RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Ash writes: "The Intercept was live with a 2000-plus-word analysis and rebuttal of the dossier by Glenn Greenwald, their marquee voice. Greenwald's offering was, given its remarkably rapid construction, a surprisingly detailed presentation containing photos, graphics, Twitter interactives, and screen grabs from the actual documents."

Glenn Greenwald. (photo: AP)
Glenn Greenwald. (photo: AP)


Trump's Progressive Enablers

By Marc Ash, Reader Supported News

15 January 17

 

ate on the afternoon of 10 January, the trending online news site BuzzFeed posted what it described as “A dossier making explosive — but unverified — allegations.” The dossier contained a confidential overview of contacts and events that the report’s author sought to convey to his anonymous client as likely having occurred between then-businessman Donald Trump and contacts in Russia.

By 6:35 am the following morning, The Intercept was live with a 2000-plus-word analysis and rebuttal of the dossier by Glenn Greenwald, their marquee voice.

Greenwald’s offering was, given its remarkably rapid construction, a surprisingly detailed presentation containing photos, graphics, Twitter interactives, and screen grabs from the actual documents. It was also heavily laden with hyperbole, conjecture, and rhetorical flourish.

Greenwald stood on principle, Greenwald stood on journalistic integrity, Greenwald stood on Eisenhower’s shoulders, Greenwald stood on his desk in an effort to discredit and thwart the impact of the dossier. It was a masterwork of counter-spin. Some might say damage control. Had the Trump camp itself set out to counter the fallout from the release of the leaked dossier they could hardly have moved more quickly or efficiently.

Greenwald established that BuzzFeed, a click-bait infotainment website, hadn’t acted responsibly in publishing documents that were never intended for public display to begin with.

The “Deep State” reference in the headline was pure hyperbole. Presumably it’s the CIA. Because they are trying to undermine the President-elect? But not the FBI, who the Guardian characterized as “Trumpland” and whose Director James Comey roiled the Clinton campaign 11 days before the election with an October surprise?

The usually reliable Robert Parry at Consortium News does a great job, circumstantially, of discrediting the motives of U.S. intelligence officials for informing Mr. Trump of the existence of the allegations that would latter emerge in the dossier published on BuzzFeed.

Parry suggests that this is evidence that U.S. intelligence officials effectively used J. Edgar Hoover-like blackmail tactics on Trump to get him to admit that Russian hackers had indeed breeched Democratic Party email servers. None of which Parry substantiates factually.

All the while ignoring even the remotest possibility that Putin and his operatives might actually have compromising images (Kompromat) of Donald Trump doing what Donald Trump is notorious for doing, namely compromising himself in the most high-profile manner imaginable in pursuit of women young enough to be his grandchildren.

That would in fact tie in well to the article’s overarching J. Edgar Hoover theme, but with Russian president Vladimir Putin holding the cards and U.S. intelligence officials sounding the legitimate warning to the next commander in chief. As they are required to do. As long as documentary evidence is no longer needed, right?

Former CIA analyst turned agency critic and Consortium News regular Ray McGovern seemed possessed of an almost manic intensity when he arrived at the comments section of our website, Reader Supported News, to disparage me for suggesting in print that, if the Russians had in fact influenced the U.S. election that would indeed be a serious matter. McGovern even went so far as to make an insulting reference to my name worthy of a grade school playground, finally posting links to his articles and disappearing.

I challenged McGovern to a public exchange on the facts. So far no response.

Donald Trump is Trouble with a capital “T.” Right here, right now. Believe it. You can’t enable him now and defeat him later. Trump and his supporters are delighted by the efforts of Greenwald, Parry, and McGovern. No one in their stable could have fired back as effectively.

In six days, Donald Trump gets the nuclear launch codes. He also gets control of the legal apparatus that will review the legitimacy of his interactions with the Russian Federation. What we learn in the next six days may be all we will ever learn.

We would do well to learn all that we can. No matter how much Donald Trump’s defender-enablers try to discourage doing so.


Marc Ash is the founder and former Executive Director of Truthout, and is now founder and Editor of Reader Supported News.

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 

Comments   

A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

 
-23 # John Escher 2017-01-15 10:05
Interesting. Everybody needs to be challenged, especially Librarian1984. But the persons who most need challenge all the time are the president-stole -it himself and his clusters of enablers/suppor ters including those who should know better.

Putin plus Comey and a hundred other factors figured in the 2016 election outcome. But Putin and Comey together make it fixed. And Putin alone threw the close 2016 election through millions and millions of hits on the fake news he spawned.
 
 
-6 # Cassandra2012 2017-01-15 17:34
And appar4ntly Putin used Macedonian hackers (revealed by a Macedonian who was her/himself shocked by it since the only reason for it was the payoff by Putin).
 
 
-2 # candida 2017-01-17 23:03
The greatest disinformation most repeated by RSN posters is a lack of evidence tying the Russian government to DNC hacking and dissemination of fake news through social media. Every skeptic (including the pros like Greenwald) point to the past sins of intel agencies. However, intel agencies came to their conclusion late (a conclusion, incidentally, that was unusually, nearly unanimous and definitely not the case for WMDs.) Reports by private cybersecurity firms and researchers of cybersecurity and computer science linking the Russian government to the hacks have been coming out into the public realm since last summer. (I've given sources and links in other postings.) A fake news campaign linked to Russia that favored Trump and disparaged Clinton has been widely documented and reported. What is even stranger is that Greenwald, McGovern, Gribaldi and other skeptics (who are understandably and deservedly well regarded) do not ever address this evidence in any interview I've heard or article I've read by them. So, until they do, I find their conclusions dangerously and irresponsibly premature given how many people they sway. But then, who am I? A simple academic who, in the Orwellian times of Trump, holds less legitimacy than fake newscasters, social media, or investigative journalists.
 
 
+5 # Johnny 2017-01-18 12:38
Quoting candida:
What is even stranger is that Greenwald, McGovern, Gribaldi and other skeptics (who are understandably and deservedly well regarded) do not ever address this evidence in any interview I've heard or article I've read by them.


