, having said yesterday (I paraphrase): “you might not agree with anything at all that I do, but I will do it in a transparent and open matter.”
Ultimately though, the fact remains that unless Johnson can grind his way onto the Presidential debate podium and make this a true 3-way contest, he will be relegated to a Nader-type spoiler. Living in a potential swing-state and remembering Florida and New Hampshire circa 2000, I cannot risk a “protest vote” that could land Trump in the WH.
It was like a ‘yay…boo’ thing when I heard him say that because it was preceded by him saying that he’d biked some very long and impressive distance. He also has participated in and performed quite impressively well in some distance and ultra distance runs and races. I’m a distance runner, so I can relate. But it was jarring, and almost incomprehensible, when he so blatantly plopped out that word. A real ‘you gotta be shittin’ me’ moment.
I think of it as more like a strike. It’s an inexact metaphor but close enough. I obviously don’t think of myself as “working” for the Democratic party, but I am a potential supporter — and therefore, I qualify as someone who could reasonably be said to be withholding support. It would be even clearer in the case of people who reliably vote Dem who decide this year to seriously indicate their dissatisfaction and willingness to try other things by voting Green.
When you go on strike you don’t immediately better your situation and you don’t make things better for your company. Yet you are not quitting outright either. In fact you don’t want things to go better for your company while you are on strike.
You need to commit to being willing to cause “your party” to lose in a particular election. And be able to back that up with a promise that you will do it again. Unless.
The time frame for achieving results must run longer than one election at a time. Always making the choice to give in one election at a time is what kills all reform efforts. Every single election you will end up voting for the party closer to you if you follow the logic of treating each election like the end. They know this, of course.
A fairly small group of voters could wield quite a bit of leverage by proving their resistance.
What if Nader had gotten 10% in 2000, instead of what he really got (which reflected all the people who fled back to vote for Gore — his poll numbers were higher a few weeks before the “spoiler” pitch hit full steam, which also happened to be the very first time the media even paid attention to him)? What if those people had been serious about it, serious enough to give him 15% in 2004? Well I’ll tell you what COULD have happened — we would have forced the Democratic Party left years ago. And if they refused to budge, then we would have been building the Green Party (or some other permutation) to far greater strength than it has now.
It’s never a “good time” to start an adversarial voter movement. But it’s way past time that it got going.
That’s really well said, and spot on.
Right on. I’ve been there on the job, and will stand my ground in this case, too. This notion of unequivocal, unthinking support (by Democrat partisans) is what got us into this mess, and this despite the demonstrable fact that wanting to change unacceptable working or living condition epitomizes actual progressive policies that have proven their worth.
Our major political parties are the only ones who’ve convinced themselves otherwise.
The downward trend of accepting positions that will only ensure an election or your party or group remains in power have proved self-defeating, and continuing to imagine that you will get a better world without actually setting goals to do so simply hasn’t worked.
I know you acknowledged that the 3rd-party vote/strike is an inexact metaphor, and I agree because strikes ultimately end! The same cannot be said of the endurance of the two-party system in the U.S., which has generally been the status quo since the late 18th Century (“Era of Good Feelings” notwithstanding). That doesn’t make it the best system as its existence perpetuates itself, but it shows that the practical reality is that it is entrenched in U.S. politics. Furthermore, third parties have been around for hundreds of years and still haven’t been able to break through the two-party barrier.
Strikes often reap incremental change. Higher wages, better working conditions, less hours. After all, customers want the product and sellers need the workforce to provide them. But the consequences of voting third party is nebulous at best. What positive change has come of the candidacies of the Perots, Naders, and Stein’s of the country? Nader got under 3% of the popular vote 2000. If he received 10% as you pondered, what would that mean? Dunno, but Ross Perot got 19% of the popular vote in 1992. To me, that was less a victory for third parties than a victory for the now popular narrative that government spending is out of control.
The problem for me with this election’s third party candidates, as with those in the past, is that they are trying to win the Super Bowl without first playing 16 regular season games and slogging through the playoffs. Let’s be frank, unless they make it in the debates, they have ZERO chance at winning. Bernie Sanders, whom I respect immensely, agrees. These third parties haven’t built a viable foundation to make their parties tenable and competitive. I think that in part requires transformative candidates which Stein and Johnson simply aren’t (Bernie on the other hand…). They don’t have the clout, the following, nor do I believe they have the WILL to build that foundation by first increasing representation throughout state and local institutions (regular season), Congress (playoffs), and ultimately gain the Presidency (Super Bowl).
Also, extremely importantly – as Jon Oliver pointed out months back on his HBO show – frustration with the election processes often spark outrage during election season, but fades after the election. Just a sad reality.
You suggest that it COULD be different, or one party or the other would be forced further in one ideological direction but from a practical and historical perspective, I disagree. This year for example, Bernie by running on the Democratic ticket, indisputably pushed Hillary to the left. That’s because Bernie tapped into voter concerns that truly resonated across the nation. Jill Stein and Gary Johnson haven’t had that impact because their message isn’t as powerful or as well-delivered. And even if candidates are pushed further along the spectrum, doesn’t mean they can or will deliver.
So at the end of the day, my vote hinges upon a combination of picking the best and most competitive candidate. If I were an avid Johnson or Stein supporter, voting for them may make me feel good and ensure I have a clear conscience. At least in the short-run. But Trump is a uniquely dangerous individual. With his ignorance, arrogance, and temperament, I wouldn’t trust the guy to run my neighborhood lemonade stand. I cannot in good conscience contribute indirectly to a Trump presidency, and hence my decision.
Sorry for the football analogies, but I’m psyched for some NFL!!
1st: Stein
2nd: Write in Sanders
But since you didn’t ask for the whole list, I’d vote Trump before Clinton and write in a random name from the telephone book before I’d vote for Clinton.
;)
It’s my observation that the ostensibly left-wing corporate media tries to avoid talking about Hillary at all – preferring to talk about Trump’s buffoonery instead, or limiting their Hillary coverage to some semblance of damage control – articles which always look as suspiciously sycophantic as the occasional “vote for her because she has a vagina” pieces.
The idea that she is victimized by the establishment media is ridiculous – the corporate right-wing media never nails her to the wall for corporatist, militarist or imperialist corruption (indubitably because they are guilty of the same evils), just stupid things like her weird hacking fit yesterday (one wit I saw pointed out that at least no one blamed that hacking on the Russians!)
Clinton’s defenders want her to appear an embattled underdog, mostly to exploit America’s affection for underdogs but also somewhat out of unfounded terror that she’ll lose; in truth Hillary’s a shoo-in and always has been – the establishment just has to make the charade of electing her look kosher to the public, but the neocons and neoliberals have already crowned the miserably morally-diseased bitch, and there’s really fuck all anyone can do about it.
I still say vote for Jill Stein, however. The establishment will cheat where they have to, so the votes will probably not be counted accurately everywhere, but please vote Jill anyway just to piss the ruling class off.
The mainstream media is devoted to presenting Trump as sensational and Clinton as boring, which although functionally true deflects from the fact that both are creepy elitist multimillionaires who don’t represent the people at all.
Left wing media? I don’t know about them. Tell me more, please.: Who, what, where, etc.?
try Jacobin and The Baffler for starters.
I said “ostensibly” left-wing, if you’d care to notice.
And I meant “actual” left-wing media worth reading, just in case Emma was sincerely interested.
You said, ” ostensibly left- wing CORPORATE media,” to be precise. Please name names.
I’m sure you can think of something fitting the bill all by yourself.
No I can’t. I am unfamiliar with left-wing corporate media.
“Ostensibly” means apparently or purportedly, but perhaps not actually. Does that help?
For some time and to great effect, the right wing has been calling it the “mainstream media” and not the left-wing media . Your otherwise decent post, read like you were needlessly creating a straw man argument. I remain unaware of any ostensibly left-wing corporate media. Thank you for the attention.
You’re welcome for the attention, and thank you in return for yours. As you now seem genuinely perplexed (I thought your initial query to be hostile, for the record, which I hope explains my resistance to your demand), here’s a few examples of ostensibly left-wing corporate media: NYT, Huffington Post, MSNBC.
You did say, “Left wing media? I don’t know about them.”
Just to be precise.
@ Maisie
I’m far from the civility police, and I generally agree with most of what you wrote, but not sure this is necessary to your otherwise good comment:
Morally diseased I don’t have a problem with, but “bitch” seems a bit unnecessary. Just sayin’.
It’s better than the word I changed it from.
Fair enough. I just generally enjoy your comments, and wasn’t sure the use of that word otherwise added to your comment. : )
Thanks for the compliment; I like your posts, too, particularly when you get impassioned about ethics or offer legal expertise for background info. I do try to watch my language but sometimes vulgarity slips out.
both Maisie and rrheard are totally necessary to keeping this place sane
Agreed, worthwhile voices, both.
This article – and many of the comments – demonstrate just how deep the “pee on my head and I’ll believe it’s raining” delusion has gotten in the country.
HRC has been subject to practically incessant hatred and investigative vitriol for at least 25 YEARS with no substantive evidence of wrongdoing. What “liberal media” has not been covering it? The fact that people can easily name a myriad of “scandals du jour” should be ample proof of that.
On the flip side – as Dr. Krugman was trying to illustrate – Trump largely had a pass during the primary season. Now, realistically, this may have partially been because few took him seriously as a candidate. But today, as the nominee, yes, his inability to actually articulate a substantive policy proposal, his practically incessant flow of fallacious boasts, sophomoric insults, and flat out lies are getting much more attention.
Shouldn’t they??
Or do you really believe the pee storm is rain?
“with no substantive evidence of wrongdoing. ”
HRC is a lying sack of shit. She needed the FBI to give her a pass because Justice wasn’t going to do it.
” the coverage ratio needs to be a lot closer to 10:1″
I would dispute the ‘damage threat assessment’ you made below. Hillary Clinton, like Barack Obama, has the capacity to do great long term harm to our nation. Simply because she is not a kook. Not transgressive. And not a political neophyte.
ex.: She would never nominate a Supreme Court justice who is frighteningly, blatantly anti-democratic. However, she will nominate justices who are smoothly pro-elite, and who rule in ways that do long term damage to our democracy. A ‘Hillary nominee’ will in all likelihood vote (repeatedly) to shift the balance of power even further towards those who already have too much of it. In case after case. For decades. Particularly when the issue before the court is an obscure, financially important one that has cryptic, long term repercussions. The middle class will continue to wither into quiet penury in the hands of a Clinton justice. Our society will continue to stratify into ever less miscible layers.
Her profound, superficially rational corruptness should not go uncriticized. Glenn has done a very good job of making this clear in his piece here.
Maybe if the negative criticism was something other than conspiracy theories and warmed over debunked insinuations of wrong-doing, it wouldn’t need to be de-legitimized. IMHO, the media has been carrying the water parroting a lot of illegitimate negative criticism. Only with the most recent negative health rumor campaign did the media start to push back on people pushing the smears.
The bottom line (for now)
is that there are hundreds of thousands of graves
mostly in (but by no means limited to) the Middle East
which are directly linked to Hillary Clinton’s career.
It is a career of predatory lies and warmongering for private profits
and is replete with kissing the asses of tyrants and other warmongers.
I have little doubt that someone as vain and offensive as Trump
will do his best/worst to help the debauchery
(which is so proudly loved by his friend Hillary)
to continue to escalate.
Any person who would defend either of these asswipes of humanity
is not a person who can be trusted.
That’s the bottom line for now, but I’m sure Trump, Clinton, and the
rest of the neo-nazi crowd which controls Washington and NATO
will find more ways
to make things worse.
O/T
Obama pledges that US will pass TPP after the election.
Say, I thought Foollery was against TPP now? I know Trump don’t like it. So, what does Obama mean when he says, “We’ll get it done.”
https://www.yahoo.com/news/latest-obama-tours-rehab-center-bomb-survivors-034857369.html
I have noticed you have been following me to describe me as the dumbass, the one with the 7 year old intellect….So, let’s show the world how smart you are. This is your rationale to get me banned:
Mani: “impeachable offenses MAY NOT EVEN BE A CRIME”
Galactus: ” this is the most stoopidest statement”
Some of your fellow lapdogs claim to be lawyers. So, I dare them to agree with you and state that my statement is inaccurate. And yes, my statement is exactly what they teach third graders in America. It is also what they teach history and law students in universities. It is also what top lawyers advise Congressmen.
By any means call me a troll and ask your masters at TI to ban me so you can prove my point: you are a community of lapdogs who cannot handle facts.
Mani, if the intercept contracted herpes the ill gotten symptoms would manifest themselves as your comments.
Good one. ;)
You seem to be well informed about herpes. No need to elaborate. I am not interested in your sexual life.
yaaaaawwwwnnnn……
Don’t give up now Galactus The Most Intelligent of All.
Keep telling the world how my statement is the most stoopidest so your high level of intellect can be recognised.
Crickets
Actually, I didn’t read Krugman’s piece as saying that all criticism of Clinton was illegitimate. Only that it was not in proportion to Trump’s. Greenwald’s own column above does go into why. But GG seems to lack that mathematical sense of proportion that Krugman is advocating.
As Roger Zelazny put it, you don’t get distracted by a blaring car horn – which *probably* isn’t a car about to hit you – while you’re dealing with a brick wall falling on you.
The probable danger arising from Trump’s corruption is orders of magnitude greater than Clinton’s. Clinton’s is not small! But very unfortunately, an appropriate proportion of coverage would be at least 10:1, and we’re getting nearly 1:1.
The 1:1 has two bad effects: it disserves the people that Trump would harm (has already harmed), and it normalizes his level of corruption, says it’s the same as Clinton’s (which IS bad…but normal, frankly…)
For the second reason, more than the first, the coverage ratio needs to be a lot closer to 10:1.
Thank goodness for that!
Hey, guys, if I ever show any signs of developing a “mathematical sense of proportion,” slap me out of it, please.
‘slap me out of it please’
Even if you’ve been drinking? ;)
imo – Hellary has clinically diagnosed dimentia
Hellary clinton is a sociopathic liar who lies to Americans, congress and the fbi, uses CGI as a front to sell weapons and create wars for more weapons sales for the YINON PLAN, and will open the borders to 250,000,000 people in poverty wanting to crash the border.
It’s spelled dementia. I agree she’s morally demented – but although she doesn’t look well at all, it should be recalled old people rarely do.
Why, Maisie, you rotten ageist! I assure you that I, for one, not only look stunningly well, I’m also breathtakingly handsome.
And Hillary has never looked well, because the creepy sickness inside has always seeped to the surface.
I’m so harsh today… I’m sure you’re beautiful and robust!
Blechhhhhhhhhhhhh. Nasim Nicholas Taleb calls Paul Krugman a Fragilista, for other reasons, but I’m running with that descriptive.
There are some great investigative articles out there. Thank you for citing some of them, Mr Greenwald. Who of the great unwashed masses out there reads the NYT? Why did they – all of them – wait so long? Not being in your profession, I struggle with understanding how is it possible to let a threat of a lawsuit silence too many critics. If a news outlet has a story to release – considering that the info is ready for prime time, when it is clearly in the public domain, or triple-sourced, or unquestionably true from the source’s own mouth, how is that outlet intimidated by the Trump Mafia?
I listened to Mike Huckabee pull a perfectly executed Krugman on Fox today, when he defended the Trump-Bondi exchange this morning. WTF, people?
I am wondering when either party will cry UNCLE and let Bernie Sanders and Mike Pence slug it out. We, the people, are in for a shit storm of worldwide opprobrium when either of these deeply, deeply flawed candidates is elected.
Hillary’s lead against Donald Trump is insurmountable vs. don’t say one thing mean or investigate anything about Hillary Clinton otherwise Donald Trump will win.
Both things can’t be simultaneously true.
I suppose it’s hard for me to let go of my Krugman-fandom because of the Iraq War period that GG also gives him credit for.
One pass I would give Krugman that Greenwald did not is that his description of the column as needing courage and all that comes from Krugman’s status as “just an economist”.
When PK sticks to his area of expertise – even when he’s tiredly saying that Keynesian stimulus during downturns really is a Thing and it works, for the 99th time – he’s pretty hard to criticize. He can just say his piece and he can simply ignore criticism of it from anybody without a PhD in economics, with whom he can go toe-to-toe any day.
When he steps outside that zone, he’s fair game for intense criticism by people who never finished high school and can’t spell “journalist”. So it’s always a high-wire act for him to talk about journalism or war or horse-race stuff, if not exactly “Tahrir Square”.
Krugman was outspoken about the Bush invasion of Iraq–he patted himself on back numerous times over it. However, he certainly has demurred when it comes to Obama who continued Bush’s policies, and even one might say with a vengeance. In retrospect looking back when Obama started his first administration and did such things as escalate in Afghanistan, the anti-war movement disappeared. In retrospect, there was no anti-war movement, rather a Democratic party objection to a republican starting a war–that privilege it seems meant for Democrat presidents only.
I will give Krugman some amount of praise for his objection to the Iraq war as a good part of the Democratic party establishment went total chickenshit including such stalwarts as Clinton and Kerry. But in the House, no such cowardliness. Let’s give them the praise rather than Krugman–they put their asses on the line.
But in retrospect, a poster in a blog said that for both die hard Democrats and Republicans, their beliefs are dictated by the jersey the quarterback is wearing. Krugman was not so much a moral voice against the war, as a partisan giving it to Bush. I would hardly hold him up as a example to be praised.
Greenwald’s piece above, taking down the in-the-tank-for-Hillary “liberal” media, could not be more timely. A good example is the (effectively) extension of the Clinton campaign known as Vox. The pathetic Matt Yglesias recently published there an inane whine that politicians’ emails should be exempt from FOIA requests — his Queen, you see, is endangered by this transparency requirement.
Real journalists — ones who live and breath FOIA requests — smacked him down on Twitter for his many errors of fact and assumption. There may be no more expert journos on FOIA than the team at Muckrock News, and they definitively explain all that is wrong and illiberal about Yglesias’ nonsense: Why emails should be subject to FOIA, explained
For his part, Yglesias has been defensively tweeting yet more inanity, such as strongly implying that FOIAing government emails is a value only held by “libertarians.” That folks is a “journalist’s” brain on Hillary sauce.
Calling Matt Yglesias a “journalist”, even in mock-quotes, is a disservice to journalists. He doesn’t even rise to the level of pundit. Two-bit propagandist is about the most generous way to label him.
Yeah, you’re prolly right.
He’s such a wanker. A month or so back someone pointed out to him that during the Bush era he and his friends were vitriolic toward George Bush — Yglesias had been doing the schoolmarm shtick about the meanness of progressive Hillary critics. So, Matty puffed out his chest and said that his behavior changed with “maturity.”
pffft
Hmmm. We must not have read the same column. I took Krugman’s essay as an attempt at push back against the disparity in how Hillary and Trump’s assorted scandals and pseudo scandals are covered. He was spot on. Everything, no matter how innocuous (coughing during a campaign event? Really??) “raises questions” about her health, her honesty, her trustworthiness. No question Trump gets slammed often, but there almost never follow up. We’re finally seeing some traction about his contribution to the Florida attorney general, but it’s taken weeks. No question had a similar story about Hillary come out, she would (rightly) have been crucified. The press needs to re-read their stories before publishing and decide what “raises questions” really is.
“(coughing during a campaign event? Really??) ”
Over 4 minute-long coughing fit. That can happen to heavy-duty alkys …
but hey, Nixon was a drunk too!
I’ll drink to that!
Perhaps you could set aside your limited field of vision and see that the media coverage of Hillary Clinton has been set against her from the outset. The LA Times regularly ignores her in favor of an article about Trump. How about some equality here, eh?
Given her unfavorability ratings, it’s pretty clear that a large number of voters will vote for her merely because she’s not Trump. It doesn’t say much for her prospects of being an effective leader methinks.
What a coincidence. A friend sent me a Washington Post Hillary -Trump equivalency headline today. Hillary’s attack on Trump “concealing scams” and his attack on her : she lacks “a presidential look.” Immediately I thought back to 2004, when the GOP fed the NY Times the story that they would be attacking John Kerry for “looking French.” The Times took it as an inside scoop rather that the mindless propaganda assist that it was. I Googled the episode and came across your sharp analysis of it in “Great American Hypocrites: Toppling the Big Myths of Republican Politics”
And so here you are today with a caution that we should not go overboard giving Clinton a pass on substantive things, on the same day that she is getting the John Kerry / Al Gore treatment from the GOP. And you’re right. Hillary Clinton is a messy sad substitute of some ideal progressive candidate that we wish for but may simply be structurally impossible. I’m sorry, but I think Krugman is right: you don’t do the GOP’s work for them even if it’s good government motivated. Sorry. I lived through Reagan and the Bushes and it was horrible. So you’re here to keep us pure Glenn. Thanks. But I’ll also applaud those fiercely involved in the messy business of defending the only option against Trump we have right now.
Shorter Dan: Partisanship is more important to me than good government.
A fierce fighter for the (imagined) lesser of two evils. How fucking noble.
No.
That candidate was Bernie Sanders. We don’t have a Jeremy Corbyn (yet) in the U.S.
Hillary Clinton is an affirmative evil.
