You know it's all hysteria about Russia when even the editor of lefty mag The Nation calls it out

The lunatics are attacking Glenn Greenwald, of all people.

Katrina Vanden Heuvel, here:

Malcolm Nance, a very ubiquitous commentator on MSNBC on intelligence and other issues, said Glenn [Greenwald] was—I’m going to read it, because it’s so outrageous—”an agent of Trump & Moscow … deep in the Kremlin’s pocket.” This is—we’ve seen this in our history before. And I think it is—it’s dangerous when you have a suffocating consensus instead of a full, robust debate. ... to call someone a traitor because they have a point of you don’t agree with, we’re in a dangerous territory.

Black lefty, who once worked for Glenn Greenwald but was fired, arrested for threatening Jews nationwide

What, I thought Trump supporters were behind these bomb threats?!

Story here, where you'll discover he used the very same m/o which got him fired from The Intercept.

Glenn Greenwald writes that the CIA was trying to defeat Trump and elect Hillary Clinton

Here:

FOR MONTHS, the CIA, with unprecedented clarity, overtly threw its weight behind Hillary Clinton’s candidacy and sought to defeat Donald Trump. In August, former acting CIA Director Michael Morell announced his endorsement of Clinton in the New York Times and claimed that “Mr. Putin had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation.” The CIA and NSA director under George W. Bush, Gen. Michael Hayden, also endorsed Clinton, and went to the Washington Post to warn, in the week before the election, that “Donald Trump really does sound a lot like Vladimir Putin,” adding that Trump is “the useful fool, some naif, manipulated by Moscow, secretly held in contempt, but whose blind support is happily accepted and exploited.”

It is not hard to understand why the CIA preferred Clinton over Trump. Clinton was critical of Obama for restraining the CIA’s proxy war in Syria and was eager to expand that war, while Trump denounced it. Clinton clearly wanted a harder line than Obama took against the CIA’s long-standing foes in Moscow, while Trump wanted improved relations and greater cooperation. In general, Clinton defended and intended to extend the decadeslong international military order on which the CIA and Pentagon’s preeminence depends, while Trump — through a still-uncertain mix of instability and extremist conviction — posed a threat to it.

Glenn Greenwald: Democrats screaming "Putin! Russia!" is an implausible tactic, a sign of desperation

Here:

Obama spent eight years saying Russia is not a scary threat, he mocked Mitt Romney in 2012 . . .. Democrats, like a lot of Americans, including myself, are sort of dioriented, still in shock, and are grappling for explanations. Screaming 'Putin!' over and over and accusing critics of being Kremlin stooges, I think that is a byproduct of this desperation more than anything else.

British newspaper and David Cameron government try to smear Edward Snowden

The Guardian reports on the story, here:

'Downing Street and the Home Office are being challenged to answer in public claims that Russia and China have broken into the secret cache of Edward Snowden files and that British agents have had to be withdrawn from live operations as a consequence.

'The reports first appeared in the Sunday Times, which quoted anonymous senior officials in No 10, the Home Office and security services. The BBC also quoted an anonymous senior government source, who said agents had to be moved because Moscow gained access to classified information that reveals how they operate. ...

'[Eric King of Privacy International] added that if Downing Street and the Home Office believed that Russia and China had gained access to the Snowden documents, then why was the government not putting this out through official channels.

'He added: “Given Snowden is facing espionage charges in the US, you would have thought the British government would have provided them with this information.”'

The Guardian destroyed the Snowden hard drives in front of British security in July 2013 after the British government threatened to shut down the newspaper, as reported here:

'New video footage has been released for the first time of the moment Guardian editors destroyed computers used to store top-secret documents leaked by the NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden.

'Under the watchful gaze of two technicians from the British government spy agency GCHQ, the journalists took angle-grinders and drills to the internal components, rendering them useless and the information on them obliterated.'

The Guardian acknowledged at the time that the Snowden files exist in other jurisdictions:

'[The Guardian's] Rusbridger told government officials that destruction of the Snowden files would not stop the flow of intelligence-related stories since the documents existed in several jurisdictions. He explained that Glenn Greenwald, the Guardian US columnist who met Snowden in Hong Kong, had leaked material in Rio de Janeiro. There were further copies in America, he said.'

So . . . who in the United States would want the twofer of smearing Snowden by outing British operatives?

Glenn Greenwald eviscerates the Solidarity with Charlie Hebdo hypocrisy of the left and right

Excerpts from his excellent analysis, here:

[T]his week’s defense of free speech rights was so spirited that it gave rise to a brand new principle: to defend free speech, one not only defends the right to disseminate the speech, but embraces the content of the speech itself. Numerous writers thus demanded: to show “solidarity” with the murdered cartoonists, one should not merely condemn the attacks and defend the right of the cartoonists to publish, but should publish and even celebrate those cartoons. “The best response to Charlie Hebdo attack,” announced Slate’s editor Jacob Weisberg, “is to escalate blasphemous satire.”