What evidence? Buck naked accusations are not evidence.
 
 
+134 # andyseles 2017-01-15 10:33
Love the work you've done thus far, Marc, however, impugning Glen Greenwald, who has consistently been a true progressive voice for truth, just feeds into the split that exists among liberals. Establishment Dems want us to believe it was anything but HRC's falling into the trap of personality and identity politics and failure to reach the Democrats traditional base (working class Americans) that cost us the election. If RSN wants to increase readership, please avoid posting distracting, shame and blame shiny objects and post more articles about what post-neoliberal progressives are FOR.
 
 
+39 # rwdestefano 2017-01-15 11:34
andyseles - While I believe that HRC's ties to Party Elites was one of the reasons that some folks were turned off, one would be foolish to fail to consider the impact of 30 years of mis-information , fake stories, spurious scandals, etc. that right wing media, in the guise of talk radio and news programs, had on the way that HRC was perceived by the public. The fact is, there is no reasonable defence that I have heard or read for pulling a lever attached to the name Donald Trump, arguably the most egregiously unqualified candidate in history. I believe that Trump won for two reasons.One is that 35% of people would vote GOP if Charlie Manson were the candidate. Many of the rest who voted for Trump did so because they identify with a crass, vulgar, misinformed, bully who, when shown his errors, simply yells louder about the 'experts' 'press' and 'academics.' and others such groups. Every person whom I know who voted Trump shares much of his (lack) of character. That is something that no one is talking about.
 
 
+22 # RLF 2017-01-16 06:48
I think that is too simple. I think that Trump used the free trade arguement he got from Bernie to great effect. The Dems keep holding on to free trade like it is sacrosanct when it is really just a crappy theory from a bunch of economists that have to sell books to big business or lose their jobs. The Dems (Hillary) held on to BS issues that kept them from having to talk about their "business friendly" views that really come from the right wing.
 
 
0 # John Escher 2017-01-16 13:31
Quoting RLF:
I think that is too simple.


Right (not). Something has to be complicated to be true. Complicated and confusing. Only then should we begin to believe.
 
 
+63 # rwdestefano 2017-01-15 11:48
The election of Donald Trump proves the Republican ideal - that if you are born with a lot of money, you get to make the rules up as you go along and no one complains. That ANYONE can be speaking negatively about HRC in light of the behaviour, the selections for cabinet, his publicly backing the leader of a foreign government over his own President, and the overall vile nature of the President elect is beyond comprehension to me. I was a big Sanders supporter and still am. Donald Trump is a know-nothing loudmouth who, aside from having a very rich father, never accomplished anything. He has never, ever demonstrated any sense of moral compass. . We have a duty to the principles upon which our nation was founded to oppose this con-man. I for one, do not recognise his Presidency as legitimate. He does not represent me. He is an embarrassment abroad, everywhere except Russia, and I don't believe he will last his term.
 
 
+35 # RMF 2017-01-15 12:49
It should be obvious that the weaknesses in Hillary's campaign do not in and of themselves mean that the Russians did not hack into the DNC server.

Trump, an amateur in campaigning, evidenced an intention to take campaign support from any source whatsoever, even to the extent of imploring the Russians to hack and release more DNC confidential info.

If a coordinating link is found between Trump campaign and Russian hacking we are in Watergate redux territory. The only question might be what will the GOP do about it.

Another aspect of this episode involves PAC law -- it's as if there was an offshore PAC operating in support of the Trump campaign. As far as I know this may be an unprecedented legal issue, one certainly worthy of robust investigation.
 
 
+21 # JJS 2017-01-15 18:41
RMF, Votes are votes. If you get the "Deplorables" to vote for you, it still counts. Trump truly did gather a shit load of votes from any source whatsoever.
Yes, HRC was lacking in many, many ways. Bernie was the better Democratic candidate. But here we are and this is it. Time to fight the good fight.
 
 
+7 # ericlipps 2017-01-16 12:04
What would the GOP do about it? Sweep it under the rug, pronto.
 
 
-3 # Caliban 2017-01-17 22:23
Very insightful on PAC law, #RMF.

I freely but unhappily admit I haven't got a clue about what is involved in the legal aspects of how these powerful and money-laden operations function.

I doubt that it will prove to be positive.
 
 
-21 # Jaax88 2017-01-15 17:01
Yesterday I saw BBC news interview Greenwood. He was a person I gave credit for reporting on controversial issues and bringing an uncommon and challenging points of view to them. After watching Greenwood's interview I would say on this issue he is full of BS, not the truth,, full of misplaced self-belief in his holier than thou image and using it for gravitas on his pronouncements in that broadcast. He was close to being strident, unbending and advocating his stance on a personal basis, not as a responsible, fair journalist. I don't believe what he says about Russian interference and the trump gang complicity as it was more like propaganda than good journalism.
 
 
+9 # Inspired Citizen 2017-01-15 18:40
The truth usually comes from more than one source, so we'll find out if his strident manner is righteous or self-righteous. Without having seen that interview, I have no idea what you're even referring to. I am skeptical of what the CIA is arguing, especially when more reputable sources are saying the source of the leaks or hacks were not state sponsored. There is, so far, no real proof the Russian government was behind the leaks and lots of proof the Clinton machine, including the DNC, is pretty sleazy with their tactics. Contents trumps source as far as I'm concerned. The email contents is the scandal I'm furious about. If Russia did hack our election as it turns out, that would be what's called karma. We had it coming.
 
 
+3 # Caliban 2017-01-17 22:25
"Greeenwood" who Jaax88?
 
 
+47 # Pikewich 2017-01-15 21:04
Marc,

I am distressed to see you falling squarely into one of the main problems the progressive side of the country faces..... attacking other progressives and liberals.

Calling Glenn Greenwald and Ray McGovern "Trump enablers" only does us all harm and makes real change harder.

Glen Greenwald's journalism has been and continues to be an impeccable search for the truth, even though you may not want to hear it.

Ray McGovern has the same credentials and has suffered being beaten because of it:
http://www.commondreams.org/further/2011/02/16/so-america-veteran-ray-mcgovern-bloodied-and-arrested-clinton-speech

Please Marc, stop with the attack dog tactics and help build a progressive movement.
 
