Elon Musk, Matt Taibbi, and a Very Modern Media Maelstrom

I was wondering when this story would hit the big MSM. 

CNN had a piece a day or two ago, but besides that, I've seen no coverage at the other major networks and newspapers.

See, "A release of internal documents from Twitter set off intense debates in the intersecting worlds of media, politics and tech:"

The sleazy, pro-censorship pack of liberal employees of media corporations united last night to attack @mtaibbi -- as they do to any journalist who breaks a real story about real power centers -- and, because they were so desperate to discredit it, showed what they are. Watch: pic.twitter.com/DWEIL70G1h

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) December 3, 2022

It was, on the surface, a typical example of reporting the news: a journalist obtains internal documents from a major corporation, shedding light on a political dispute that flared in the waning days of the 2020 presidential race.

But when it comes to Elon Musk and Twitter, nothing is typical.

The so-called Twitter Files, released Friday evening by the independent journalist Matt Taibbi, set off a firestorm among pundits, media ethicists and lawmakers in both parties. It also offered a window into the fractured modern landscape of news, where a story’s reception is often shaped by readers’ assumptions about the motivations of both reporters and subjects.

The tempest began when Mr. Musk teased the release of internal documents that he said would reveal the story behind Twitter’s 2020 decision to restrict posts linking to a report in the New York Post about Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s son, Hunter.

Mr. Musk, who has accused tech companies of censorship, then pointed readers to the account of Mr. Taibbi, an iconoclast journalist who shares some of Mr. Musk’s disdain for the mainstream news media. Published in the form of a lengthy Twitter thread, Mr. Taibbi’s report included images of email exchanges among Twitter officials deliberating how to handle dissemination of the Post story on their platform.

Mr. Musk and Mr. Taibbi framed the exchanges as evidence of rank censorship and pernicious influence by liberals. Many others — even some ardent Twitter critics — were less impressed, saying the exchanges merely showed a group of executives earnestly debating how to deal with an unconfirmed news report that was based on information from a stolen laptop.

And as with many modern news stories, the Twitter Files were quickly weaponized in service of a dizzying number of pre-existing arguments.

The Fox News host Tucker Carlson, who often accuses liberals of stifling speech, made the claim that the “documents show a systemic violation of the First Amendment, the largest example of that in modern history.” House Republicans, who have called for an investigation into the business dealings of Hunter Biden, asserted with no evidence that the report showed systemic collusion between Twitter and aides to Joe Biden, who was then the Democratic nominee. (Jack Dorsey, Twitter’s chief executive at the time, later reversed the decision to block the Post story and told Congress it had been a mistake.)

Former Twitter executives, who have lamented Mr. Musk’s chaotic stewardship of the company, cited the documents’ release as yet another sign of recklessness. Yoel Roth, Twitter’s former head of trust and safety, said that publicizing unredacted documents — some of which included the names and email addresses of Twitter officials — was “a fundamentally unacceptable thing to do” and placed people “in harm’s way.” (Mr. Musk later said that, in hindsight, “I think we should have excluded some email addresses.”)

The central role of Mr. Taibbi, a polarizing figure in journalism circles, set off its own uproar.

Once a major voice of the political left, Mr. Taibbi rose to prominence by presenting himself as an unencumbered truth teller. He is perhaps best known for labeling Goldman Sachs a “vampire squid” in an article that galvanized public outrage toward Wall Street. But his commentary about former President Donald J. Trump diverged from the views of many Democrats — for instance, he was skeptical of claims of collusion between Russia and Mr. Trump’s campaign — and his fan base shifted.

Skeptics of Mr. Taibbi seized on what appeared to be an orchestrated disclosure. “Imagine volunteering to do online PR work for the world’s richest man on a Friday night, in service of nakedly and cynically right-wing narratives, and then pretending you’re speaking truth to power,” the MSNBC host Mehdi Hasan wrote in a Twitter post.

Mr. Taibbi clapped back on Saturday, writing: “Looking forward to going through all the tweets complaining about ‘PR for the richest man on earth,’ and seeing how many of them have run stories for anonymous sources at the FBI, CIA, the Pentagon, White House, etc.”

Mr. Musk and Mr. Taibbi did not respond to requests for comment.

That Mr. Musk is a fan of Mr. Taibbi, who left Rolling Stone to start a newsletter on Substack, is no big surprise; Mr. Musk often hails the virtues of citizen journalism. On Saturday, in a live audio session on Twitter, Mr. Musk said he was disappointed that more mainstream media outlets had not picked up Mr. Taibbi’s reporting.