Well then if it is “structurally impossible” for citizens to actually get to choose from the type of candidates they really want representing them, then it necessarily follows either/all a) the system is corrupt and needs to be torn down, b) you don’t really live in a democracy or representative republic, or c) you will never change the “structurally impossible” system you are subject to by voting for a candidate like Hillary Clinton who has now adopted the very arguments of Citizen United that auger against campaign finance reform (which is really the key issue facing America–systemically).
rr, I’m getting a complex! Great comment, but you meant to address it to Dan, and quoted him, not me.
Sorry Mona. Yes that was obviously aimed at Dan. Every once in awhile when I’m trying to carry on multiple rebuttals against multiple commenters, and really fast in multiple open windows, I hit the wrong reply button. That’s why I always try and blockquote what I’m replying to so as to avoid any confusion.
Sorry again.
No worries, I’m just teasing you. And I did want to make sure other readers knew you are not quoting me.
you’re always free to vote for the perfect candidate … who will probably lose
there is no specific right in the US for perfect idealist presidential candidates to win elections
Yes, but is it “just unthinkable to allow [her] anywhere near the White House”?
Again, as “EVIL” as she is, she has been presented in this article by Glenn as clearly the lesser of two evils. By asserting in absolute terms that Donald Trump should not be “allowed anywhere near the white house”, Glenn is showing a clear preference for Hillary Clinton. And, no matter how you slice it, this is a backhanded endorsement. It is equivalent to arguing that Hillary is the more qualified Presidential candidate.
And I’ll simply repeat what I told you last time: No, it’s not. Glenn Greenwald is many things, but subtle is not one of them. He gives no position in a “back-handed” manner. I happen to know his position on the morality of voting in election ’16 — because I’ve privately discussed it with him — and you don’t describe it.
Moreover, you can’t have failed to see the hordes of Hillary trolls commenting here who think his above column is Unspeakabley Evil and Wrong. I guaran-damn-tee you that if they could read it as an “endorsement” of Hillary Clinton that would not be happening. Clinton hacks are having tantrums all over the Internet due to this column.
” Glenn is showing a clear preference for Hillary Clinton. ”
Glenn is showing a preference for not Trump. You are short some brain cells, today, no matter how you slice it.
Unlike Mona, I haven’t discussed the matter privately with Glenn. However, I think you may rest assured that, if and when he decides to argue that one or the other (or another) candidate is more (or most) qualified, he’ll be using straightforward, declarative sentences.
That question is not, however, the one addressed here, today.
Glenn’s position isn’t shocking, and wouldn’t surprise you. But it’s his to explicitly state, not mine. I just know this shit Karl keeps spewing is wrong.
Wow. I never comment in this forum, and now I know why. I sometimes worry that my expectations for the world are unrealistic, and while they motivate me as an activist for progressive change, they often only serve to make me unhappy. I now see in comparison, I’m a happy ditz. If the highly disciplined and rigid Glenn Greenwald is a traitor to some of you here for some lack of purity, or for what Mona calls his “backhanded” Clinton endorsement, then I don’t see how you can make it past your first cup of coffee in the morning without exploding.
I love Bernie but possibly his tax returns or Jane’s golden parachute information would have sullied him and he’d no longer be the fully untainted saint we love. Or like “stiff” Al Gore, or “Breck Girl” John Edwards, or “he looks French” John Kerry, or the swift-boated John Kerry, the GOP would have nick-named him, and the press would have taken dictation. If you think that Hillary is evil, then you either were not alive during the Reagan administration, or you have forgotten. If we get one or two moderate Supreme Court Justices out of Hillary, I’ll be able to know that her election victory was better than letting Trump win. Maybe I’ll get to keep my imperfect Obamacare health policy. These are what I see as the choices before me. I got over the humiliation and insult to my senses when McGovern, Dukakis, Gore and Kerry got defeated.
It’s wonderful that you want a perfect world, and it’s good you want to fight for it. In the meantime……
“And, no matter how you slice it, this is a backhanded endorsement. It is equivalent to arguing that Hillary is the more qualified Presidential candidate.”
Candidate X is better than Candidate Y as far as qualification. But I endorse Candidate Z because they are better than the other two.
Greenwald may be implying or even overtly stating HRC is better qualified that Trump, but that doesn’t mean he would choose either of them or endorse either of them. One doesn’t necessarily follow the other.
For all we know, he’s Libertarian. Not likely. I’d guess ‘Green’ Party if I were to bet on an alternative. ;)
Yes you are right, but in absence of a clearly stated alternative to the two, Hillary is the most viable candidate in a lesser-of-two-evils-contest. Secondly, a choice for either is a choice for the status quo. The political inertia of deeply entrenched domestic and foreign policy is largely governed by the revolving door corporate and academic elites who largely comprise the dark state.
I can certainly see your point and to some extent agree with you reasoning. The LOTE argument is the predominant line of thought in the US.
I don’t personally subscribe to it (LOTE), but understand it it’s perspective. Honestly, I think the two parties behave so much the same that you can’t really tell where one stops and the other begins. Yea , I know people will point out subtle differences, but these are secondary in nature to me.
Cheers and keep posting. I regularly read them. I may not comment, but you’re posts are some of the ones I do read on a regular basis.
Cheers.
@Galactus-36215
Thanks, right back at you.
Messy and sad; that’s pathetic.
Sec’y Clinton’s corruption and dishonesty are a different sort than Mr Trump’s, but equally as critical to determining her future behavior, fairness, principles, and judgment. And equally subject to critical scrutiny.
I lived through Nixon, Reagan, and two Bushes, myself. The kind of governing you seem to fear is Republican.
Jill Stein, for whom I just decided to vote – instead of writing in Sen Sanders – is a credible candidate. It’s unfortunate that she isn’t charismatic and charming, but the Green platform is golden. Go towards the light, vote Green.
What world does Glenn Greenwald live in? His self-serving style of reporting masquerades as progressive, but is clearly egocentric and whinny, like his twitter friend Josh Barro. Who the fuck in their right mind believes the “liberal-media” or any media has gone easy on Hillary. For 25 plus years the media has treated speculation as fact, perception as reality, and recently optics as the new gold standard for hard news. In the real world Glen, there is more than one view of story than yours or Donald Trumps. Deal with it!
Wallstreet, the criminals that crashed the economy, defrauded investors and continues to rob Americans, owns the mainstream media and holds controlling interest in corporations. You have to have your head in the sand to not see criminal wallstreet’s “pulling all stops for their favorite ho” activity.
And why? In order to keep robbing people without repercussions, they need the TPP and Hellary has vowed to enforce it – being the world citizen and traitor to the sovereignty of the US that she is.
“Who the fuck in their right mind believes the “liberal-media” or any media has gone easy on Hillary.”
oooh! oooh! I know! Me! Also, anybody else who is not a fucking stooge.
The fact that the phrase “most qualified candidate ever” — I mean, in the entire history of the USA!!! — was repeated regularly is in itself proof enough.
Also, all “criticism” of Hillary Clinton has included as an “obvious” statement that well of course she is “expected” to be the next president. For several goddamn years. That is not a “tough” media. A “tough” media would not try to impose their idea of “presumptive” on the rest of us. All criticism after they do that are just some gravy ladled over the top of a steaming pile of Hillary entitlement.
Me – in my right mind.
Josh Barro’s criticism, as far as I remember, is quite weak.
Do you happen to remember that the day after Election, 2012, the media began talking about Mrs Clinton? I picture a diminutive Chuck Todd on NBC’s Beat the Press, but I could be wrong, it could have been any of them. I don’t watch the Sunday a.m. inside-the-beltway circle jerks anymore.
In 2012, I was still encouraged by Mr Obama serving out his second term.
It’s a mistake to call these people journalists when they have an agenda. They are instead pundits, masquerading as journalists. Clinton seems to have a distinct advantage with the media elite, perhaps because of the rampant liberalism in the press. But if you ever come down to earth, and engage normal middle class people, you will find an equal amount of extreme revulsion for Clinton as well as Trump. Your argument that Clinton is a better person than Trump simply holds no water.
I may not vote for the first time in my life, because I detest both candidates. But I certainly wont vote for Clinton because pundits like Paul Krugman tell me to.
well thanks for clearing up that important distinction between pundits and journalists zzzzzzz
You can tell this one hit a nerve. It’s funny to see journalists starting to recognize that Hillary supporters are even more thin-skinned than Donald Trump. They’re vicious, mean-spirited, and unthinking, and the worst part is that you have to suspect that each one is just being paid to troll. But that’s what happens when your campaign is predicated on hate, no different than Trump’s supporters and their venom. The fact that it’s hatred of Republicans and Trump doesn’t lessen the effects.
We Sanders voters got the first taste of it. Hillary thought she could malign us and then expect us to fall in line because Trump is scary. The fact that neither candidate is breaking out of the 40s shows that was a bad bet. All the self-appointed election experts are blathering on now about college-educated whites being the decisive voters in this election. Maybe the Clinton campaign shouldn’t have spent the better part of this year calling us “Bros”.
This all just comes down to Hillary’s pervasive entitlement complex. She’s entitled to black votes; she’s entitled to the nomination; she’s entitled to tens of millions in speaking fees; she’s entitled to being the first woman President… well, why not be entitled to a free pass from the press, too?
For someone whose primary qualification is that she works so damn hard, she doesn’t seem inclined to work for anything other than a six-figure check.
Correct the Record is participating in this comments section in force.
That, and Hillary hacks like Bob Cesca and myriad others are linking to this article when they post their tantrums. Every time they do, it ships over another wave of Hillarybots.
Yeah. Either they’re too dumb to know it’s hopeless, or Glenn really worries the $hillary campaign.
Or both, of course.
So WHY isn’t this [ever] addressed by voting America at these “two” campaigns that have been a proxy war by the media…all rhetoric and accusations but meanwhile actions like this are ongoing as if invisible.
Israel starts building concrete wall around besieged Gaza
http://www.presstv.com/Detail/2016/09/07/483652/Palestine-Israel-Gaza
[“Israel has begun the construction of a giant concrete wall that will completely encircle the Gaza Strip, which is already grappling with a devastating siege imposed by the Tel Aviv regime.
According to a Wednesday report on the Ynet news website, the wall “will reach several stories underground, and will also be several stories above ground.”
It will stretch along the 96-kilometer (60 mile) border around the blockaded Palestinian enclave, and is estimated to cost about two billion Israeli shekels (USD 531 million).”]
What a crock of BS. Hannity or Limbaugh could have written this nonsense.
Hi there “Rob.” Your brother, “John,” posted damn near the same words right below you. Are you both paid well by Revise the Record, or is minimum wage?
Really? You think Hannity and Limbaugh can write?
That’s funny.
It’s hysterical in every sense.
This article could have been written by Hannity or Limbaugh. What a crock of BS.
Nice to see the paid trolls are out in force on this one, basically proving one of the author’s points. Too funny.
Well, I’ll be damned, we’ve got conjoined twins posting here!
Rob Marshall
Sep. 7 2016, 4:18 p.m.
What a crock of BS. Hannity or Limbaugh could have written this nonsense.
John Marshall
Sep. 7 2016, 4:13 p.m.
This article could have been written by Hannity or Limbaugh. What a crock of BS.
Glenn… I cannot believe this article. Trump is totally uninvestigated and Clinton has an email server. Where are the tax records!!! Where is the investigation of Trump University, his so-called foundation that makes political contributions, his business dealings where he cheated thousands of people…. the person whom the media coddles is Trump. Hillary can’t cough with Hannity and Ginrich throwing a fit. Get real
“Why aren’t you investigating the other guy?!?!?” is a lame response.
Try it in traffic court, next time you receive a citation.
I agree with you Joe. Trump has gotten a pass. Yes, his current comments are reported, as well as headline allegations concerning taxes, Trump University, rape, political contributions, etc. But its all surface – no in depth investigations. I guess the press is too busy beating the email/foundation stories with a stick to see if they bleed, while the pundits shout “shame on you, bad Hillary, bad Bill,” while dishing advice about how to fix it (shut down the foundation, hold more press conferences).
@ Joe
You are aware that the reason you know about “Trump University” and the myriad lawsuits against it, and “his business dealings where he cheated thousands of people” are because myriad journalists including Glenn have brought those to light? Right?
So to suggest “Trump is totally uninvestigated” is about as self-refuting a statement as one can make.
Rrheard, the phrase most commonly shortened to GIGO applies to human bots too.
Somehow, Glenn you seem like a lazy crybaby that likes to make big exaggerated kicks and screams to get mommy to pay attention. “…There are prominent pundits and journalists (who exactly) who denounce every (yeah 100%) critical report… blah, blah, repeated generalities. Great journalism. You should be writing comments to articles like the rest of us, not being read as a real journalist.
well they let me post my opinions, but not reply to posts
apparently i’m still too inflammatory for this venue, as the “replier”
i am the replier dammit!
Are you ye olde “John Anderson?” Well anyway, for some software reason, replies tend not to show up until one has refreshed the page a time or two.
For 25 years the media has allowed the right wing witch hunt against Hillary to be covered in full, in spite of the almost complete lack of hard evidence of wrongdoing on her part. Many of the lies of Fox News are repeated in other media. A little balance is long overdue.
Greenwald’s page at the intercept does NOT contain even a single article about Trump.
(https://theintercept.com/staff/glenn-greenwald/)
The main issue in an election is a choice, but time and again, under the guise of journalistic obligation to truth, in Greenwald’s skewed reality, Trump does not even merit the scrutiny with which he observes Clinton and her supporters.
You literally do not know what you are talking about. This site has written many, many scathing articles about Donald Trump. And Greenwald himself has stated all the things I document in this post.
He tweets a screenshot of that passage frequently, to his 3/4 of a million followers.
There’s also this: The Rise of Trump Shows the Danger and Sham of Journalistic “Neutrality”–GG
As Donald Trump’s campaign predictably moves from toxic rhetoric targeting the most marginalized minorities to threats and use of violence, there is a growing sense that American institutions have been too lax about resisting it.–GG
Even if there were no articles here on Trump, which there are, that would be fine. The point of this organization is to shed light on issues that the rest of the media is ignoring or reporting inaccurately. That is definitely not the case with Trump.
Get a grip Greenwald. Krugman was talking about the decades-long NYT jihad against anybody named Clinton.
where does sen clinton stand on the proposed 15$ min wage
a rising tide lifts all boats, and also lifts all the people clinging to debris in fifty degree water
we need more cash money so all the tools in the toolbox can access all the tools they need to face the unknown unknowns we are facing
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/wage-728113-clinton-minimum.html
I count myself as a Clinton supporter. But more than us supporters, what supports Clinton are the diehard facts. Consider this: One, in spite of over two decades of investigations, what are the charges that her opponents on the right have proven against her to date? Zilch. Zero. Nada. Two, this morning on Morning Joe I heard a journalistic study has counted that our national TV has carried over 600 times accusations of play-for-pay against Hillary versus 11 times similar charges against Trump. This is when we can all sense the rather strong fishy smell coming out of Trump’s dealings with the Florida AG, Bandi. I believe Hillary’s so-called unfavorability points are in fact Republican scandals stuck on Hillary through the right wing Goebles-like propaganda machine. Misogyny on our part, as a nation, also has something to do with it. For sure.
Don’t forget that people hate her voice. That’s very important to a lot of people, to like the President’s voice….
The pyre missed you.Is that why you are here?
Apparently, “You can’t prove it!” is an official talking point for Revise the Record. You people are boring, and you should be embarrassed at sounding like robots — unless, of course, you are robots.
Just a reminder: proof beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard for criminal convictions. The standard for rejection of presidential candidates is, or certainly should be, much lower.
That said, if the FBI and the Justice Department treated Hillary in the same manner they do Joe Citizen when he violates 18 U.S.C. § 1001 by making false statements to federal officers, I think the chances of meeting the higher burden would be quite good.
Nice post, Doug. Let’s also not forget about 18 U.S.C. § 793.
I like it!
If charges were brought with Obama still in office, he’d have an Espionage Act record that might stand forever (he’s already well on his way).
Google for the original. ;^)
That is all true, but applies only to a limited degree. The insanity the right spewed about the Clintons in the 90s doesn’t explain the millennials’ contempt for her. This bloc is to her left, and disdains her from that position. Properly so.
I’m not much younger than Hillary, and I also disdain her — and not for the asinine and vile reasons the rightwing went batshit about in the 90s.
Exactly!! I wonder how many millennials know who Monica Lewinsky is or all those other women.
Sunitha, why don’t you ask Dear Leader to hold a press conference and clear up all the “propaganda” against her. What’s she afraid of? Is there misogyny against Hillary? Sure. Most of it’s from the republicans who were never going to vote for her in the first place. The contempt most democrats have for her has nothing to do with the fact that she’s a woman. To many democrats, she’s just proof that a woman can be just as bad as a man, when it comes to corruption.
And I’m damned certain few under 35 recall all the: “Hillary is a lesbian who murdered her lover, Vince Foster, while she was shredding Rose Law firm records.”
That one, on its face, never made really made sense to me. If Hillary was in fact a lesbian, and she had sex with Vince Foster, she would arguably be considered bisexual.
However, it is also quite obviously equally true that any gay or lesbian individual can chose to sleep with any gender they choose in some discreet instance (or multiple instances as the case may be), for whatever reason(s) they may choose, and I’m pretty sure that does not change his/her general sexual orientation.
It was always a very muddled slur, as if somehow it wasn’t okay to be a lesbian or bisexual (depending on what her generalized sexual orientation is/was) even if she was married to an unindicted straight serial sexual predator.
In any event, ugly innuendo like that is not even in the realm of reasons why I will not vote for Hillary Clinton. I would not vote for Bill Clinton for anything because of his serial sexual predations.
Well, in the early-mid 90s the “L word” was still pretty toxic. So the rightwing noise machine had to get it in there. They weren’t (ahem) too concerned about making sense.
“and she had sex with Vince Foster, ”
That confirms suicide, then …
This missing demographic of the ‘new left,’ as I liken it, as well as the disaffected followers propelling Trump forward are the stumbling blocks that are clearly showing us all that, whether it’s the main stream media or the candidates themselves, we all have another thing coming, and it isn’t what most had expected or what the major candidates and pundits most desire.
The status quo is ending in those regards, hopefully sooner rather than later, but ending nonetheless.
Thanks, Glenn Greenwald, for being what often seems like a lone Progressive voice “crying out in the wilderness.” As usual, your insights are “spot on!”
The narrative that “something is going on” with the Clintons is unstoppable and every failure to find an actual example, every false dawn that ends up demonstrating the exact opposite, is covered with a thick goo of innuendo. Clearly the truth must be worse than we can imagine to warrant such desperation and cunning to cover it up.
If you don’t think that the fact that half of the private parties she met with while at State were contributors to her slush-fund “Foundation” indicates something was going on; if you don’t think that lying to the FBI about not knowing the meaning of the bracketed (C), when it accompanied thousands of her signatures on official documents is something; if you don’t think that taking millions from banksters and 0.1-percenters is an actual example; if you are not scared shitless by the prospect of Ms. We Came-We Saw-He Died taking control of the armed forces. . . you are a hopeless case.
Or you’re just a shill for the Clinton campaign, with no interest in either reality or truth.
Or both.
Apparently, you are unaware that your “facts” about the Clinton Foundation contributors are made up horse**** doesn’t prevent you from posting them as the truth. If you have to lie to make a point, your point isn’t worth making.
I’m sure it’s just an oversight, but you neglected to cite a “lie” that is pure “horseshit” that Doug posted.
The first line is likely pure trolling: She meets lots of big shots as part of her job and the charity gets money from lots of big shots. Oh My God! Sometimes they overlap! Call the police! 2ndly, this is not important. When you elect people their friends come with the package. When Bush was elected he talked to a lot of oil execs about energy. What a shock. And of course corruption from overlapping gov job and business interests is EXACTLY the same as over lap with one of the best rated charities in the country. Clinton must laugh like a mad witch every night thinking about all the money for AIDS rolling in.
The e-mail crap proves why this should never happen again. When you hire somebody to do a job we don’t monitor every phone conversation. E-mails are exactly the same, not some magical sacred trust to be entombed in kryptonite. Here is the thing, I trust Clinton not to toss around important secrets at least as much as I would any normal person. The (c) indicates the 3rd highest classification ranking, ie, something below what brand of toilet paper Obama uses. The amount of BS that gets rated “Top Secret” is mind numbing. I lose more sleep thinking about my cat’s bowel movements than whether Clinton is being incautious with classified material. Recently a general knowingly, on purpose, handed over top secret files to his mistress. He is not in jail and America survived. If you are seriously “scared shitless” because she favored sending airplanes to bomb a potential slaughter zone, an order that warmonger Obama actually made, then you are ridiculous.
As for the 0.1% grow frigging up. Rich people like to talk to big shots. They pay banks enormous fees to move their money around and this is their free toaster. If Goldman could get Putin to talk to their customers for a million bucks they would do that in a heartbeat. Would that make Putin a stooge of US banks? Last I heard we are not at war with any banks. Believe it or not, they are actually a pretty important part of our economy.
I am only a “shill” for a non-moronic based political dialogue.
“I am only a “shill” … ”
You got that part right.
Remember when banks said Debit cards would be “just like cash”?
Banks skim 3% off every transaction, debit or credit, just like the old casino mob bosses.
