1 2 3 > 
 
   
 

Glenn Greenwald’s interesting take on Michael Flynn prosecution

 
lynmc
 
Avatar
 
 
lynmc
Total Posts:  515
Joined  03-08-2014
 
 
 
16 May 2020 18:37
 

Glenn Greenwald’s interesting take on Michael Flynn prosecution

Greenwald, being a constitutional lawyer, generally does his homework.

 
Twissel
 
Avatar
 
 
Twissel
Total Posts:  3072
Joined  19-01-2015
 
 
 
16 May 2020 21:21
 

Glenn Greenwald has pissed away his credibility many times over, generously pretending he had any to begin with.

If you think there is something about his piece that is especially insightful, please quote them.
I’m not going to prop up his fail career by giving his articles clicks.

 
 
Q
 
Avatar
 
 
Q
Total Posts:  40
Joined  04-05-2020
 
 
 
17 May 2020 07:55
 

Seems like his pov is directly from Trump and associates’ playbook, turn everything around and accuse your “adversaries” of the very things Trump et. al. are accused of. It’s just another attempt by Trump and people like Greenwald to create an alternate reality that the wingnut/fuckwits can latch onto. Maybe this guy is itching to get on Trump’s defense team. I don’t know who Greenwald is but this article alerts me not to pay him any further attention. I trust Neil Katyal’s analyses over Greenwald any day. The initial investigation was found to be warranted and legitimate, after more than one look at it. So far, no evidence of conspiracy, illegality or malintent by the Obama administration or the security agencies has been found beyond some procedural missteps which did not nullify the process. I’m sticking with that until proven otherwise. Don’t forget, Trump fired Flynn for the same thing, plus lying to the vice president. I’m looking forward to John Gleeson’s input on the case.

 
lynmc
 
Avatar
 
 
lynmc
Total Posts:  515
Joined  03-08-2014
 
 
 
17 May 2020 10:17
 
Twissel - 16 May 2020 09:21 PM

Glenn Greenwald has pissed away his credibility many times over, generously pretending he had any to begin with.

If you think there is something about his piece that is especially insightful, please quote them.
I’m not going to prop up his fail career by giving his articles clicks.

Glenn Greenwald has more integrity than 10 Sam Harrises. 

In his talk, he asserts one’s ideology, defined loosely as where one stands on issues e.g. public supported health care or taxation of the wealthy, is should be separate from whether one thinks a prosecution is justifiable which should be based solely on objective facts of evidence and law.

Greenwald says (to paraphrase) that mass failure to do so means groups have fallen into tribes, going after people in the opposite camp for tribal reasons not based on evidence and facts.  He especially castigates leftists for not recognizing that innocent people admit guilt to law enforcement authorities all the time which is what he contends Flynn did in this case.

 
Twissel
 
Avatar
 
 
Twissel
Total Posts:  3072
Joined  19-01-2015
 
 
 
17 May 2020 10:51
 
lynmc - 17 May 2020 10:17 AM
Twissel - 16 May 2020 09:21 PM

Glenn Greenwald has pissed away his credibility many times over, generously pretending he had any to begin with.

If you think there is something about his piece that is especially insightful, please quote them.
I’m not going to prop up his fail career by giving his articles clicks.

Glenn Greenwald has more integrity than 10 Sam Harrises. 

In his talk, he asserts one’s ideology, defined loosely as where one stands on issues e.g. public supported health care or taxation of the wealthy, is should be separate from whether one thinks a prosecution is justifiable which should be based solely on objective facts of evidence and law.

Greenwald says (to paraphrase) that mass failure to do so means groups have fallen into tribes, going after people in the opposite camp for tribal reasons not based on evidence and facts.  He especially castigates leftists for not recognizing that innocent people admit guilt to law enforcement authorities all the time which is what he contends Flynn did in this case.


sorry to say, but you have clearly no clue whatsoever about this.

GG is a lying POS who got incredibly lucky once with Snowden handing him a story and Greenwald doing literally nothing but publish it.
And Snowden has been kicking himself in the rear every since for not picking an actual journalist.

