This video is a bit long, but it’s worth watching to see Glenn Greenwald completely demolish “journalist” Jessica Yellin, as well as Fran Townsend. And, via Greenwald and Digby, “legal expert” Jeffrey Toobin is schooled by Eliot Spitzer on the topic of Heroic American Untouchable Villager Bob Woodward vs. Awful Rapist Terrorist Criminal Julian Assange:
SPITZER: I want to ask Jeff a question though, because I want to come back to this Woodward distinction. You would agree with Clay and Naomi, I think, that Julian Assange would be precisely Bob Woodward if he had been the recipient of these documents, is that correct?
TOOBIN: I’d have to know a lot more.
SPITZER: But it might be the case.
TOOBIN: It well might be the case.
SPITZER: OK. So you’re sort of clear articulation of the beginning that he clearly violated something maybe not so much.
TOOBIN: I’m not sure. Certainly the attorney general of the United States seems to think criminal — criminal activity was involved here. But I think the wholesale taking of enormous quantities of classified information and putting it on the Internet, even if you don’t put all 250,000 documents on, I think that is a meaningful distinction from what Bob Woodward does.
SPITZER: It seems to me that Bob Woodward arguably did something much more egregious. He took real-time decisions about why we were going to war in Afghanistan, the discussions are rationale, where we would go spoke to the most senior political and military officials in the nation and blasted that out in the book. A clear distinction.
TOOBIN: Well, again, there is a distinction in part because the president of the United States and the vice president are allowed to declassify anything they want at any time for any reason. So if the president declassified —
SPITZER: A lot of people who didn’t have that power were sourced in that book. Seemed to be speaking in clear violation. They, in fact, should be subject to criminal investigations.
TOOBIN: I always wondered why — why Woodward gets away with it. It’s an interesting question.
cathyx
I’m absolutely shocked at the ignorance of Jessica Yellen. What did she learn in journalism school?
SteveinSC
Well as I have learned lately from this “Right of Center” blog that we are a “Right of Center” nation, that’s why.
Wag
As far as Bob Wooward is concerned, IOKIYAWI (it’s ok if you’re a Washington insider). Villagers can never work against the best nterests of America.
Todd
@cathyx:
via washingtonian
El Tiburon
Oh but only if Greenwald were not such a zealot who types too many letters and cant admit when he is wrong.
I for one enjoy the linkage, others with much higher ran than I may disagree.
amk
Can’t decide which ones are real culprits here. The two bit hacks who cheered and continue to cheer war mongering admins or two bit whistle blowers who leak “state secrets”.
cathyx
@Todd: So she obviously didn’t have those journalism 100 level courses. That explains it.
aimai
@SteveinSC:
That line “I’ve always wondered why…” leads me to think that Jeff Toobin was found, recently, under a cabbage patch leaf. Pink, naked, newborn and utterly harmless to people in power. I’ve always felt that way when reading his stuff in the New Yorker.
aimai
WereBear
Our Washington press has adopted the Republicanism trope; no one has to evaluate a proposal on its merits; only consider its source.
So when Bob Woodward does it, it’s good. When Assange does it, it’s bad.
So simple and tidy!
joe from Lowell
Townsend seemed to realize halfway through that she was in over her head.
She started to lose her cool a little bit, responding with hyperbole and straw men when Greenwald pointed out her errors.
dr. bloor
He’s more likely to get into trouble for watering down the liquor when hosting a Villager cocktail party.
aimai
Hey, where’s General Stuck and eemom to explain to us how terrible Glenn is?
aimai
joe from Lowell
@El Tiburon:
That’s your response to this clip? “Someone complained about Glenn Greenwald some other time, and I’m still bitter about it?”
You have nothing to say about any of the points Greenwald raised? Nothing to say about Townsend’s assertions? Nothing about the intersection of journalism and state secrets? Nothing about the subject of the interview (Julian Assange, since you don’t seem to remember)?
Nope, nothing about that. Just “rah rah, I’m Glenn’s biggest fan, and I’m so angry that there are people who aren’t!”
That’s pathetic.
Edit: Aaaaaaand more of the pathetic. Are you people even capable of thinking about politics and world affairs in terms other than who sits at your table, and who sits at the other table?
Punchy
Had to double-check to make sure I hadn’t mistakenly linked to DKos in error.
SiubhanDuinne
O/T but seeing “Gastritis Broke My Calculator” in the rotating tags gives me a big happy.
amk
@aimai: As long as glenny boy sticks to his strong suit i.e. law points, he’s fine. It’s when he wades into politics and policies, he becomes Mr jane hamsher.
Face
@joe from Lowell: Wow, I suspect your snark detector is way, way broken.
General Stuck
This entire story is beginning to resemble a hybrid episode of South Park meets Dallas. I am going to try and tune it out as much as possible.
cathyx
I suppose we shouldn’t be amazed at the conflation of media and politicians when one considers that corporations own the media and the politicians.
joe from Lowell
@Face: I suspect not, since the two examples of pathos are both enormous Greenwald fans, and were deadly serious as they leapt needlessly to his defense instead of discussing the topic.
Oh, but they were snarky when they did so, so that makes it admirable and useful.
aimai
@joe from Lowell:
Yes, yes we are. That’s the whole point. I object to the absolutely pathetic and ceaseless attacks by General Stuck and eemom on Glenn because, generally speaking, I approve of his *work*–not all his comments but I’m not required to read or follow all of his comments. But on his work, he’s rock solid. General Stuck et al take time out of ordinary threads that have nothing to do with Civil Liberties or Glenn Greenwald to attack him because *they* don’t like the table he sometimes sits at. Fuck off.
aimai
mistermix
@Face: No, I think he understood what El Tiburon was saying and is making a good point – that it’s better to evaluate what is being said than who’s saying it.
geg6
@joe from Lowell:
I agree. She was losing it and she even knew she was losing it as she lost it. Yellin, however, is a fucking clueless hack and was pwned quite beautifully. Glennzilla’s look of disgust every time she spoke to him was just icing on the cake. He has his uses, Greenwald does.