Who do you think moves cartel drug money?
What do you think they get for cleaning that money?
We need honest banks but, hey, it’s America and we still have prohibition.
I am pretty sure banks don’t get much from debit cards and most of the card money goes to credit card companies. But, if you want to start a petition stating that bankers make too much money, I’d be happy to sign. Try to find a chart of historical average and banker income. From the 20s to 80s they tracked each other perfectly, then suddenly bankers apparently became the most creative people in the world as their share of national income exploded. The frustrating thing is corruption has nothing to do with it. It is the result of a system of governance set up with an initial distribution of power that hit some point of instability then evolved catastrophically. Rather than checks and balances we have something like a positive feed back loop, where money gives you influence, which gives you more money, which gives you more influence. The answer to this is likely complicated. One might just make it harder for money to set policy, but rich people are not stupid. Not everything they want is pure self interest. They will always be a necessary and important part of any political conversation. Finance is important and one does not want to set policy with people who simply assume it is evil. The catastrophe exists on all levels and has to somehow be rolled back at all levels.
Ever wonder why the little people have basically been placed on a steady diet of crumb sandwiches for the last, oh, 40 years or so? You know when they aren’t busy figuring out how they’ll ever retire after their retirement savings accounts, 401Ks and pensions are wiped out by a little “oopsy daisy” global corruption in the global housing markets (and various bundled debt instruments sold to said pension funds).
What’s a little institutionalized systemic corruption so long as the rich can hobnob with each other and get their free toaster while a minimum of 10 million Americans continue not to have or be able to afford health insurance or health care.
Nothing to see here, move along. Rich people like other rich people, and they are the masters of the universe, so of course money “donated” by one group of ultra rich to another group of ultra rich and/or to their preferred charity can never be proved to be quid pro quo, because rich people aren’t that transparently stupid that they keep ledgers of their reciprocal back scratching and influence peddling, so whatchya gonna do?
Nothing to see here, move it along. I’m a pragmatist so I don’t really see what the problem is, this is just how the world works. Move it along. Move it along.
I’ve been looking at income stagnation and the explosion in banker incomes way before it was fashionable. It is a problem that I would suggest we first don’t make worse. How you make it worse is to take a vow of purity, insisting you will only support candidates who view finance as the enemy and wear their ignorance as a badge of honor. Two effects of this are leaning on baseless conspiracy theories to explain what you don’t understand and marginalizing/infantalizing your party to make it unelectable. The result is handing power and authority to the GOP, an organization whose only serious interest and accomplishment is in representing interests of the wealthy.
It is pleasant to imagine that it is just corruption. Put a few fat cats in the cooler and problem solved. Reality is more complicated. One does not buy politicians, one finds politicians you agree with and support them. The problem then is a subtle one of the completely legal domination of the political conversations by a small group of motivated rich people, success of this group in dividing lower income groups and pitting them against each other, race, provincialism, and a uniquely successful campaign to demonize the federal government. How one pulls this apart I have no idea but one should at least not work to fight a problem that does not exist.
No matter what happens in the next two months Trump, the most appalling person ever to run for president, will get over 40% of American votes. The idea that the 99% are ripe for a populist lefty to lead them to the promise land is a dangerous fantasy that only pushes the country in the opposite direction.
David Petraeus is just a man with failures that he openly admitted. This is in contrast to Hillary who lies to avoid judgement. Perhaps David Petraeus could not be controlled by blackmail, because his integrity and courage was stronger than his sins. His counterinsurgency policies were the main reason not a shot was fired at us in Iraq and the reason it felt like I was in a parade in the street after the Iraqi elections.
Oh, and about the Washington Post story on Bill Clinton’s fees. The US State Department ethics counsel said it was not a problem. Does Glenn think he’s a crook, too? Suggest readers here check on Josh Marshall’s TPM website and Kevin Drum’s Mother Jones blog for another way to look at these things.
I’d rather swallow arsenic. Last time I read either, some months ago, the Clinton-induced abandonment of actually liberal-left values sickened me.
I don’t know what Glenn thinks, but I definitely think Bill’s a crook, too. And another Wall Street whore, and another warmonger, and another pathological liar. . .
I don’t know what Glenn thinks, but I think WJC is an unindicted rapist and serial sexual predator.
And he was individual, a lawyer in fact who was bound by the duties of his profession, office and oath, when he lied under oath about certain facts instead of being a man and owning up to them. And for that he is beneath contempt.
The Clintons just don’t get it. People are sick to death of there being a separate set of rules in America for the rich and connected. All Bill Clinton had to do was the simplest thing–admit you had consensual sex with a woman outside marriage and own the consequences, none of which are criminal or could have led to his impeachment. But he didn’t because he is as morally bankrupt as it gets.
^^^ This.
You missed the point of Krugman’s column. He doesn’t say don’t investigate. He just says report what you found accurately without innuendo. I remember what the press did to Gore. And I remember what the press did on Iraq. Fact – no proof of any wrongdoing by the Clinton foundation rated very high by charity watchdog.
You speak of personal gain from foundation for the Clintons – but what is it? No payments are made to them. Investigations show that everything was done by the book. But none of the reporting says that. The worst thing they can say is there is a bad appearance. Yeah, we are whiny. The received knowledge on HRC is that she is corrupt – but there is absolutely nothing that backs that up. But the media operates on that assumption and everything she does is viewed through that lens. I remember Whitewater – Clintons did nothing wrong on white water. Bill got a blow job and lied about it – not good – but not corrupt and not for monetary gain and it had nothing to do with Whitewater. You all are just drooling for another story like Paula Jones for the journalists personal gain.
Sorry, Glenn. I often appreciate your take on things, but this screed on Krugman is over the top. Up here in North America we hear on a daily basis about Benghazi, Hillary’s purported physical disabilities, her cough, the “corrupt” Clinton Foundation funneling money to AIDS victims in Africa, her supposedly missing emails (when the W administration purposely deleted millions of them), the FBI “criminal investigation” of HRC that wasn’t, etc. ad nauseum. Trump’s lies and financial chicanery are so glaring and so repeated that the press can barely keep up with them. They’ve known for months about the Trump Foundation political campaign contribution to Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi (who later dropped an investigation of fraud at Trump University) and are only just now getting on it. Similar tale in Texas mostly ignored. Christie squelched New Jersey’s claim on millions of back taxes that Trump owed. But LOOK, OVER THERE! Hillary just coughed. So Glenn, maybe you should look at the false equivalence news coverage in a little more balanced manner. I know you’ve got your hands full with the crazy corruption in Brazil, but still …
Thank you for clearing up the view from North America. I hear it is north up there.
they do this because they are closet authoritarians.
Starting with WhiteWater in which the Clintons LOST money on a legit land deal through Vince Foster’s suicide to B-Ghazi! all of the so called ‘Clinton Scandals’ have been ginned up, blown up or down right invented by wingnuts. If they could investigate Hillary for breathing (see DKOS today), they’d do it. In the end the scandalmongers de-legitimatize themselves.
And the billionaire funded journalist, Glenn Greenwald, who has made it his mission to prove that the source of a politician’s funding determines the integrity of that politician, is at it again. Indeed, the venerable Mr. Greenwald brings to mind the many politicians who project onto and blame others for their own perceived failings. Don’t we all deliciously recall that old moral stalwart, Mr. Henry Hyde whom the Times called “the venerable Mr. Hyde” and whose castigation of Bill was used by the Times as reason to impeach Mr. Clinton for immaterial perjury concerning infidelity? Yes, that does indeed bring to mind, the venerable Glenn Greenwald, the man who would rip you a new one, no matter your good deeds in the world, if, God forbid, the funding from those deeds came from a place like Goldman Sachs… Perhaps a more apt analogy for Mr. Greenwald, though, is the anti-gay Senator Larry Craig, who was caught passing notes on toilet paper under a men’s room stall. Indeed, Mr. Greenwald, who is passing notes into the internet on rolls of plutocratic funding himself is leading the charge among his trust fund enabled followers, many of them retreads from the White Messiah of Vermont, attempting to prove that the source of one’s funding is the ethical parameters by which to judge somebody, not the fact that those funds have saved millions of African lives.
Mr. Jullian Assange is to appear on his American counterpart’s show tonight, Sean Hannity. I suspect Glenn will be cheering his old pal on tonight. Tune in.
Ah, Karen, it’s a bit tricky figuring when you are on shift, and when Jimmy’s on. Anyway, I renew my greeting to you of yesterday.
As opposed to imbecilic-but-stubborn (and probably paid) Killary trolls like you, who would have us believe that taking millions from the Bosses neither creates nor implies an obligation or inclination to do their bidding.
Just go the fuck away. Revise the Record nonsense doesn’t play well here.
Dougster, it sounds like you’re having a bit of a meltdown. Where’s your money invested in, a blind trust? From whom and from where does your funding come from? There’s a big cesspool of money out there, it’s all tainted, it goes from your client’s pockets to your 401K and then into Exxon Mobil and then over to Goldman Sachs and then sloshes into Mona’s trust fund and then she buys her Subaru or Prius, the one that came off the assembly line with the Bernie sticker on it and then it finds its way through Japan nuclear power. Come on, Doug, your puerile fantasy that there’s some sort of untainted source of funds out there that the White Messiah and others are privileged to own is just a bunch of well, puerile fantasies. It’s all one big cesspool.
Trust in one’s deeds, that’s the only way to figure the whole thing out. Is Glenn tainted by his funding. Not in my book. Does he claim others are tainted by their funding? Indeed, and that keeps the retread acolytes reading his articles.
Glenn isn’t a public servant nor in any way obligated as a journalist to adhere to the ethics required of a public servant.
I didn’t know “public servants” were supposed to “have funding” except to the extent they draw a wage or salary for the work they do for the public.
If you don’t understand the fundamental difference between the work Glenn does and the work a public servant does or is supposed to do, and how they do it, then you’re not just a shill for Correct the Record, but a stupid one to boot.
Oh, journalists are never supposed to disclose their conflict’s of interest, and you didn’t know that public servants who run for office actually need to raise money? Crawl back into your hole and I’ll arrange somebody to roll the rock back over it.
Karen! You are letting out massive tells!
That’s straight-up Jimmy, and the other paid Clinton trolls seen all over the Internet. Those are talking points directly from the script Revise the Record (h/t Doug Salzmann) gives you.
Can’t you maybe use some of your own terms to, you know, at least try to sound authentic?
Karen – You coughed up that spiel like a true Hillerite conjoined in lock-step with the status quo!!!
You’re the status quo, Eric. Where do you see people defending Hil on the internet. I’m all alone out here. Bashing Hillary is what’s status quo and tired. It’s what the retreads who fancy themselves special do.
You fucking suck at your job. Your co-worker Jimmy posts right here (including in this thread), and there’s a semi-regular invasion of Hillarybots every time some pissed off Hillary hack links to the above article.
Now, Karen, take a glance at your script, and come back with:
I’m so glad The Intercept exists. I wish the Matt Taibbi vehicle had also worked out, but at least there’s Greenwald to let me know I’m not alone in my views.
That’s the sound of a far right propagandist whining that his GOP talking points aren’t producing a scandal.
F you, glenn.
Yes Greenwald is so far right that he believes that politicians should be scrutinized regardless of party affiliation. Hopefully you’ll seize power one day, so you can throw journalist that criticize you in prison.
Lots of staw-man arguing here (plus a lot more Krugman snark than was really necessary). Sure, report it, but leave the, “questions raised” BS at the door if you are not going to finish off with, “and the answer remains, nothing.” If Bill really gets $16mm for use of his name, that is a story, but a bigger story is the stupid reporter making this sound like this is Clinton’s Trump U when in fact it is one of the few reputable for profit colleges in America. An investigation revealed that students actually get something for their money. Stop the presses! Trump farms out his name for a head slapping scam. Clinton farms out his name for a working school. Not to put too fine a point on it, but this is not quite the same thing.
I think you’re missing the entire point of the article: There need not, and should not be, an equivalency test on whether something should be reported or not. Both candidates should be scrutinized closely. Both should have their feet held to the fire. Trump is a monster, but The Clintons are the epitome of corrupt money-for-influence ruling elite in American politics. I want both to be written about scathingly, and I want neither to be president.
“I want both to be written about scathingly, and I want neither to be president.”
Thus revealing your bias for journalism that tears both candidates down, even if it must resort to innuendo and false equivalency to do so. Hardly honest reporting, but at least you’re honest in your preference for it.
You added your own words to ‘john stafford’s’ comment. Ironically, your addition of words you’ve attributed to the commenter are exactly what you are falsely accusing the commenter of.
Are they though? What Money-for-influence have they done that isn’t outside normal fair game for politicians? It’s one thing to claim they’re part of the system, it’s another to say they’re the worst. I’ve yet to see anything to make me think they’re more corrupt than anyone else with their years in the game. I mean hell, they’ve been pretty transparent about where all their money comes from, unless you think they’ve got some hidden account somewhere that no one has found in 30 years.
Well said!
“…corrupt money-for-influence…”
Yeah, like when…or that time…then that guy….
Sorry, I only believe things that have evidence of being true.
In a way, I think this is a strawman in that Glenn makes it sound like this represents some systematic failure. Glenn’s problem, and it is a recurring one, is that he finds a few people to focus on (in this article they are Paul Krugman, James Fallows, Greg Sargent, and Bob Cesca) and the proceeds to paint their views as representative of the “countless Clinton-supporting journalists” or “Hillary Clinton’s die-hard loyalists in the media,” and other broad generalizations that make it appear as if there is indeed a monolithic effort to protect Clinton.
Glenn unnecessarily blasted Krugman, and at the end of the day it really accomplished little. Krugman made some good points, including exactly what you highlighted: that it is okay if your journalism “raises questions” but there needs to be a concerted effort to publish the answers to those questions, even if they refute the journalist’s original beliefs, and will not grab headlines.
I think that criticism hit home a bit for Glenn because so often TI articles “raise questions.”
Lastly, TI has been completely underwhelming in its coverage of the 2016 Presidential election. Aside from interviewing Jill Stein, they’ve buried us in blog-quality content. We’ve gotten Glenn’s usual pieces on perceived hypocrisy, Lee Fang’s death by a thousand cuts reporting on lobbying, Mackey’s run-of-the-mill pieces on Trump’s shortcomings and those who support him, and Zaid Jilani’s throwaway articles on how Trump spent more on merchandise than campaign staff, and the disparity in news coverage for one day of press coverage.
Don’t get me wrong, TI has had good articles outside the realm of the 2016 elections, but most of the big stories, in-depth analysis, and investigative journalism have come from the sites that Glenn and TI so constantly ridicule. Just look through the links in this very article to see.
This is the champion of Edward Snowden whining about a journalist defending a candidate? Really? Man, this guy Greenwald is arrogant.
People from all corners of the country and political persuasion are supporting Hillary Clinton. Not because she’s perfect, but she’s competent, cares about our country AND it’s people, she’s knowledgeable about military, diplomatic, economic and social issues.
How she gets the job done, I don’t care. If she makes a little money along the way, legally, more power to her. Most of her money the ReichWing whines about came from her books – and his books. NOT from the government, payoffs or other nefarious activities that Donald Trump openly bragged that he did until recently.
Maybe Greenwald should get his head out of Snowden’s arse, and see the world and Donald Trump for what it is.
You idiot, he criticized Trump more than Clinton. The basic premise of the article is that Clinton shouldn’t get a free pass because Trump is horrible. Yet posting under various screen names you are full stupid arguements that misrepresent what is actually written in these articles.
I guess you missed that Hillary has the highest disapproval rating of any candidate ever other than Trump. Stop pretending like she has the support of the population. The truth is that she is winning due to having cheated her way through the primary and relies upon older voters who get their information from the establishment media that her and her elite supporters control. People are voting for her out of fear of Trump, not because she is widely liked or because of policy proposals. Also, you basically proved Greenwald correct that Hillary can’t be questioned without an author being attacked. Maybe you should pull your head out of your ass and learn how to attack the contents of an argument and not the author.
listen, “john”, just because hillary is winning big and making people happy on tv its no reason to get all uppity
Do tell! Please, elaborate, how is Hillary Clinton not perfect?
Oh wait, you also said:
Your metrics for imperfection would necessarily, then, be corrupt and vile.
This is in the running for biggest crock of poo 2016. I would settle for the press at least making a pretense at objective journalism. After 275 days without a presser all they could come up with is “how ya feeling” and “how bout those conspiracy theories. Disgraceful.
Put your hatred away. Glen. It has long been obvious that objectivity and you have parted company. You sound like every flapjack rightwinger from the past 30 years.
You’ve bought their lies and spread more of your own
I’m so sad I have to share a universe with you.
Does this sanctimonious twit live in the same world as everyone else?
Because here in USA#1, we are assholes deep in negative Hillary coverage up to and including every inane conspiracy theory the right wing noise machine throws out there. Meanwhile The Drumpf gets billions of dollars in free advertising and provides a legitimizing platform for white supremacists through our insipid corporate media.
Krugman not asking for a free ride, just less stupidity. Greenwald seems to think that the only people who can offer fair criticism are ones so mentally enfeebled as to think HRC’s and Trump’s “issue” exist on planes in the same universe.
Lord help us if the only people allowed to comment on Trump vs Clinton are ones who carefully match each example of Trump mendacity covering 57 critical issues with an example of Clinton being political on two GOP talking points.
Well this completely selfevident assessment of PK Shrillary bias is long overdue and I’ll follow GG a lot closer because of it! One wonders at the horrors the MSM will endure should the American people choose the buffoon over the pathologically corrupt sold-out corportist serial liar, that they can’t seem to acknowledge isn’t perfect in every way! While I’m sure nobody will take the poll, but my bet is that Julian Aauage is the most respected journalist in the world, simply because he make the truth available without commentary. Something the Americsn press might consider!!!
Here’s the rub. We have a two party system. While Hillary has been in public service all her adult life (with all her ‘bad’ stuff), Trump has been in private service to himself … doing all sorts of very, very bad stuff. If you go after Hillary then please, please, please reveal how Trump has gamed the system for his own wealth, made certain that corrupt ‘business’ practices were made acceptable and part of the political system, took advantage of others who literally ‘built’ his wealth as well as his relationship to foreign governments for his own benefit.
I will vote for Hillary because America would be changed forever if Trump wins. You can be angry with Trump and Obama but please, please go after the ALT RIGHT who is behind Trump!
This woman is just as bad as Trump. Charley Manson vs. John Wayne Gacy.
This is the kind of zombie substitution for intelligent skepticism that gave George W. Bush enough electoral votes to win. Which — hey! — was exactly Krugman’s point.
Even the guy standing around the political booths at the street fair wearing a “Part of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy” t-shirt said it, “Where there’s smoke there’s fire,” as if it was proof for his claim the “Hillary is the most corrupt politician ever!” The media finds a possible impropriety and blows smoke and more smoke until half the population is convinced that Hillary is corrupt, without a single indictment or indictable action. They forget that we’ve been here before and that despite spending $60 million of the taxpayer’s money, special prosecutor Ken Starr could bring nary a charge against the Clintons.
Gore said he was there at the invention of the Internet, and indeed played a central role in turning the private DARPANET into the public internet. A spinmeister dropped the ‘there at’, accused Gore of the ludicrous claim of inventing the Internet, and the press ran with it for months. Today, people still think Gore claimed the invention, because media people like the controversy too much to care for precision and accuracy.
Greenwald is usually on Krugman’s side. I can only imagine that Greenwald has such a thing about Hillary that he overlooks the honesty of Krugman’s piece and justifies it by making unsupported charges against Krugman.
Greenwald just went down two notches in my book.
“the honesty of Krugman’s piece [!]
Greenwald just went down two notches in my book.”
How many notches does your papyrus hold?
Anyone who read Krugman during the primary knows his bias in favor of Hillary has lost him the respect of many, many of his loyal readers, including myself. It is astonishing to me how strong the cult of personality is around Hillary Clinton. If she becomes President, there isn’t a chance in hell that things will improve in this country. That doesn’t mean things would improve under Trump; but, at least with Trump we have a likelihood that the elites may very well fall, and that would be a wonderful thing.
Hello folks, I’m writing from the past…
it’s okay… it’s starting to feel like 1986 around here with all the CTR trolls.
I followed a link from a Salon article to this one by GG–damn, I don’t get over here to read as much as I should. Bob Cesca’s article defending Krugman and trashing GG is a bad joke, and as always, Glenn’s work is far superior on every level.
The Clintonites are indeed unhinged and wholly irrational when it comes to defending Hillary, so much so that it’s just too much work to keep battling that tide of insanity. I suppose they’ll be as every bit forgiving and forgetful with Clinton as they were with Obama: the former crimes of past administrations are somehow blessed, cleansed and found acceptable when delivered by the hands of a 3rd-way democrat. It’s just mind-boggling.
Hello, RoloTomassi, long time (too long) no see.
That’s just the half of it. Neoliberal Hillary hacks are literally arguing that FOIA is a largely bad idea that should be significantly jettisoned. Matt Yeglesias at that DNC hack shop, Vox: Against transparency: Government officials’ email should be private, just like their phone calls
Becasue, of course, email transparency poses a threat to his Queen. Moreover, he’s flat out wrong about phone call exemptions from FOIA; records and notes about calls are FOIA-able. He got beautifully smacked down on Twitter on the topic by a real journalist. (This journalist has lately been specializing in pedophile and other sex offender employees being hidden by government agencies or the Olympics bureaucracy. He knows FOIA extremely well.) Today Matty is claiming this radical support for FOIA transparency is a “libertarian” thing.