 
+41 # wrknight 2017-01-15 21:20
It is truly sad that so many progressives would rather cast blame elsewhere that to look inside their own. Healing is impossible when one refuses to recognize and treat the disease that is crippling us.

I suspect that the Russians in one way or another may have influenced the election. But I also suspect their efforts to do so were a mere shadow of U.S. efforts to influence Russian elections or the elections in any other country in the world. So what? However, I suspect that the effect of any Russian influence was minuscule compared with the damage done by Clinton herself and the DNC.

The fundamental problem is that we wanted Sanders and the DNC gave us Clinton; and the emails proved beyond any shadow of doubt how they colluded to deprive us of what we wanted. The effect of the Democratic Party treachery was a thousand times greater than any insignificant influence by Russia or the rest of the world combined.

So I say to you Marc, open your eyes and see the forest - not just a couple of small trees. Stop tripping over the mouse dung on the mountain. Open your eyes to the problems we have that we created for ourselves that are a thousand times greater than those anyone else could ever impose on us.

If you are going to be of service to your readers, focus on the corruption that lies at the heart of our political system. I don't want to hear any more of this crap about foreign enemies. We know who the real enemy is. We have met him, and he is US.
 
 
+6 # btraven 2017-01-15 21:48
Well, there are many players with skin in this game of assessing the veracity of the “opposition research’ by a “respected” retired British secret agent on Donald Trump and the Russians. Somehow, in spite of the media reporting how “respected” the author of the research is regarded as a ‘spy’ I can’t get out of my mind that it was the British Secret Service that verified the fact that our CIA was correct in claiming that Saddam had WMD. If that is the best of the bunch what do the others look like?
Actually I would like to believe this research because it might hasten Mr. Trump’s exit from the presidency of our country. But no, the “golden shower” sticks in my craw as a reason to question this opposition report. I know that Mr. Trump has a voracious appetite for sex but somehow this story goes beyond his sexual proclivities, which I accept are beyond most of our paltry ambitions in that department.
It is the ‘cleanup’ that really makes me doubt the veracity of this story. How in hell could this be executed in the Presidential suite of a top Russian hotel without the management raising hell about the cost of cleaning the carpets? I don’t think Vladimir Putin would want to pay that bill for his friend even if the video was fun watching..
If any of you have experienced this exhilarating show curious minds want to know.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3259984-Trump-Intelligence-Allegations.html
 
 
+11 # RLF 2017-01-16 06:44
Seems to me like this article criticizes a lot of writers and sites that did a lot of work but actually contributes almost nothing but snark.
 
 
+16 # kenecon 2017-01-16 10:34
Very true and very well said. I am dismayed by the left split that has been successfully fomented by the failed neoliberal Party leadership as it tries to deflect from it's moral bankruptcy and desperate attempts to stave off the Berniecrats who would like to remake the Party into one that represents the 99%.
 
 
-7 # candida 2017-01-17 21:51
[quote name="andyseles " Establishment Dems want us to believe it was anything but HRC's falling into the trap of personality and identity politics and failure to reach the Democrats traditional base (working class Americans) that cost us the election.

As if Trump did not have his own trap of (narcissistic, sociopathic) personality? Anything Hillary waged pales by comparison. Anyway, EVERY politician at that level has soooome narcissism going on! But if it's a woman, by God, she should be...what? a wallflower? What sexist crap! As if Trump and the GOP do not play identity (white, hypermasculine, billionaire elitist) politics?! PLEASE!!!

The double standards that people on this site and generally hold for Trump and Clinton just shows how deeply entrenched is sexism in our society and how far we have yet to go. I don't want to ever again hear any crap about Latin machismo (women have been elected presidents in eight Latin American countries!) until we vote for one in presumably progressive U.S.

Your analysis is not only simple, it is simplistic. It ignores that Clinton actually won a majority of working class whites and the many ways the GOP has worked to suppress the vote for generations with major assists in recent years from the Supreme Court (Citizens United and diluting the Voting Rights Act). Clinton was not an ideal candidate (who is?!) nor ran a perfect campaign (who does?), but that is hardly sufficient explanation for her loss. Again, double standards.
 
 
+23 # Ralph 2017-01-15 11:00
Be prepared for a cavalcade of condemnation with this article. Prior to the moderation, the comment section was filled with "progressives" who continually defend the billionaire con artist and constantly bring up Clinton. The election was held over two months ago but you would think it was never held given the ongoing attacks on Clinton. Meanwhile, we are faced with the biggest threat to the nation in my lifetime in the form of the president elect con artist. I have zero tolerance for people who support this man, regardless of whether they call themselves progressives, conservatives or anything in between. I have to agree with you, whatever can be done before he is sworn in, needs to be done.
 
 
+80 # Saberoff 2017-01-15 11:59
No progressive I know has ever defended the con artist; certainly didn't vote for him! We know where the blame for Trump lies, and from where the unsubstantiated propaganda is coming, as usual, the United States government.
When Trump says We would be wise cool relations with Russia, I agree. When Trump says There is no evidence to support hacking of DNC, I see that as truth. Does that mean I support Trump? I do not! I support these ideas. It is precisely the issue vs personality debate so lacking in US politics today.
 
 
-1 # Ralph 2017-01-15 15:34
How will you ever get proof if you don't investigate? That is Marc's point. You are defending the con artist, whether you know it or not.

Of course, the pu$$y grabbing president elect would never be involved in perverted acts with prostitutes. There's also a lawsuit filed by a woman who was in an orgy with the orange one when she was a minor, substantiated by an independent third party witness. Of course, none of these things will come to light, once he is sworn in.
 
 
+104 # PaineRad 2017-01-15 12:06
No one here is defending Trump. Skepticism over a story that is short on factual corroboration is what critical thinking and journalism are supposed to be about.

The political landscape is not defined by Clinton v. Trump, for one or against that one. Unfortunately, those heavily invested in one personality or another tend to see political issues in such narrow-minded canyons.

