Read on Twitter
Congratulations to a lot of good reporters at the Intercept, who have been unfairly tainted by Glenn Greenwald simply making shit up with impunity for too long.
Reminder that the Intercept raised funds off of Glenn Greenwald making false claims about why I went to the FBI.
https://greenwald.substack.com/p/my-resignation-from-the-intercept
https://greenwald.substack.com/p/my-resignation-from-the-intercept
For those who haven't read it, here's part of why I went to the FBI, which is what Glenn spent months claiming involved simply burning a source. https://www.emptywheel.net/2020/10/26/part-of-what-i-shared-with-the-fbi/
Here's my piece on how Glenn Greenwald made shit up in his piece wailing bc Twitter wasn't letting the Post propaganda go viral. https://www.emptywheel.net/2020/10/18/steve-bannon-guccifer-2-0-glenn-greenwald-and-me-how-glenn-greenwald-defends-smear-artist-cowards/
And here's my piece on how Glenn Greenwald made EVEN MORE shit up in defense of Mike Flynn and authoritarian Billy Barr. https://www.emptywheel.net/2020/05/19/glenn-greenwalds-invented-claims-in-defense-of-bill-barr-and-mike-flynn/
There are, as I said, some really superb journalists at the Intercept, and I know a goodly many of them were perturbed BOTH that Glenn's crazypants rants of late tainted their credibility and that he got paid so much.
Remember: They are professional journalists doing good work.
Remember: They are professional journalists doing good work.
Trying to figure out what charity I should fundraise for in exchange for doing an analysis of the piece that Glenn resigned over? Wonder if it'd be too political for Ida B Wells Foundation...
I honestly can't WAIT to see the Biden article that Glenn quit over.
Now I'm holding my breath to see if daddy gives Glenn a shout out at tonight's rally.
Me, from early 2018...
All Glenn Greenwald’s Women
How the all-male citations in a profile of a major American journalist obscure a crucial nuance about Russia’s meddling in the 2016 election
https://newrepublic.com/article/146725/glenn-greenwalds-women https://twitter.com/newrepublic/status/1321900866169876481
All Glenn Greenwald’s Women
How the all-male citations in a profile of a major American journalist obscure a crucial nuance about Russia’s meddling in the 2016 election
https://newrepublic.com/article/146725/glenn-greenwalds-women https://twitter.com/newrepublic/status/1321900866169876481
The Intercept has posted @betsyreed2's excellent statement. https://theintercept.com/2020/10/29/glenn-greenwald-resigns-the-intercept/
Great news: Glenn's going to hack himself!
This is not going to work out like he wants, I'm pretty sure.
This is not going to work out like he wants, I'm pretty sure.
Glenn makes his first obvious error in the 11th word.
This is also a false claim.
False claim 3. Still the first paragraph.
Sheer invention, one that's particularly hilarious given that EVEN THE MURDOCH EMPIRE was split about this rubbish.
False claim 4: Biden did answer the most obvious question. No meeting.
Which Glenn should have mentioned rather than making the false claims in ¶1.
Which Glenn should have mentioned rather than making the false claims in ¶1.
Glenn's still struggling with the difference between an email (what Snowden leaked) and an image of an email with really dubious provenance. False claim 5 (a repeat of false claim 1).
Once you get to the "purportedly written by Hunter Biden" part of your "story," you close the laptop and do more reporting, or better yet, publish something newsworthy.
Glenn did not do that.
Glenn did not do that.
Glenn should read the journalists at the WSJ that explained so simply he could understand that this was not shown.
Glenn left the Intercept bc he believes in Tony Bubolinski, even though he has been caught in lies already.
Also staking his reputation on Frank Luntz maybe or maybe not confirming an email is real, but not that Glenn thinks it says what he thinks it says.
Glenn, in paragraph 5, lays out why he shouldn't be writing this story and why the Intercept is very very lucky that he just left.
Glenn, in paragraph 6, lays out another reason he shouldn't be writing this story and why the Intercept is very very luck that he just left.
I explained how Glenn was substituting "authenticity" for "say what propagandists purport they say" here.
https://www.emptywheel.net/2020/10/18/steve-bannon-guccifer-2-0-glenn-greenwald-and-me-how-glenn-greenwald-defends-smear-artist-cowards/
https://www.emptywheel.net/2020/10/18/steve-bannon-guccifer-2-0-glenn-greenwald-and-me-how-glenn-greenwald-defends-smear-artist-cowards/
Now Glenn is staking his reputation on ... Kim Strassel's reputation.
No. Really. He did do that.
No. Really. He did do that.
Ivanka LITERALLY went to China to get brands, with reason to believe that China gave them to her because her daddy is President. And yet Glenn thinks Hunter's non-business deals are the newsworthy ones.
Remind me: who's running for President, Hunter, or Joe?