ChrisS
Not surprising. Greenwald knows his shit and Yellin is a pretty lady that can put smart sounding sentences together and doesn’t freeze up in front of a camera. And Spitzer v. Toobin is like a pitbull versus a chihuahua; they both have bark, but only one can back it up.
Alwhite
@joe from Lowell:
How is pointing out that there is a contingent here that hates GG, often for superficial reasons having nothing to do with the quality of his work translate into “rah rah, I’m Glenn’s biggest fan, and I’m so angry that there are people who aren’t!”?
Granted, it is a lot like the pre-snark crap I complained about in earlier posts but it is a long way from a love letter to GG. Myself, I’d prefer to wait for the inevitable screed from the general or ee. On the other hand point out the inevitable screed is hardly a mash note.
I find GG occasionally annoying, sometimes pompous and shrill but is reporting is outstanding. Compare that to Sully (since he appears in an FP post before this one) but who does not seem to draw the same sort of virulent hate here that GG does.
Napoleon
@Face:
You think?
MattF
Woodward has a well-established method: each book he writes has a ‘hero’, and Villagers will do pretty much anything to get that role (or a supporting role if the star has already been chosen). And it changes for every book– someone may be the hero of book N and the goat in book N+1.
Rather clever, actually.
CVS
Before this gets tossed down the memory hole, I think we should remember that both Ellsberg and Russo were charged with felonies under the Espionage Act for posting the Pentagon Papers, and both the NY Times and the Washington Post were the target of injunctions by the US Attorney General. I’m quite sure they were not portrayed as selfless heroes when all of this went down.
Looking at things through the lens of history makes a big difference. I’m sure that history will vindicate Assange.
aimai
@joe from Lowell:
Oh, yes, I’m sorry. My first comment was, of course, snark. Is that acceptable? My second was serious.
But look, Joe from Lowell, all joking and anger aside–I like Glenn’s work. He received the I.F. Stone award a couple of years ago because of its excellence and that means something to me. Like our blog host, John Cole, I’ve exchanged a few emails with him. To support Glenn and the part of his work that is good is not, actually, an example of “pathos” but simply good sense. He’s doing work that very few others are doing in the bloggosphere and its worth supporting. I see no reason to watch him vilified by General Stuck and his various playmates because hey have nothing better to do and no better enemies out there to attack. They can get back to me when they have written some good books on Civil Liberties.
aimai
General Stuck
@aimai:
I was going to stay out this clownish bullshit, but since you rang.
It’s not Greenwald’s fault that morons like you worship his every uttering.
joe from Lowell
@aimai:
Nobody cares why you object to “General Stuck” and “eemom.” They hadn’t even written anything when you decided to pick a fight on this thread.
Nobody cares why you heart Glenn Greenwald, either.
This is an actual story of some importance. Do you think that whining about the existence of people who disagree with you accomplishes anything beyond turning the entire story into a drama about you and your hurt feelings and your resentments?
You admire Greenwald’s work so much that when you see a blog post featuring him making important points in the national media about an important case, your response is to…echo his thoughts? Expand on one of his points? Discuss your admiration for his position?
Why, no, your response is to do your best to turn the thread into a slap fight.
Congratulations.
General Stuck
@aimai:
Oh fuck off, I make arguments, you don’t engage them. Then show up before to sling insults on a thread I’m not yet on. Take your entitled libtard bullshit and shove it.
joe from Lowell
@geg6: I agree. There was a level of self-awareness about Townsend, as opposed to Yellin, who seemed to spend an inordinate amount of time trying to work out whether Greenwald had just ragged on CNN.
Dork
Does Glennnnn still reside in Brasil?
General Stuck
@General Stuck:
aimai
And speaking of having no better enemies to attack, you defend a guy who spends every waking hour spinning Obama worse than Bush craptastic yarns. fucking wanker.
aimai
@General Stuck:
Up jumped the devil! Well, you were invoked three times. Since I specifically said that I ignore the parts of Glenn’s comment history that aren’t relevant to his work in Civil Liberties you would, of course, be wrong. The world isn’t divided into people who “worship” or who hate Glenn Greenwald anymore than it is divided between people who worship Obama and people who “hate” him (or people who worshipped Bush and people with BDS. There are a raft of perfectly reasonable positions in between those two points and most of us fall somewhere in between at all times. Its sensible to admire any man for what he does right and criticize him, when appropriate, for what he does wrong. El Tib and I were gently tweaking your tendency (which has many friends at Balloon Juice) for *inappropriately* interjecting Glenn’s name into threads where he doesn’t belong just to get your kicks in.
aimai
Dork
In with the obligatory link…
joe from Lowell
@Alwhite: I wasn’t complaining about a mash note. I was complaining about a cheap shot, off topic, out of nowhere, that had nothing to do with the rather important subject of the post, or even about the people in it, but was instead just a whine that there are people who don’t like Glenn Greenwald.
ZOMG, somebody who writes comments on a blog doesn’t like Glenn Greenwald! That’s clearly more important than whether the Wikileaks cables’ release represents a crime; whether it harmed the United States; whether it should be a prosecutable offense; or anything else having even the slightest connection to the interview in the clip.
geg6
@aimai:
Indeed.
Some people are just the types to be irrational, whether with their hero worship or their enemies lists. Sometimes, it’s a mark of honor to make those enemies lists.