Trump and his incoming administration are by all definitions and measures fascists, not Nazis, but fascists a la Mussolini. Hell, he even tries to affect Mussolini poses. He gives us plenty of reasons to regard him as a crook, a coward, a bully, a sociopath. He gives us plenty of reasons to despise his methods and his "policies."

We don't need to make stuff up to go after him. Maybe the Russians did do more than hack some e-mails. Maybe not. If they did, prove it. Don't play games as Comey did.
 
 
+17 # harleysch 2017-01-15 15:06
Shouldn't it be pointed out that Greenwald and Parry used to be regularly featured on RSN, due to their sharp, cogent reporting?

To me, it is bizarre that they now stand accused of being "enablers" for Trump. They are merely pointing out the obvious, that those in the intelligence community who Greenwald and Parry have skewered, deservedly, in the past, with great acclaim from posters on this site, are engaged in an operation to prevent Trump from reversing their dangerous policy against Russia, which could lead to World War III.

Greenwald, Parry and Ray McGovern have great integrity. Clapper, Brennan, Comey and others in the intel community, have none.

Why not continue to post their articles, when those they are attacking are not progressives at all, but those who have always been at the top of the list of those progressives were fighting?
 
 
-16 # John Escher 2017-01-16 13:38
Quoting PaineRad:
Maybe the Russians did do more than hack some e-mails. Maybe not. If they did, prove it. Don't play games as Comey did.


I don't think you've been reading what's out there. We and people like us don't need to "prove" stuff that already is pretty much proven (about the best one can get in an uncertain world). Putin and Wikileaks together perpetuated a bunch of Trumped up fake news that was hit upon millions and millions of times. And people believed the bullcrap. And elected Trump. QED.
 
 
+70 # lsd 2017-01-15 11:03
"Donald Trump’s defender-enable rs" is Ashe's focus. In a false reality of black or white, evil or good, the dichotomy or dividing line of the left is now Trump or anti-Trump. Good luck with that view point in the real analog world not based sole on such a simplistic foundation.
 
 
+90 # Timshel 2017-01-15 11:17
Greenwald's point is that liars cannot cannot persuade the American people that Trump is very bad news. The MSM discredited themselves with their years of pro-establishme nt propaganda. They have been lapdogs, not the aggressive opponents of governmental abuse of power we have needed. It was disgust with the MSM that allowed normal people to vote for Trump. It is ironic but the MSM was one of the gropuls of enablers of Trump.
 
 
+55 # Radscal 2017-01-15 15:05
Greenwald is quite clear that he considers Trump a dangerous anti-progressiv e, especially for specific groups in the US. Though he does agree that HRC's threats against Russia are existentially dangerous.

His point seems to be that this dossier is unreliable information, promoted to delegitimize the President-Elect on specious grounds. Apparently both US Intelligence agencies and news media agreed, which is why they didn't promote it until John ("Never Met A War He Doesn't Love) McCain leaked it.

I'd add that, even if the "golden showers" allegation proved true, and videos of it were broadcast all over the corporate media, it wouldn't substantially affect his approval ratings.

This creep famously said he could shoot to death someone in broad daylight on 5th Avenue and his ratings would go up... and then his ratings went up.

The "P*ssy Grab" tape was meant to destroy him. Not so much, eh?

The entire primary/electio n process was rigged, and anything short of admitting that is just partisan whining.
 
 
0 # Caliban 2017-01-17 22:51
Trump admitted the election was rigged, but most of us figured he was accusing the Democrats.

Instead, it seems, he was actually bragging, not blaming.
 
 
+14 # btraven 2017-01-15 11:26
The revelations from the former MI5 (or is it 6) spy originally paid for by the Republicans then by the Democrats each with a clear agenda read as profoundly legit. Nevertheless we must realize the purpose for which they were first contracted for. How are we poor mortals to assess this high level miasma where all the participants lie so easily and have the skill set to actually concoct these revaluations as a tool to get rid of a dangerous megalomaniac who is set to become the ruler of a very powerful nation.I would recommend that all parties hold their powder a bit and see if this report is real, part real and part fantasy,or just concocted out of whole cloth. All of the players in this drama have strong reasons to either accept or discredit and not all of them are honest upright people. Trump is dangerous so if this helps get rid of him, why not?
 
 
0 # Johnny 2017-01-18 12:55
"Why not?" President Pence.
 
 
+60 # andyseles 2017-01-15 11:27
Deux ex machine only happens in ancient Greek plays. Get used to it: President Trump. And don't assume anyone who has finished the fifth stage of grief actually supports the guy or his cabinet of oligarchs. The Phoenix will rise from the ashes as soon as neoliberals quit covering their a**es. :) Let's reinvigorate the democratic party by doing a fearless moral inventory and getting back to its working class roots.
 
 
+67 # Saberoff 2017-01-15 12:25
Thirteen Democrats voted Against Sander' drug bill; they! killed it.
With friends like these...
Standing right behind and flanking your left side is your close associate, friend and confidant, Brutus Areilious. Just in case you make any progress...
 
 
+12 # librarian1984 2017-01-15 14:51
Just got home from Philadelphia's healthcare protest. Estimate about 600-700 people there. It was held at Temple University Hospital, about four miles north of city center, or there would have been more.

I was late and missed Sen. Bob Casey, who is one of the thirteen Dems to vote against Sanders' amendment, and was today's first speaker.

Afterward I talked to a woman with a great sign calling shame on Casey and the other twelve. She said only about twenty people booed him when he began to speak. She had friends at a rally in New Jersey who said about two-thirds of the people there booed their senators.

When Casey was finished he walked over to this woman, having seen her sign. He told her he was WORKING WITH SANDERS on a number of issues. Excellent. He knows what he SHOULD be doing and he sees people are watching him. He is up for re-election on 2018. This lady and I made arrangements to get a group together to go to Casey's office this week.

Sanders was with Schumer in MI, where about 8000 attended. Rallies were held in 40+ cities.

CNN has covered the event in MI, and local news was at the Philly rally, which was a mix of older Americans and families with children, union members, blacks, whites, Hispanics, Asians and one young anarchist -- a great mixed group. Several representatives spoke. Some gave information for people to organize and there were scattered signups.