Glenn staking his reputation on Bobulinski again.
Who're you gonna believe, Republicans on SSCI, or a guy who bragged about all the dodgy shit he did in Russia?
Back to how Glenn uses "authenticity" to supplant "says what my fevered imagination says those authentic emails say" again.
Paragraph 9. Glenn admits for the third time he has no evidence of wrong-doing.
Reminder: the China part of this "story" took place after Biden left office.
Glenn suggests, in a piece that talks about at least four different news media outlets reporting on this, that the "news media" was unified against this story in some kind of nefarious plot.
A great many outlets have very plainly said clearly nothing here.
Glenn seems to think that amounts to obscuring things.
Glenn seems to think that amounts to obscuring things.
We're in ¶9, remember. In none of those 9 paragraphs does Glenn attempt to ... you know, answer any of the questions he claims haven't been answered.
Meaning, he's doing precisely what he's bitching about.
Meaning, he's doing precisely what he's bitching about.
Glenn, in his past little screed on this topic, called the Post's description "bizarre at best." Now he's demanding that Biden refute them rather than the Post prove them.
Glenn finds the repair store guy's Congressional testimony credible but makes no mention of the multiple sworn expert witnesses during impeachment who debunk the Burisma story he's floating.
This repeats what he said the last time he whined about this, including making the false claim that this is "censorship."
I laid out the problems with is (including his spin of Facebook as a Dem company) here:
https://www.emptywheel.net/2020/10/18/steve-bannon-guccifer-2-0-glenn-greenwald-and-me-how-glenn-greenwald-defends-smear-artist-cowards/
I laid out the problems with is (including his spin of Facebook as a Dem company) here:
https://www.emptywheel.net/2020/10/18/steve-bannon-guccifer-2-0-glenn-greenwald-and-me-how-glenn-greenwald-defends-smear-artist-cowards/
Once again, he's calling not-censorship censorship.
Glenn apparently has missed the correlation between college education and opposition to Donald Trump.
Now Glenn's complaining that media outlets, after having reported and found (as HE ADMITS) no evidence of wrong doing, decided the lack of news was reason not to publish it as news.
Holy shit I just realized this goes on and on and on in similar vein.
I ... I can't continue. It's just too full of shit.
I ... I can't continue. It's just too full of shit.
Okay, jumping ahead. Glenn, who has repeatedly conceded there's no evidence of wrong-doing but demands the story of no evidence be covered, then claims there's no evidence this is Russian disinformation (having skipped the entire impeachment).
As I pointed out the last time Glenn told this lie, people attacked Maggie not bc she raised it but bc 1) showed utter credulity and 2) tweeted a line that utterly misrepresented why FBI is involved.
It's still a lie, btw. Just a recycled already debunked one.
It's still a lie, btw. Just a recycled already debunked one.
Glenn cites as proof that it "became a pervasive view in mainstream journalism" that "it is irresponsible and even unethical to mention these documents" a story that 1) mentions these documents and 2) provides a different explanation for ignoring it -- bc it's not newsworthy.
Hooboy.
19¶¶ into this, Glenn has presented zero evidence anyone has verified the provenance of the laptop. Nor has he mentioned that Rudy's not sharing it.
Rather than doing that, he rebuts Stahl pointing out that shoddy provenance by ... quoting Trump.
19¶¶ into this, Glenn has presented zero evidence anyone has verified the provenance of the laptop. Nor has he mentioned that Rudy's not sharing it.
Rather than doing that, he rebuts Stahl pointing out that shoddy provenance by ... quoting Trump.
Let me emphasize. That means Glenn is now staking his reputation on the journalistic integrity of Donald Trump, who not only is not a journalist, but is not exactly known for telling the truth.
Ever.
Ever.
This link doesn't say what Glenn says it does.
At all.
https://twitter.com/marymargolohan/status/1319478342849089543?s=21
At all.
https://twitter.com/marymargolohan/status/1319478342849089543?s=21
Glenn says that this @brianstelter Tweet exhibits pride.
To Glenn's credit, I guess, he notes that the stuff MSNBC and CNN weren't choosing to air was unconfirmed, but he doesn't appear to think through what that means.
Glenn misstates what goes on in this interview. Amanpour corrects that RNC hack's misrepresentation of what the FBI said (which Glenn did, above) and says there's no evidence of corruption.
Amanpour makes it clear she HAS done journalism. Glenn just doesn't like what it says.
Amanpour makes it clear she HAS done journalism. Glenn just doesn't like what it says.
Having just misrepresented Amanpour specifically saying that JOURNALISM SHOWS THIS IS BULLSHIT, Glenn then says these journalists (meaning Amanpour) is desperate not to know.
I want to congratulate the Intercept again for being rid of this guy.
By "cone of silence," Glenn must be "incessant discussion about what a shitty piece of propaganda this is.