And, to be PERFECTLY CLEAR:
Flynn, a 3-star General with a career in past administrations somehow being “tricked” into lying to the FBI is so preposterous that you really, really, REALLY have to want to believe it make even a sliver of sense.
And once you’ve done that, you have to reconcile with the fact that Flynn got to only plead guilty to lying because he promised to massively cooperate with the FBU: they could have, and
should have charged him with all the other crimes he and his son committed, starting with being a agent for the government of Turkey while at the same time being National Security Adviser!
Do you really want the US National Security Adviser working for a foreign government?
Do you?

Greenwald is an partisan hack, and if you can’t see that you are an idiot.

[ Edited: 17 May 2020 10:56 by Twissel]
 
 
lynmc
 
Avatar
 
 
lynmc
Total Posts:  515
Joined  03-08-2014
 
 
 
17 May 2020 16:38
 
Twissel - 17 May 2020 10:51 AM
lynmc - 17 May 2020 10:17 AM
Twissel - 16 May 2020 09:21 PM

Glenn Greenwald has pissed away his credibility many times over, generously pretending he had any to begin with.

If you think there is something about his piece that is especially insightful, please quote them.
I’m not going to prop up his fail career by giving his articles clicks.

Glenn Greenwald has more integrity than 10 Sam Harrises. 

In his talk, he asserts one’s ideology, defined loosely as where one stands on issues e.g. public supported health care or taxation of the wealthy, is should be separate from whether one thinks a prosecution is justifiable which should be based solely on objective facts of evidence and law.

Greenwald says (to paraphrase) that mass failure to do so means groups have fallen into tribes, going after people in the opposite camp for tribal reasons not based on evidence and facts.  He especially castigates leftists for not recognizing that innocent people admit guilt to law enforcement authorities all the time which is what he contends Flynn did in this case.


sorry to say, but you have clearly no clue whatsoever about this.

GG is a lying POS who got incredibly lucky once with Snowden handing him a story and Greenwald doing literally nothing but publish it.
And Snowden has been kicking himself in the rear every since for not picking an actual journalist.

And, to be PERFECTLY CLEAR:
Flynn, a 3-star General with a career in past administrations somehow being “tricked” into lying to the FBI is so preposterous that you really, really, REALLY have to want to believe it make even a sliver of sense.
And once you’ve done that, you have to reconcile with the fact that Flynn got to only plead guilty to lying because he promised to massively cooperate with the FBU: they could have, and
should have charged him with all the other crimes he and his son committed, starting with being a agent for the government of Turkey while at the same time being National Security Adviser!
Do you really want the US National Security Adviser working for a foreign government?
Do you?

Greenwald is an partisan hack, and if you can’t see that you are an idiot.

According to the post, he wasn’t tricked, he was coerced - likely with threats to prosecute his son.  And he didn’t actually lie to the FBI agents.

Greenwald is leftist, an educated civil rights attorney.  For him, lending support to Flynn’s case is exactly the opposite of partisanship as he’s utterly opposed to Flynn’s politics.  As you would realize if you would let facts into your head. 

Far from lying, the Greenwald’s site is rated “highly factual” by mediabiasfactcheck.org.

Flynn didn’t work for the Turkish government until after he left his post in the Obama administration, and before he started working for the Trump administration.

It takes an idiot to not even understand what it means to be a partisan hack.  But what the heck, you seem to be making up things.


 

 
Twissel
 
Avatar
 
 
Twissel
Total Posts:  3072
Joined  19-01-2015
 
 
 
18 May 2020 03:32
 

How is it a coercion to offer not to prosecute his son (34) if I said son committed crimes, too?
A little bit of advice: if you don’t want your son to get prosecuted, maybe don’t commit crimes with him.

Cohen was offered the deal not to prosecute his wife (who co-signed some of his deals) if he pleaded guilty.
Where was Greenwald then?
This is 100% SOP, and none of the Trump hacks are against it unless it hits one of them - typical corruption. Flynn thought he was above the law, and your outrage is that he wasn’t treated as being above the law.

And no, Flynn never rescinded his work for Turkey, mostly because he never registered as a foreign agent - another crime the FBI was willing to drop in return for cooperation and a plea to lying to the FBI.

Can we really not do some vetting of the person with the highest security clearance in the country?
Seriously, you clearly don’t give a fuck about national security.

And Greenwald is not rated “highly factual” - he writes editorials, not investigative piece.