The New York Times requested copies of the documents from Mr. Musk, but did not receive a response.

Mr. Musk said on Saturday that he had also given documents to Bari Weiss, a former editor and columnist at The Times whose Substack newsletter, Common Sense, bills itself as an alternative to traditional news outlets. Ms. Weiss declined to comment on Sunday.

The commotion has also generated some odd bedfellows. Mr. Taibbi once compared former President George W. Bush to a “donkey.” On Sunday, his reporting was defended by the House Republican leader, Representative Kevin McCarthy, during an interview on Fox News. “They’re trying to discredit a person for telling the truth,” Mr. McCarthy said of Mr. Musk...

 

The Masking of the Servant Class

It's Glenn Greewald, on Substack, "Ugly COVID Images From the Met Gala Are Now Commonplace: While AOC's revolutionary and subversive socialist gown generated buzz, the normalization of maskless elites attended to by faceless servants is grotesque":

From the start of the pandemic, political elites have been repeatedly caught exempting themselves from the restrictive rules they impose on the lives of those over whom they rule. Governors, mayors, ministers and Speakers of the House have been filmed violating their own COVID protocols in order to dine with their closest lobbyist-friends, enjoy a coddled hair styling in chic salons, or unwind after signing new lockdown and quarantine orders by sneaking away for a weekend getaway with the family. The trend became so widespread that ABC News gathered all the examples under the headline “Elected officials slammed for hypocrisy for not following own COVID-19 advice,” while Business Insider in May updated the reporting with this: “14 prominent Democrats stand accused of hypocrisy for ignoring COVID-19 restrictions they're urging their constituents to obey."

Most of those transgressions were too flagrant to ignore and thus produced some degree of scandal and resentment for the political officials granting themselves such license. Dominant liberal culture is, if nothing else, fiercely rule-abiding: they get very upset when they see anyone defying decrees from authorities, even if the rule-breaker is the official who promulgated the directives for everyone else. Photos released last November of California Governor Gavin Newsom giggling maskless as he sat with other maskless state health officials celebrating the birthday of a powerful lobbyist — just one month after he told the public to “to keep your mask on in between bites” and while severe state-imposed restrictions were in place regarding leaving one's home — caused a drop in popularity and helped fueled a recall initiative against him. Newsom and these other officials broke their own rules, and even among liberals who venerate their leaders as celebrities, rule-breaking is frowned upon.

But as is so often the case, the most disturbing aspects of elite behavior are found not in what they have prohibited but rather in what they have decided is permissible. When it comes to mask mandates, it is now commonplace to see two distinct classes of people: those who remain maskless as they are served, and those they employ as their servants who must have their faces covered at all times. Prior to the COVID pandemic, it was difficult to imagine how the enormous chasm between the lives of cultural and political elites and everyone else could be made any larger, yet the pandemic generated a new form of crude cultural segregation: a series of protocols which ensure that maskless elites need not ever cast eyes upon the faces of their servant class.

Last month, a delightful event was hosted by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) for wealthy Democratic donors in Napa — the same wine region of choice for Gov. Newsom's notorious dinner party — at which the cheapest tickets were $100 each and a "chair” designation was available for $29,000. Video of the outdoor festivities showed an overwhelmingly white crowd of rich Democratic donors sitting maskless virtually on top of one another — not an iota of social distancing to be found — as Pelosi imparted her deep wisdom about public policy.

Pelosi's donor gala took place as millions face eviction, ongoing joblessness, and ever-emerging mandates of various types. It was also held just five days after the liberal county government of Los Angeles, in the name of Delta, imposed a countywide mask requirement for "major outdoor events.” In nearby San Francisco, where Pelosi's mansion is found, the liberal-run city government has maintained a more restrictive outdoor mask policy than the CDC: though masks were not required for outdoor exercising (such as jogging) or while consuming food, the city's rules for outdoor events required “that at any gathering where there are more than 300 people, masks are still required for both vaccinated and unvaccinated people.” Though Pelosi's fundraising lunch fell below the 10,000-person threshold for LA County's outdoor mask mandate, it may have fallen within San Francisco's mask mandate. Either way, it appears arbitrary at best: how would The Science™ of COVID risk have drastically changed for those sitting with no distancing, at densely packed tables, if there had been a few more tables of Pelosi donors? The CDC's latest guidelines for outdoor events urge people to “consider wearing a mask…for activities with close contact with others who are not fully vaccinated.”