Let's get this party started! O P P O S I T I O N !!!
 
 
+4 # candida 2017-01-17 22:06
Great report, librarian! I'm totally with you!

Now, let's get more reports like this one from all the RSN posters re: the actions we are taking. Everyone needs to go to the Women's March this Sat. happening near you. I challenge every poster here to post a report about their experiences on a RSN article about the rallies published this coming Sunday!
 
 
+14 # Jaax88 2017-01-15 17:32
I would add get back to honesty, fair dealing and less political chicanery like the legislators in North Dakota (trying to get laws that would protect drivers from legal responsibility for injuring someone on a march while driving a car) and in Wyoming (proposing a law to legally interfere with the market for non-fossil fuel energy sources in favor of coal and oil) are trying to pull.
 
 
+107 # Inspired Citizen 2017-01-15 11:27
We are in a strange new political landscape. Greenwald, Chris Hedges, Parry and other progressives are pointing out what's apparently not obvious. There's no proof offered yet the Russians hacked Podesta and the DNC. While Christopher Steele's reputation is impeccable, what about his Russian sources? Again, there has been no proof Trump had hookers pee on the bed in his suite.

To be clear, Trump is bad news; but what's the option at this point? President Pence?

Clinton didn't lose the election because of Comey or the Russians. She lost because she offered neo-liberalism and more of their so-called "free-trade" agreements that have been devastating working Americans in the rust belt.

Progressives like Greenwald and Hedges aren't enabling Trump; they're enabling the truth which is becoming a scarce resource when the establishment's lies are offered as the truth about Trump's fictitious worldview.

Learn all we can, but until we're presented with concrete evidence of the claims the IC is putting forward; we're all operating in a world of hunches, bias confirmation and fake news, including much that's narrow cast on CNN and MSNBC.
 
 
+44 # gaga1996 2017-01-15 15:39
I totally agree with your point of view!!Greenwald and Parry et.al can be counted on for integrity and loyalty to the truth.
 
 
-36 # Jaax88 2017-01-15 17:35
I disagree at least as far as Greenwood is concerned (see above comment.) He seems to be hooked on his reputation and not good journalism in this case.
 
 
+11 # Winston Smith II 2017-01-16 12:34
Inspired -- thanks, good post. I only take exception to the sentence "While Christopher Steele's reputation is impeccable." That's how the mass media is playing it, but in reality he's been a hatchetman for the FIB, CIA, MI6 and others for since he left MI6 in the early 00s. If you read the dossier, you can tell he's not reporting on an investigation. He's just making it up.

It seems pretty clear that Clapper tried to blackmail Trump with this dossier. He gave Trump a 2 page summary at the breifing that was supposed to be about Russia hacking the DNC. The blackmail was -- if you don't say what we want you to say, we will release this to the public. When Trump did not say what Clapper demanded, the CIA/ODNI gave CNN and Bussfeed the green light to release the dossier. Trump called their bluff and the dossier was so hoakie that it just fell flat. Almost no one in the mass media would touch it with a ten foot pole.
 
 
+4 # dovelane1 2017-01-17 04:51
Didn't she lose because the electoral college is biased towards smaller states, and has been since 1929? Didn't she acutally receive 2.9 million MORE votes than Trump did?

Minnesota Public Radio mentioned that if California had as many electoral votes per person that Wyoming does, they'd have close to 200, instead of the 55 they currently have. If my math is correct, that means that the votes of 3 of every 4 voters who voted for Clinton in California, didn't count towards an electoral vote. For a country whose mantra is supposed to be "one person, one vote," I find this situation extremely frustrating. Why would people in California want to vote when they know that only one of four votes count. I believe it's the same for New York, Illinois, and the other more populated states.
 
 
+4 # polfrosch 2017-01-17 19:47
Exactly. And I do miss the dissenting articles about the Trump dossier.

There is something wrong with this page: I get a message my postings need to be reviewed before they are published. It´s quite disturbing.
 
 
+97 # Wally Jasper 2017-01-15 11:54
Marc, I don't think there is any progressive, especially Glenn Greenwald, who denies that Trump is a disaster, and believes that efforts to thwart his corporate/milit ary control of government are needed. But as far as I can make out through all the chaos and bizarre behavior of the intelligence community, there seems to be two warring factions, each aligned with one of the two major party presidential candidates: the CIA/Hillary faction, and the FBI/Trump faction. The former faction is obsessed with securing the whole Middle East for its oil gluttony fix. It therefore presents Russia as our hated enemy because Russia has diplomatic ties with the very countries we are invading. The latter faction apparently has a deep resentment of the former for reasons unknown to me. Maybe power dynamics. Both of these are aspects of what we call the Deep State, that is, the shadow government operating behind the scenes that controls how our government acts in the world. Both of these factions believe they are above and beyond democratic process. They both are undermining our democracy and principles of power of, by and for the people. You chose to align yourself with the Hillary faction after the primaries. Glenn Greenwald does not align with either. He is not defending Trump; he is defending true, honest journalism from being co-opted by either of these factions. Unlike yourself, I may add.
 
 
-36 # Jaax88 2017-01-15 17:39
You sir, do not know what you re talking about IMO. In this situation he is not defending true, honest journalism, only his point of view.
 
 
+56 # djnova50 2017-01-15 11:56
Anybody who identifies as progressive is not necessarily identifying as left, right, or in-between. For those of us who call ourselves progressive, it is all about PROGRESS.

There are certain things that progressives support: Peace, health care for all, education, a basic income for all, and similar things that help, rather than hurt, the common folk. Progressives can be Republican, Green, Libertarian, Democrat, even Independent.

I did not vote for Donald Trump. I plan on keeping on eye on Congress. I have two Democrats for my US Senators and a Repulican for my US Representative. All three of them tend to favor corporations over people. That is not a progressive stance to take.

Glen Greenwald is one of the better journalists out there. Take a look at this video: https://youtu.be/PJQf50jsFKU

Did the Russians really hack the DNC? There is no evidence that Russia or anybody in Russia did this. Read this article: http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/01/13/did-the-russians-really-hack-the-dnc/

In this one area, I believe that Donald Trump is more progressive: He is willing to negotiate with, rather than persecute Russia.
 