 

[ Edited: 18 May 2020 04:35 by Twissel]
 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
 
Avatar
 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
Total Posts:  7015
Joined  08-12-2006
 
 
 
18 May 2020 08:43
 

Greenwald was the one who broke the Snowden story. He’s no partisan hack. He’s among a growing cadre of left-leaning journalists who can see beyond Michael Flynn himself to the story behind the story: the FBI’s abuse of power that only the most “end-justifies-the-means” partisan hack could possibly defend.

 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
 
Avatar
 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
Total Posts:  7015
Joined  08-12-2006
 
 
 
18 May 2020 12:37
 

Matt Taibbi, another left-leaning journalist, also weighs in: Democrats Have Abandoned Civil Liberties. “The Blue Party’s Trump-era Embrace of Authoritarianism Isn’t Just Wrong, it’s a Fatal Political Mistake.”

How’s that old Nietzsche quote go? “Beware that when fighting authoritarians you yourself don’t become an authoritarian,” or something like that?

 
 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  7991
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
18 May 2020 21:17
 

greenwald IS a hack. for one thing, he sided with weev.

no worries, everyone makes mistakes, but he never backed down.

 
 
Poldano
 
Avatar
 
 
Poldano
Total Posts:  3429
Joined  26-01-2010
 
 
 
19 May 2020 00:36
 

I know a guy who, when we were both recent college graduates, said that prior to revolution, the extreme left and extreme right will ally with each other in order to defeat the middle. This conversation reminds me of that.

As for coercive elicitation of testimony, I take for granted that it is standard operating procedure. It happens in every kind of criminal case. A version of it also happens in civil law, whereby extremely-well-heeled parties coerce favorable settlements by threatening protracted proceedings that their poorer opponents cannot afford. If you’re going to drain the swamp, be sure to drain the whole damn thing; it ain’t just in Washington, and it ain’t just in politics.

[edit] As for Flynn himself, he’s just a pawn in the power play, who is bound to get pardoned anyway. Withdrawing the case is just a power-play action by the Trump administration.

[ Edited: 19 May 2020 00:40 by Poldano]
 
 
burt
 
Avatar
 
 
burt
Total Posts:  16097
Joined  17-12-2006
 
 
 
19 May 2020 08:53
 
Poldano - 19 May 2020 12:36 AM

I know a guy who, when we were both recent college graduates, said that prior to revolution, the extreme left and extreme right will ally with each other in order to defeat the middle. This conversation reminds me of that.

As for coercive elicitation of testimony, I take for granted that it is standard operating procedure. It happens in every kind of criminal case. A version of it also happens in civil law, whereby extremely-well-heeled parties coerce favorable settlements by threatening protracted proceedings that their poorer opponents cannot afford. If you’re going to drain the swamp, be sure to drain the whole damn thing; it ain’t just in Washington, and it ain’t just in politics.

[edit] As for Flynn himself, he’s just a pawn in the power play, who is bound to get pardoned anyway. Withdrawing the case is just a power-play action by the Trump administration.

And note how sanctimonious Barr was yesterday denying that he would investigate Obama or Biden because he “wasn’t going to politicize the Justice Department.” Ha!

 
Antisocialdarwinist
 
Avatar
 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
Total Posts:  7015
Joined  08-12-2006
 
 
 
19 May 2020 14:55
 
Poldano - 19 May 2020 12:36 AM

As for coercive elicitation of testimony, I take for granted that it is standard operating procedure. It happens in every kind of criminal case.

Depending on what kind of crime was committed, the authoritarian in me doesn’t necessarily have a problem with the coercive elicitation of testimony. (If only they could have done that with O.J.) But when it’s being done for purely political reasons? Surely you can see how one might find that more objectionable?

Also, keep in mind the nature of the coercion. For example, from the Taibbi article:

In a secrets-laundering maneuver straight out of the Dick Cheney playbook, some bright person first illegally leaked classified details to David Ignatius at the Washington Post, then agents rushed to interview Flynn about the “news.”

“The record of his conversation with Ambassador Kislyak had become widely known in the press,” is how Deputy FBI chief Andrew McCabe put it, euphemistically. “We wanted to sit down with General Flynn and understand, kind of, what his thoughts on that conversation were.”