Trying to find a cogent scientific rationale for any of this is, by design, virtually impossible. The rules are sufficiently convoluted and often arbitrary that one can easily mount arguments to legally justify the Versailles-like conduct of one's favorite liberal political leaders. Beyond the legalities, everything one does can be simultaneously declared to be responsible or reckless, depending on the political needs of the moment. But what was most striking about Pelosi's donor event was not the possibility of legal infractions but rather the two-tiered system that was so viscerally and uncomfortably obvious.

Even though many of the wealthy white donors had no food in front of them and were not yet eating, there was not a mask in sight — except on the faces of the overwhelmingly non-white people hired as servants, all of whom had their gratuitous faces covered. Servants, apparently, are much more pleasant when they are dehumanized. There is no need for noses or mouths or other identifiable facial features for those who are converted into servile robots...

Still more.

 

Screaming Covid Leftists

Glenn Greenwald:

The primary use of COVID discourse for liberal pundits is to be able to scream more loudly than usual their primary view -- Republicans are primitive, stupid troglodytes -- all while ignoring the actual demographics of who is vaccine hesitant, because those facts ruin their fun: https://t.co/bk1ObEMmh9

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) July 30, 2021

Civil Liberties After January 6th

Green Greewald's written much on this, for example, "Violence in the Capitol, Dangers in the Aftermath" and "Questions About the FBI's Role in 1/6 Are Mocked Because the FBI Shapes Liberal Corporate Media."

More here and here.

And now, Reason jumps on Greenwald's bandwagon.

Watch:

Glenn Greenwald Decries the Left's New 'War on Terror' (VIDEO)

If you're familiar with Glenn Greenwald, he's not necessarily a sympathetic character. But he's been out here for a long time, and for good or bad (sometimes very bad, considering his views on Israel, his collaborations with Julian Assange, etc.), he's consistent. I think for that, in a time like this, folks who normally would ignore him are ready to listen. 

I mean, he's now a regular on Fox News, if you can imagine that. 

With all that said, he's not wrong on this, and it's frightening. 

He's on Substack here, "Violence in the Capitol, Dangers in the Aftermath":

One is that striking at cherished national symbols — the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, the Capitol — ensures rage and terror far beyond body counts or other concrete harms. That is one major reason that yesterday’s event received far more attention and commentary, and will likely produce far greater consequences, than much deadlier incidents, such as the still-motive-unknown 2017 Las Vegas mass shooting that killed 59 or the 2016 Orlando shooting that left 49 dead at the Pulse nightclub. Unlike even horrific indiscriminate shooting sprees, an attack on a symbol of national power will be perceived as an attack on the state or even the society itself.

There are other, more important historical lessons to draw not only from the 9/11 attack but subsequent terrorism on U.S. soil. One is the importance of resisting the coercive framework that demands everyone choose one of two extremes: that the incident is either (a) insignificant or even justifiable, or (b) is an earth-shattering, radically transformative event that demands radical, transformative state responses.

This reductive, binary framework is anti-intellectual and dangerous. One can condemn a particular act while resisting the attempt to inflate the dangers it poses. One can acknowledge the very real existence of a threat while also warning of the harms, often far greater, from proposed solutions. One can reject maximalist, inflammatory rhetoric about an attack (a War of Civilizations, an attempted coup, an insurrection, sedition) without being fairly accused of indifference toward or sympathy for the attackers.

Indeed, the primary focus of the first decade of my journalism was the U.S. War on Terror — in particular, the relentless erosions of civil liberties and the endless militarization of American society in the name of waging it. To make the case that those trends should be opposed, I frequently argued that the threat posed by Islamic radicalism to U.S. citizens was being deliberately exaggerated, inflated and melodramatized.

I argued that not because I believed the threat was nonexistent or trivial: I lived in New York City on 9/11 and remember to this day the excruciating horror from the smell and smoke emanating throughout Lower Manhattan and the haunting “missing” posters appended by desperate families, unwilling to accept the obvious reality of their loved ones’ deaths, to every lamp post on every street corner. I shared the same disgust and sadness as most other Americans from the Pulse massacre, the subway bombings in London and Madrid, the workplace mass shooting in San Bernardino.