 
+12 # economagic 2017-01-15 15:56
Quoting djnova50:
Anybody who identifies as progressive is not necessarily identifying as left, right, or in-between. For those of us who call ourselves progressive, it is all about PROGRESS.

There are certain things that progressives support: Peace, health care for all, education, a basic income for all, and similar things that help, rather than hurt, the common folk. Progressives can be Republican, Green, Libertarian, Democrat, even Independent


I would point out that the party labels have been rendered essentially meaningless for at least as long as the US has been sliding down the well-greased slope of neoliberalism.

The terms "right" and "left" originally referred to the side of the speaker of the French at which the royalists (right) and republicans (left) sat, with "republican" referring to representative government of, by, and for the 99 percent and let the One Percent fend for themselves as they surely will for those who are not familiar with that history.

I would submit that while the party labels are meaningless, most if not all of what "progressives" stand for is "left," and (let us hope) "proud of it."

The majority of comments refuse to acknowledge that there were votes and non-votes that were for neither Trump nor Clinton (and that nothing but a vote for Trump was a vote for Trump). I didn't vote for the ******* either, nor for either of my two Republican Senators. My Rep is the outgoing chair of the CBC and pretty good.
 
 
+9 # JJS 2017-01-15 18:57
It is very unfortunate that we now lack clear definitions to the terms we need to define and communicate our points of view. Liberal, radical, conservative, right, left, moderate... . Are there any firm political definitions that can be a benchmark to conduct discussions, debates and help us reach consensus upon?
 
 
+11 # Radscal 2017-01-15 22:53
I'll take a stab.

Politics is the negotiation and use of power, usually through governments, but really in any power dynamic. Economics is really the main instrument of power in our day to day lives.

So, I see it not as left/right, but as top/bottom.

Where should the locus of power be? Should it be at the top of the pyramid, or the base?

Or, should there be a pyramid at all? Do we need an elite?

But, given that we do live in a stratified society, I think most power should be at the individual level. When one individual's use of power affects others, then I think the weight should be given to the greatest good for the greatest number, as long as that does not harm any individual who is not seeking to harm others.

Hence, a democratic socialist republic.

That wold be bottom-weighted , and result in very little point to any pyramid.
 
 
0 # JJS 2017-01-19 05:11
I appreciate you explaining your political POV. I tend toward preferring and advocating a democratic socialist republic myself. I would be inclined to inject a very, VERY regulated form of capitalism as part of the economic structure, though. But I have a good understanding of what your terms mean.
My point here is that, even though I feel we have a grasp on the meaning of political terms such as democratic, socialism, capitalism, republic,... , many others do not.
I had a fairly thorough public education (white, suburban) and a good bit of college and a lot of my learning is from reading, not just the internet. More so, my political knowledge also comes from conversing with educated people degreed in political science and other well read and experienced individuals. Living close to DC you tend to meet some of the "players". Others don't have that opportunity.
I fear as the public education, our common means of cultural literacy and commonality, gets less effective we become a people who cannot relate due to lack of reference and vocabulary. One person will think that the political "Right" means they are "Correct". Thus, since "Left" is opposite of "Right", "left" will mean "Wrong". (actual conversation I had with someone)
 
 
+2 # Radscal 2017-01-19 14:15
Yeah, I'm all in favor of a "free enterprise" private ownership of small businesses. What I find destructive is ownership and control over means of production by an investor class.

They have no interest in the business, the employees, the customers or the greater society. All they care about is gambling on whether stocks will go up. And of course, the big boys in the stock market (and commodities/fut ures) are not gambling at all, since they've rigged the game.

And yes, education has been steadily declining over the past several decades, and is likely to get even worse. As George Carlin said, the people who own us want us just smart enough to run their machines, but not so smart that we realize how much they're f*king us.
 
 
+74 # engelbach 2017-01-15 12:07
I haven't read anything from Greenwald that enables Trump.

The only evidence I've seen of Russian hacking says nothing about specific Clinton emails passing from Russia to the FBI to Trump.

James Comey andJames Clapper are both known liars. Taking their word for "top secret" documents they claim to have would be foolish.

Clinton lost because she failed to win over — or even campaign in — the Rust Belt states.

That horrible entity, the Electoral College, is unfortunately the name of the game. The Democrats ended up with a fairly decent platform. But they fell short at the real work of US presidential politics: winning EC votes.

No one's fault but theirs.
 
 
+6 # dovelane1 2017-01-17 05:11
As I understand it, Clinton was told not to worry about the "ruwt belt," and focus on laces like north Carolina. She listened to the wrong people. Former senator Feingld in Wisconsin told the party that they needed help, but little to none was given. The Dems lost Wisconsin by a very slim margin, which some say happened due to voter fraud and disenfranchisem ent in Milwaukee.

My sense of the divide in this country is based on the book "When Society Becomes An Addict," by Anne Wilson-Schaef. ALL adicctive personalities share one common trait, and that is they are in denial of their issues. Once a person is in denial of their issues, as Trump is, they are free to blame everyone else for all the problems. What Trump did, is the same thing Hitler did - he gave people targets for them to blame their fear and anger on, (Muslims, mexicans, and Clinton) just as Hitler did (Communists, trade unionists, and Jews.) Trump used tactics outlined in Mein Kampf to win this election. It's no coincidence that Trump's first wife reported in Vanity Fair, that Trump kept a copy of Hitler's speeches by his bedside for late night reading. My belief is that Trump and his supporters are co-dependent on each other, which is why he wants to continue holding rallies. His poor self image demands it.

The people who think they are good judges of character are usually the easiest to con. That may also be a large part of what happened. I have more information, but not the room for it here.
 
 
+7 # librarian1984 2017-01-17 16:16
We are ALL in denial about something, don't you think?

I heard Gov. Rendell and Bill Clinton pushed for going to the rural areas while Chuck Schumer said, For every rural voter you lose, I'll give you two suburban moms. Oops. Too bad he's in charge of the Senate, yeah?