And to bring it all around to Woodward again, it’s a giant disgrace everywhere but the Village, to sell out that mark of honor to become a part of the conspiracy of criminals and con men you once exposed.
aimai
@joe from Lowell:
I thought I’d joined in appropriately upthread when I commented on the Jeffrey Toobin part of the post. But OK, if there’s an approved and disapproved way to comment on this post let me say that I thoroughly enjoyed the clip and Yellin and Townsend’s discomfiture. Since I don’t watch TV, ever, except through clips like this I thought it was great.
I especially enjoyed the fact that Yellin came prepared primarily to speak for an audience of angry American capitalists whose feelings were hurt that a presumed socialist was getting some of their good monetary action. She thought that their sense of outrage at wikileaks could be channeled into outrage that some blond guy shown getting out of a car over and over again was going to get 1.3 million in cash bux for criticizing rich people (!) when anyone could see that that was a “bit of a contradiction there…”
I thought Glenn was really good at both taking the questions head on and also subverting them–rather like Barney did in the amazing CNS interview where he turned the “gays showering with the military” ambush into a teachable moment.
Now that I’ve offered you my valuable insights can I keep playing in the comment thread?
aimai
joe from Lowell
@aimai:
No shit. Were you under the impression that I thought you were actually, in all seriousness, expressing concern about Greenwald?
Snark is perfectly acceptable. Jacking a thread to indulge your pre-existing hostility towards another commenter, not so much.
That’s nice. Maybe you could write a comment like that. It would have been relevant and adult.
Nobody cares about how you feel about General Stuck, and when you just can’t help but share those feelings and attack him, it degrades the community and the discussion.
burnspbesq
31 comments in, and nothing about substance. Y’all are acting like a bunch of two-year-olds. I don’t need this.
John Bird
Greenwald and Spitzer own.
General Stuck
@aimai:
Who died and made you arbiter of when it is appropriate to “interject” HIS name. Gawd some of you are pathetic. I make arguments with actual facts that actually goes to debunking much of GG bullshit Obama worse than Bush tirades, you and el tib sling shit and whine, and never do make an argument when you have the opportunity, other than anyone who criticizes this person must be cause they are closeted gay according to your blog buddy toddles. Pathetic homophobe card.
RP
My god…Yellin is pathetic.
aimai
@geg6:
My other comment to Joe from Lowell is in moderation but I think its important to point out that Woodward (and Bernstein) werent really the darlings of the establishment originally. Woodward had to kiss a whole lot of ass and make sure that he wasn’t any kind of real threat to power before they let him back in the club. Bernstein, however, never did so and remains more or less an outsider to this day. In other words all this Woodward love from the village is an interesting mix of wilful suppression and revalorization of Woodward’s (and the WaPo’s) original sin.
(I met a rabbi once who specialized in interfaith marraiges and he talked about “transvaluing the symbolism” of key elements of the marriage ceremony like the greek crowns used in an orthodox wedding with the image of the sabbath bride/queen in a jewish wedding.)
The “transvaluing” of the symbolism of Woodward’s very name lies in the fact that some villagers have completely forgotten that Woodward ever engaged in non government directed leaking while liberals and some conservatives do remember it. To Liberals and people with a memory the fact that Woodward leaked classified data reminds us that such leaks are necessary to journalism and democracy. To some conservatives who mention Woodward his name stands in for some confused notion that *at least he was American* or *at least he’s one of us* or *at least his significant leaks were long ago and we now all have to say we didn’t support Nixon’s criminal acts.*
aimai
WarMunchkin
I love how nobody can actually say what crime Assange committed. If there’s anything that drives me absolutely nuts about this whole wikileaks thing, it’s that nobody ever is allowed to say what crime or what specific violation of law he committed.
Bob
Eat flaming death, fascist media pigs!
aimai
This was moderated because of the dread sck-list word.
I thought I’d joined in appropriately upthread when I commented on the Jeffrey Toobin part of the post. But OK, if there’s an approved and disapproved way to comment on this post let me say that I thoroughly enjoyed the clip and Yellin and Townsend’s discomfiture. Since I don’t watch TV, ever, except through clips like this I thought it was great.
I especially enjoyed the fact that Yellin came prepared primarily to speak for an audience of angry American capitalists whose feelings were hurt that a presumed sock-lst was getting some of their good monetary action. She thought that their sense of outrage at wikileaks could be channeled into outrage that some blond guy shown getting out of a car over and over again was going to get 1.3 million in cash bux for criticizing rich people (!) when anyone could see that that was a “bit of a contradiction there…”
I thought Glenn was really good at both taking the questions head on and also subverting them—rather like Barney did in the amazing CNS interview where he turned the “gays showering with the military” ambush into a teachable moment.
Now that I’ve offered you my valuable insights can I keep playing in the comment thread?
aimai
Edited to add: Joe from Lowell I know I tripped your anger meter on an earlier thread about catholicism and I’m sorry for that. It seems to have permanently placed me on your anger list. I apologize for hurting your feelings then.
j low
Worst BJ thread in ages. I don’t even think soonergrunt could save this one.
Mark S.
For me, the scandal in this case is that A FUCKING PRIVATE IN THE ARMY WAS ABLE TO ACCESS ALL OF OUR FUCKING DIPLOMATIC CABLES. THIS IS A DEGREE OF STUPIDITY I CANNOT FATHOM.
General Stuck
Well, la tee da
aimai
@WarMunchkin:
Well, Yellin’s whole point was that the “crime” was “possibly benefitting financially from wikileaks” because that would be hypocrisy or something. To me that was one of the most revealing moments of a very revealing clip. She was under the impression that this charge was some kind of killer app after which no Assange defender would ever rise again. Its the equivalent of the “Gore is Fat” and also “Gore has a big house” argument with respect to Global Warming. And that’s literally all she had. It seems to me that very few people on the right/media are willing to even address the question of what laws have been broken by Assange. They didn’t think they’d need to get that deep in the weeds.
aimai
John Bird
Expect the anti-civil-liberties, anti-freedom-of-information rhetoric to rev up soon, online and elsewhere.