It’s no longer “liberal,” you see, because that has bitten Her Highness in the ass.
I think that is a major factor that drives the Trump hatred by the MSM and the politicians,that he will be so unbalanced as to expose all their actual crazy wacko crimes.
We should live to see that day?oy.It’s something to not want,right?
America haters are confused.
@ChasDokus, Doug Salzmann, Biff: Glenn also correctly believes that Trump would be a dangerous president
ChasDokus wrote about Glenn’s piece above:
Biff adds:
Doug rightly says of the above article:
This is Glenn, last week, interviewed by Amy Goodman:
I will not vote for Hillary Clinton. Not even to prevent POTUS Trump. But I do not discount the danger his presidency would pose. It’s real, and genuinely frightening to contemplate.
There’s a reason virtually all Muslim-Americans are voting for Hillary Clinton, including the huge numbers who were Sanders supporters. Trump has unleashed and emboldened dark, racist forces and given permission to be overt in their hatred. His presidency would put that on steroids.
This is not a small concern. I simply know that Hillary is also evil, simply in a different, more banal way. She will kill thousands of Muslims “over there,” and could risk WWIII in myriad ways by provoking Russia.
The two choices are ghastly. But both are extremely dangerous.
Relax Mona. If the cyclops duopoly of American politics ain’t dead yet … it’s on life support.
It’s ain’t ‘credible’.
And Clinton’s “different, more banal” evil is dangerous in its very banality because it has blinded too many to the true horror that it poses.
Note that I don’t argue that Trump isn’t dangerous. I simply believe that Hillary is even more dangerous, for the reasons I’ve posted here on several occasions.
We are at a deeply-disturbing moment in deeply-disturbing times. But this moment and these times have not manifested suddenly; the current, ugly picture has been developing, inexorably, over the past four or so decades.
It’s not impossible, or even unlikely, that the situation can’t substantially improve without a substantial collapse of the prevailing system.
As an urban designer friend says about fundamentally-flawed built environments, “They can’t be tweaked. We’ll have to scrape them off and begin again.”
You sounded intelligent for just a second, then you said Hillary is just a different kind of evil. Sorry, there is no justification for that. Not for anything she has said or done. Crazy is crazy, that’s Donald Trump.
“We came, we saw, he died!”
“Super-predators,” anyone? I’ll just let Michelle Alexander, author of the superb book The New Jim Crow speak for me. She published this some months back in The Nation: ? Why Hillary Clinton Doesn’t Deserve the Black Vote
And that’s just the economic and criminal justice issues that harm black people disproportionately. There’s so much more. Such as Hillary’s public fellating of the monstrous Benjamin Netanyahu and Henry Kissinger.
In an almost Trumpian manner, Glenn is overstating his case in this interview. Trump is uninformed and unscripted, not unstable. Deporting 11 million people and barring all Muslims from entering the country would be bad policies whose implementation would cause chaos, but they would not be outside the existing legal framework. Trump is tapping into bigotry because it is already there right below the politically-correct surface (no fracking required). Why is it there? Might it be related to the policies of our elites? Why not let it out and rebut it rather than cap it (for future generations)?
No, he’s not.
But then, your judgment is known to be poor. Earlier you dismissed Trump’s menace thus:
Anyone who thinks Trump’s words are not dangerous to real people has no views I feel compelled to consider.
Indeed, his words have already proven to be harmful to real people.
Who’s building walls now? Mona, you are a scold veering into “bernbart” territory, and TI would do well to give you a posting limit.
I think not. Quite a few of my friends well recall “bernbart” and we occasionally reminisce about that poor creature. When they inform me I write like that sad case, I’ll worry. In the meantime, I stand by what I wrote to you.
Yes, but is it “just unthinkable to allow [her] anywhere near the White House”?
Again, as “EVIL” as she is, she has been presented in this article by Glenn as clearly the lesser of two evils. By asserting in absolute terms that Donald Trump should not be “allowed anywhere near the white house”, Glenn is showing a clear preference for Hillary Clinton. And, no matter how you slice it, this is a backhanded endorsement. It is equivalent to arguing that Hillary is the more qualified Presidential candidate.
P.s. Hillary is already directly responsible for the violent deaths of tens of thousands of Muslims. How many Muslims has Donald Trump killed to date?
Hillary was Obama’s Secretary of State when the US began targeting US citizens abroad with drone strikes Where is her criticism of Obama on that issue? How many US citizens has Trump targeted with drone attacks? Or ALLEGED terror SUSPECTS?
President Obama has deported more people than any U.S. president before him, and almost more than every other president combined from the 20th century. Where is Hillary’s criticism of Obama deportation policies? How many people has Donald Trump deported to date?
Barack Obama’s Justice Department has prosecuted more government officials for alleged leaks of information under the World War I era Espionage Act than all his predecessors combined. Where is Hillary’s criticism of Obama? How many whistle blowers has Donald trump prosecuted?
One does not have to engage in conjecture, employ false equivalents, or draw inferences from her campaign speeches to determine that which Hillary is capable of.
Hey Karl,
you’ve already shot that foot more than once …
And then this from your keyboard
You present a false dichotomy. Glenn has only shown a preference for NOT Trump.
Thanks Mona, there is nothing like the feedback from a crapflooding sockpuppet to set one straight…
Who can forget the big lie about sniper fire in Bosnia?
“I remember landing under sniper fire in Bosnia. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base,” And that was exactly what she said.”
Fortunately, the nightly news showed what really happened. There she was in long black coat and scarf (no helmet or flack jacket) walking about 50 feet to an eight year old girl who handed her a piece of paper. Hillary was traveling with Sinbad, the comedian, and he denies it happened. This was the second time she told the same lie. The truth is that people are coming to the sad realization that Hillary — a woman of undoubted talents who was a role model for many in her generation — is a congenital liar. She is compelled to mislead, and to ensnare her subordinates and friends in a web of deceit and she will do the same thing as president. She is the kind of people who are so used to lye that it is very difficult for her to know when she is lying or when she is telling the truth. I came to the point that when she is talking to the Media right away I think she is lying even if she might be telling the truth.
This is another of her funny stories that obviously is not true.
“she said that in a, probably a fictional airport, she happened to run into Sir Edmund Hillary, who was the first man to climb Mt. Everest. She claimed that her mother named her Hillary after Sir Edmund Hillary the climber. Only problem with this lie is that Sir Edmund Hillary didn’t make news climbing anything until 5-years after Clinton was born. ”
Hillary, you need help, lot of it…I mean professional help.
Her only talent is the ability to ride others coattails to the corridors of power,as she alone is dog shite.
And how could someone with the track record of Oscar Pistorius,the cheater,get a major party nomination?By cheating of course.
A bubbleheaded moron.
Glen I agree with much of what you said, in this article and many previous.
I agree that it is extremely suspicious that the Saudis donate huge amounts of money to the Clinton foundation, and that a reasonable person should presume that that is improper, not the reverse. I find many of the partisan defenses, e.g. Carville “somebody is going to hell over [Clinton Foundation criticism]”, extremely annoying and improper. I agree that Clinton’s candidacy itself is undermining a number of issues that should be important to progressives.
But I’m also sympathetic to Krugman, especially because of a common theme in his past posts, about journalists drawing false equivalences in the interest of “balanced reporting”. Many of Hillary’s scandals, especially the email server, seem very overwrought. It’s very hard to find a victim — at worst, she conspired to break Freedom of Information Act. It’s a bad thing and it shows bad judgment. And especially when she gives nonsense answers under questioning: “Did you wipe the server?” “What, like with a tissue?” it shows poor character. But when you compare this with the kinds of lies that Bush or Trump told / tell that harmed millions of people in very real ways… it’s incorrect to equate these, IMO. I think Krugman is right that the media unfairly equated W’s lies and misstatements with Gore’s lies and misstatements. And I think it’s wrong to criticize Hillary in a way that suggests that the email server, or the Clinton foundation, are comparable in significance to Trump’s corruption, his racism, his wall, his deportation corps, his statements about taxes & spending, and so on.
Admittedly, that position is not what Krugman has staked out. I don’t agree with him that the problem is “innuendo”. Clinton should be taken to task. But criticism of Clinton and Trump in the same article needs to walk a fine line IMO — if an equivalence is drawn between them, even implicitly, it gives Trump an enormous free pass.
“I believe the danger of Trump’s candidacy warrants that”
Thud. What you call dangerous in Trump’s candidacy is all rhetoric. It is unlikely he would attempt to implement his most hare-brained ideas as policy, and if he did, he would be thwarted by Congress.
And anti-Muslim discrimination is already the unstated but pervasive policy of the US gov’t.
Note that Glenn referred to the danger of Bozo’s candidacy, rather than to any danger he might pose were he to make it to the White House.
There’s little question that Trump has brought the racist, xenophobic, knuckle-dragging know-nothings out of the woodwork — and there’s a danger inherent in that, notably the possibility of worse-than-Trump candidates in our near future.
I agree, however, that Clinton will be a much more dangerous president than Donald the Dunce could ever be. Her evil and macabre schemes will fly through Congress and be largely unopposed by the bureaucracy and the military commands. Trump would be blocked at every turn by officials and functionaries of all stripes and party affiliations.
My thoughts exactly. Trump “says” racist things but Washington “does” racist things, and Hillary will be taking Washington’s hyper racial bias to the next level with hardly a whimper from congress.
Yes,the knuckledraggers emerged from the rotten moth eaten zionist media,and have dragged US into globalization,endless war,zionist supplication,the complete blackout on Israeli evil,their support of every American destructive act like healthcare for profit,big pharma,and the war of terror which has increased Americas potential enemies thousand fold.
And not one peep from the criminals about assassination of alleged terror suspects,whose arrest and trial might reveal terrors network,but of course that network had has no finger in the day that changed everything,and whom we support in Syria to take out Zions neighbors,who are fodder of the evil of Yinon.
A massive pit of blackness that America will only escape when we neuter the proponents,the MSM and their whore politicians.
And Trump is our best hope.
And who created Trump?Zionism.The monsters have only themselves to blame,as their hubris knows no bounds.
>”And who created Trump?”
I’m convinced Trump is a direct result of ObamaCare.
>”And who created Trump?”
Isn’t it Snowden’s fault?
Most obamacare suckers are poor ,both minorities and poor whites,so I would say maybe a little from the poor whites,as unfortunately, very few blacks at least,are critical of him in any way.
I guess its somewhat understandable,being in the outhouse for 150 years or so,but this guy has done 0 for poor people of any color,and not much for the middle class either,only the 1%.
Its probably also related to the lack of the net available to poorer communities,as most of their news is MSM,which intelligent net users avoid like the plague.
The NYTs had an article on how kids sit outside libraries doors to catch their wifi.
I actually think what helped Trump the most was the brazen capitulation to Yahoo by Congress(where they jumped up and down like yoyos) a couple of years ago,coupled with the Hell Bitches(I know mona hates that)invite to that scumbag spy(nuclear triggers) a week after her coronation.
I’m confused why you like Trump, given that his daughter converted to Judaism and Sheldon Adelson has given millions to his campaign.
I have a Jewish son in law,and am about to be a grandpa to a baby boy.
What does that have to do with the truth?
I don’t hate the concept of Israel,I understand totally their wish for it.If they had been benevolent usurpers,maybe all this would have been avoided.
But I also understand that the victims of said land grab have been kept in subjugation and imprisonment since Israels founding.
The main problem is that Israelis don’t see it that way,or just deny the truth,which leads to all their further crimes as cover for the original,the war that stole what they couldn’t get electorally,in might makes right.
And now they’ve reached the point of insanity,trying to fix the American election so their chosen puppet the hell bitch is foisted on the American people.
And no,that is not true about Adelson,as he by law can not donate so much,and I heard through the GV that Trump refused Adelsons pushing of Gingrich(uhg)on him,hence no dough.
I don’t understand why you like Trump, given that his daughter converted to Judaism and Sheldon Adelson has given him millions.
“Her evil and macabre schemes will fly through Congress and be largely unopposed by the bureaucracy and the military commands.”
You probably believe that 9/11 was a conspiracy by the US military and Cheney et al to invade Iraq.
You are probably — nay, almost certainly — a brainless fool who isn’t even bright enough to know better than to make moronic guesses about what people you don’t know believe.
Now, fuck off and go away. Please.
I doubt the military ,but Cheney?I wouldn’t put anything by that snarling pos warmonger.
The shrub,and Cheney,were warned repeatedly by various intelligence agencies something was up.
The whole story is can of worms,but the MSM are waiting for the release of FOI data in 2101 to investigate.They certainly haven’t yet,except to blame and attack the wrong people in Iraq,Libya and Syria(and more)and work hand in hand with AlCIAda in Syria and Iraq.Simply hillaryous.
It is all on the web,if you look for it,these facts.
Dancing Israeli celebrators cavorted on the Jersey heights and documented the event,which they knew was a terrorist attack,as they danced before the second plane hit.
The FBI had fresh donuts and hot coffee to munch on at the empty Urban Moving Systems,the skedaddled to Israel firm those dancing 6 pointed stars belonged to.
Sleepers awaken!What do you need?An
Israeli nuke suitcase bomb in Manhattan?Look out Iran!
Trump for POTUS.
…..and Donald Trump deserves far more scrutiny than he is receiving. He’s a shill and a con man and hardly anyone is talking about that.
Propaganda is like a wave from a titanic wherein the wealthy enjoy its pleasures while oblivious to drowning the small, weak and and unnoticed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fv1eX_FW_pM
Absolutely correct, Greenwald, you completely nail it. That Krugman column of yesterday was nauseating in its fealty to Mrs. Clinton. The fact of the matter is, this family is “deeply-scrutinized” precisely because they are first-class crooks of the most slippery order–they have been getting away with it now for well over 30 years and counting. They’re really, really good at their graft, corruption and thievery.
Thing is, eventually criminals do get caught. And this woman’s day is coming, and so it is as well for her revolting husband, who I can’t believe I *ever* voted for.
At some point, you understand that Hillary Clinton is the most persistently and deeply scrutinized politician of the last 20 years, and that most of it is at the behest of right wing extremists. The absence of significant pushback until Trump’s candidacy highlights the different standard by which HRC is judged.
If Bush2 has a $100,000 club for funding reelection and 40% of the members get sinecures and govt contracts, the pundits shrug. If Clinton has a foundation that does charitable acts as well as provides soft money from a legal pay-for-access scheme, pundits and press go into colonic spasms because . . . it’s legal?
Let the not-illiberal pundits and press have their pushback for all the good it will do. A left wing (or at least not-so-right-wing) noise machine would be a welcome diversion, perhaps a higher quality of propaganda.
Looks like we may have another visitor from Revise the Record.
The above assertion is patently untrue. What is true is that the slightest scrutiny of Hillary Clinton reveals that she is a whore for the banksters and 0.1%; an eager and vile warmonger who cackled dementedly as she glowed with pride at the most vicious and brutal act imaginable; an inveterate and pathological liar; and possessed of and by an insatiable hunger for power, wealth and prestige — at any and all costs.
Because it’s shameful, despicable, unethical, deeply distasteful and an affront to the most basic principles of democracy.
I hope you’re being paid more per-post than the “Jimmy” entity; you (or your programmers) are at least fairly literate. Beyond that, of course, your bullshit is just as preposterous and unconvincing.
Damn!!
I hope somebody is watching you. You might blow up something if she gets elected!
You shouldn’t worry about me. If Killary is elected, you can bet the farm that she will blow up all kinds of shit.
Lol lol lol lol that was a good one!!!
Zionists like you are the ones that have be endorsing terrorism, which makes me wonder why you are projecting the methods you champion onto Doug.
RE:”most of it is at the behest of right wing extremists”
Much of the Clinton smearing has come from mainstream media outlets; I think blaming RW nutjobs for the ongoing Clinton witch hunting is a mistake. The NYT’s Jeff Gerth botched Whitewater, MoDo “has it in” for Clinton, etc., etc….and this is a pattern at the NYT that goes back to William Safire.
Further, Glenn has this story 100% wrong; Krugman is correct. It’s embarrassing to see Glenn and his pal Assange go off the deep end with their hate of Hillary.
GWB,with a silver spoon existence,is worth 23 million,while the Clintons,those poor Arkansas travelers,are worth 130 million?Hohoho….
Far be it from me to suggest that much of the foregoing is a polemical appeal to irrelevance, so I won’t. Greenwald played you suckers with a tendentious lede to get eyes on the page and you all not only went for it but swallowed it uncritically.
You are a pathetic hack and wrong right out of the shoot:
The wingnuts in the 90s didn’t “scrutinize” Bill and Hillary Clinton. They developed insane and wild-eyed conspiracy theories about them. Utter bullshit — tawdry crap — that destroyed what had been an intellectually respectable rightwing magazine, i.e., The American Spectator.
Serious and sober-minded investigations of the Clintons for their actual and many sins against decency have been very few. And are overdue.
“GWB,with a silver spoon existence,is worth 23 million,while the Clintons,those poor Arkansas travelers,are worth 130 million?Hohoho….”
And Chelsea oversees the Clinton Foundation and Global Initiative. her father-in-law, former congressman (read AIPAC sponsored), lost his $10 million ponzi scheme and did prison time for fraud.
I’ll bet he’s got some tips on how not to screw this one up …
Check out the reacharound by the America haters that follows.
Its hillaryous how lawyers,who make their dough based on our justice system,critique it constantly,and the FFs who made it the greatest system on earth,until lately,when the influence of zionism and their pay to play world have totally corrupted it into for profit prisons,corporate prison healthcare which kills,and all the other greed.
Aint no one coming for their jobs the hypocrites.
I think they hate me cause I show them up.:)
Citizenchip!
Nice try at minimizing how the Clintons use “charitable acts” to enrich and empower themselves and their cronies.
For a quick education on how Planet Earth’s most vulnerable people suffer from corruption cloaked as charitable acts, watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlS4SimQfv8
Donald Trump called for the execution of Edward Snowden, Part Deux
Oh, but gee, how very weird that Glenn Greenwald rejects Donald Trump and deems him dangerous. Why, that could only be because Pierre Omidyar told him he had to. [eye roll]
Snowden’s reply to Hasan about Trump:
I would suggest Snowden to stop the Trump stupidity.
Its amusing coming from a guy chased around the world by Obomba,and the HB,and calling the response to all their world shite,Donald Trump,not credible.
He is a libertarian right?I guess Trump isn’t ideologically pure enough.
Oh fer shur, man. Gee whiz, as between a cerebral, deeply courageous man like Edward Snowden on the one hand, or on the other, a show-boating bullshit artist like Donald Trump who wants to execute him, whose judgment is more credible? Hmm, what a tough one.
HC starts wars that kill thousands of people and Donald Trump wants to kill Snowden. Either way you guys should be happy, but with Donald Trump your portrayal of America as a terrorist state will be more colorful thanks to his rhetoric.
Mani is a troll, and I have have said I will not respond to him while this thread is still young. Anyone wishing to see his MO can read him in action, and eventually melting down, in this old sub-thread here.
While I am rarely a proponent of ever banning anyone from these threads, dahoit and a few others appear to be crapflooding them to the point they are difficult to read.
In lieu of banning, it might be nice for Glenn or one of the editors to come in and remind people to refrain from flooding threads with three or four line non-sequitur posts, presumably from a mobile device given the formatting.
Off-topic posts which ultimately and invariably accuse the “Zionists” of being responsible for everything from syphilis to poor banking practices to the downfall of western civilization rarely add to the back and forth of people actually trying to discuss the issues raised in a piece or those legitimately tangential to it.
Just my $0.02.
Yes, there are a few who should probably be limited to posting on YouTube, and they are definitely undermining the overall quality here.
On the other hand, I’ve been accused several times, recently, of being a Zionist shill — and you have to admit that has a certain amount of entertainment value.
Same. Several of the resident antisemites have said that about me. One has several times labeled me a “hasbara peddler.”
The first time or two is funny. But this constant deluge of irrational, screeching bile is too much. I think rr might be right.
Given the excessive amount of drivel being spewed by the same old-same olds, I have my own personal list of people that I simply don’t read. In essence, I’ve developed my own sieve or ‘banned’ list.
I’m overjoyed that some folks actively refute and contextualize the nonsense posted repeatedly. Perhaps it is wishful thinking but I don’t remember this amount of garbage when Glenn was writing for Salon – but memory is selective.
Like I said, don’t really like the idea of banning. Maybe the regulars here could agree that instead of engaging in interminable pie fights with the Correct the Record crowd and other various assorted loons, we all agree to nest a unified response post like:
At least then I could speed scroll through threads and know where the break points were and real discussion might be taking place.
And of course I don’t hate Mona. Unfortunately I don’t think my idea will work, and it will still be annoying having to scroll through the sum total of certain commenters contributions amounting to the blockquoted portion in quotations.
The interwebs sure do bring out the loons though. I’m just glad, at least in my experience, that 99.99% are ineffectual impotent morans who appear to like nothing more than to entertain themselves posting nonsensical shit in internet threads.