Illegally leaking classified documents as part of a coercive elicitation scheme doesn’t strike me as “standard operating procedure” that “happens in every kind of criminal case.”

 
 
Poldano
 
Avatar
 
 
Poldano
Total Posts:  3429
Joined  26-01-2010
 
 
 
20 May 2020 01:16
 
Antisocialdarwinist - 19 May 2020 02:55 PM

...

Also, keep in mind the nature of the coercion. For example, from the Taibbi article:

In a secrets-laundering maneuver straight out of the Dick Cheney playbook, some bright person first illegally leaked classified details to David Ignatius at the Washington Post, then agents rushed to interview Flynn about the “news.”

“The record of his conversation with Ambassador Kislyak had become widely known in the press,” is how Deputy FBI chief Andrew McCabe put it, euphemistically. “We wanted to sit down with General Flynn and understand, kind of, what his thoughts on that conversation were.”

Illegally leaking classified documents as part of a coercive elicitation scheme doesn’t strike me as “standard operating procedure” that “happens in every kind of criminal case.”

I think you can find examples of manipulative leaking in many criminal cases. These will primarily be those that have some kind of political baggage or celebrity involvement, but they are by no means uniquely so. I venture to say that the more news-worthy the case, the more likely that information that should not be public knowledge will be leaked. Note that I am not saying that every criminal case’s information is leaked, or that every kind of criminal case is equally likely to have its information leaked. I speculate that the leaks you mention may have been preemptive in nature, in the expectation that someone else would leak information about the Flynn interview and thereby gain a slightly greater measure of control over the publicity.

[ Edited: 20 May 2020 01:30 by Poldano]
 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
 
Avatar
 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
Total Posts:  7015
Joined  08-12-2006
 
 
 
20 May 2020 15:48
 
Poldano - 20 May 2020 01:16 AM
Antisocialdarwinist - 19 May 2020 02:55 PM

...

Also, keep in mind the nature of the coercion. For example, from the Taibbi article:

In a secrets-laundering maneuver straight out of the Dick Cheney playbook, some bright person first illegally leaked classified details to David Ignatius at the Washington Post, then agents rushed to interview Flynn about the “news.”

“The record of his conversation with Ambassador Kislyak had become widely known in the press,” is how Deputy FBI chief Andrew McCabe put it, euphemistically. “We wanted to sit down with General Flynn and understand, kind of, what his thoughts on that conversation were.”

Illegally leaking classified documents as part of a coercive elicitation scheme doesn’t strike me as “standard operating procedure” that “happens in every kind of criminal case.”

I think you can find examples of manipulative leaking in many criminal cases. These will primarily be those that have some kind of political baggage or celebrity involvement, but they are by no means uniquely so. I venture to say that the more news-worthy the case, the more likely that information that should not be public knowledge will be leaked. Note that I am not saying that every criminal case’s information is leaked, or that every kind of criminal case is equally likely to have its information leaked. I speculate that the leaks you mention may have been preemptive in nature, in the expectation that someone else would leak information about the Flynn interview and thereby gain a slightly greater measure of control over the publicity.

“Manipulative leaking” doesn’t quite capture what the FBI did in this case. They leaked classified information. Information only they had access to. Which begs the question: who else would have leaked that same information, thus prompting the FBI to do so preemptively? Remember, the classified information wasn’t from Flynn’s interview, it was from a phone conversation with the Russian ambassador, which the FBI was listening in on. They leaked said classified details to the press, then used the press’s coverage of them to justify the subsequent interview with Flynn. All the while knowing that there was a very slim likelihood that any crime had been committed by Flynn, but hoping he’d nevertheless lie about what he’d discussed with the ambassador.

Does it really sound like the leak was merely “preemptive in nature” to you?

If that’s not abuse of power, I don’t know what is.

 
 
Poldano
 
Avatar
 
 
Poldano
Total Posts:  3429
Joined  26-01-2010
 
 
 
20 May 2020 23:52
 
Antisocialdarwinist - 20 May 2020 03:48 PM
Poldano - 20 May 2020 01:16 AM
Antisocialdarwinist - 19 May 2020 02:55 PM

...