My insistence that we look at the other side of the ledger — the costs and dangers not only from such attacks but also the “solutions” implemented in the name of the stopping them — did not come from indifference towards those deaths or a naive views of those responsible for them. It was instead driven by my simultaneous recognition of the dangers from rights-eroding, authoritarian reactions imposed by the state, particularly in the immediate aftermath of a traumatic event. One need not engage in denialism or minimization of a threat to rationally resist fear-driven fanaticism — as Barbara Lee so eloquently insisted on September 14, 2001...

Lots more at that top link.

Glenn Greenwald: Leftist Media Protect Hillary Clinton (VIDEO)

I don't love Greenwald, although at least he's consistent.

At the Intercept, "The Unrelenting Pundit-Led Effort to Delegitimize All Negative Reporting About Hillary Clinton."

Journalists have dispensed with fake neutrality when reporting on Trump. But they shouldn't ignore Clinton's flaws. https://t.co/HZlv9pzJcE

— The Intercept (@theintercept) September 6, 2016

Anonymous Superdelegates Declare Clinton the Democrat Nominee Through the Mass Media

Politico had this back in February, "Sanders supporters revolt against superdelegates."

Too bad their revolt didn't come through.

Here's Glenn Greenwald, at the Intercept, "Perfect End to Democratic Primary: Anonymous Superdelegates Declare Winner Through Media":

This is the perfect symbolic ending to Democratic Party primary, run by insiders and funded by corporate interests. https://t.co/OnjtnMxG8X

— The Intercept (@theintercept) June 7, 2016

LAST NIGHT, the Associated Press — on a day when nobody voted — surprised everyone by abruptly declaring the Democratic Party primary over and Hillary Clinton the victor. The decree, issued the night before the California primary in which polls show Clinton and Bernie Sanders in a very close race, was based on the media organization’s survey of “superdelegates”: the Democratic Party’s 720 insiders, corporate donors, and officials whose votes for the presidential nominee count the same as the actually elected delegates. AP claims that superdelegates who had not previously announced their intentions privately told AP reporters that they intend to vote for Clinton, bringing her over the threshold. AP is concealing the identity of the decisive superdelegates who said this.

Although the Sanders campaign rejected the validity of AP’s declaration — on the ground that the superdelegates do not vote until the convention and he intends to try to persuade them to vote for him — most major media outlets followed the projection and declared Clinton the winner.

This is the perfect symbolic ending to the Democratic Party primary: The nomination is consecrated by a media organization, on a day when nobody voted, based on secret discussions with anonymous establishment insiders and donors whose identities the media organization — incredibly — conceals. The decisive edifice of superdelegates is itself anti-democratic and inherently corrupt: designed to prevent actual voters from making choices that the party establishment dislikes. But for a party run by insiders and funded by corporate interests, it’s only fitting that its nomination process ends with such an ignominious, awkward, and undemocratic sputter...

Greenwald's pretty excitable, and never forget he's a regular demonizer of Israel, etc., but he raises a good point nevertheless.

I can't stand the superdelegates. Would Hillary have won the nomination without them? Who knows? But had Bernie Sanders gone for the jugular early in his campaign, holding nothing back, and tearing into every corrupt, scandalous, enabling outrage that is the Clinton political machine, he might well have been crown the Democrat Party standard-bearer. In the end, that's probably the bigger story.

And remember, Donald Trump's under no such constraint. His challenge will be finding the zone while eviscerating the hulk shell cankles Clinton.

RELATED: At Truth Revolt, "Bill Clinton's Ex-Lover Describes Meeting Hillary: 'Lumpy, Thick Calves, Hairy Toes'."

'Citizenfour'

So, I guess it's appropriate that Glenn Greenwald's mug flashed before my eyes this morning, after I got back from dropping off my kid at school, pulled out the L.A. Times, and sat down to take a dump. Yep, if there's ever a leftist piece of fecal refuse it's Greenwald.

Kenneth Turan has the review of the Laura Poitras documentary, "Review 'Citizenfour' a compelling look at Edward Snowden's actions."

Edward Snowden: Patriot or Traitor?

I bought a copy of the new Vanity Fair in hard copy last weekend at Harrah's Resort. That Snowden piece is probably 10,000 words. I don't love those long articles, although I'd recommend this one for anyone looking for a decent recap of all that's gone down with this idiot. He's a traitor IMHO.

See, "The Snowden Saga: A Shadowland of Secrets and Light."



They've posted the entire piece, so have at it. I thought it would've been gated, but what do you know?

The Implosion of First Look's 'The Intercept'

A genuine laugh riot.