Glenn claims there's new reporting.
After having repeatedly admitted that nothing untoward has been reported.
After having repeatedly admitted that nothing untoward has been reported.
A standard of high gaslighting that would make even Catherine Herridge blush: including your own highlighted questions below ... your questions.
Note, some of these questions were answered by sworn testimony during impeachment.
Note, some of these questions were answered by sworn testimony during impeachment.
Glenn doesn't highlight (or repeat in the story) his question that seems to mix up Hunter and Joe.
Question 9, another one he doesn't repeat, is whether the FBI has been in touch abt a CI investigation.
Glenn has not mentioned at all that there's far more evidence that RUDY and Bannon are being investigated here, not Biden. REALLY sleazy work.
Glenn has not mentioned at all that there's far more evidence that RUDY and Bannon are being investigated here, not Biden. REALLY sleazy work.
Glenn once again substitutes "are the emails real" for "I have no basic reading ability to realize they don't say what I'm insinuating they say."
Glenn claims the dodgy laptop has been verified in the same way the Snowden emails were.
That's laughable. They're qualitatively different things.
That's laughable. They're qualitatively different things.
At the end of a long paragraph conflating forensic authentication with content authentication, he finally gets to forensic authentication and suggests technologists should only review for forgery not if, as these were, just pictures created by some unknown person.
This entire paragraph is a shitshow. But note that Glenn is again staking everything on Bobulinski who has already been caught in lies.
Then he again says the victim must deny or else the emails are presumed true.
Then he again says the victim must deny or else the emails are presumed true.
Glenn rants some more about making victims deny rather than actually doing the work to confirm, then claims there's a "mountain" of other authentication evidence, which seems to amount to "Trust Bobulinski."
Glenn's right, sort of, that the evidence this is Russian disinformation doesn't involve Russians. It involves Ukrainians that Donald Trump's Treasury Department has sanctioned for being Russian agents.
I'll give him partial credit, bc he's desperate.
I'll give him partial credit, bc he's desperate.
How can emails that don't say what accused fraudsters claim they say be disinformation, Glenn Greenwald wants to know?
HOWWWWWWWW!?!?!?!?!?!
HOWWWWWWWW!?!?!?!?!?!
Here Glenn calls a disinterest in making claims that are unsubstantiated a "rush to exonerate Biden," which gives up the game. In his mind, Biden is default guilty, but must be proven unguilty.
Glenn says the US and EU never pursue anti-corruption efforts.
Know where you can find some proof to the contrary? WikiLeaks CableGate. Indeed, you can even find Susan Rice pursuing anti-corruption efforts in Palestine, pretty much the opposite of what Glenn claims they show.
Know where you can find some proof to the contrary? WikiLeaks CableGate. Indeed, you can even find Susan Rice pursuing anti-corruption efforts in Palestine, pretty much the opposite of what Glenn claims they show.
Just a reminder that Glenn never criticizes Billy Barr, who has no trial experience. Not even sure if Glenn ever criticized Big Dick Toilet Salesman, who was basically a BDTS.
I may have lost count but I think this is paragraph 43. Whatever it is (besides far too long), Glenn admits there's no evidence of the allegations he has been insinuating about for 40-some paragraphs.
I'll spare you the next several paragraphs. Reminder, though, that Glenn treats the repair shop's congressional testimony as credible but not the multiple sworn expert witnesses who addressed Burisma in impeachment.
Glenn here ignores that 1) the press makes more money when Trump is president and 2) the press has been debunking this Burisma shit for at least 2 years ... and then Glenn fucking Greenwald accuses others of having intense feelings cloud their journalism.
There's a lot to unpack here, and I may return to it. But note how Glenn conflates the DNC emails and the Podesta ones, doesn't mention he did a piece that basically said, "no news here," And actually, the hack wasn't just emails?
For the second time, Glenn is making false insinuations based off political preferences -- in part that bc educated people like Biden it must be corrupt.
Glenn likes to make shit up about people's motivations. Here's a particularly ridiculous one.
Glenn here attacks Marty Baron for writing up standards that are very similar to the standards journalists would use to test a source's credibility.
This whole paragraph actually makes me feel sorry for the person whose brain produced it. But note how Glenn, after presenting evidence over and over that there's not yet any public interest reason to publish the Hunter Biden stuff, just glosses over public interest here?
Note how Glenn is confused about the difference between the Burisma story (which he presents ample evidence has been reported on repeatedly) with THESE DOCUMENTS, which don't what the accused fraudsters who packaged them say they do?
Anyway. Congratulations to The Intercept of being rid of Glenn.
It was a piece of shit story that could have been published with several of Glenn's lines admitting there was no evidence to back his insinuations.
It was a piece of shit story that could have been published with several of Glenn's lines admitting there was no evidence to back his insinuations.