...

Anti-Islam and anti-Muslim commentary (and cartoons) are a dime a dozen in western media outlets; the taboo that is at least as strong, if not more so, are anti-Jewish images and words. Why aren’t Douthat, Chait, Yglesias and their like-minded free speech crusaders calling for publication of anti-Semitic material in solidarity, or as a means of standing up to this repression? Yes, it’s true that outlets like The New York Times will in rare instances publish such depictions, but only to document hateful bigotry and condemn it – not to publish it in “solidarity” or because it deserves a serious and respectful airing.

...

[T]he journalist Chris Hedges was just disinvited to speak at the University of Pennsylvania for the Thought Crime of drawing similarities between Israel and ISIS.

That is a real taboo – a repressed idea – as powerful and absolute as any in the United States, so much so that Brooks won’t even acknowledge its existence. It’s certainly more of a taboo in the U.S. than criticizing Muslims and Islam, criticism which is so frequently heard in mainstream circles – including the U.S. Congress – that one barely notices it any more. ...  When those demanding publication of these anti-Islam cartoons start demanding the affirmative publication of those ideas as well, I’ll believe the sincerity of their very selective application of free speech principles. One can defend free speech without having to publish, let alone embrace, the offensive ideas being targeted. But if that’s not the case, let’s have equal application of this new principle.

Detained In London Limbo Land, David Miranda Didn't Have The Right To Remain Silent

Glenn Greenwald's "wife" detained to intimidate him

As explained here in the UK Guardian:

The reality about schedule 7 of the 2000 [British terrorism] act is that it is a legal power tailored to the half-world of ports and airports. It gives police powers to do things to people in that half-world that they could not do in the real one. In the real world, legal checks and balances apply – in America, ironically, some of these go under the name of "Miranda rights". In the half-world, people can be held and questioned, searches carried out and property confiscated without particular suspicion or legal safeguards. There were 69,000 such stops last year, only a handful of which led to arrests.

And here:

"They even asked me about the protests in Brazil, why people were unhappy and who I knew in the government," said Miranda. He got his first drink – from a Coke machine in the corridor – after eight hours [of detention and interrogation] and was eventually released almost an hour later. Police records show he had been held from 08.05 to 17.00. Unable immediately to find a flight for him back to Rio, Miranda says the Heathrow police then escorted him to passport control so he could enter Britain and wait there. "It was ridiculous," he said. "First they treat me like a terrorist suspect. Then they are ready to release me in the UK."

Rep. Mike Rogers, Ex-FBI Goon, Proven Wrong By Revelation Of XKeyscore

Chairman, House "Intelligence" Committee

The latest revelations from Glenn Greenwald here show Rep. Mike Rogers of Michigan to be either ignorant or a liar:

The files shed light on one of Snowden's most controversial statements, made in his first video interview published by the Guardian on June 10.

"I, sitting at my desk," said Snowden, could "wiretap anyone, from you or your accountant, to a federal judge or even the president, if I had a personal email".

US officials vehemently denied this specific claim. Mike Rogers, the Republican chairman of the House intelligence committee, said of Snowden's assertion: "He's lying. It's impossible for him to do what he was saying he could do."

But training materials for XKeyscore detail how analysts can use it and other systems to mine enormous agency databases by filling in a simple on-screen form giving only a broad justification for the search. The request is not reviewed by a court or any NSA personnel before it is processed.

Obama And NSA Are The Equivalent Of The Stalinist Stasi, But Globalized

So says Daniel Ellsberg, here:

[Edward Snowden] found that he was working for a surveillance organization whose all-consuming intent, he told the Guardian’s Glenn Greenwald, was “on making every conversation and every form of behavior in the world known to them.” It was, in effect, a global expansion of the Stasi, the Ministry for State Security in the Stalinist “German Democratic Republic,” whose goal was “to know everything.” But the cellphones, fiber-optic cables, personal computers and Internet traffic the NSA accesses did not exist in the Stasi’s heyday. ... What he has given us is our best chance — if we respond to his information and his challenge — to rescue ourselves from out-of-control surveillance that shifts all practical power to the executive branch and its intelligence agencies: a United Stasi of America.

David Gregory, NBC's Fascist Tool

During his interview with NBC's Gregory, Greenwald declined to discuss where Snowden was headed. That refusal seemed to prompt Gregory to ask: "To the extent that you have aided and abetted Snowden, even in his current movements, why shouldn't you, Mr. Greenwald, be charged with a crime?"