He does seem to be throwing peanuts at progressives. We'll see how deep that goes.

So either the campaign ignored two ol' dawgs who knew what they were talking about .. or they weren't confident anyone would show up and worried it would look bad. They needn't have worried. The msm covered up how poorly attended her events were, even in the cities.
 
 
-23 # Ronv 2017-01-15 12:22
We must look beyond our own ideologies at the bigger picture: proving the validity of the dossier is not a matter of showing that the Intelligence community is inept (on one hand) or proving that Trump is vindicated and, most certainly, the best President-elect ever (on the other). It is a matter of determining whether or not a President will be controlled by a foreign power which is ruled by a dictator, Vladimir Putin, a dictator who has bombed hospitals, killed children, and has had opponents executed in other countries, including the United Kingdom. No matter if you are Conservative, Liberal, or somewhere inbetween, your life is about to change dramatically if it turns out that the dossier merits credence and President-elect Trump uses the Oval Office to push the Kremlin's agenda.
 
 
+39 # economagic 2017-01-15 16:00
Unfortunately this country has for decades been administered by presidents who committed those very same crimes and others, with bipartisan support in Congress. THIS is what far too many USians cannot bring themselves to acknowledge. Or else, "We did it, but it's OK because we're the good guys" ("American exceptionalism" at its worst).
 
 
+32 # FarMor 2017-01-15 18:42
This is not necessarily in reply to your argument. I just want to point out that the US has also bombed hospitals (Doctors Without Borders), killed children ("collateral damage and 500,000 in Afghanistan), and extrajudicially killed opponents in other countries (drones).
 
 
+24 # tedrey 2017-01-15 20:48
I just want to point out that we have recently been ruled by more than one president who oversaw the bombing of hospitals, the killing of children, and the execution of opponents in other countries. Just saying.
 
 
+3 # candida 2017-01-17 22:24
This is, roughly, a one-sentence summation of US history, starting with the Mayflower. So, if we face up to and accept this history, what is the meaning of Trump? Some on this site argue his election is "karma" for post-9/11 US aggression. What about the other 400-some years of US (pre-)history? But he is just a continuation of white imperialism in its most virulent form, and his effect will be far more disasterous than the Hillary neo-liberals would have ever dreamed. At least neo-liberals needs some semblance of order in order to make super-profits. Trump and his kind don't believe in history or evidence ("climate change is a hoax") or when they do, it's for purely self-serving, razing-the-plan et, destroying-cult ures reasons (Rex Tillerson).
 
 
+3 # anachronis 2017-01-16 17:36
Ronv 2017-01-15 12:22

Yours: "Vladimir Putin, a dictator who has bombed hospitals, killed children, and has had opponents executed in other countries, including the United Kingdom."

Surely you intended to begin that language with "Obama" (not "Vladimir Putin").
 
 
+3 # Ronv 2017-01-16 22:10
In response to the many who said: the U.S. also bombed hospitals, etc.

This was a very common argument in the Soviet press: a child was killed in Vietnam by the U.S., so it doesn't matter that we Soviets killed several hundred children in Afghanistan. It does matter. Any time a child dies or a hospital is bombed, it is wrong, no matter who is responsible. Please don't defend Putin's atrocities by the argument: "Well, this other country did it, too, so who cares if Putin did it?" We should care and we must care.
 
 
-4 # John Escher 2017-01-17 13:11
Quoting Ronv:
In response to the many who said: the U.S. also bombed hospitals, etc.

This was a very common argument in the Soviet press: a child was killed in Vietnam by the U.S., so it doesn't matter that we Soviets killed several hundred children in Afghanistan. It does matter. Any time a child dies or a hospital is bombed, it is wrong, no matter who is responsible. Please don't defend Putin's atrocities by the argument: "Well, this other country did it, too, so who cares if Putin did it?" We should care and we must care.


This should have gotten 90 upvotes, not the 1 when I tuned in.
 
 
+4 # Johnny 2017-01-17 16:15
What would you have the U.S. government do if thousands of foreign terrorists occupied civilian neighborhoods in the U.S. the way Al Qaeda and Daesh occupied Aleppo? Bombing Daesh and Al Qaeda terrorists backed by the U.S. produced civilian casualties. Meanwhile the terrorists held the civilians hostage, killing hundreds, including children. There was no good solution. The idiot American TV-watchers should have demanded that their government not train, arm, and fund the terrorists in the first place.
 
 
+7 # librarian1984 2017-01-17 16:20
I don't believe anyone here is saying Russia's wrongs justify our own. I believe the reasoning is that we cannot say Russia is monstrous and we are 'the good guys'. It is the hypocrisy that offends.

No one here is looking to justify bombing civilians. No one.
 
 
+59 # ronnewmexico 2017-01-15 13:03
Go Glen Julian and Snowden and and a cadre of others to numbers to mention.
They I trust. Risking life and liberty to bring us the truth in things.
 
 
+58 # Lucretius 2017-01-15 13:14
No less than the biggest warmongerer in Congress McCain gave this anonymous dossier to the FBI. It's been attacking by many intelligence experts on many fronts. It was leaked because it didn't lack credibility. It's irrational to think that Putin who favored Trump would tar him. This whole business is absurd. And there is no logic to this article. To attack Greenwald is the height of absurdity.
 
 
-24 # Jaax88 2017-01-15 18:05
It would be good to get the facts straight.
The known British operative who presented the dossier on trump first presented it to the FBI, but they did not move on it, so as I understand it it was given to McCain.

Any American official knowing about that dossier would be derelict of duty by not making it known to a law enforcement agency.

The rest of your comments are specious, non-factual; "irrational," "absurd," "no logic." Why should anyoe give them any credit?
 