I mean I’ve challenged them and given out my name and home address more times than I can count, and not a one of the loons has every showed up at my door to talk the shit they like to talk in these threads. Or put their money where their big mouths are when it comes to some proof, test or bet at issue.
That is BS. Whoever comes here to challenge TI and his lapdogs should expect to be banned. Lapdogs (Mona, you…) will never be banned unless TI writers have lost their mind. Repetitive and irrelevant postings constitute crapflooding, but you don’t reasonably expect Mona who spent hours writing long comments arguing about some BS will ever be banned.
Challenge a premise on the merits (whether something a TI writer has written or commenter comment) and it will be dealt with on the merits. That includes you.
Here’s an example:
Who is “TI” and specifically who are “TI’s” lapdogs? To the bests of my knowledge “TI and his lapdogs” have never banned anyone who has come here “to challenge TI and his lapdogs” unless they are crapflooding or making outright racist or misogynist comments. As they should be as that has no valid place in meaningful discourse.
Well generally that’s because we don’t crapflood habitually with incomprehensible nonsense.
I’m not sure the words “repetitive”, “irrelevant” and “crapflooding” mean what you think they mean. Mona isn’t likely to be banned because she doesn’t habitually crapflood.
On another topic, still waiting for your proof from the other thread that I’m wrong about higher corporate tax rate nations generally being the most prosperous with generally better social safety nets by comparison to low/no corporate tax rate nations.
Mani admits to being exactly the sort of crapflooder Glenn does ban. He’s insisted he’s only here to laugh and be “entertained” by the “lapdogs” and post endless “LOL LOL LOLs.” He spews that crap relentlessly. Which is ban-worthy by any reasonable metric, including Glenn’s.
My posting sometimes gets too frequent when I let myself get excessively embattled with such as Mani and other trolls. But I can be reached by other reasonable readers suggesting (even, ahem, begging,) that I disengage and ignore the freaks. The crapflooders, by contrast, will not stop unless and until they are made to.
” corporate tax rate nations generally being the most prosperous with generally better social safety nets by comparison to low/no corporate tax rate nations.”
Yes. You are wrong. I provided several data that contradicts that statement. You ignored those data and quickly moved into name calling. So, again the highest Total Tax Rates are in Africa ( PWC and the World Bank 2014)
Africa does not have better social safety nets than Europe or North America. About corporate tax rates? : Africa has the top corporate tax rates! About the EFFECTIVE tax rate on investment? Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Switzerland, Netherlands, Canada and many prosperous countries with impeccable social safety nets have rates that are below the weighted and the unweighted average. (Taxfoundation)
Burundi, Cameroon, Chad, Morrocco, Gabon, Nigeria…have corporate tax rates higher than Switzerland, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Norway. Those last five countries have corporate tax rates that are lower than the US and Japan!
About personal income tax?
Chad: 60% Zimbabwe: 51.5% Senegal: 40%
Central African Republic: 50% Ivory Coast : 60% Uganda:40%
(Kpmg, World Bank, Trading Economics)
About properous countries:
South Korea 38% New Zealand:33%
Singapore: 20% Hong Kong China (most of them do not pay mainland China PI): 15% Bahrain:0% UAE:0% Kuwait:0%
Qatar:0%
Since you ignored those data, which you should have analyzed before you made that statement, then I gained the right to call you a comedian and a lapdog whose opinion is based on what TI writers say and not on scientific data.
To be precise, I never saw your purported source(s) or refutation because I generally don’t go back weeks to look at someone’s purported response to my question.
Where’s the link to your source? You do know how to link don’t you?
And again, I will address your refutation on the merits, once you provide your source(s) with links. I’ve got better things to do than hunt around trying to find what you are specifically relying. But if you provide legitimate links, I will address it on the merits and make a counter argument with the data I’ve read.
And remember, my statement was “generally” not in every case, because there are reasons why otherwise “lower” rates of corporate rate taxation my still correlate with “generally” stronger social safety nets.
1) I do not have to provide you links. I gave the names of those organizations where those well published data came from. KPMG, Tax Foundation, World Bank, Trading Economics. Do some work. Go on their websites and see their reports yourself. Then come back and call me stupid because I am factually incorrect.
2) The correlation cannot be established!! There are several countries with high taxes that are poor, some countries with low taxes that are wealthy and some with high taxes that are wealthy. There are too many parameters that get into a country prosperity. Economists, historians…are still arguing about what the main factor responsible for prospesrity is.The one that SEEMS to obtain a consensus is “TECHNOLOGY” but it is not a conclusive factor.
3) So please, by any means call me a troll and ask TI to ban me because I used scientific studies to dismantle your statement and I laughed at you because you obviously did not do any research to back it up. You were just too eager to praise a TI article.
1) I do not have to provide you links
That’s because you can’t or your evidence is SO weak, it cannot stand a debate. This is why you try to put the ownership of your argument onto your opponent. Because you KNOW your argument has no merit. You simply prattle off a bunch of names and draw meaningless conclusions.
In the End, you’re just weak at debate and a useless person.
3) …I used scientific studies…
Prove it.
Until you can point to something, you are simply lying to everyone and you know it. Again, this is WHY you try to put the ownership of your argument onto your opponent. It’s because you are just spewing sh*t from your mouth and expecting someone to believe it.
You are: Mani, The Eternal DumbAss!!
Come back when you get the courage to actually prove one of your silly statements.
If you don’t provide links, I’m not willing to consider your refutation.
I’m well aware there are general exceptions to every rule, which is why I said generally as in “generally” correlates.
But if you don’t care enough about proving me wrong, that’s fine by me. I’ve got a long track record here and you are literally a nobody.
And just for the record your claim is self-refuting:
vs.
I don’t want to ban you, I just want to mock you. It is necessarily true that if “prosperity” cannot be scientifically or mathematically objectively measured or identified then it follows necessarily there are no “scientific studies” (at least not in the commonly understood sense of “science” or “study”) that could possibly ever prove or negate my premise. And, incidentally, one of the many reasons I (and many others) don’t consider “economics” to be real “science”.
That is why I framed my premise “generally” as in correlation rather than causation and as opposed to attempting to argue a premise that I knew I couldn’t support such as “corporate tax rates are directly proportional to a nation’s prosperity and strength of its social safety net” because I’m well aware that that statement is almost impossible to prove for a variety of reasons.
Now go ahead and play with the other trolls before I have to embarrass you again.
No wonder why you want me banned. It is all about you guys being embarassed.
1) There is a measure for prosperity in international economics. It is called GDP PER CAPITA. Econ 101: GDP is just output. It does not tell the whole story. China’s GDP is way higher than Denmark. Brazil GDP is higher than Qatar. Both Denmark and Qatar have fewer poor individuals than China or Brazil. This is according to all measures of poverty including the World Bank.
2) The POSITION of a country in a list is not really what to be looked at. It is the VALUE of the data you are analyzing. Qatar is 52, but what is the value of its GDP in relation to its population size? I tell you the answer: it makes Qatar one of the most prosperous countries on Earth!
3) Again the correlation cannot be established. There is no such rule!!! You make a claim you cannot even support with data. I gave you my sources. Again check them and come back to state I am factually incorrect.
4) You are pathetic. Your arguments are irrational, based on fiction but I have no doubt that you honestly believe that you are embarassing me while you are making a fool of yourself.
Conclusion: you are a lapdog.
“There is no such rule!!! ”
ha ha ha….god, you sound just like a high school kid arguing against a bad grade.
Grow up Eternal DumbAss!!
And listen up slick, Africa is composed of 54 countries, not 6. So if you are going to make a point using Africa make with a link or data that encompasses all 54 countries.
Second, while I would concede that South Korea is a “prosperous” country by GDP, being number 11, New Zealand is not being number 53. Singapore is 37, and Qatar is 52 and with the exception of Finland every Scandanavian country is more prosperous than Singapore. And so are all of the European (not Eastern European) countries except Ireland, Greece and Portugal.
So until we agree on a definition of “prosperous” we aren’t going to have much of a discussion here. You fucking clown.
Mani, The Eternal DumbAss!! can’t provide links. The last one he provided for evidence of his argument was from a not-for-profit org that teaches 3rd graders beginning civics lessons.
He used this as evidence of the legality of Rouseff’s impeachment.
That’s the level of idiocy you are dealing with here. He also doesn’t understand Form over Substance concepts.
He simply relies on a form, without understanding the underlying issues and causes.
That’s why his new name is: Mani, The Eternal DumbAss!!
Mani;I might not like your speech,but I would never deny your right to spew it,unlike our resident nobility here.
Three dollar bills.
Mani, you are wasting your breath. Many of Glenn’s most ardent supporters in these threads have no respect for the truth whatsoever. Even when they are proven to be wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt, there is never an admission of error – let alone an apology. They incessantly employ a range of rhetorical devices for the sole purpose of blurring critical distinctions and confounding the truth. There is no need to engage them head on beyond showing them up for what they are. Simply state your position and move on. Don’t respond to those who are chronically predisposed to logical fallacy – especially those who lead off with argumentum ad hominem.
You are right of course when you point out the fact that no one is more guilty of crapflooding then Mona and her mindless minions. Yet they are the first to suggest that others (those who are not as zealously loyal as thenselves to Glenn Greenwald) be banned for an occasional off-topic comment.
“logical fallacy”
Mani wouldn’t know a logical fallacy if it walked up to him and bit him in the ass.
“those who lead off with argumentum ad hominem.”
Mani is the first one to kick off an ad hominem. So, for your to imply others do so to him is not knowing his history. Just check his posts.
Virtually EVERY post he calls someone a ‘lapdog’. He does this because he knows his arguments are weak. All he does is spout some BS and won’t provide any links to his arguments.
He habitually tries to put the ownership of his argument on his opponent by telling them to do their own homework.
Just look at his posts.
I did, you are right… but so am I.
I’d agree with that, except for this:
“occasional off-topic comment”
There seems to be a lot more off-topic comments to justify the term, “occasional”.
Personally, I don’t agree with banning people, but some of these ‘comments’ are repetitively stupid, while other believe the threads are their personal property, if you know what I mean. ;)
Your fellow lapdog (Mona) somerimes spent hours arguing about off topic BS that nobody cares about. Are you really going to ask for her to be banned?
Whoever comes here to challenge TI and its lapdogs should expect to be banned. The lapdogs decide what constitute crapflooding . TI writers would be stupid to remove their dedicated lapdogs.
Shorter Mani: “Argle bargle, derp derp, argle bargle Zionists derp derp, we hate Mona, LOL LOL exclamation points!!!!!”
Yawwwwwwwwwn, we get it, you’re as crazy as a shit house rat, you’re tired of Mona kicking your ass, now fuck off.
p.s. I don’t answer moronic questions from morons who can’t be bothered to come up with “proof” supporting their assertions or counterarguments. Did I happen to mention “fuck off”?
Could you possibly be more immature? Oh Right, you have the intellect of a 7 year old as proven by your silly and unconditional obedience to any authority, including Nazi Germany.
I thought we settled this. Those that unconditionally think a legal structure is always right in it’s execution is a lapdog.
And since you won’t deny the killing of 7M Jews as being wrong, you are actually the one that is a lapdog.
Damn, the stench of your childishness wreaks in here. Go back to high school now, it’s time for lunch.
Instead of banning, I would suggest that their posts be moved to an alternate comment thread.
At the top of the thread, you will notice 2 buttons…..Thread and Latest.
I would suggest you add a third called Alternate Thoughts.
I would then warn the user not to crapflood. If they continue to do so, then move all their conversations there and not allow them to post to the main thread.
This way, they cannot say they are being disallowed freedom to comment. They are simply placed in an alternate thread.
That’s my $0.02
;)
You must not be watching CNN or reading Newspaper Headlines. The Trump issues tend to surround his actual words and have had a few citations about his business dealings. The lead from Cable News and Newspapers is that HC is the center of Scandals, and of course where there is smoke there is fire, surely!. I’m cynical because of exactly what PK noted– that Al Gore got treated horribly by the “so called Liberal Media” and most people you ask, have no idea that the Washington Post stories were flawed. Check out Fools for Scandal as an early indictment of the media on Clintons.
can we forever refer to him now as Pay for play Paul?
Donald Trump is a vile man who would execute Edward Snowden
Some putrid Trump-heads are littering the comments, arguing for the glories of their authoritarian, racist Leader. Look you depraved crackpots, while many here understand the vileness of Hillary Clinton, the moral sickness of Donald Trump is also obvious to all decent people.
This is Donald Trump interviewed on Fox about Edward Snowden:
The notion that Glenn Greenwald, or those who respect and admire his work, would have any use for an authoritarian, bigoted piece of filth like Donald Trump is literally preposterous. It’s not gonna happen, so y’all are wasting your time promoting your Fuhrer here.
IOW:
Vote TRUMP!!!
There are only two viable choices, but you are completely free to waste yours on a cowards-way vote for Hillary the Royal Shithound by voting third party.
In defense of Mr. Trump, what he says provides no indication of what he would actually do (this is true of Mrs. Clinton as well, of course). Secondly, from your dialogue, it appears to be the Fox News host who suggested killing Mr. Snowden. This by the way is true of many of Mr. Trump’s most extreme statements: they were made by someone else. However, it is true that Mr. Trump didn’t take issue with the statement.
There are three categories of voters in this election a) those who think that Mr. Trump is so terrible, they would consider voting for Mrs. Clinton b) those who think that Mrs. Clinton is so terrible, they would consider voting for Mr. Trump and, c) those who consider them both so terrible, they would throw away their vote and cast a ballot for a third party.
None of these pitiable groups deserves to be maligned; we should have empathy with the misery of others.
Well, no Il Duce. What happened is Eric Bolling took Donald’s meaning, which Donald went agreeably along with.
You are off your game today, Benito, There are more than three groups of voters. There are at least five: 4. those — especially racists — who adore Donald Trump and see him as the Leader to Make It All Right Again, and 2. those who worship Hillary Clinton and will have a collective orgasm when she is coronated.
Comments are littered by a bunch of number 4s.
True. I should have qualified my statement with, ‘there are three categories of non-deluded voters’.
However, even those who adopt those latter two positions know, in their heart of hearts, their chosen champion will disappoint them. They maintain the pretense because there is a category of people who have to believe in ‘something’. They are even more to be pitied than the first three categories, so my point about empathy still stands.
“There are three categories of voters in this election”
Which one are you?
Uh,it was the Fox guy who said kill them,not Trump.
How would Trump kill him anyway?He is in Russia.Would Trump cause an international incident against Russia by assassinating him?
There is no doubt many Trump supporters see Snowden as a traitor(not I),but I guarantee the Hell Bots outnumber them exponentially,along with the clown exposed by him,Obomba losers,and of course the zionists,despite the lack of exposure of those criminals by ES.You don’t think he is imprisoned at zionist order?
Politico ,sucks anyway,another propaganda outlet in a zionist sea.
And Assange and Manning ,all imprisoned by zion,who rules US and GB.
At present.
You are an unhinged, antisemitic, racist freak. So of course you drop a lot of Trump-love in this space.
Are you Rosa Kleb?That James Bond villain??
You in your own diatribes say Israel treats the Palestinians terribly.
Why do they get away with it?70 years of evil,and not one iota of truth from the leviathan ziomedia.Pathetic and pitiful,and an exposure of your own leanings,which aren’t for freedom or democracy,but citizenchips,no matter your hysterical denial.
Lickspittle and limited hangout adviser,calling CIA(Juan Cole) and other scum (pussy riot)worthy,and refusing to make the logical step of zion uber alles,the incontrovertible truth in our world today.
You are an evil propagandist liar,always insulting and demonizing those who don’t agree with your hypocrisy and obvious mental deficient lack of decency.
You are the worst thing at this site,a suck up and and an American hater.
Have a great day,creep.
Seriously, what in the FUCK are you babbling about?
He’s really on some hard drugs or something. At one point he announced that “zionism” has been hatching nefarious plots since the 7th century. I mean, he’s just way, way out there, and therefore loves Donald Trump.
There is no way I ever said anything about Jews in the 7th century,other than possibly Maimidones(sic)?who said if a Jew falls in the water,save him,if a gentile let him drown.Is that not true?If I am wrong,I am ready to be corrected,I love to learn.
Other than that,no,as Jews had no political power until the MAs when they funded royal wars.
God you are a pitiful human being.And yes.I like to get high,maybe that’s the source of your dilemma.You really are a hateful human.
Hey.if you and RR get your wish,it will be like sea shells here,a faint drone of bsbsbsbsbsbs…
Snowden is MORE loyal than any of his critics. America has an “indirect” loyalty oath for intelligence personnel, military, police officers and even Congress.
Supreme loyalty, superseding all others, is to the U.S. Constitution for anyone with any authority – not to the nation directly and not to the people directly. Maybe the most important constitutional “check & balance” against disloyal leaders and disloyal managers giving illegal orders to subordinates – it gives subordinates like Snowden the authority to refuse illegal orders.
James Madison and the Framers of the U.S. Constitution thought having a constitutional “rule of law” was the best way to protect Americans from enemies – both foreign and domestic!
I once thought “like” buttons were stupid, but from time to time I’d use one here. For your comment, for example. Nothing to say but: “Yup, well said.”
The childish belief in tRump as a savior daddy, which is evidenced in these comments, is equal parts asinine and horrifying.
A perfect example of Americans as the most stupid of all first world citizenries.
Racist, materialist ignoramuses. Maybe we deserve tRump, collectively if not individually.
Ah,the modern Children’s Crusade eh?The pied piper of Hamelin?
From lemmings of zion and the Hell Bitch,who support the most corrupt moron in American political history,an obvious racist murderer,with a trial of lies and criminality stretching back decades(Israeli like),you could write golden book narratives.
The real fear these people have is for after the election. If Hillary Clinton wins the presidency and she has been maligned beforehand then she will have an air of illegitimacy about here.
Their fear is that the enter system will become invade in the eyes of the majority. Unfortunately it’s too late. The system is corrupted and people already know it. He election will only add fuel to the fire.
The illegitimate horse left the barn with the revelations that the DNC worked against BS,most of the Intercept readership’s hero.
But instead of attacking her,they attack Trump.
3 dollar bills,just like BS.
Who would back the person who cheated him?Only common criminals.
The Japan nukes thing;If Japan wants nukes,they will get them,no matter the world or US bloviation.So Trump’s statement was irrelevant,and maybe he realized that.
Give me a person who corrects his errors,over double down morons like Obomba and the rest of the pos criminals like the Hell Bitch any day.
The Drump, the human manure spreader, gave you your two turds in your toilet bowl, I take it?
Yes, what we really need is Hillary the Royal Shithound to spread her runny shit all over the Middle Eastern Muslims until they leave Israel’s rightful promised land…
No,I put my own turds in my toilet bowl.
You used to be sensible;What the hell happened?
Clinton – “Hey, I’m operating government arms sales, aids charities and my private engagements with the big banks all out of the same office…using staff that split their time between those three things. Why is everybody questioning me???”
Like most folks, I am prone to find unpersuasive an argument that starts off by mischaracterizing my position and disparaging my motives.
My critique of some of the reporting on HRC this season, particularly much of the NY Times coverage, wasn’t spoon-fed to me by Paul Krugman, and I don’t reflexively reject all criticism of the candidate I’ll vote for come November. A well-functioning free press is essential and should report on substantive issues, including the Clinton Foundation.
What it shouldn’t do is elevate non-news to news status in order to gin up interest, as happened when Anthony Weiner did something that has no bearing on this race. It shouldn’t teeet out about coughing fits. It shouldn’t file a story early that grossly misrepresents what actually occurred in Trump’s AZ immigration speech, then issue an update hours later without correction or explanation. It shouldn’t be so invested in finding a hook or an arc or a new angle that it reports on an adequate performance as though it were Presidential material. It should take its readers more seriously than it does itself.
And their latest meme,the Fl corruption angle,blames Trump instead of the bribee who let her greed influence her politics.
Todays Wapo said BD and Bliar worked against Iraq War????
Reading the story reveals the opposite!
I call for firing squads.
Uh, HE, The Sainted One, offered the bribe…didn’t he?
Yes, and Donald has also been engaged in heavy foreplay with the Israel Lobby, declaring his GOP the most Israel-fellating party evah. But to a fuckwit like the antisemitic dahoit, it’s apparently easy to just tune that all out.
dahoit loves Donald’s racism, and that’s enough for him.
Holy shite,she accepted it.Who was the public official ,ready to compromise the govt?
And at 20? grand,she sold herself cheap,compared to the HB and BentDs millions.
And all this stuff is alleged,and of course zionist driven.Right Mona?sheesh
Meme? Try habitual behavior. Trump did the same with the Texas Gov. and AG to escape prosecution for his TrumpU scam. The Feds, in unrelated cases, have charged the AG with 3 counts of felony fraud.
Again;Who is the real criminal?The govt official who lets herself be bribed or the briber?And nothings been proven,except allegation,while the HB rakes in millions from pay to play documented criminality.
Yawn.
And all this is just tempest in a teapot by hysterical anti trump dupes and their rabid America haters,who want no part of America First.
In virtually all applicable state and federal statutory schemes, both. You simply do not care when the alleged criminal is Donald Trump, because you are an ardent racist loon who adores him beyond all reason.