At Gigaom, "If you want more news from First Look Media’s The Intercept, you’re going to have to wait."

Via Louise Mensch:

Oh boy, the implosion of First Look Media. The BTL comments here are hilarious, including #Greenwald's whine https://t.co/tMwzvWHWhK

— Louise Mensch (@LouiseMensch) April 15, 2014

Greenwald is justifying himself here at 12:37. FirstLook doesn't let you link to comments. https://t.co/tMwzvWHWhK Made of Fail

— Louise Mensch (@LouiseMensch) April 15, 2014

On a scale of Rob Zombie to Lady Stoneheart, just how dead is @Pierre's $250m @FirstLook? #Greenwald #Snowden https://t.co/tMwzvWHWhK

— Louise Mensch (@LouiseMensch) April 15, 2014

Comments on John Cook's "passover greetings from the editor" Intercept post are a bloodbath. Almost feel sorry for him.

— Paul Carr (@paulcarr) April 15, 2014

Cook admits he's deleting negative comments on his Intercept q&a. Transparency. pic.twitter.com/SCcRAgPolX

— Paul Carr (@paulcarr) April 14, 2014

Beginning to think karma deserves her reputation. @Guardian plunges to below 200k circulation, @FirstLook implodes. #TeamBond

— Louise Mensch (@LouiseMensch) April 15, 2014

First Look also states its hiring policy "Not white. Not male." What was Glenn's severance package? Oh.

— Louise Mensch (@LouiseMensch) April 15, 2014

Glenn Greenwald Back in the U.S.

Well, I guess the feds didn't nab 'em after all.

At Puff Ho, "Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras Successfully Return to the United States."

Back in the USA: @ggreenwald & @laurapoitras honored with Polk Awards http://t.co/Ndl8ztGkrf pic.twitter.com/ZTx24gurtN
— Democracy Now! (@democracynow) April 11, 2014

Also at Mashable, "WikiLeaks Live Tweets Glenn Greenwald's Flight to US."

Communists and rabid anti-Semites. Greenwald's biggest backers.

Glenn Greenwald to Return to U.S. to Accept Polk Journalism Award

Well, it's certainly something I've been waiting for. I can't say it wouldn't be amusing to see Greenwald taken into custody.

From Michael Calderone, at Puff Ho, "Glenn Greenwald, Laura Poitras Returning to U.S. For First Time Since Snowden Revelations" (via Mediagazer):

NEW YORK -- Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras, two American journalists who have been at the forefront of reporting on documents leaked by former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden, will return to the United States on Friday for the first time since revelations of worldwide surveillance broke.

Greenwald and Poitras, currently in Berlin, will attend Friday’s Polk Awards ceremony in New York City. The two journalists are sharing the prestigious journalism award with The Guardian’s Ewen MacAskill and with Barton Gellman, who has led The Washington Post’s reporting on the NSA documents. Greenwald and Poitras interviewed Snowden last June in Hong Kong as he first revealed himself.

In an interview with The Huffington Post, Greenwald said he’s motivated to return because “certain factions in the U.S. government have deliberately intensified the threatening climate for journalists.”

“It’s just the principle that I shouldn’t allow those tactics to stop me from returning to my own country,” Greenwald said.

Greenwald suggested government officials and members of Congress have used the language of criminalization as a tactic to chill investigative journalism.

In January, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper suggested that journalists reporting on the NSA documents were acting as Snowden’s “accomplices.” The following month, Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.), chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, claimed that Greenwald was selling stolen goods by reporting stories on the NSA documents with news organizations around the world. Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) has called for Greenwald to be prosecuted.

Greenwald said the government has not informed his legal counsel whether or not he could face any potential charges, or if he's been named in any grand jury investigation tied to the NSA disclosures.

Also at the Daily Dot, "NSA reporters Greenwald and Poitras to brave U.S. return Friday." And at NYT, "Polk Award for Snowden Coverage Draws 2 to U.S."

Glenn Greenwald Interview with CNN's Brian Stelter

At CNN, "Greenwald hints at new revelations."

Stelter's a pathetic cheerleader, and Greenwald's a pathological liar and treasonous bastard --- but you knew that already, heh.

The Snowden Era of Journalism

Interesting, if not a bit overblown.