The next round of leaks is going to be about a big bank – and so there’s going to be more money than ever behind the people keeping information from you, the citizen.
PR contractors will go on the offensive with everything from planted stories through the usual suspects, to coordinated op-eds on all the right pages, to their universally lamest tactic, fake comments on blogs.
Punchy
The vilification and sanctimonious vituperation of the aforementioned ex-pat’s philippic should in no way engender a martyr’s complex upon said individual. The pretentious manner in which this homo homo sapien phlegmatically will convey his viewpoint, and the manifestation of his loquacious opining with respect to standard collegial discourse is antithetical to strong politicking, and merely substantiates within his own august aura his raison d’etre.
WarMunchkin
I’d just like to say, in the spirit of the thread so far, I <3 all of you.
Cacti
I wonder if the sex crime angle makes Spitzer feel particularly sympathetic to Assange.
Mark S.
I wish someone would say something of substance like “If you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime.”
General Stuck
@Mark S.:
If you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime. :-)
Cacti
@Mark S.:
I was thinking more along the lines of “crime pays when you’re rich and white”.
joe from Lowell
@aimai:
Actually, I’d completely forgotten you were even on that thread. I complained about your irrelevant, fight-starting comment because I objected to your irrelevant, fight-starting comment.
BTW, did you notice that you started out this thread with a complaint about how someone writes about Glenn Greenwald, and now you’re trying to make yourself look better by writing things like:
and
Malron
Meh on the Julian Assange fapfests already. I know everybody’s getting sparkling boners about the idea of a brave whistleblower leaking info about the power elite but something’s just not smelling right about him. Until Assange “thoroughly demolishes” the rape charges against him – and I do not mean simply assassinate the character of his accusers as other male fans of his cheer him on – I’m staying away from the guy.
joe from Lowell
Re: “Shouldn’t he be ready to go to jail?”
Recognizing that you will likely fact retribution for your actions, and believing that retribution to be appropriate and legitimate, are two different things. Yes, Rosa Parks was ready to be arrested. No, that doesn’t mean it is right to arrest black people for sitting in the “wrong” part of the bus.
Re: “But there’s a contradiction there” in Assange making money.
Townsends “Of course he’s making a profit” doesn’t address Glenn’s point, which is that the money from this book will be eaten up in legal fees. Assange isn’t going to become a millionaire. Saying “Of course” doesn’t change the facts. And as for Yellin, I’ve seen Assange complain about a lot of things politicians do. I’ve yet to see “sign book deals” among those complaints.
Really, a sorry performance from Yellin and Townsend.
joe from Lowell
@Malron: Fine, stay away from the guy.
But the cables say what they say.
I wish Assange himself, and his legal troubles, got less attention, and the actual contents of the cables got more.
Cacti
@Malron:
But, he’s been “forced” to publish his memoirs because he’s being “persecuted”.
EdTheRed
The Dude: Walter, what is the point? Look, we all know who is at fault here, what the f*ck are you talking about?
Walter Sobchak: Huh? No, what the f*ck are you… I’m not… We’re talking about leaking classified materials here, dude.
Donny: What the f*ck is he talking about?
The Dude: Wikileaks.
Walter Sobchak: Forget it, Donny, you’re out of your element!
The Dude: Walter, the kangaroo shagger who leaked the cables, I can’t go give him a bill, so what the f*ck are you talking about?
Walter Sobchak: What the f*ck are you talking about? The kangaroo shagger is not the issue here, Dude. I’m talking about drawing a line in the sand, Dude. Across this line, you DO NOT… Also, Dude, kangaroo shagger is not the preferred nomenclature. Australian, please.
The Dude: Walter, this isn’t a guy who invented vegemite here. This is a guy…
Walter Sobchak: What the f*ck are you…?
The Dude: Walter, he leaked classified materials!
Donny: He leaked classified materials.
Walter Sobchak: Donny you’re out of your element! Dude, the kangaroo shagger is not the issue here!
Morbo
And Tonight’s #1 way to poison the well on Balloon Juice threads in the original post:
Greenwald!
Legalize
@Cacti:
Why? That’s a strange thing to wonder about.
amk
Didn’t Al Giordano (of Narconews and The Field) win the first case in the US courts that internet people also have the first amendment protection and thus set a precedent for this wikileaks case ?
SteveinSC
And now for the “Cleverest Troll of 2010” award—I give you Joe from Lowell. Now take your award and Northern Exposure thread-jacking somewhere else, asshole
Cacti
@Legalize:
Nah, I don’t really wonder.
I just can’t stand America’s most famous John.
El Tiburon
@joe from Lowell:
Yep, that was my response. I sincerely apologize I did not have time to watch a long video and then compose an appropriate response to it.
But I noticed you certainly took a long time to type upa comment that had nothing to so with the substance of the video as well.
Until then I will simply sit back and enjoy all the bed wetting by the General and eemom, et al throw temper tantrums every time Greenwald is linked to.
And I will also await somebody somewhere to show me where Greenwald does such piss poor work.
Otherwise I will continue to wonder what motivates some of you to lash out out the guy. It’s really quite funny.
Hawes
Journalism would be better – a lot better – if they hired more attorneys and fewer journalism school grads. Spitzer treats his interviews like cross examinations. That is awesome.
Buy that man a
prostitute!Beer!joe from Lowell
@El Tiburon:
Apology accepted.
Have you considered just not saying anything when you have nothing to say? It would probably be best for all concerned.