Also, keep in mind the nature of the coercion. For example, from the Taibbi article:

In a secrets-laundering maneuver straight out of the Dick Cheney playbook, some bright person first illegally leaked classified details to David Ignatius at the Washington Post, then agents rushed to interview Flynn about the “news.”

“The record of his conversation with Ambassador Kislyak had become widely known in the press,” is how Deputy FBI chief Andrew McCabe put it, euphemistically. “We wanted to sit down with General Flynn and understand, kind of, what his thoughts on that conversation were.”

Illegally leaking classified documents as part of a coercive elicitation scheme doesn’t strike me as “standard operating procedure” that “happens in every kind of criminal case.”

I think you can find examples of manipulative leaking in many criminal cases. These will primarily be those that have some kind of political baggage or celebrity involvement, but they are by no means uniquely so. I venture to say that the more news-worthy the case, the more likely that information that should not be public knowledge will be leaked. Note that I am not saying that every criminal case’s information is leaked, or that every kind of criminal case is equally likely to have its information leaked. I speculate that the leaks you mention may have been preemptive in nature, in the expectation that someone else would leak information about the Flynn interview and thereby gain a slightly greater measure of control over the publicity.

“Manipulative leaking” doesn’t quite capture what the FBI did in this case. They leaked classified information. Information only they had access to. Which begs the question: who else would have leaked that same information, thus prompting the FBI to do so preemptively? Remember, the classified information wasn’t from Flynn’s interview, it was from a phone conversation with the Russian ambassador, which the FBI was listening in on. They leaked said classified details to the press, then used the press’s coverage of them to justify the subsequent interview with Flynn. All the while knowing that there was a very slim likelihood that any crime had been committed by Flynn, but hoping he’d nevertheless lie about what he’d discussed with the ambassador.

Does it really sound like the leak was merely “preemptive in nature” to you?

If that’s not abuse of power, I don’t know what is.

It is an abuse of power, if the information was classified. The question that immediately follows is whether it was justified.

I had, and still have, a suspicion that Donald Trump has been compromised by Russia. If I had this suspicion, it is reasonable to assume that the FBI, whose “business model” with respect to national security issues is based upon suspicion, would be suspicious as well. Moreover, Trump’s SOP, attack at the first sign of opposition, was well known to the FBI, since it had been at least peripherally involved with investigating his financial shenanigans for around 30 years by 2016. The FBI could expect that questioning Flynn, even in secret, without some public knowledge of why they were doing so would result in an extreme public castigation by Trump, more extreme than actually occurred. A public rumor of inappropriate contact by Flynn would provide some political cover to the FBI for their actions. This, in my opinion, is actually what happened.

If Trump indeed has been compromised by Russia, then any question of apparent political bias in the FBI’s actions are irrelevant, as is any major concern about it’s abuse of classified information. If national security is involved, then even Trump’s position is that any and all exercises of power, up to and including torture, are allowable. There is an argument that U.S. citizens should not be subject to surveillance to the same degree that foreign nationals may be, but that policy has the air of “hiding behind the flag” where treason is concerned. If Trump took the oath of office as President of the United States while knowingly under any kind of personal or financial pressure from a foreign power, then treason is not off the table. With stakes like these, then any final judgment on whether the FBI’s abuse of power in releasing classified information during the Flynn investigation must wait until all the relevant information becomes public. That starts with hanging all of Trump’s financial laundry on the metaphorical public clothesline.

I’ve taken the discussion far beyond the specific Flynn case, because Flynn was only a bit player who apparently moved in some international diplomatic circles and consequently raised suspicions among our diligent professional paranoiacs. I do not regret doing this; the issue with Flynn was always as a way of getting information on Trump’s secrets.

Also, one of the attributes of Glenn Greenwald’s critiques is that they emphasize part of the context of an issue rather than the whole thing. Turning the issue around concerning the case of Edward Snowden, did Snowden abuse his power by releasing information that he took an oath not to reveal? Are individuals exempt from restrictions that organizations are not exempt from? If only a single member of the FBI released classified information, would he be under the same aegis of exemption as Edward Snowden? Was Snowden justified because his information was not about an individual and therefore not a violation of individual privacy? Expanding somewhat, what are the ethics of situations when they involve sovereign entities that do not abide by each others ethical rules? Etc., etc.

 
 
 1 2 3 >