In elections in the past the choice to vote third party seemed to be a legitimate protest vote but in this contest I don’t think that throwing away a vote can be justified.
If someone is going to vote this time there is a clear and present danger involved in their choice, the Red Queen and her militarist and moneyed enablers can only be stopped by voting for Trump however distasteful that act may be. This is not the time for people to run away from a difficult decision but to show courage and back it up with their vote.
Yes, fear tactics always work. And they highly how correct your position is.
Almost a novelty to hear this plaintive “don’t throw away your vote” routine from a republican partisan idiot instead of a democratic partisan idiot.
The “courage” bit is a pathetically funny appeal wayoutwest: yeah, it’s SO courageous to vote for one of the two main parties. That’s “way out” all right. This is kind of like how Krugman claims to be courageous to defend Hillary against the media. All these heroes with their brave defense of one or the other of the two main parties. It’s so inspiring.
I think GG is going to be very surprised 11-8-16.
Every attack on Trump by serial lying MSM scum only increases his support.
Likely is a very unlikely scenario.
How dare Krugman challenge all other journalists who believe they are the Arbiter of Proper Journalism.
Glenn
When is your rapist buddy Julian going back to Sweden?
Let us know please, it’s hard to take you seriously when you support rapists.
Thanks!
It’s a pity the Middle East couldn’t have erected this wall to stop British troops from invading in the first place.
As Britain buys more nuclear missile subs, invades other countries, extricates itself from forty years of postwar progress in EU labour and environmental laws…The Brits are thinking “how can we top this??? And of course the answer is “Let’s evade our responsibilities to the resultant refugees!!!” And as quickly as you can say “Brexit isn’t racist!!”….up goes the UK Trump wall.
The biggest issue of the 2016 election is: restoring the constitutional “rule of law” that destroyed over 200 years of American history. Neither of the two major political parties are talking about it. We are one generation away from a full-fledged Cold War style “Stasi” – nobody is talking about it.
Young adults today think gulags, kangaroo courts, warrantless searches and guilt-by-association are something normal and American. Young adults think that the verdict is reached “before” a trial, the show trial just making the verdict look legitimate. This generation has been taught that they shouldn’t worry about privacy, they only need to fear if they’ve done something illegal or wrong.
Why isn’t Trump or Clinton talking about overturning these unAmerican practices?
CrookdClinton is not because she and he BENEFITTED from avoiding Rule of Law, and Trump is not aware or cares at this point in time.
He may understand that to Make America Great that needs to be #1 on his list.
Stein and Johnson get it.
My point is that Americans are being distracted by the drama. The Press/Media, by and large, are not talking about “decades” of high unemployment in certain zip codes like Detroit or in economically depressed rural areas. We are not talking about restoring our Bill of Rights and the U.S. Constitution [a wartime charter designed to be followed during wartime also].
They really need each other, Clinton and Trump. Clinton creates the refugees. Trump demonizes them.
I find the Krugman article unpersuasive. It doesn’t respond to my principle criticisms of Clinton which are:
Support of mass incarceration as First Lady, voting for the destruction of Iraq as a senator, destruction of Libya and proposed enhanced bombing in Syria as Secretary of State.
Instead, Krugman in his summation of the criticisms against Clinton, compares them to those that faced Gore:
“trivial anecdotes, none significant, some of them simply false “
Now Gore didn’t face anything like the conflict of interest Clinton does, the mixing of billions of dollars of Government/private/charity work. So why are the two of them being compared? Is it only because they are both Democrats? I would say yes.
Krugman’s argument is this: Gore faced spurious criticisms and lost the election….therefore, reporters shouldn’t report on what looks like a lucrative and longstanding mixing of government/private/charity work…literally in Clinton’s basement. An operation where Clinton is sophisticated enough to “bleachbit” her email trail, but the ever so experienced and qualified presidential candidate says she can’t remember what “C” stands for.
Oh yes! The Clinton sycophant corporate establishment propaganda media have pulled out ALL stops in dumbing-down voters on Clinton mega-lies, election theft, and blatant violations of federal law. Journalistic integrity? In your dreams!
Hillary Clinton Integrity ? In your dreams !
Lies, damned lies and statistics.
If you think Paul Krugman/NYT are slight-of-hand HillShills Glenn … check out Jill Abramson/Grauns arm-twisting card trick ‘journalism’ the past few months.
*& without putting too fine a point on it … your colleague Bob Mackey, too.
With Trump on the loose, this is not the year for “ideological purity” declares Jill in no uncertain terms. If not Clinton … then Trump will be our next president. That’s all she wrote, and there ain’t no more.
Because some things never change, I have no choice Glenn … i’m voting for Jill Stein.
*that’s just the way it iz (rip brother Tupac) … https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TnwU2iMRUqA
One has to take the Republicans at less than face value when it takes on the Clinton’s. They tried the same tactics with Slick Willie and he beat them to the draw and won reelection. I know this much that the ill will created by the Republicans against the Clinton’s has always been about power. I have my own reservations about the Clinton’s, however, don’t ever forget that Slick Willie whupped them twice before.
I disagree as this negates much of their propaganda power. Which of the following introductions would be more likely to tempt the reader to continue?
Or:
The price of honesty is irrelevance.
“I’m a Hillary shill and here are the reasons you should vote for Mrs. Clinton…” definitely.
*the other one sounds like a NYT/Guardian Clinton campaign op-ed … and I’ve read all of them.
What’s your point, again :)~
*imho, Krugman’s untrammeled support for Mrs. Clinton isn’t a case of ‘faux objectivity’ … he’s probably got a bunch of statistics to back it up.
**See David Brooks, e.g., for ‘faux abjectivity’
To each his own. Here is the article that interests you:
I’m a Hillary shill and here are the reasons you should vote for Mrs. Clinton:
– Her victory will validate my support and give my life meaning.
– I might get an invitation to the White House, although not being a major donor, I realize they won’t let me use the Lincoln Bedroom.
– Mrs. Clinton is the anointed one, and has received gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh from the King of Saudi Arabia.
After that, the quality of the article declines, and so I’ll spare you the rest.
Sports have conditioned our population well. Go team!
If I’ve been paying attention the past 25 years or so, which I think I have, Hillary Clinton has been the subject of constant journalistic scrutiny since her husband’s first run for the White House.
How much more blood would we like to try to squeeze from this particular stone?
Glenn, nice you would point that out. Maybe you could get one of your staff interested in wiki leaks disclosures. Perjury and the FBIs whitewash. How would that fit into you editorial line?
wikileaks, that’s Assange, sure you heard of either.
So you can and should denounce your colleagues obfuscated partisanship, speaking of which you could have zaid and Mackey take a read of your piece, or maybe you could do the job. The emails are out there.
What is striking about the Krugman piece – although predictable – is that its an attack on the corporate media types who exaggerate the Clinton misdeeds while discounting the Trump malfeasance as ‘old news’, without naming the people he’s talking about. This is cowardice, not courage, since Maureen Dowd, his stablemate, is first in line for deserved condemnation. And the editors of the Times of course. This is as old as bimbo eruptions, and will continue through a second term, if she survives. Why so reticent, brave man?
I had wondered why Mr. Trump had been rising in the polls, and thanks to this article, I now know it’s due to the pundits supporting Mrs. Clinton. People watch with bemusement as the pundits contort themselves explaining why selling government access to foreign despots and flouting inconvenient national security procedures are good things. But the esteem and awe in which the general public holds the pundit class is somewhat less than the pundits themselves imagine. For some reason, the collective wisdom of a group of spineless sycophants fails to impress. Their endorsements often don’t carry a lot of weight, and in fact, are often a negative factor when evaluating a candidate.
Unless Mr. Trump can persuade a sizeable group of pundits to endorse him, I fear that Mrs. Clinton may be doomed.
Many pundits including Greenwald would probably like to see Trump president. I do not blame them at all. It would certainly be easier for them to pursue their expose of America as a terrorist state with a con man, a bigot, somebody who advocates war crimes as head of state.
“somebody who advocates war crimes as head of state.”
Seriously!!!???
Hillary Clinton’s war crimes are unforgivable. No real progressive could ever support her.
Zach Cartwright | June 3, 2016
http://usuncut.com/politics/hillary-clinton-foreign-policy-record/
I agree. I don’t understand Bernie Sanders, he was a great disappointment for a lot of people who used to like him and include me.
‘War Crimes’, eh?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-fein/hillary-clinton-unfit-for_b_8313372.html
Hillary Clinton: Unfit for the Presidency
If you crave presidential lawlessness, war crimes, and international mayhem, you should adore Democratic presidential aspirant Hillary Clinton.
During last Tuesday’s CNN Democratic debate, Mrs. Clinton touted the 2011 war to overthrow Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi that she orchestrated as “smart power at its best….”
That glibness was even worse than President George W. Bush’s post-Iraq invasion delusion of “Mission Accomplished.” Consider the following:
1. The war, initiated by President Obama without congressional authorization, violated Article I, section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution—a high crime and misdemeanor that justifies impeachment and removal from office. James Madison, father of the Constitution, elaborated to Thomas Jefferson: “The Constitution supposes what history demonstrates, that the Executive is the branch most prone to war and most interested in it, therefore the Constitution has with studied care vested that power in the Legislature.” In the United States Senate in 2007, then Senator Clinton maintained: “If the [Bush] administration believes that any use of force against Iran is necessary, the President must come to Congress to seek that authority.” But as a presidential candidate in 2008, she thundered that in the White House she would obliterate Iran unilaterally if it attacked Israel: “I want the Iranians to know that if I’m the president, we will attack Iran (if it attacks Israel). In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them.”
2. The war constituted the crime of aggression under the precedents of the Nuremberg Tribunal, the United Nations Charter, and the International Criminal Court, i.e., the use of force by one State against another—including bombardment—not justified by self-defense. Then Secretary of Defense Robert Gates agreed that the civil upheaval in Libya that triggered the war was not a “vital interest of the United States.”
3. The war encouraged nuclear proliferation by vivisecting Libya soon after it renounced weapons of mass destruction. It sent the message that any nation without WMD risked attack by the United States. Iran has agreed only to defer, not to abandon, its nuclear ambitions in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action negotiated with President Obama.
4. The war eventuated in the transfer of Muammar Gaddafi’s vast inventory of conventional weapons into the hands of terrorists and enemies of Israel.
5. The war created a power vacuum that gave birth to ISIL in Libya, and it now dominates the port city of Sirte.
6. The war spawned scores of sectarian, ethnic, or tribal militias guilty of chronic human rights crimes against civilians. A year ago, Amnesty International reported: “”In today’s Libya the rule of the gun has taken hold. Armed groups and militias are running amok, launching indiscriminate attacks in civilian areas and committing widespread abuses, including war crimes, with complete impunity,”
7. The war created havoc on a scale requiring the evacuation of all United States Embassy personnel.
8. The war fueled a refugee crisis in Europe by disabling Libya from preventing human traffickers from using its shores to embark on ultra-hazardous travel across the Mediterranean in hopes of reaching Italy.
9. The war created a “might-makes-right” precedent that invited Russian aggression against Ukraine and Chinese adventurism in the South China Sea.
10. The war culminated in the establishment of rival lawless governments in Tripoli and Tobruk, multiple armed militia groups guilty of civilian abductions, torture, and extrajudicial killings, 550,00 internally displaced persons, and 150,00 Libyan refugees. Hillary Clinton, by precipitating the war, is morally complicit in these horrors and miseries.
Her lame defense is that “the Libyan people had a free election the first time since 1951. And you know what, they voted for moderates, they voted with the hope of democracy.” But there have never been moderates in Libya because from time immemorial there all political power has grown out of the barrel of a gun. The 2012 elections she referenced were meaningless because the war she provoked placed a political premium on violence and ruthlessness.
Remember that Ms. Clinton and former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright close soulmates, and that Ms. Albright notoriously defended the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children as “worth it” to impose economic sanctions against President Saddam Hussein.
In sum, Hillary Clinton is a clear and present danger to the Constitution, the rule of law, and international peace and security. Her eagerness for war, i.e., legalized murder, to create an image of adolescent toughness makes her a worse fit for the Presidency than would Lady Macbeth.
Dude, I hope you did not write all of this as a response to my comment. What a waste! I read the first paragraph and I gave up. I seriously have no time to read that anti Clinton, anti American, ignorant crap.
^ Ignorant Zionist Pig
Way better. Short and funny.
The pos Hell Bitch couldn’t even remember Stevens name when hearing about the annex attack in Libya.(Daily Mail)At ICH.She was tired and confused.
Hopefully when Trump is elected,he will expose all the traitors within,and reveal the evil truths about Obomba,the HB,Bent Dick and the shrub,as every one of these garbage have formed a mutual scratch my back protection agency.Why do think they are all against Trump?
You’re fired to every goddamn traitor neocon would be the most awesome act in American political history,the rejection of morons for war forever.Yeah!
And any American patriot who refuses too see that must be part of the problem.Jesus.
We already have that in spades with Obomba.
Holy schneikes.
Trump is not an ideologue in any way,hence he’s the American peoples choice in Nov.Woo woo.
I did not get anything in what you wrote dude!
Obomba was the biggest fraud in American history,and,despite stupid rethug and Islamaphobic idiots,he is prejudiced against Muslims,as his actions prove.Get it now?
Who the bigots?
Of course Mona takes pride of place at the head of the line.
Love this.
…but by posting that am I a spineless sycophant, loving select punditry at TI?
#selfawareness
#i’mahypocrite
#hastagsworkononlyoneonlinevenue
I meant spineless sycophant in the positive sense. I was thinking of Paul Krugman, mentioned in the article, who has won the Nobel Prize in economics. A good argument can be made that Mrs. Clinton herself is a spineless sycophant to Wall Street. So what we are dealing with a perfect circle of spineless sycophancy.
I did a Google News search on Hillary Clinton minutes ago. This link was at the bottom of the page. At the top was a Time magazine story with the headline about Donald Trump “slamming” Hillary Clinton on the email story. Krugman’s point is more than valid: that the amount of ink being spilled on Hillary Clinton and the emails and the foundation is overwhelming compared to what should be done on Trump. Crazy stuff said by Trump gets the attention, true. What doesn’t is the truly criminal activity by Trump.
Can we face the fact that the Republicons have been demonizing the Dimocratic Ms Clinton since her days as first lady, that is roughly a quarter of a century ago, when they conjured up the famous Travelgate Fiasco, which turned out to be, in spite of the Republicons having spent umpteen million dollars on investigations of the lurid and unparalleled-in-the-history-of-crime robbery, nothing.
During the same time period, they, along with their cohabitators in the Regnery Press, Breitboy News, and the Nazional Review, decided to invent the great Vince Foster Murder Mystery, showing less respect to a poor unfortunate individual than they would to a commonplace political hack of their own lowlife persuasion, spending in the process more hard-earned millions of taxpayer dollars. In this ”case,” the result was the same: no there there.
Then we were given Whitewatergate, more BFM [Bovine Fecal Matter], produced daily by the half ton and generative of enormous amounts of BFM ”press” coverage, reported again on the nightly ”news” [because they have nothing better to cover, as far as they can tell, unless a golf star is caught with his putter in the wrong hole, or a politician is caught with his pants on a politically incorrect bedpost].
A similar result ensued in the Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi Affair: No there there either, when a common sense examination of the case would have indicated that from the outset, before they spent more millions. At least Mitch McConnell stated his position openly; Make sure that Obama is a one term president, an agenda that didn’t quite work out.
As for the Great Email Horrendousonium, they have accused her of doing what numerous other government officials have done in the past, which is – to get away from the dangerously leaky government computer systems, where she made the egregious mistake of mixing government business with the personal, or should that be, they hoped, mixing business with pleasures, or business affairs with personal affairs? Who knows what a fishing trip will catch? There again went more millions of tax money, with the same result.
Now we are being treated to the Clinton Foundation and the Clintons’ Accumulation of Wealth Scandal. Pray tell, what did Ronnie Reagan do after his presidency? Gave speeches and ”wrote” books for big money. What did GHW Bush do? Gave speeches and ”wrote” books for big money. What did Richard Nixon do? Gave speeches and ”wrote” books for big money. What would Jesus do? He would have probably rejected the oh so lucrative book deals, and the wonderfully wealth producing speechifying, resorting instead to outlining the virtues included in the ”Sermon On The Mount,” or reciting some of the ethical concepts derived from the Buddha. Something like what President Carter has been doing. Alas, the Clintons are humans, and not gods, as so many in the blabbering classes keep reminding us.
Yes, I would have much preferred it if the Dimocratic machine had not had the power to steal the primaries from Senator Sanders, but as of now we’re faced with the choice between two weevils, one of which is far more of a worm than the other.
jim crawford
Westwood NJ
Damn right. The Rove Machine or Clinton Machine are skilled and without internet reporting we’d be as informed as Soviets at their nadir.
Keep up the great work at this new site. It’s quickly becoming the best site for real journalism that has been dying a slow death for years.
Free Julian Assange!!!
What a bunch of nonsense. When he wrote “countless Clinton-supporting journalists rushed to express praise for Krugman,” the links Greenwald provides shows exactly one (count ’em) journalist (James Fallows, an ex-Carter Administration official) offering his support, followed by a number of Trump trolls blaming HRC for Watergate, among other scandals.
Which kind of proves the opposite of Greenwald’s rant here–media coverage of Clinton has been relentlessly negative, and most journalists aren’t in thrall to her or her campaign. They would love to take her down. A Harvard Kennedy School study in June found that Hillary Clinton has received far more negative coverage (84% of her news coverage is “negative in tone”) compared to Trump (43%). All Trump has to do is show up and not insult anyone and he gets a A for playing nice. If there’s media bias, it’s for Trump and his crazy, conspiracy theorist alt-right fellow travelers, whose racism and baseless accusations are treated as just another point-of-view in the funhouse mirror of cable tv news.
What this column describes is the propaganda machine at work. Clinton is the establishment candidate, Trump is loathed by the establishment (by the Republican establishment because he’s not conservative enough, and by the Democratic establishment for obvious reasons). So of course the propaganda machine is working overtime to support the establishment candidate and attack her opponent. While everything that Glenn said about Trump is true, he is not the establishment candidate and the establishment hates him.
Well, perhaps the problem is that this ecstatic media-orgy over Clinton and Trump is entirely distracting the American public from more important political debates over the future of our country? Like, do we want to go along with this grossly corrupt Democratic-Republican BS model any longer, or not? And if not, what does that mean?
It means that we’re officially living under a dictatorship, as evidenced by the Dem primaries. Trump and CIinton don’t even appear to be on separate teams, to some of us. I could be wrong but tons of people seem to be coming to that same suspicion independently.
Why do commies always BS?The MSM orgy is only for the Hell Bitch,Trump only gets the shaft,every day in every way.
Know a man by his enemies,and given that his enemies are proven enemies of the USA,(unless one thinks continual war,trade steals that impoverish our people,open borders which kill jobs for Americans,healthcare for profit, a nation divided by zionist BS,etc etc etc are good)the only possible vote by an American patriot is for Trump.
The same fox that has come out for the HB.sheesh.Why do think they are firing non go along get a longs?
You don’t get discussions about real issues from corporate media; it’s simply not allowed. Corporate media, first and foremost, is in business to make money and therefore won’t piss off its advertisers, and second is a large part of corporate America and fulfills the propaganda function. Places like this are the only ones where real issues are raised.
No one in the media is talking about the huge contribution Trump has made in destroying the Tea Party. He has crushed the Republican establishment while seeming to be far to the left of Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney, and all the old Neo-Cons.
Good points;The Tea Party,.originally a Ron Paul movement,was co-opted by Fox and the rethug establishment into a farce of its former self.
Good riddance to bad brainwashed rubbish.
Yes. I’ve written here and elsewhere that it’s both hilarious and infuriating that many (most?) on the left are freaking out about Trump when he’s actually much better than establishment Republicans or Tea Baggers. Where was the freaking out about Rubio or Cruz, who are much worse? And where’s the freaking out about Clinton, who will push thru the TPP (her lies to the contrary notwithstanding) and is a severe war monger? Instead, foolish and/or ignorant people freak out about superficialities, like the ridiculous and hateful crap that comes out of Trump’s mouth. This stuff is more of a distraction than anything.
Reporters have the right and obligation to INVESTIGATE every single dollar that goes into the Clinton Foundation and the campaign and anything else they want. They do not get to publish stories with wildly exaggerated if not outright false headlines full of rumors and bad numbers like some newspapers and the AP have been doing in the past couple weeks without being called out on it. Remember, the business of news requires a close race.
Nowhere in this article does it acknowledge that coverage of Hillary Clinton has been very critical but also been poorly done (for the most part). Clinton’s emails and Benghazi are not scandals. The AP post posted a story which was misleading and refused to delete it. Yes, we do need Hillary Clinton-related things to be rigorously scrutinized and exposed in detail by reporters, but that hasn’t really happened because they have been scrutinized for the wrong reasons and detail has sometimes been lacking.
Edward Snowden said that whistleblowing is an act of political resistance (The Intercept, 5-3-16). Unfortunately, few of us have access to state secrets to leverage.
But we do have a vote. Voting for more of the same is cowardice. Taking your vote away from the reigning parties is an act of political resistance.