At Politico:

I'm looking forward to @ggreenwald's next U.S. visit http://t.co/ZA0zmOGRuk And I bet the FBI is, too. #CuffHim @AmPowerBlog @LouiseMensch

— Robert Stacy McCain (@rsmccain) February 6, 2014

Welcome to the Edward Snowden-era of national security journalism — a time when no scoop is too small, no detail too minor, and revelations about government surveillance pour forth on an almost daily basis.

It’s a significant departure from the way things used to be.

After Sept. 11, reporters and editors often heeded tremendous pressure from government officials, including the president and/or national security adviser, to hold blockbuster articles concerning classified U.S. spy operations — accepting the warnings that publishing the information could put national security in danger or even lead to another catastrophe.

But just as Watergate changed the ethos of political journalism, the Snowden leaks appear to have upended the way many journalists approach national security reporting. While substantial portions of Snowden’s massive cache of information has been withheld, Americans have been treated to a seemingly endless wave of articles since the first stories landed in June — leaving Obama administration officials and members of Congress fuming and even some veteran journalists concerned that the bar to publish has fallen too low.

Snowden has prompted a free-for-all among journalists itching to tell America’s surveillance secrets, an important generational shift as the nation faces years of growing debate about privacy in an increasingly wired world. The litany of stories come not just from the handful of reporters with access to the former NSA contractor’s treasure-trove of documents but also from competitors eagerly searching for scoops to move the dial on what has become one of the biggest stories of the decade.

“For years … it was like the number of articles to come out on NSA you could count on the fingers on one hand,” said James Bamford, who has written four books on government surveillance. “Now it’s almost impossible to keep up.” ...

That there is now a vast library of NSA stories is also due, in no small part, to the nature of digital journalism. Glenn Greenwald, the Rio-based journalist who has worked most closely with Snowden, has been an aggressive presence online and on social media.

His approach to the biggest leak since the Pentagon Papers marks a radical departure from past coverage where reporters from the major dailies would sometimes go all the way to the president with their findings — and sometimes accept delays even if it meant getting scooped.

“There’ll be blood on your hands,” President George W. Bush reportedly warned The New York Times’ publisher in a 2005 Oval Office meeting before the newspaper published a Pulitzer Prize-winning story about warrantless NSA eavesdropping in the U.S. — a story it had held for more than a year.

It’s not just Washington that is struggling with the new journalistic calculus on surveillance coverage. In the Snowden story, Guardian reporters working with Greenwald have checked with British government sources before publication.

Edward Snowden, Glenn Greenwald, Julian Assange and 'Paranoid Libertarianism'

Louise Mensch calls this story a "bombshell," from Sean Wilentz, at the New Statesman, "Would you feel differently about Snowden, Greenwald, and Assange if you knew what they really thought?"

Would you feel differently about Snowden, Greenwald, and Assange if you knew what they really thought? - http://t.co/aSsLxjD4Mt

— Louise Mensch (@LouiseMensch) January 20, 2014

- http://t.co/aSsLxjD4Mt @20committee @eclecticbrotha @TheWarRoom_Tom - good Snowden hypocrisy quotes here

— Louise Mensch (@LouiseMensch) January 20, 2014

Never thought I'd be tweeting this but vital New Statesman #Snowden piece http://t.co/aSsLxjD4Mt

— Louise Mensch (@LouiseMensch) January 20, 2014

The most important story I have read so far this year. #Greenwald #Snowden and #Assange FSB backing, links. http://t.co/aSsLxjD4Mt

— Louise Mensch (@LouiseMensch) January 20, 2014

Evidence is now coming thick and fast that #Snowden was a Russian asset pre-leaks, and that @ggreenwald has knowingly falsified his stories.

— Louise Mensch (@LouiseMensch) January 20, 2014

I cannot resist an "I told you so." #Greenwald #Snowden #Rusbridger

— Louise Mensch (@LouiseMensch) January 20, 2014

Apologies for all who couldn't click on my archive links. Bombshell New Statesman story on FSB/Snowden asset here. http://t.co/obCzjq0Bgr

— Louise Mensch (@LouiseMensch) January 20, 2014

It contains: anti-immigrant rants from 40 year old lawyer @ggreenwald demanding "assimilation" http://t.co/obCzjq0Bgr

— Louise Mensch (@LouiseMensch) January 20, 2014

It contains: hard evidence @ggreenwald and @arusbridger knowingly published a false story: http://t.co/obCzjq0Bgr

— Louise Mensch (@LouiseMensch) January 20, 2014

It contains: #Snowden's chat room rants against "national security leakers" and the elderly: http://t.co/obCzjq0Bgr