I’ve written multiple comments about the case, the video, and Greenwald’s performance. I don’t know what you think you’re going to accomplish by likening our contributions, when everyone can read what we’ve both written.
You? I don’t recall “lashing out at” Greenwald on this thread. I recall backing up his argument a few times. Perhaps you should make more of an effort to actually understand and consider what people write, instead of merely categorizing and labeling it.
Yeah, the whole forced-laughter meme just makes you look a bit desperate. That you would feel the need to write a pre-emptive attack on people who disagree with you is not the behavior of someone who lightly laughs that opinion off.
joe from Lowell
@SteveinSC: What an odd, bitter little person. I complain about thread-jacking, and proceed to write several comments in general agreement with the post and the opinions of most commenters, and that makes me a threajacker and troll?
Son, you seem a bit confused, and more than a bit irrationally angry.
Cacti
@Hawes:
I rather wish some impertinent guest would ask the cross examiner if “But Eliot Spitzer got away with it” is now a complete defense to a solicitation charge in New York.
guster
@Malron: I’ve got a question about that. How does the truth of falsity of the rape charges affect the worth of the Wikileaks project?
General Stuck
@El Tiburon:
Obama worse than Bush. That’s it. And you can mark this comment if you want. I will not be mentioning Greenwald’s name, unless and until there is a post link or reference in comments to another unfair or untrue Greenwald smearing of President Obama, then it’s blog war time. If I do speak of this person for another reason, then you can remind me of this comment.
Villago Delenda Est
Most PR people are graduates of journalism schools.
Tells you all you need to know about “journalism” nowadays.
amk
Here’s Giordano’s story on this and his claim how government is blowing smoke in this wiki thingy.
http://narcosphere.narconews.com/thefield/4216/banamex-v-narco-news-precedent-protects-wikileaks-too
Paul in KY
@aimai: I generally agree with this comment. I do like the General & wish he’d come around to see the excellent & exhaustive work Glenn does.
singfoom
Jesus, that was too much stupid for an 11 minute clip. Townsend’s repeated insistence that Assange committed a crime is par for the course. The way in which the host framed the question seemed to me to betray the narrative that they desire to get out there:
Assange is bad. He committed a crime (even though he didn’t WRT the leaks).
Definitely must be frustrating for GG to go out there and fight the narrative on this one. Seems like they’re just warming people up on some evil Traitor Assange Hateerade before the DOJ makes a pretzel case against him for the leaks.
It’s sad, but predictable. I do continue to enjoy those who yell about Assange and the Pentagon Papers when Ellsberg himself has made the comparison. But they never mention that.
RP
I do wish Greenwald had pointed out Yellin’s obvious fallacies: First, she uses a classic tu quoque argument by claiming that, by having a book deal with a large publisher, Assange is guilty of taking advantage of the very system he’s attacking. Even if it’s true that he’s a hypocrite — and I don’t think he is, since the fact that he wants to expose corruption and malfeasance doesn’t mean that he wants to dump our entire capitalist system — that doesn’t say anything about the merits of wikileaks.
While I think Greenwald did an excellent job, I did think his initial comments about Assage’s book deal were a little weak. Assange pretty clearly is profiting from all of this — the fact that he needs the money for his legal defense isn’t really that important. But Greenwald should have just said, “so what? That’s not relevant to anything.”
Second, her claim that he should be prepare to go to jail for his actions is classic question begging. She’s assuming that he’s committed a crime, but that’s the point in dispute. Greenwald does respond to this argument effectively, but part of me wishes he had pointed out the logical fallacy.
El Tiburon
@joe from Lowell:
Jesus christ you really are a moron. Go read what I wrote again for fucks sake.
@General Stuck:
Holy shit, its worse than I thought. So that Greenwald thinks Obama is worse than Bush on some issues (which there is a lot of agreement) this means all of his work is crap? Ok, that makes a lot of sense.
joe from Lowell
@singfoom:
I don’t know, man. He looked like he was having fun out there. He was so obviously pwning those two. It wasn’t even fair.
singfoom
@RP: It’s gotta be frustrating enough to fight the “indiscriminate” lie on every appearance he does. He does well by calling out the lie, but the # of callouts vs. the number of instances where people perpetuate it means that it is one of the great zombie lies, ala WMD.
I’d eventually break down and start asking the other guests and the host why they are such fucking idiots. This does happen occasionally and the commenter is denounced in the media for being NOT SERIOUS because they cursed.
RP
More question begging. The question of whether Obama is worse than Bush in any substantive way is very much in dispute. I think Greenwald does a lot of good work, but I think he has a blind spot when it comes to Obama, and that diminishes his credibility in my view.
joe from Lowell
@RP:
How about, “Look, Assange’s legal bills are going to be over a million dollars, and he’s doing what he can to cover them. He isn’t Scooter Libby. He can’t just reach out his hand and have 5000 Washington insiders put a zillion dollars into his legal defense fund.”
singfoom
@joe from Lowell: I’ll have to respectfully disagree. Sure, from a logical standpoint, he was ripping them apart, but he looked sweaty and irritated. And since they’ll talk to tons more people than him about this and most will be, “Of course, Assange is a horrible criminal that must pay for his crimes and the people he killed blah blah blah” has gotta make you feel nuts.
Like Mugatu in Zoolander. “AM I TAKING CRAZY PILLS?”
I’d give money to see someone yell that on the air.
joe from Lowell
@El Tiburon:
Aw, and to think I accused you of having nothing substantive to contribute and being pointlessly belligerent.
I read what you wrote just fine, champ. I DISAGREED with it.
You don’t seem to understand that there’s a difference – but, then, as you wrote yourself, you are continually baffled by the fact that there are those who disagree with you, and can’t understand the concept.
RP
I like it.