This is our revolution. Vote third party.
Waste of a vote. Third parties are nonsense in our political system that don’t have any effects on politics whatsoever. Just vote for the leftiness that is practical. If it’s between a crazy republican and a moderate republican, vote the moderate republican. Not that hard.
I don’t understand why liberals constantly come up with rationalizations that amount to “we’ll win as long as we lose over and over again.”
No wonder you don’t understand. You don’t realize that Hillary Clinton winning the presidency contradicts your premise. Hillary Clinton winning the presidency is “losing over and over again.”
Thanks for pointing out that we don’t have a two party system but a one party system–the choice between “a crazy republican and a moderate republican” as you say.
So my point is, don’t vote for either of the “Republicans” (or as I call them, Demopublicans.) Vote for one of the NON-Republican candidates. Duh.
I’m a huge fan of yours Glenn – been reading you for well over a decade – but while I agree with the principle you’re arguing here I think your oversimplification of the real world is leading you into error. My argument is:
– Clinton is held to a different (and much higher) standard than Trump for some reason.
– Whatever else is true, Clinton has been subjected to excessive scrutiny over the years – much of it baseless and highly political in nature – and it all cases she has been largely exonerated. In other words there is a discernable pattern to her treatment that bears noting in relation to the current issue.
– the longstanding media narrative that Clinton is corrupt is driven in large part by lazy media memes and deliberate Republican propaganda efforts. She might be corrupt – of course – but her historical records suggests it to be unlikely.
There is real journalistic value in drawing the public’s attention to all of the above, just as there is real value to investigating the latest accusations.
Why is this, or something similar, such a popular preface to a supposed disagreement with Glenn?
Do you think that your claim (and or the similar claims of others), that you’re a huge fan, or respected, or used to respect, or had been reading you for years, or really enjoyed your writing even pre-Snowden, or read you all of the time when you were on Salon makes your argument seem more sincere or credible than if you had just dispensed with the “huge fan” poppycock?
None of the above Kitt – I’m just a huge fan of Glenn’s. Is that OK with you?
I could not resist
Over at the Hillary campaign, a question of this nature should be a cause for celebration. While her various lapses in memory may have set her back politically this week, at least she can sleep well at night knowing half the country doesn’t think she’s going to be carried out of the White House in a body bag if she becomes president. Or do they? Perhaps it’s time someone should ask.
Last month someone did, and he was banished from the Puffington Host.(sic)
‘C’ is for Concussion, Conspiracy, Coughing, and Clinton.
James Tarington
Update!!!
Assange Makes his move operative code is C
Julian Assange: We Have Thousands of Cables Hillary Signed with “C” for Confidential- She Told FBI She Didn’t Know What It Meant
Jim Hoft Sep 6th, 2016 10:21 pm 45 Comments
assange cable hillary
WIkileaks founder Julian Assange told Sean Hannity tonight his organization will release several batches of Hillary Clinton emails in the coming weeks. Assange said Wikileaks may release the first batch next week.
Julian Assange also told Sean Wikileaks has thousands of cables Hillary Clinton signed with a “c” that designated it as classified confidential.
She lied to the FBI about that too.
Cable signed Clinton with clear “C” marking, one of thousands, yet she told FBI she doesn’t know what “C” means. pic.twitter.com/yVkJr7m5NP
— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) September 7, 2016
Julian Assange: I just want to say one thing, in the FBI report released Friday I agree with your analysis. It is very strange that it was released Friday afternoon on a Labor weekend. I do think it brings up questions to what sort of game the FBI is trying to play. But Hillary Clinton says she can’t remember what a “c” in brackets stands for. Everyone in positions of government and in Wikileaks knows it stands for ‘classified confidential.’
And in fact we have already released thousands of cables by Hillary Clinton. Here she is “Clinton” see, that’s her signature. With a “c” in brackets right there. We have thousands of examples where she, herself has used this “c” in brackets and signed it off. And more than 22,000 times that she has received cables from others with this “c” in brackets.
maybe someone might ask her who william jefferson clinton is. or how she spells her name. DIMENTIA is what i am seeing, and hearing and reading.
Hillary is just faking dementia until after the election.
“DIMENTIA is what i am seeing,”
I see it as ultra drunk. She’s got the figure for it too.
Alcoholic dementia perhaps?
Better than in TRUMP world where “C” stood for COLORED, a code marked on rental applications by agents at TRUMP’S apartment complexes to signal that those particular applicants were black! Trump was forced to settle TWO housing discrimination suits brought by the Nixon administration.
On top of that, the lawyer Trump chose to represent him in these cases was none other than Joseph McCarthy’s lawyer, the villainous and vicious Roy Cohn. Not only did Cohn, one of the most thoroughly evil figures in American history, became TRUMP’s lawyer, he also became his closest advisor and mentor until his death in 1986.
I found the twitter essay I referenced earlier:
https://twitter.com/AnandWrites/status/768176116993560576
.
.
.
.
.
.
Thank you so much for posting this. I have a friend who intones “Those that the gods would destroy, first they make mad with power.”
From Zerohedge and Politico
This is how they have been moving the goal posts to maintain the illusion Hillary is winning.
The tweaking of algorithms is not hard. Keep tweaking until you get the result your network is being paid handsomely for.
The same methodololgy used by the WH and USBLS and the Fed to paint an awesome economy
And so, as Politico reports, MSNBC decided another tweak was required:
“Too Many Whites” – MSNBC ‘Tweaks’ CNN Poll To Show Hillary Back In The Lead
In a presidential campaign notable for its negativity, the option of “Neither” candidate appears to be an appealing alternative, at least to participants in the Reuters/Ipsos opinion poll.
Many voters on both sides have been ambivalent in their support for Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton and Republican nominee Donald Trump, complicating the task of the pollsters trying to track the race.
That sentiment may help explain an apparent skew that recently emerged in the Reuters/Ipsos poll results. Given the choice, a relatively large group of voters opted for “Neither/Other” candidate compared with other major polls, leading to an underreporting of several percentage points for one or other of the two major contenders at times in the race.
As a result, Reuters/Ipsos is amending the wording of the choice and eliminating the word “Neither,” bringing the option in line with other polls.
And order was restored with Hillary surging into the lead:
News flash: “Private security entities are siccing dogs on people who are practicing their First Amendment rights, and there is no coverage of it.”
Hillary Clinton is a big booster of fracking and of the corporate-financial interests behind it.
Is this why the corporate media is refusing to cover the standoff, legal and physical, in North Dakota? Is this not in line with the domestic liberal agenda of Hillary Clinton, as sold to the public? Why hasn’t Obama intervened in the North Dakota pipeline saga?
Who owns the North Dakota Bakken leases? Who is building the Dakota pipeline? Who will profit off shipping the Dakota oil around the country? Warren Buffet and Berkshire Hathaway are the main movers of the oil; currently via BNSF (Buffett-owned) but Phillips66 is a major partner in Energy Transfer Partners, so he’ll be in on the pipeline as well. Funny how DN! never mentioned Warren Buffett, no, nor Whiting Petroleum and Continental Resources, the largest producers and leaseholders in the Bakken fields.
Who owns Continental Resources? Major Wall Street funds like Fidelty, Vanguard and State Street. Gosh, no liberal media coverage of those entities, why not? Why not expose the real nature of Wall Street and its corporate partners? Here’s an example of how careful the media world is on the finance actors backing Hillary Clinton – look at who isn’t mentioned:
http://www.democracynow.org/2016/9/6/whos_investing_in_the_dakota_access
And that’s the ‘alternative media!’ – I bet you’ve never even heard of State Street in relation to Hillary Clinton, have you? Not on the media agenda, is it? Yet State Street was a key backer of Hillary Clinton’s presidential run, and they’re top investors in all the sleaziest corporations – Exxon to Chevron, Lockheed to Northrup, Pfizer to Monsanto. . . funny, isn’t it? Lies, lies, lies. . .
Donald Trump is literally going to appoint one of the biggest frackers, Harold Hamm, as his secretary of energy.
Good lord, get a damn grip.
we are the cattle on their ranch. If hellary is elected and the T3 initiated, we become less than cattle. After all, it they can throw our children into their fony war for profits, and everything else, they’re the slum lords, we’re the slummers.
Hillary Clinton is being handled and here is the video proof:
http://12160.info/video/clinton-cuts-off-informal-press-conference-when-asked-about-cnn?xg_source=activity
Clinton is now allowing some members of the press to fly with her and today she came in to the press area of the plane to say good morning and to take a few questions. She had two handlers with her and I believe Palmieri was one of them.
When a reporter asked “How do you feel about the latest CNN poll showing Trump ahead of you?” And before she had a chance to open her mouth Palmieri cut off the questioning and led Clinton away.
Something stinks here. No press conference for nearly 300 days where there can be a free-wheeling to and fro with the press and the second a reporter asks her an uncomfortable question her handlers grab her and and lead her to the back of the plane like a puppet on a set of strings.
I would have been embarrassed if I were Clinton. I would NEVER allow these underlings to even be with me when I talked with the press. The fact that they have the power to gag her and gag the media is deeply concerning to me.
Who is the candidate for President? Clinton or Palmieri?
Tim Kaine, if the rumors of her ill health are true. Thus it can be said, that Hillary intends to raise Kaine in this election (Sorry, I couldn’t resist).
My non political wife says he looks and talks like an idiot.(Kaine)
A neutral observation.He’s got an Ass Carter look.
We can’t lose face now!Or show weakness!(first use of nukes)
We’ve morphed into ancient China.
Yes, and all we need is a wall to complete the picture :)
Good one.
Between the neocon neolib war criminal and the neocon neolib war criminal wannabe, Cthulhu looks better and better. No matter who wins the Banksters profits and wealth will be protected at whatever cost to the American people and new wars will be started and old wars in Libya, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Somalia. Afghanistan, etc., will continue indefinitely.
Thanx Hillary we are all now terrorists , extremists, racist at that . unpatriotic Putin lovers. All renown medical experts who call, what you visibly show us that escapes the editing room, closet quacks.
From Breitbart..that dreadful den of right wing iniquity..sounds about right.
Caddell said he never thought Clinton’s strategy of assaulting populist leaders or websites such as Breitbart News, was “not necessarily smart.”
“What she is doing is trying to brand everyone as an extremist, versus her political class, what she would consider mainstream,” he said. “But voters consider it the political class that has screwed them.”
Caddell said this merely emphasizes that Clinton “doesn’t understand the country, and that she represents a political class – by the way, Democrats and Republicans alike in DC, the Bush legacy as well as the Clinton legacy people – who are all in bed together at maintaining an order in this country in which they benefit, in which the rules are different for them, as we have seen on the emails and others, and everybody else takes the hindpost.”
He included the mainstream media in that corrupt order, criticizing them for “no longer defending the people’s right to know, and investigating power, but serving as the outriders of the political class and attempting to suppress whatever news would be harmful, to the extent they can.”
I read Glenn for his brilliantly insightful analysis and intrepid objectivity (speaking of truly and genuinely brave journalists ). As a bonus, I enjoy his sense of dark humor and witty sarcasm. May be it is just me, but they too have been getting better and better recently (honestly,no sarcasm intended). I find that quite delightful! Keep up the good work, Glenn. You’re a beacon of light in this dark universe.
The Clinton Foundation (CF) provides PR support to a group called AGRA (http://tinyurl.com/j4sdbbl) in Africa; AGRA promotes Monsanto GMO products (http://tinyurl.com/gsw3bzv); CF receives donations from Monsanto (http://tinyurl.com/mmoozp7). Monsanto lobbyists also supported Sec’y Clintons presidential compaign. It is obvious corruption. But it doesn’t make front-page news in any major outlet.
Trying to undertand how the same person who claims that looking into Putin and Russia’s possible connection to Trump is nothing but McCartyism, can preach at the pulpit of “rigorously scrutinized and exposed in detail by reporters”.
No, you’re not.
This is truly one of the most delusional stories I’ve ever read on the internet and by a guy who used to have great integrity. Is it really possible that Greenwald is suffering from such severe cognitive dissonance that he cannot even perceive the most basic facts. Hillary doesn’t get enough negative coverage? Huh? What we are watching as the media combs over and over Hil and Bill and becomes even more frustrated as they, like Mr. Greenwald, are certain that there must be corruption here… but lo and behold, no matter how many times, Mr. Greenwald, goes at it, nothing turns up. Perhaps it’s the plutocratic cash that funds him, but no matter he cares not a wit about the facts. Perhaps if he were back at the Guardian somebody or something would hold him accountable and write the words that Jill Abramson, former Times editor and investigative reporter wrote:
“Hillary Clinton is fundamentally honest and trustworthy.
The yardsticks I use for measuring a politician’s honesty are pretty simple. Ever since I was an investigative reporter covering the nexus of money and politics, I’ve looked for connections between money (including campaign donations, loans, Super Pac funds, speaking fees, foundation ties) and official actions. I’m on the lookout for lies, scrutinizing statements candidates make in the heat of an election. .. There are no instances I know of where Clinton was doing the bidding of a donor or benefactor.
As for her statements on issues, Politifact, a Pulitzer prize-winning fact-checking organization, gives Clinton the best truth-telling record of any of the 2016 presidential candidates. She beats Sanders and Kasich and crushes Cruz and Trump, who has the biggest “pants on fire” rating and has told whoppers about basic economics that are embarrassing for anyone aiming to be president. (He falsely claimed GDP has dropped the last two quarters and claimed the national unemployment rate was as high as 35%).”
Well, hello there, Jimmy! Change of shift, eh? I wrote about you already today, and your co-worker, Karen.
Lol, that was excellent, thanks Mona.
[curtsy]
How’s the trust fund coming, Mona? Must be nice, living off the sweat of others, not giving a damn that the white privilege that you support, the other white trust funder, will send six million people out of the country and destroy families. But here’s the thing, Mona, which will surely make you vote for Hil without ever admitting it of course, your pal Bone Spurs is not only going to double the military budget, as that would be good for business, but he’s too ignorant and impulsive and uninformed to do anything but crash the market. And if that happens, maybe you’ll actually have to get a job rather than live off the sweat of others. I’m reaching for the kleenex right now. Boo Hoo!
Ach, Jimmy, again with that “trust fund” weirdness?
I know the Clinton script calls for dropping the phrase “White Messiah” re: Bernie Sanders, and accusing his supporters of being racists & and etc. — all that you’ve dutifully spewed per your directions. We’ve seen that before around the online world.
But until you came along I hadn’t run into the “trust fund” thingie.
Satisfy my curiosity. Is that in a formal talking point? Is it newish?
I understand how you feel. Now, can you kindly tell us exactly when, he began to lose his “integrity” for you? Illustrate the moment when Mr. Greenwald threw out his integrity. And elaborate as much as you like, and don’t forget to tell us what you think about Hillary’s impregnable integrity. Or Bill’s.
Please, no, not that!
Glenn Greenwald
1) He bashed Sony Corp., then he praised the same corporation after receiving a paycheck from them.
2) He carefully attempts to portray Obama as an US president bombing countries just because they are predominently Muslims
3) He wrote several articles about the Brazilian impeachment in which he withheld pertinent information, distorted facts, and even lied.
Nobody expects integrity from politicians.
You gonna prove that allegation, or are we supposed to take shit you make up in your head as gospel?
Give me one line from any Greenwald article where he says Obama bombs countries “because” they’re predominantly Muslim.
Yeah, and you are a concubine in the Saudi Royal family. You see that? I don’t have to prove shit either. I can just make statements and think I’m cool.
He lost his integrity the moment he chose to forget that Hillary Clinton has been the subject of aggressive journalistic inquiry for over 25 years.
When did he forget that? Just because he’s looking at her shady dealings, doesn’t mean he forgot that. Has Hillary been hounded by republicans and right wing journalists throughout her political career? Sure. Does that absolve her of all her shady dealings with the Oil and Gas industry, her push for Fracking across the world?
Let me ask you something. Do you like fish in the sea, or do you like Hillary? Which one do you like better?
How does it feel to be a soulless shill for a corrupt and soulless pol? Just curious.
A “soulless pol” that Glenn Greenwald just back handedly endorsed by means of his lesser of two evils metric.
More fuckwittery from Karl. Glenn does nothing in a “back-handed” manner. If he endorsed Hillary Clinton, he’d do it straightforwardly. He has not.
No matter how you slice it, there are only two candidates with a shot of winning the presidency, Trump or Hillary. The third party candidates have all they can do to just get the 15% of the vote in opinion polls that is required to be included in any debate with Donald Trump and Clinton. Greenwald’s lesser-of-two-evils synopsis leaves only one viable candidate, Hillary. This timely synopsis just happens to fit hand in glove with Omidyar’s longstanding, deep pocket opposition to Trump. Yes, it is nice to have a measure of plausible deniability when publishing opinions that have a very real potential of actually tipping the scales in Hillary’s favor in what has become a very tight race (Don’t blame me, I didn’t endorse her!).
You fucking nitwit, Glenn, like any sane and decent person, is horrified by what Donald Trump says, and the filthy racism and bigotry he has emboldened.
Donald Trump says Edward Snowden should be executed. But sure thing, you moron, the only reason Glenn Greenwald would be appalled by Donald is to please Pierre. [eye roll]
Another set of strawmen from mini-Glenn and another surrender….
Like shooting ducks in a barrel.
You risk the wrath of the moderator for any critique of her guru.
Trust no one but your own self,as everyone else has an angle.
JIMMY!
How is Hellary handling her DIMENTIA? ARICEPT?
thanks for coming bye.
This is a link to a post below by AtheistInChief who has a link to a youtube video by Jim Dore – radiocaster. I had to see it to believe it. After seeing it, i felt like i was no longer in America, but maybe egypt or palestine or israel or some other 3rd world nightmare.
Regardless of who you support for president, this is scary stuff.
How bad does wallstreet want to run the planet? this bad…
https://theintercept.com/2016/09/06/the-unrelenting-pundit-led-effort-to-delegitimize-all-negative-reporting-about-hillary-clinton/?comments=1#comment-277591
follow his link to youtube and prepare for shock therapy.
Or just click here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5uFw_vaPfN4
One more reason to vote Jill Stein.
Of course you can’t prove quid pro quo most of the time, but the people screaming scandal might be a bit more convincing if they could produce an example of the State Department doing something it wouldn’t normally otherwise do that lined up with a Clinton Foundation donation.
I haven’t seen a single such example. Selling arms to the Saudis? We’ll always do that. We want them to be strong enough to act as a check on Iran.
Homeopathy?
Anti-WIFI?
Anti-vaccination?
GMO Conspiracy Theories?
So many to choose from. She’s a doctor from Harvard.
We witnessed the Iraqi implosion during the gulf war, Baghdad Bob kept preaching the company line as US tanks were rolling into Baghdad.
The USA MSM media journalists are the students of Baghdad Bob!
How else can they claim Hellary is ahead?
How else can they ignore the fact that her SUV has a wheelchair lift and the entourage is followed by an ambulance?
How else can they ignore that the Clinton Foundation was a grifter’s paradise?
How else do they ignore that Bill is identical to Bill Cosby?
How else do they ignore the Clinton Death List?
Buddy Clinton and I both agree with Mr. Greenwald, nothing Hillary Clinton has ever done compares to Trump’s mean words.
I’m actually starting to feel a little bit sorry for Brock’s minions that come over here to do their little propos for $12/hour.
I mean they come with the best they got and the absurdity of their shit just gets them splattered all over the walls of this place in about an hour. Better trolls please. I mean the Hillary Clinton is probably going to win in a rout, and at this point, I’m guessing the vast majority of the readership here has made up their minds how they will vote. And nothing you say or do will dissuade them. So when you come and try all you end up doing is embarrassing yourself by dropping a Baby Ruth into the pool and yelling “ooooohhhhh doooodyyyyy”.
And in answer to the guy asking below my vote preference will go like this:
1) Jill Stein
2) Vermin Supreme
3) Deez Nuts
4) Write-in Bernie Sanders
I mean here’s a guy who knows how to troll someone and make it fun, interesting and accurate.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/how-donald-trump-lost-his-mojo-w438162
I’m just barging into your conversation.
My vote preference:
Jill Stein- Green Party
Gloria LaRiva- Party of Socialism and Liberty
Rolling Stone is a Zionist owned propaganda rag,(Wenner)and most stories from them are total concern troll BS.
The only poll that matters is Nov.8.
Have you seen pictures from Trump events and HB ones?
Wishful thinking is a job for children at Christmas.
Which Trump,btw,says is coming back!woo woo.
For the most part, we ignore each other. I think that’s a very good rule of thumb for us to continue to observe, because I’m not sure we have anything meaningful to discuss here in these threads.
You know what,I agree,that’s why I usually don’t react to your pompous BS.
But quoting serial liars as veracity just made me lose my reason for a second.(or 2)
Have a nice day.
None of you understand how hard it is to be Hillary.
Krugman sucks as an editor and should consider a job at McDonalds
Wel… I have to say… for almost a minute there, I couldn’t stop laughing.
And I thank you sir.
I used to be such a fan of Krugman’s. The man is prime example of the descent of a person’s moral standards, even when you’ve made it in the world, and have a cushy job at Princeton, getting paid by The Times, etc. You still can’t help but dream of that cabinet position, in the Clinton Administration.