— Louise Mensch (@LouiseMensch) January 20, 2014

.@ggreenwald immigrants -"endless hordes of people [who] pour over the border in numbers far too large to assimilate...& have no ability to"

— Louise Mensch (@LouiseMensch) January 20, 2014

.@ggreenwald immigrants a threat "to middle class suburban voters." Blames quotes on youth, was 38 year old lawyer at time

— Louise Mensch (@LouiseMensch) January 20, 2014

#Snowden: "Someone who leaked classified shit deserves to be shot in the balls". Real quote. http://t.co/obCzjq0Bgr

— Louise Mensch (@LouiseMensch) January 20, 2014

Greenwald-istas keep tweeting "there's no evidence". The New Republic/New Statesman story cites comprehensive evidence, quotes included.

— Louise Mensch (@LouiseMensch) January 20, 2014

President Obama Speech on NSA Reforms: Draping the Banner of Change Over Surveillance Status Quo

The full speech is here, "President Obama Speaks on U.S. Intelligence Programs."

I went back to bed and missed it, although I've seen numerous clips on CNN by now.

And here's the big story at the Wall Street Journal, "Obama Says NSA's Mass Collection of U.S. Phone Data Will End: President Also to Require Court Order for Search of Information."

Folks'll be talking about this all weekend, and I already need to dump my browser tabs with more on this, but I'm intrigued how Glenn Greenwald took to the Guardian today to denounce the administration. Greenwald left the newspaper in a cloud over his partner's arrest as a courier for stolen documents. Greenwald's no longer a "journalist" in the traditional sense. He's now joined the rogue's gallery of hackers and cyberterrorists as a full blown danger to public safety. He's a traitor who'd face arrest if he stepped foot back in the United States.

In any case, here's his piece, "Obama's NSA 'reforms' are little more than a PR attempt to mollify the public." (Also at Memeorandum.)

.@ggreenwald returns (briefly) to @commentisfree: 'Obama's NSA 'reforms' are little more than a PR attempt' http://t.co/ZvMD8x6eAm
— GuardianUS (@GuardianUS) January 17, 2014

And here's Greenwald on the far-left Alex Wagner's show on the socialist MSNBC network.

Why Snowden Won't (and Shouldn't) Get Clemency

From Fred Kaplan, at Slate, "He went too far to be considered just a whistleblower" (via Louise Mensch):

I regard Daniel Ellsberg as an American patriot. I was one of the first columnists to write that Director of National Intelligence James Clapper should be fired for lying to Congress. On June 7, two days after the first news stories based on Edward Snowden’s leaks, I wrote a column airing (and endorsing) the concerns of Brian Jenkins, a leading counterterrorism expert, that the government’s massive surveillance program had created “the foundation of a very oppressive state.”

And yet I firmly disagree with the New York Times’ Jan. 1 editorial (“Edward Snowden, Whistle-Blower”), calling on President Obama to grant Snowden “some form of clemency” for the “great service” he has done for his country.

It is true that Snowden’s revelations about the National Security Agency’s surveillance of American citizens—far vaster than any outsider had suspected, in some cases vaster than the agency’s overseers on the secret FISA court had permitted—have triggered a valuable debate, leading possibly to much-needed reforms.

If that were all that Snowden had done, if his stolen trove of beyond-top-secret documents had dealt only with the NSA’s domestic surveillance, then some form of leniency might be worth discussing.

But Snowden did much more than that. The documents that he gave the Washington Post’s Barton Gellman and the Guardian’s Glenn Greenwald have, so far, furnished stories about the NSA’s interception of email traffic, mobile phone calls, and radio transmissions of Taliban fighters in Pakistan’s northwest territories; about an operation to gauge the loyalties of CIA recruits in Pakistan; about NSA email intercepts to assist intelligence assessments of what’s going on inside Iran; about NSA surveillance of cellphone calls “worldwide,” an effort that (in the Post’s words) “allows it to look for unknown associates of known intelligence targets by tracking people whose movements intersect.” In his first interview with the South China Morning Post, Snowden revealed that the NSA routinely hacks into hundreds of computers in China and Hong Kong.

These operations have nothing to do with domestic surveillance or even spying on allies. They are not illegal, improper, or (in the context of 21st-century international politics) immoral. Exposing such operations has nothing to do with “whistle-blowing.”