Jose Padilla
“there is a distinction in part because the president of the United States and the vice president are allowed to declassify anything they want at any time for any reason.”
Is this the law? Has it always been the law? Are there any limitations? Any procedure that they have to go through? Can it be done ex post facto if, say, the VP is caught selling nuclear secrets to the Chinese, can he say, “Well, I declassfied those a couple years ago.” Silly me, I thought we were a nation of laws, not men.
El Cid
Admittedly I have not looked far & wide, but Greenwald’s coverage and outrage at this issue — occasionally apparently with weak or incorrect evidence or judgment — is the only visible and strong opposition to the pathetic joke which is called ‘journalism’ on their propaganda unification with government on the issue of Assange and WikiLeak’s cable releases.
Certainly some journalists and investigative reports are hugely necessary and bold, but every time I have seen any large establishment drive to war, forget it. The ‘news’ media become a cheering section for whatever hawk drive their is, with dissent being merely ‘can we do it’.
joe from Lowell
@RP:
The thing to remember about Greenwald is that he’s writing like a lawyer argues in court. He doesn’t consider it his job to be objective or fair, any more than a defense attorney should be objective and fair about whether his client should be found guilty, but to argue his case in the manner most effective at convincing his readers of what he wants them to believe, and to put the other side on the defensive.
The other thing to remember about Greenwald is that he only began paying attention to politics relatively recently, about four years ago, and his understanding about political reality is somewhat adolescent as a result.
These two factors combine in a way that gives his writing about political figures a tone of un-nuanced, personal condemnation.
singfoom
@El Cid: Son, you gotta stop hating on America.
/wingnut off
Yeah, this x 1000. This brings me back to 2003, when everyone I knew thought there were no WMDs that they were lying and we marched to no effect and everyone called us traitors and haters and America blamers and such.
It’s all about the narrative. You don’t go against the “We’re #1 and this person/state/religion/ideology is bad and we must destroy it!”
We’ve been stuck in this groove for a long time. The US needs an other. Having an other to fear/hate stops you from any contemplation of your own actions.
You just wait. Someday we’ll have aliens as an other. Then we can come together as a planet.
joe from Lowell
@singfoom:
I think that’s just Glenn Greenwald.
Paul in KY
@RP: I don’t think Glenn thinks’s Pres. Obama is ‘worse’ than Pres. Chimpy when it comes to civil liberties.
I think Glenn thinks Pres. Obama is too close to the previous administration’s positions when it comes to civil liberties & that gives Glenn a sad.
Gives me a sad too.
joe from Lowell
@Paul in KY: I think Greenwald 1) only writes about those areas of civil liberties in which the current administration does something to offend him (which makes sense, because “Obama administration pretty ok on book censorship” isn’t a story that needs writing), and 2) uses the “worse than Bush/just like Bush” line to give his writing emotional punch.
Emotional punch is clearly a big thing for Greenwald.
Legalize
This thread is pretty amazing. Greenwald and Spitzer hand several talking hairdos their asses, by arguing positions I suspect that most BJ readers largely agree with. And the comments are mostly about which of them is the biggest asshole / moron / bad person.
Emma
Oh, Lordy. Can’t we just get out of the Greenwald zone here? The man knows what he knows (civil liberties), does excellent work (see clip) and he ALSO has a thin skin and assumes people who disagree with him are evil servants of the Obama empire. Yes? Yes.
There’s a spanish saying, lo cortes no quita lo valiente. Let’s apply it and move on. As someone mentioned upthread, what the heck kind of security do we have where a low level nobody has his hands on all the diplomatic traffic?
Paul in KY
@joe from Lowell: Agreed with your take that Glenn writes like a defense lawyer (strong advocate for his position) & I also agree that he’s certainly focusing on the current admistration’s shortcomings in the civil liberties area (at least, Glenn’s opinions on their perceived shortcomings).
Haven’t been hanging around Glenn’s blog as much as I used to (some other blog ,coughballoonjuicecough, seems to get more of my attention these days), but I’m guessing it would be hyperbole (my take) if Glenn has been pronouncing the Obama administration as ‘worse than’ Darth Cheney’s (when it comes to civil liberties).
Paul in KY
@Emma: I had ‘low level nobodies’ (fine E2s and E3s, etc.) in my Comm Center that handled Top Secret traffic every day.
There’s a certain amount of trust that still goes into the handling of classified data.
Edit: Emma, my Spanish is muy mal. Could you provide a translation of your phrase?
Bulworth
Assange is way different from Woodward because shut up that’s why.
Stillwater
@joe from Lowell:
… in order to just start fighting. This is you’re MO Joe: write something vaguely resembling an assertion, wait for the gullible to counter it, then wage glorious cyber-war on them all the while moving the goalposts to escalate the fight.
Thread after thread, dude, you demonstrate that you’re a propagandist who values fighting more than a good argument.
debit
The only thing this thread is missing is WyldPirate, or whatever he calls himself, to come in frothing about how Obama has butt hurt him today. The the circle off topic meta will be complete.
PS
@EdTheRed: Thank you.
change
@Stillwater:
That is pretty much joe summed up.
change
@Stillwater:
That is pretty much joe summed up.
Emma
Paul in KY: I suppose so. But maybe not passing them all through one place?
It means, “that a man is courteous doesn’t mean he’s not brave,” i.e. one person can have two “contradictory” qualities at once.
junebug
@joe from Lowell:
This is exactly right.
@aimai:
Way to name drop.
catclub
@WarMunchkin: This.
I think GG would have really shown what an idiot Yellin is if he had tried the Socratic method. “Exactly what crime has Assange committed? Which district attorney has indicted him?
Was he in the United States when he committed this crime?