How Edward Snowden escaped Hong Kong
Just read this. For the first time, the two weeks Ed Snowden spent hidden in Hong Kong, and the people who helped him, is told. The sheer number of brave and courageous people moved me to tears: Snowden’s fear and courage, and the bravery of some of the poorest and wretched of this Earth.
Absolutely incredible. Thank you very much for the link and filling in those two harrowing weeks. Not so sure about the soon to be released ‘Snowden’ from Oliver Stone. It’s already been done. It’s called ‘Citizenfour’ and it can’t be beat. ;o)
I’m looking forward to the Stone film, in part because I’ve never before seen someone I know well portrayed in film. The small clip I saw of Zachary Quinto as Glenn Greenwald certainly captured his manner and intensity. But also Joseph Gordon-Levitt looks great as Snowden, and there are things I didn’t know about Snowden that the film will reveal. (The article says Snowden cooperated in making the movie.)
But yeah, that description of how Snowden hid out in some of the worst parts of Hong King for two weeks — terrified — and the desperate circumstances of those brave people helping him, just really moved me.
For those of us who’re familiar with Glenn’s body language, from tv and youtube, I think Zachary is going to be a disappointment. Glenn is so “in your face.” I can’t see Mr. Quinto doing that. But who knows. Levitt seems like a pretty good Snowden. But I’m looking forward to the film. I love Oliver Stone.
Read this story about the Stone movie. “Edward Snowden’s Long, Strange Journey to Hollywood.” I think it’s going to work out well after all. I had been concerned but am now mostly convinced that it’s going to be a fine movie which will tell the story well and will depict the main characters realistically and true.
Kitt, thanks for that, what a fascinating article. All this time I’d only known that Stome optioned that dreadful Luke Harding book, but pretty obviously this film draws from much more than that, primarily from Snowden himself.
This is all interesting, quoting Glenn:
That’s exactly right. Oliver Stone, on a long good day, is the right director for a Snowden film.
And this made me laugh:
Well, that’s not really wrong. Quinto didn’t meet Glenn, and studied him by watching his TeeVee appearances. So, yeah, intense, and also angry. Not appearing all soft and lovey snuggling with his 14 doggies and offering a banana to the monkey that lives on their roof. HAHAHA
Quinto did meet Glenn in person, once, on Bill Maher’s show, where they were both guests. I remember watching it.
He referenced it recently at the San Diego Comic Con, which screened the Snowden movie, and had a panel of the participants. Also says he wants to visit Glenn in Brazil ;-)
Short clip from panel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-ZBFHca95Y
Full panel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOM4DFk7Mk4
That was a great read. Thanks Kitt. And Mona, I enjoyed the whole zachary Quinto intensity thing too, hahah. And I agree its gonna be the wrong way to play Glenn. Glenn is attitude, intensity, fearlessness and presence. If Quinto plays him just angry, it’s going to be horrible :(
Incredible, but I’m thinking more in the literal sense of the term. The U.S. sat around twiddling its thumbs until he was in Russia, then intentionally marooned one of their biggest loose cannons in the intelligence industry in their most dangerous rival? Snowden just happened to have a lawyer on hand who was willing to participate in a scheme of falsely booking flights in order to help him evade capture by U.S. authorities, when ordinary amnesty seekers weren’t safe to let him visit for tea? I still don’t believe it, no more than I believe he really had the keys to the kingdom and yet hasn’t dropped one story about what the free virus checkers on your computer are doing for the NSA. I think the whole thing was their operation from beginning to end, meant to transition their “secret” intelligence into courtrooms as evidence.
If you perceive the Presidential election as a game show.. it all makes sense.
I think a major frustration for people like myself who thought this was a pivotal time in our country to jettison insider politics, literally a critical time is – not only did our candidate not win, but because Trump is legitimately the “Great Satan”, we can’t even have a conversation about what is wrong with the candidate that did win. Which is to say, the very problem with insider politics altogether.
Suddenly all talk of how we’re electing someone who is hawkish, marginally progressive, and quite literally a prime example of elite beltway politics has to end in the name of protecting us from the greater evil of Trump.
It’s hard enough that we didn’t win, in part because of insider machinations (which is not to say Sanders would have one anyway), but now we can’t even lick our wounds in public lest we be providing aid and comfort to the enemy.
But this also misses the core problem – people are attracted to Trump and were attracted to Sanders exactly because they are tired of insider politicians and their two-faced policies where the little guy always seems to lose. Yeah, awesome now we’re looking to not elect Trump, but we are looking to elect exactly the kind of person that caused everyone to at some level, rightly to flock to him.
google top rated headlines today
Hillary swallows a 2-edged sword..
“NRA endorses Democrat for Missouri governor”
? Dems now courting the right wing nra for votes, or more guns?
VP playing the fear card..
“Tim Kaine: ‘Trump As Commander-in-Chief Scares Me To Death'”
? Hillary too more afraid of The Donald than she is of her own arms dealing and warmongering?
I don’t doubt that Trump is as corrupt as it gets–he has spoken quite plainly about his having donated money to politicians and them eagerly responding when he “needed something”. That said, the $25K donation to our Florida AG, Pam Bondi, is risibly tiny. That amount would barely cover the first two days of a typical Bondi luxury boondoggle, as the NYT reported many moons ago, in one of those “disgusting-but-unsurprising” pieces about the nation’s attorneys general being wined, dined, and wooed (in serious style) by the wealthy and apparently well-connected who stood to directly benefit from said AGs’ decisions. So I’m thinking, the $25K was just the “amuse-bouche”; the larger donations–likely offshore deposits and long weekends at whichever beach hotel whenever she felt like visiting her money–were not then, and will not ever be, disclosed.
To those willing to share,
If the Presidential election was held today – and as is the case now, neither of the third party candidates hits the 15% threshold – who would you vote for and who would be your second choice out of Trump, Clinton, Stein, and Johnson?
No need to judge or ridicule anyone. I’ll start:
1. Clinton
2. Johnson
1. —
2. Johnson or Stein; which ever I think is likely to do best in my state based on available polls at that time.
Even though they are total ideological opposites?
Foreign policy. If you believe, as I do, that some of our worst recent domestic ills can be traced backwards to foreign policy, you might find a defense of my position.
@ TallyHoGazehound
This is why I could never vote for a libertarian of Johnson’s ilk (libertarian of the Chomsky variety is quite a bit different) because I believe they are incoherent loopy cranks not too different from garden variety tea baggers and conservatives cranks particularly in terms of economic ideology.
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/09/gary-johnson-libertarian-president-new-mexico-governor-record/
Better in some ways on things like drug legalization, marriage equality and foreign policy, but short of that–incoherent human beings that largely believe incoherent atomized individualistic nonsense.
Now if you’re voting for Johnson to bring him to a certain national vote threshold for future ballot access or matching funds or debate access or something like that, and he/she has no chance of winning, I see nothing wrong with picking the third party candidate who has the most support and most likely to breach those thresholds, but ideologically I could never align with someone like Johnson except on discreet isolated issues. So short of those I wouldn’t touch that crank with a ten foot pole.
So I will make my pitch for Vermin Supreme: Vermin Supreme believes in expending government funds to study time travel (to go back and kill baby Hitler before being born saving the lives of 10s of millions), zombie apocalypse preparedness, government funds for mandatory tooth brushing laws, guarantees of a pony for each and every American, and he wears a rubber boot on his head while campaigning. If there is a more honest (albeit performance artist nutty) potential politician in America I don’t know who it is.
1.Stein
2.Stein
1. Stein
2. Trump
1. Stein
2. Johnson
Because this is not about who wins the presidency; it’s about how we do democracy. It’s time to seriously consider third party candidates because the two mainstream parties have colluded to keep themselves in power for so long now that they barely even pretend to represent the interests of the people.
A vote for the Clinton or Trump is a throwaway vote. If you really want your vote to count, vote third party.
“Because this is not about who wins the presidency; it’s about how we do democracy.”
Wake up, America.
1. Stein
2. None of the above
1) Stein
2) Write-in Vermin Supreme
3) Write-in Deez Nuts
4) Write-in Bernie Sanders
Why are you voting for THOSE losers. The obvious choice is right in front of you. Yes, I am running on the Minimum Qualifications party, so you are certainly free to give all your votes and donations (corporate interest aren’t giving ME money, that’s for sure!) to me. And Lord knows I’ll be just as effective as as getting proposals passed as Jill Stien. So support Jon Dubya 2016: The name you can vote for!
Thanks all for responding.
1st Choice
Stein: 4 votes (including TallyHo)
Clinton: 1 vote
2nd Choice
Johnson: 3 votes
Trump: 1 vote
None: 1 instance
All 5 respondents?sheesh,sounds fixed to me.:)
Send it to Rasmussen,Pew or Gallup.
1. Stein
2. Leave the ballot unmarked. Read the Jacobin story about Johnson’s record in NM as governor. Nope and nope.
1. Stein
2. Clinton
Nice read and fair points.
Yesterday, Hillary Clinton and her campaign were caught lying again by the alt-right.
Clinton and her campaign said she had the coughing fit because allergens were high.
This was a lie, they were not high. The air quality was good and allergens were low to mild, not high. Also, “allergies” usually don’t lead to you coughing up large amounts of phlegm. A rather disgusting video circulating on Twitter clearly shows her coughing up large amounts of phlegm into the glass of water. You could hear the nasty stuff rattle around when she coughs as well. This is disgusting but the point is, once again, she and her campaign are lying.
Why has she had bronchitis since 2008? Is anybody going to investigate that?
I have no doubt who will be running the country once they cart Hillarys body across the finish line in a wheel barrow. Commanding the field troops and Press corp to believe…not suggest mind you, while her 24/7 doctor administers diazepram , known to be addictive, is reminiscent of the Emperors Robe. No one must laugh at the Emperors nakedness, on pain of death.
We are supposed to stay in this state of delusion until after the election.
No one will be allowed to see what she coughed up on her Labor Day speech.
http://16004-presscdn-0-50.pagely.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/horse-pills-hillary.jpg
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/09/gross-hillary-clinton-now-spitting-horse-pills-rally-video/
I am quite certain that was not a Ludens cough drop.
The journalistic term for this Glenn Greenwald essay is “hackery.” Let’s start with the NYT, since Paul Krugman’s (apt) column inspired Greenwald’s mess. How many Clinton Foundation stories, none finding any pay-to-play, has the NYT run? And how many Trump Foundations stories, in which malfeasance has been proven? Answer: Trump 0, Clinton godknowshowmany.
Nobody, and I do mean NOBODY, has advocated a scrutiny-free election season for Clinton, as Greenwald idiotically claims at the conclusion to his screed. He would do better to scrutinize the both Foundations than waste his time on such dribble.
If you’re going to be an apologist can you at least do it correctly?
You’re looking for the word “drivel”, not dribble. Now carry on with your apology tour.
Hmmm. “Dribble” is decidedly British to my ear. Maybe David Brock had to cross the pond to find a sufficient number of HRC supporters to cover all the bases.
Ah, the paid Clinton troll spews again:
Pretty damned close, they have. Journalist Bob Cesca. Glenn links to his tweet above. Cesca claims that to publish criticism of Hillary Clinton is a vote for Donald Trump. And, plenty more than Cesca act as if that’s what they believe.
Moreover, on Twitter I’ve seen Glenn ask the same question of many: “Can you link to a a ‘fair’ journalistic critique of Hillary Clinton?” It would appear there is no such thing.
Is Jimmy now assigned to a different site? Or do you two take turns here?
Well to be fair to Karen, when you’re working for Brock’s shop, and the big boss is only advocating for a $12 minimum wage (and $15 where “economically viable” (if at all)), then you aren’t going to attract the most astute apologists on $12/hour.
Then again who wouldn’t want to back the return of this guy, who after just a couple of decades as a “public servant” became an excellent private servant.
A little over $3 million a year, to what, lend your name and make some introductions?
Of course it isn’t “quid pro quo” corruption or anything like that, just a well liked former President cashing in financially on his notoriety as a public servant. And of course any red-blooded American civil servant would gladly jump at such a chance–assuming of course “ethics” was a foreign word or concept to them.
I mean that really has become America’s ethos at this point–be a public servant for a decade and become a millionaire, because hey, you ain’t shit unless you can parlay a job with lifetime benefits off the backs of the American taxpayer into some serious scratch in the private sector doing nothing or sharing your deep deep thoughts on reforming education of which you know nothing about (at least nothing good).
I’d say it is a sick joke what Bill Clinton is doing, but it’s reality. But when you can’t practice law anymore because your ethical obligations under oath seemed like a foreign concept to you, what the hell else are you going to do except get into hedge funds like the Clinton’s son-in-law?
Now of course Mezvinsky’s folks were both democratic politicians, and Edward Mezvinsky, Chelsea Clinton’s father-in-law:
Not that such an ethical lapse as fraud stopped Mr. Edward Mezvinsky from working for Goldman Sachs or getting into the hedge fund business. I mean that’s an industry that has never heard of the word ethics.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/inside-bill-clintons-nearly-18-million-job-as-honorary-chancellor-of-a-for-profit-college/2016/09/05/8496db42-655b-11e6-be4e-23fc4d4d12b4_story.html?postshare=8081473119605294&tid=ss_tw
Did you read the article? Did you miss the part where Jon Ralston (the supposed dean of Nevada politics, according to Rachel Maddow) tweets that “No one in the media should do another story remotely questioning anything Hillary has done until the NYT accuses Trump of bribery on Page 1″ as if one thing has anything to do with the other. Have you seen Peter Daou’s tweets about how talking about the fact that her highness doesn’t hold press conferences, has to do with her gender? Are you completely out of your f’kn mind?
When Glennwald is right, he’s right.
Dear Mr. Greenwald,
I suppose it all comes down to who ‘the lesser evil’ happens to be and, in my view, Hillary is the absolute evil. Yes, it’s a sorry state of affairs but it happens to be where we are and Hillary must be stopped or we won’t have a country and quite possibly an inhabitable planet to live on if somebody this incompetent, reckless and irresponsible is allowed to sit on the US throne.
So, regardless of what else Donald Trump may be doing once he gets elected, his most important accomplishment of his presidency would be his stopping Hillary’s access to absolute power.
So, yes, Trump is not ‘the best’ but I will vote for him because he will be preventing ‘great evil’ from taking over. And no, I’m not a GOP hack. I couldn’t stand Double-Crap after I couldn’t stand Hillary’s husband. And I did vote for O’Bomba because McCain was at that time, by far, the greater evil. In fact, I registered Democrat back in 2008 so that I could vote for O’Bomba in the primary and help stop Hillary then.
As a paid Trump troll, you should probably stop with the “O’Bomba” smear.
They don’t have them. Neither did Bernie Sanders. Only Hillary Clinton has needed them. Millennials — the ones who tend to keep political discussion alive online — generally can’t stand her. And of those older people active online, she’s still dealing with a huge enthusiasm gap.
And so she’s had to hire people like you to say silly things to her many online critics.
Karen … YOUR current president happens to be smeared among those who see things in a 3-D reality-based world. Toot his horn as you wish but remember; Obama has made a lot of firsts …
For example, Obama:
Has prosecuted more whistleblowers than all other presidents combined
Sentenced whistleblowers to 31 times the jail time of all prior u.s. presidents combined
Prosecuted fewer financial crimes than President Reagan, Clinton or either of the Bush presidents. (As bad as the Bush administration was, they at least prosecuted the heads of Enron, Worldcom and some other white collar crooks. In contrast, Obama hasn’t prosecuted even one high-level Wall Street executive.)
Is the most secretive president ever
Is more hostile to the press than any president in history
Claims the power to strip Americans’ liberty in a way that no other president has ever tried to claim … and that even King George of England didn’t claim. Indeed, Obama has rolled back some of our liberties to the time of the enactment of the Magna Carta in 1215
Has turned America into the most spied upon nation in world history (and see this and this)
Has arguably centralized power more than any other president
Has granted less pardons than any president since Garfield, who served only 200 days as president before being assassinated in 1881
May be the only U.S. president in history who failed to deliver a single year of at least 3% economic growth (when adjusted for inflation)
In addition, Obama has presided over:
The greatest inequality of any president
The first time in its history that America is viewed as the world’s greatest threat by the people of the world
One of the largest net changes in debt in American history
Perhaps the most corrupt government ever in the U.S.
And as the New York Times once noted, Obama has been at war longer than any president in history. YOUR president, Karen. Sad.
If he really is a Trump troll, then that word should be standard for him, and accepted as such. It shouldn’t be a surprise to you that he uses it. Just like it wouldn’t be a surprise to anybody if you smear people with “sexist,” “mysoginist,” “BernieBro,” “anti-vaxer,” etc. Learn to take it Karen. If you dish it out, you better be able to take it.
I am sorry but… who is trolling here?
Hmmmm?
Obomba means your hero zero bombs innocents with drone missiles(among other weaponry).
It has nothing to do with racism,as Bomba(the jungle boy-great kid books) was white.
Does he not bomb people with drones?In at least 7 nations?
Murder is now praiseworthy?
We need to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine and the Equal Time Rule and have it apply to all forms of media.
I found this edifying :
“When FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski eliminated the Fairness Doctrine along with 82 other “outdated media rules” this week, he was getting rid of a rule that had not been enforced in more than 20 years, even though there were recent calls to resurrect it.
Under the Reagan administration, the FCC killed the Fairness Doctrine (in 1987), doing away with a policy — put in place in 1949 — that required broadcasters to cover controversial issues of public importance and offer contrasting viewpoints on those issues.
“The Fairness Doctrine holds the potential to chill free speech and the free flow of ideas and was properly abandoned over two decades ago,” the Chairman said in the Commission’s press release. “I am pleased we are removing these and other obsolete rules from our books.”
The Fairness Doctrine has been a controversial policy, and there is debate on whether the American media landscape hasn’t suffered from its elimination.
Recently on our program, environmental activist Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. had this to say about the Fairness Doctrine:
“The devolution of the American press began in 1986 when Ronald Reagan abolished the Fairness Doctrine.
We had a law in this country that we passed in 1928 that said that the air waves belong to the public. The broadcasters can be licensed to use them, but only if they use them to promote the public interest, to inform the public and advance democracy. That’s why we have the 6 o’clock news. They didn’t want it. The broadcasters didn’t want that because the news departments were chronic money losers.
But they were forced to put on the news at 6:00 and even today you hear news on the music radio stations and that’s an artifact of the Fairness Doctrine. They said, if you’re using the broadcast air waves, you have to do that…
They no longer have an obligation to serve the public interest. Their only obligation is to their shareholders. They serve that obligation not by informing us, telling us the things we need to understand to make rational decisions in a democracy, but rather by entertaining us…
We know we’re the best entertained, the least informed, people on the face of the world. They got rid of their investigative reporters. 85 percent of them lost their jobs in the last 15 years.
They got rid of their foreign news bureaus so the Bush and Cheney administration can say to the American people, ‘Oh, we’re gonna go into this 800-year-old fist fight in Mesopotamia and they’re gonna meet us with rose petals in the streets’ and the Americans believe them.
The Canadians didn’t believe them because the Canadians still have a Fairness Doctrine…
England has the same kind of rules and in Europe, but in our country, we lost those rules and, as a result, we know a lot about Britney Spears’ gradual emotional decline and we know a lot about Charlie Sheen, but we don’t know much about global warming or the fact that the Appalachian Mountains essentially no longer exist.”
The liberal media ‘s intentions are usually very apparent, I hope more people would be not be susceptible too intentionally stale offense. Does anyone think the media would be so oblivious that their articles against Hillary are not effective?
Paul Krugman is hysterical now. Actually he has been since this campaign started. His fake worries of other journalists criticizing him is a joke. Krugman is a Hillary slave and I don’t understand why. He know she is a war monger and he was against a continuing war and the invasion of Iraq so it makes me think he has been promised something like A-hem, like sec of the treasury. He is certainly desperate and seemingly off his nobel prize head. He knows all of Hillary’s fault. He knows she is a neoliberal on steroids, he knows she is money hungry and being in only the 1% is not good enough for her. He knows she was her husband’s advisors and purposely hurt all those single mothers when Clinton cut off their only cash income. He knows about the prisons and how 50% of them are black when only blacks only make up 10-12% of our population. So he must be waiting for the appointment to the cabinet. Why else would anyone support Hillary?
Hillary is anything but not a feminist. No feminist would treat women the way she does. So if you are voting for her because you think she is a feminist don’t . She is NOT even close.
Especially considering her bowing to Saudi Arabia and doing multi-billion dollar arms deals with them where they are now using these same weapons to murder innocent women and children and men in Yemen.
Plus all the innocent women and little girls and little boys and men she has had a hand in murdering in Honduras, Ukraine, Syria, Libya etc.
She is no feminist, to be sure.
And it is pieces like the following that have led me to believe that Prof. Lemieux isn’t fit to carry Prof. Robin’s jockstrap to political science class (or Prof. Wolin’s for that matter) much less have anything insightful to say on much of anything. Lemieux’s insights are of the most pedestrian quality, not necessarily wrong, but superficial and largely irrelevant to the PS theory canon.
http://coreyrobin.com/2016/09/05/sheldon-wolin-theoretician-of-the-present/
Glenn – you are a true jour