Story here.

The World Champions Of Spying Accuse Snowden Of Espionage

Glenn Greenwald for the UK Guardian issues a blistering critique of the worst president in US history by almost every measure for his completely hypocritical violation of the 4th Amendment, here:

The irony is obvious: the same people who are building a ubiquitous surveillance system to spy on everyone in the world, including their own citizens, are now accusing the person who exposed it of "espionage". It seems clear that the people who are actually bringing "injury to the United States" are those who are waging war on basic tenets of transparency and secretly constructing a mass and often illegal and unconstitutional surveillance apparatus aimed at American citizens - and those who are lying to the American people and its Congress about what they're doing - rather than those who are devoted to informing the American people that this is being done.

When Republicans find themselves on the same side as former Speaker of the House Democrat Nancy Pelosi who says Edward Snowden is a criminal, it's a dark day for the republic indeed:

 "He did violate the law in terms of releasing those documents," Pelosi said, drawing a thunder of boos from the crowd at the progressive conference. "I understand, I understand, but he did violate the law."

Oh yeah, one more thing. Don't forget that the Italians LOVED Mussolini too, until they didn't.

Republican Mike Rogers Doesn't Have A Clue How We Feel About The 4th Amendment

Republican Mike Rogers is completely alienated from the original spirit of the Fourth Amendment animating the Tea Party in Michigan and across the country, here this morning:

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) had harsh words for the still-unnamed leaker and for the journalist who first reported the NSA’s collection of phone records, the Guardian’s Glenn Greenwald.

“He doesn’t have a clue how this thing works; ne[i]ther did the person who released just enough information to literally be dangerous,” Rogers said, adding, “I absolutely think [the leaker] should be prosecuted.”

Top Secret FISA Order Revealed By Glenn Greenwald Was 80th THIS YEAR

According to William Binney, quoted here:

The National Security Agency’s collection of phone data from all of Verizon’s U.S. customers is just the “tip of the iceberg,” says a former NSA official who estimates the agency has data on as many as 20 trillion phone calls and emails by U.S. citizens. ...

Britain’s Guardian newspaper posted online late Wednesday a copy of the “Top Secret” FISA court order directing telecommunications giant Verizon to hand over “metadata” about every call made or received by all of its customers in the United States. Such metadata include the calling and receiving phone numbers, the time of day and length of the call, and the whereabouts of the two parties.

Mr. Binney noted the order’s serial number, which indicates it is the 80th issued by the FISA court so far this year. The court likely has approved similar orders for the other major U.S. telecom providers, he said, “and they have to be renewed every 90 days.”

Glenn Greenwald Channels The Utopian Edward Bellamy

From his latest in the UK Guardian, here:

"We followed Wednesday's story about the NSA's bulk telephone record-gathering with one yesterday about the agency's direct access to the servers of the world's largest internet companies. I don't have time at the moment to address all of the fallout because - to borrow someone else's phrase - I'm Looking Forward to future revelations that are coming (and coming shortly), not Looking Backward to ones that have already come."

"With a tear for the dark past, turn we then to the dazzling future, and, veiling our eyes, press forward. The long and weary winter of the race is ended. Its summer has begun. Humanity has burst the chrysalis. The heavens are before it."

Charles Krauthammer Loves The Drone War, And So Do You

Here is Charles Krauthammer for National Review:

"[T]he case for Obama’s drone war is clear."

And The New York Times, here, says 71% of you approve of the drone war, too:

"And on several issues, the CBS News poll finds a majority of Americans are in the president’s corner. Most, 59 percent, back a combination of spending cuts and tax increases to reduce the deficit; 53 percent say gun control laws should be made more strict; 53 percent support a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants currently working in the United States; and 71 percent favor carrying out drone strikes against suspected terrorists."

It's getting pretty lonely on the extreme right when we have to look to far left people like Glenn Greenwald for friends calling for an end to this madness. One of these days a Commander in Chief will exercise a fictitious right both to declare you an insurrectionist and to snuff you out in the middle of the night as you sleep, right here in River City because, hey, the whole world's a battlefield, even Grand Rapids, Michigan. The only thing the war on terror has achieved is to reveal that most Americans already surrendered their freedoms long ago, 1861 to be precise.