How does his crime differ from any other reporter who develop sources in the government who have access to classified material?”
ericblair
@Jose Padilla:
It’s not a law, it’s an executive order. The prez and VP have original classification authority, as well as other cabinet-level staff. However, if the prez or VP declassifies something, it’s declassified: the markings are removed or crossed out from the documents and it follows the correct declassification process. In other words, if it’s declassified, it’s declassified: nobody can just hand some classified document to someone saying it’s declassified for him and not anyone else (cough) Cheney (cough).
There are bilateral and multilateral information sharing agreements where foreign governments have access to certain US classified materials, but this is all written up quite specifically who gets access to what (for obvious reasons).
catclub
@Paul in KY: “There’s a certain amount of trust that still goes into the handling of classified data.”
This sounds crazy to me. Aren’t there LOGS of traffic and who has touched the traffic or had access? That does not require quite as much trust. And telling those E3’s that there are logs that record what you are doing on the classified network seems like both fair warning and a useful limit to misbehavior.
… at least until they find out where the logs are located and that the logs can be edited.
BTD
@joe from Lowell:
Sure, but that’s par for the course here about everyone Joe.
Your outrage on this point is rather selective.
Paul in KY
@Emma: Thank’s for the translation :-)
In my case, it was all the classified traffic that passed thru the Comm Center at my AFB (not a really big one, as bases go).
My people wouldn’t have had access to all the stuff that Pvt. Manning seemingly did (and I’m not convinced yet that he was the one who gave it all to Wikileaks). So, good point.
Mojotron
@Stillwater:
I’ve never gotten that “propagandist” impression of Joe from Lowell; look through his posts here and they’re overwhelmingly reasonable. Giving him the benefit of the doubt, I can see why he might post that original response to Tiburon if he had not seen the Greenwald thread from yesterday where eemom and Stuck were “aggressively dismissive” and posted multiple times about how they couldn’t be bothered to engage- “I’d rather watch old episodes of X Files than engage with this nonsense”, “if Greenwald said it I don’t believe it”, etc…
Paul in KY
@catclub: The classified traffic was in a ‘double-secret’ secure section of a secure building. The classified would have to be under a person’s control when they passed it in to the personnel who worked in the Comm Center. Any classified traffic that was ‘passed thru’ our terminal would also be presumed to be under the control of the personnel on duty (in the extra-secure room).
There were logs, etc. but we didn’t have video surveillence of the room & I’m sure a dedicated spy (who had gotten into one of the E-3 jobs) could photograph stuff while another person was in the john, etc.
We did have various COMSEC stuff (related to codes used by us) that was under even stricter security & (I think) would have been harder to walk off with than a top secret cable, IMO.
Glad I have nothing to do with that stuff anymore.
timb
@RP: My memory is that she was a particular odious font of CW when she was on Maher’s show near the end of last season.
benjoya
has toobin always been this stupid?
Steeplejack
@Emma:
A more colloquial English translation might be something like “It costs nothing to be polite.”
Stillwater
@Mojotron:
I’ve never gotten that “propagandist” impression of Joe from Lowell; look through his posts here and they’re overwhelmingly reasonable.
He cherrypicks facts when they suit him, discounts/ignores/doesn’t acknowledge facts when it suits him, creates a straw-man of his critics counter-argument when it suits him all to persuade other people, but not the person he’s arguing with, that he is right.
Cacti
@Legalize:
But Spitzer is an asshole and a bad person.
Walking proof that if you’re a rich, famous, powerful asshole and bad person, you’ll suffer no lasting consequences for your assholery or bad personality.
gwangung
@Stillwater: Hm. No more so than other posters, but YMMV.
(Though I’d be concerned with who’s agreeing with you….)
handy
Wow, let the drum beating commence! I’m so glad I don’t have cable anymore.
Stillwater
@gwangung: (Though I’d be concerned with who’s agreeing with you….)
Noted.
RP
I didn’t see that episode, but she couldn’t possibly be as bad as Amy Holmes. I can’t watch the episodes with her.
Cathie from Canada
Sorry, somebody may have already mentioned this upthread, but wasn’t it Fran Townsend who listed the successes of George Bush as including the capture of Osama Bin Laden, and, when the interviewer pointed out that Bin Laden had not actually been captured, she changed the description to “a success that hasn’t happened yet.”
I always thought this was a perfect example of the Republican fantasy-based community.
Emma
Steeplejack: I thought of that but that’s not the core of the saying. It speaks to people (or things, though that’s less used) holding contradictory qualities and, by implication, that reasonable people can understand and accept that.
burnspbesq
@WarMunchkin:
Apologies if you’ve missed it, but I have theorized a number of times about what Assange could be guilty of if the facts turn out to be what I believe them to be (Conspiracy and aiding and abetting the theft of government property; 18 USC sections 371 and 641). Not sure what you were trying to get at by saying “is allowed to.”
burnspbesq
@Punchy:
I see. Thanks for the clarification.
RP
re Toobin — I think he’s an excellent writer and usually does a great job of analyzing legal issues. I don’t understand his reasoning on this issue, but I think he deserves a bit of a pass based on his overall body of work. He’s far from a hack. Plus, it sounds like he was at least listening to Spitzer’s argument instead of digging in his heels like some other nitwits.
burnspbesq
@singfoom:
Really? Please share with us your intimate knowledge of the relevant facts that causes you to conclude that there can be no successful prosecution for conspiracy or aiding and abetting the theft of government property.
Nobody knows anything. Some of us are honest enough to admit when we’re speculating.
burnspbesq
@RP:
David Cole from Georgetown Law has a very thoughtful and balanced assessment of the merits of the “Obama is no better than Bush” meme in the 12/30 issue of TNR. Unfortunately, it’s behind the “subscribers only” wall.