Many have likened Snowden’s actions to Daniel Ellsberg’s leaking of the Pentagon Papers. (Ellsberg himself has made the comparison.) But the Pentagon Papers were historical documents on how the United States got involved in the Vietnam War. Ellsberg leaked them (after first taking them to several senators, who wanted nothing to do with them) in the hopes that their revelations would inspire pressure to end the war. It’s worth noting that he did not leak several volumes of the Papers dealing with ongoing peace talks. Nor did he leak anything about tactical operations. Nor did he go to North Vietnam and praise its leaders (as Snowden did in Russia).

The New Yorker’s Amy Davidson, who has called on Obama to “pardon” Snowden, cited Jimmy Carter’s pardoning of Vietnam-era draft dodgers as “a useful parallel when thinking about Snowden’s legal situation.” This suggestion is mind-boggling on several levels. Among other things, Snowden signed an oath, as a condition of his employment as an NSA contractor, not to disclose classified information, and knew the penalties for violating the oath. The young men who evaded the draft, either by fleeing to Canada or serving jail terms, did so in order to avoid taking an oath to fight a war that they opposed—a war that was over, and widely reviled, by the time that Carter pardoned them.

There are no such extenuating circumstances favoring forgiveness of Snowden. The Times editorial paints an incomplete picture when it claims that he “stole a trove of highly classified documents after he became disillusioned with the agency’s voraciousness.” In fact, as Snowden himself told the South China Morning Post, he took his job as an NSA contractor, with Booz Allen Hamilton, because he knew that his position would grant him “access to lists of machines all over the world [that] the NSA hacked.” He stayed there for just three months, enough to do what he came to do.

Mark Hosenball and Warren Strobel of Reuters later reported, in an eye-opening scoop, that Snowden gained access to his cache of documents by persuading 20 to 25 of his fellow employees to give him their logins and passwords, saying he needed the information to help him do his job as systems administrator. (Most of these former colleagues were subsequently fired.)

Is a clear picture emerging of why Snowden’s prospects for clemency resemble the proverbial snowball’s chance in hell? He gets himself placed at the NSA’s signals intelligence center in Hawaii for the sole purpose of pilfering extremely classified documents. (How many is unclear: I’ve heard estimates ranging from “tens of thousands” to 1.1 million.)  He gains access to many of them by lying to his fellow workers (and turning them into unwitting accomplices). Then he flees to Hong Kong (a protectorate of China, especially when it comes to foreign policy) and, from there, to Russia.

This isn’t quite what it would have seemed in Cold War times...

A great piece of writing. Basically, Snowden's a very bad man. Far from a patriot, he's deserving of a long stint behind bars, if not the death penalty (a point on which I vehemently disagree with Kaplan).

Continue reading.

Glenn Greenwald Goes Ballistic on WaPo's Ruth Marcus

I caught this live a couple of hours ago.

Greenwald just goes off on this lady.

The 2008 column of Ruth Marcus I referenced- arguing against prosecution of torturers & criminal FBI agents - is here http://t.co/DRSjNiW5Jm

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) January 2, 2014

And here's Marcus' piece from earlier this week, the catalyst for this exchange, "Edward Snowden, the insufferable whistleblower."

Pope Francis is Time's Person of the Year

I guess über-traitor Glenn Greenwald wasn't pleased, via Politico, "Greenwald mocks Time magazine":

Glenn Greenwald, the journalist who broke the story of Edward Snowden's National Security Agency leaks earlier this year, mocked Time magazine for picking Pope Francis over Snowden for their "Person of the Year."

In an e-mail to Talking Points Memo and on Twitter, Greenwald called Time magazine "meaningless" and "cowards of the decade" for not choosing Snowden, whose revelations have been and continue to be a major news story that has shaken the government surveillance industry.

"It's a meaningless award from a meaningless magazine, designed to achieve the impossible: to make TIME relevant and interesting for a few fleeting moments," Greenwald told TPM.

He's such a loser.

TIME Magazine: as edgy, bold, courageous and innovative as ever: http://t.co/L1tSbEbgeV - Edward Snowden "Runner-up" http://t.co/Hxq48AQZN9

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) December 11, 2013

Snowden, and Greenwald, at Rolling Stone

Andrew Bolt posted on this earlier, "Did Snowden know precisely the damage he’d cause the West - and not its rivals?"

But see the whole thing, at Rolling Stone, "Snowden and Greenwald: The Men Who Leaked the Secrets."

And ICYMI, see Jamie Kirchick, at Commentary, "Treason Chic," which pretty much sums up my thoughts about the whole thing.