Noted Lefty Calls Obama's Secrecy Orwellian and Tyrannical

Noted lefty Glenn Greenwald for the UK Guardian here calls Obama's secrecy about a CIA program to kill even Americans with drones Orwellian and tyrannical (he's right):

"[W]hat is missing from the debate is the most basic information about what the CIA does and even their claimed legal justification for doing it. The Obama administration still refuses to publicly disclose the OLC memo that purported to authorize it (they agreed two weeks ago to make it available only to certain members of Congress without staff present, thus still maintaining "secret law"). They conceal all of this - and thus prevent basic democratic accountability - based on the indescribably cynical and inane pretense that they cannot even confirm or deny the existence of the CIA program without seriously jeopardizing national security.

"This is a complete perversion of their secrecy powers. Even among the DC cliques that exist to defend US government behavior, one would be hard-pressed to find anyone willing to defend what is being done here. The Obama administration runs around telling journalists how great and precise and devastating the CIA's assassination program is, then tells courts that no disclosure is permissible because they cannot safely confirm in court that the program even exists.

"Such flagrant abuse of secrecy power is at once Orwellian and tyrannical. It has the effect of blocking even the most minimal transparency on the most consequential question: the government's claimed authority to execute anyone it wants without charges, far from a battlefield, in total secrecy. It yet again demonstrates that excessive government secrecy is an infinitely greater threat than unauthorized disclosures. This is why we need radical transparency projects and aggressive whistle-blowers. And it's why nobody should respect the secrecy claims of the Obama administration or believe the assertions they make about national security. What else do they need to do to prove how untrustworthy those claims are?"

Bush Paved The Way For Obama's Insane Imperial Claim He Can Kill You

If you still harbor the slightest loyalty to either George Bush or Barack Obama after reading this withering, eviscerating critique of what's happened to our liberties under these two ne'er-do-wells by noted American lefty Glenn Greenwald for The UK Guardian here, then the future truly is hopeless.

From the concluding paragraph:

"[W]e have the current president asserting the power not merely to imprison or eavesdrop on US citizens without charges or trial, but to order them executed - and to do so in total secrecy, with no checks or oversight. If you believe the president has the power to order US citizens executed far from any battlefield with no charges or trial, then it's truly hard to conceive of any asserted power you would find objectionable."

He must know that when the purge starts under a future American Caesar, his ilk will be among the first to go.

Glenn Greenwald Gets Hysterical About Law Enforcement Against Occupy Wall Street

Here.

Robocops. Sadists. You get the picture.

Never once does it penetrate that true believer's mind, the qualitative difference between Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party. Everywhere the former goes there is crime; everywhere the latter went . . . nothing but law and order, followed by an historic electoral change across America and in the US House of Representatives.

Greenwald can keep repeating that OWS is about peaceful protest all he wants, but it isn't. And we're all tired of it and support the police in preserving the rights of all citizens to unimpeded access to all public places without fear of harassment and intimidation.

The denizens of UC Davis chant "Our university!" as if to say it's their turf and the cops are trespassing, but it isn't, and they aren't. It belongs to everyone, students or not. But especially to the taxpayers.

Winter's just a few weeks away, as is the 100th anniversary of Amundsen's spectacular south polar expedition.

The world could use more clear-headed achievers like Amundsen, but I doubt they'll come out of Occupy Wall Street, or UC Davis . . . or Salon.

Bush's Patriot Act Has Paved The Way For Obama To Act As Judge, Jury and Executioner of American Citizens

And the numbskulls all around us, right and left, applaud, except, for example, for Glenn Greenwald at Salon.com, here:

[H]ow terribly upset so many Democrats pretended to be when Bush claimed the power merely to detain or even just eavesdrop on American citizens without due process. Remember all that? Yet now, here’s Obama claiming the power not to detain or eavesdrop on citizens without due process, but to kill them; marvel at how the hardest-core White House loyalists now celebrate this and uncritically accept the same justifying rationale used by Bush/Cheney (this is war! the President says he was a Terrorist!) without even a moment of acknowledgment of the profound inconsistency or the deeply troubling implications of having a President — even Barack Obama — vested with the power to target U.S. citizens for murder with no due process.

It is not sufficient, however, to prune the executive, overturn this deformity and return to the status quo ante in which Americans continue to sacrifice their right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure, which is done all in the name of 50 million foreigners who we think must be allowed freely to visit our country each year while we pretend that they with us are all fellow citizens of one free world. This is the insane sickness of liberalism which threatens to kill us, that it is nearly a crime to believe that America is a distinct place with borders, a language and a culture which is ours and ours alone.

The dirty little secret here is that the more we embrace this horrid vision of global citizenship, the more we and our leaders become like the squalid tyrannies of Libya and Iraq than they become like us.

brothers in murder

  

Whose Side Are You On?

So asks Secretary of State Hillary Clinton of the US House.

Glenn Greenwald notices that in saying so, the Obama regime sounds just like the Bush regime.

Here.

None dare call it liberalism.