DFH no.6
Damn, but comment threads around here get fuckin’ weird sometimes.
Two of my favoritest commenters who’ve both been writing good stuff for years across the lefty blogosphere – aimai and joe from Lowell – go at each other over Glennzilla, with various ones picking up the gantlent on each side, while EdTheRed wins the internets with his “Big Lebowski” take.
And I’m thinking, “OK, there are a lot of valid points all around, some maybe not so valid, and a good deal of people talking past each other. But why the vituperation? Seems disproportionate to the actual disagreements”.
One of the distinguishing qualities of the left compared to the right is the left is much less likely to engage in lockstep thinking, which is a good thing (the old canard about a liberal being reluctant to take his own side in a fight pertains). But man, some of you are really splitting hairs and getting unnecessarily pissy over it. I’m reminded of that admonition from the Good Book about straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel.
And I’m still not settled in my own mind on Wikileaks/Assange, though my disposition and my experience going back to the halcyon days of Nixon push me pretty hard in the general direction of “exposing government secrets is good”. A la The Pentagon Papers and Watergate/Deep Throat, etc.. The Devil, of course, is in the details.
singfoom
@burnspbesq: Wow, accuse me of dishonesty when all I’m saying is that he has not been indicted OR convicted in a court of law for any crime with respect to the leaks.
That’s a fucking fact. Why don’t you share with us your fucking knowledge about the prosecution? Sure, people have talked about what they *MIGHT* charge him with, but again, he has not been charged.
You might not know anything, but again, I KNOW he hasn’t been charged or convicted of a crime. Talk to me then.
And lighten the fuck up
Mike Kay (Democrat of the Century)
If Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge had a blog, it would look like glen’s far left dump.
Mike Kay (Democrat of the Century)
what’s with the crush on glen? he’s really short, he has no neck, he sweats like nixon on tee vee, he has a bulbous nose, and bad skin. I mean the only thing that could make it worse is if he had braces.
if ya gonna have a pin-up aim high. Stop with the dumpster diving. Try Anderson Cooper, Olbermann, and O’Donnell, at the very least, they’re good looking.
chaseyourtail
BFD, a three-year-old could completely demolish Jessica Yellin. Sorry if I don’t get a boner every time there’s a “Greenwald smackdown”..
burnspbesq
@singfoom:
Bullshit. The only possible interpretation of what you initially wrote is that Assange has not committed a crime. Go back and read your own damn comment. You said not a thing about the absence of an indictment. You said he has committed no crimes.
If you meant something other than what you wrote, then clarify it. I took what you actually wrote at face value. Sorry about my lack of clairvoyance.
I’ll lighten up when you learn to clearly express what you actually mean. Deal?
joe from Lowell
@Stillwater:
I have an MO? I’m honored. Tell me, do I have an ilk?
Guy, I matter way too much to you.
That doesn’t even make any sense. For one thing, that’s not what a propagandist does. Hell, I don’t even know who I’m supposed to propagandizing for here.
All I can gather is that you very strong feelings about something, and I’m not toting your line, so I must be villain/secret agent sent to silence your righteous truth.
I think you take your comments, and mine, way too seriously.
joe from Lowell
@BTD:
I don’t think that’s true at all, and I think it does a disservice to dumb down everything into that.
Mike Kay (Democrat of the Century)
@chaseyourtail: exactly. when he goes up against an actual attorney, like Lawrence o’donnell or lawrence lessig, glen gets crushed.
joe from Lowell
@Mike Kay (Democrat of the Century): That hasn’t been my impression.
I’ve found Greenwald arguing law at an expert to level to be what he does best. Much better than his political writing, for example.
singfoom
@burnspbesq:
burnspbesq,
There. There’s my quote. To my knowledge, he hasn’t committed a crime WRT to the leaks because no one has charged him with a crime. Can you point to a law that he has broken?
It would seem to me that the burden of proof falls on those who say “HE COMMITTED A CRIME”. I’m not going to sit here and prove a negative. If you want to get your panties all up in a bunch because you think that something I wrote means something other than I think it means, go right the fuck ahead.
I don’t give a shit. The fact still stands that no one has indicted the guy, much less convicted him of anything. Why? Because he didn’t commit a crime. Yet people on TV (you know the clip I was fucking discussing) say “He’s committed x” with impunity.
Bob Loblaw
Another Balloon Juice classic. Just start referring to Greenwald as Mr. X or something and hide all the salon links as tinyurls to throw people off the scent.
As to Toobin’s dumbfounding, the obvious answer is that when a President (or in this case, four star general) does it, it’s not a crime. Besides the administration and the military need to get their stories straight for when they fail to create a viable Afghan state after a decade and a half. Covering one’s ass is a far more virtuous activity than uncovering state sanctioned criminal behavior and corruption worldwide.
Another Bob
You can see how effective the mainstream hack-attack on Assange is minus the presence of a more knowledgeable source like Greenwald to shoot it down. We get this kind of shit over and over in our press, and it’s always presented in such a one-side, open-and-shut manner that most viewers probably aren’t even aware that there IS an alternate point of view. It’s sad to see how much of our “news” is now just propaganda at best, and at worst, as this clip gives a perfect example of, it’s often outright lies presented as fact. I’d really love to know if this Townsend woman knows that she’s lying or if she just never bothered to verify the information for herself. Odds are 9-in-10 that the next chance she has for an interview she’ll repeat all the same lies that Greenwald just mopped the floor with.
General Stuck
@General Stuck:
After thinking it over some, I’ve decided that self censorship in this case is unwarranted and hereby rescind the above pledge.
I will be mentioning whatever name I wish, on whatever thread I wish, at any time I wish, for whatever reason I wish, and short of banning, will not be swayed from speaking my mind as such, regardless of the whines of others. Have a nice day.