 
0 # danigo 2017-01-15 14:53
In all due respect to the "possibility" of Russia having compromising pics of Trump, is it not strange that all this Russia bashing is occurring just as Hillary loses her election? This bad loser business is enervating in the extreme. The time to have fought the good fight was eight years ago. Now we have Trump, Obama's legacy. Congratulations to the losers. The Democrats no longer exist as a viable alternative to Trump. Last week they did not even support a simple law making it legal for pharmacies to sell imported generic drugs. The Democrats HAVE WHAT THEY DESERVE. Now it's Trump's turn. Not Hillary's: Trump's
 
 
+7 # bird 2017-01-15 15:09
#Ronv this might be true, so compel the release of the tax returns or impeach. Find the proof, then blow your horn, Marc. But please do not blow what is routine propaganda,( when it's absent of Proof with a capital "P" that would rhyme wit "T", )out of proportion to US history of interventions etc, starting with at least Iran, during the deliberately maintained "cold war". As Robert Parry would have you remember.

Let the tapes surface whenever, get to work proving the allegations and resisting on all other fronts.

As an Editorialist calling out hyperbole:

"It was a masterwork of counter-spin. Some might say damage control. Had the Trump camp itself set out to counter the fallout from the release of the leaked dossier they could hardly have moved more quickly or efficiently"
Marc, really?

I think Greenwald might be capable of spitting out 2000 words in the early morning hours, posting it, and being effective, but maybe you should sleep on it. Your rancor is quite evident and your methods in line with MSM (you sound like who, Sean Hannity? Any suggestions from folks who have cable, and watch that stuff?) when you use hyperbole to link Greenwald with Trump's goals. Shame.
 
 
+5 # Donna Fritz 2017-01-15 15:43
There's no proof that Putin attempted to hack into and influence our election to favor Donald Trump, but there are some compelling reasons to believe that that's exactly what went down.

For one, it's naive to believe that Putin WOULDN'T have tried to influence our election. In this cyber age, ALL of the major world powers have GOT to be doing this. Good lord, the US itself has been complicit in the overthrow of 50 heads of state since the end of WWII, some of which were democracies, and most of that happened way before the internet.

Secondly, I direct you to an incredible report from Rachel Maddow that aired this past week that IMHO should be receiving more attention than it has:

Exxon needs US policy change to cash in on big bet on Russia

Rachel Maddow shows ExxonMobil's heavy investment in Russia, which it has yet to be able to exploit because of U.S. sanctions on Russia over the annexation of Crimea, and how a change in that policy could means hundreds of millions of dollars for ExxonMobil.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/exxon-needs-us-policy-change-to-cash-in-on-big-bet-on-russia-853063747565

After watching this report, ask yourself "Why WOULDN'T Putin be moving heaven and earth to get an administration in there that would lift the sanction?
 
 
+26 # economagic 2017-01-15 17:37
That's called "circumstantial evidence," of which we have a great deal, but on both sides. Until at least one piece of direct and irrefutable evidence (a "smoking gun") appears, which could be decades from now or maybe never, the status of all our cherished claims is that of guesses or opinions. The fact that we cannot trust the official agencies whose job it is to know this stuff, and the fact that they are still providing conflicting circumstantial evidence, says a lot about this country.
 
 
-16 # Jaax88 2017-01-15 18:27
magic:
Try this analogy. You are out on a boat enjoying yourself and decide to go swimming in the ocean.

Ready to jump over board. Wait, there is a fin poking up in the water near your boat. You know little about sharks and can't really see it. In these waters it could be a harmless shark or a dangerous man-eating shark. What's you next move?
Jump in? Oh, it won't hurt me. Or take precautions and stay out of the water until you know you are safe?

Both Putin and trump are sharks.
 
 
+25 # tedrey 2017-01-15 20:58
So are a dozen dictators we support and supply arms with which to suppress their people. Our governments swim quite happily with those sharks.
 
 
-6 # Jaax88 2017-01-16 18:09
Maybe in the big scheme of things those sharks are itsi bitsi non-man eating sharks.
 
 
-5 # John Escher 2017-01-17 13:12
Quoting tedrey:
So are a dozen dictators we support and supply arms with which to suppress their people. Our governments swim quite happily with those sharks.


Why are you trying to lessen or dilute the impact of heartfelt criticism of Putin and Trump?
 
 
+15 # Radscal 2017-01-15 23:07
Quoting Jaax88:
magic:
Try this analogy. You are out on a boat enjoying yourself and decide to go swimming in the ocean.

Ready to jump over board. Wait, there is a fin poking up in the water near your boat. You know little about sharks and can't really see it. In these waters it could be a harmless shark or a dangerous man-eating shark. What's you next move?
Jump in? Oh, it won't hurt me. Or take precautions and stay out of the water until you know you are safe?

Both Putin and trump are sharks.



Yeah, why can't Russia stop bombing 8 different countries? Why do they insist on building hundreds of military bases along our border?

And with one whole aircraft carrier, why are they concerned that the US has 19 (half of the total in the entire world), and is building 3 more of a new and much more lethal class right now?
 
 
+5 # economagic 2017-01-17 18:19
Thanks. I said I was quitting these forums; not keeping my word. Sometimes the illogic and misunderstandin g of events just pisses me off. Guess I'd better stop even READING the comments.
 
 
-3 # Jaax88 2017-01-15 18:10
Agreed. Thanks for the sensible comment.
 
 
+25 # pro54 2017-01-15 21:06
"Secondly, I direct you to an incredible report from Rachel Maddow that aired this past week that IMHO should be receiving more attention than it has:"

I quite well remeber the Rachel Maddow boosting of the faked Engel kidnap by the "Assad thugs", then to be rescued by the "Free" Syrian army only for it to turn out to be a faked capture and rescue by the same people in the endless propaganda against Assad and when the fake news was exposed, she never apologized for it.
 
 
+18 # Radscal 2017-01-15 23:09
And her fake news on the Ukrainian coup and on Israel's 2014 slaughter of 2,500 Palestinians.
 
 
+6 # librarian1984 2017-01-16 10:37
Too bad Christopher Hitchens isn't around to do an expose of aw shucks Rachel.
 
 
+3 # Radscal 2017-01-16 15:44
I miss the Hitch frequently. I still read or re-read pieces of his work regularly.

Though I whole-heartedly disagreed with his promotion of the war against Iraq, I respected his reasoned defense of that position - not based on falsehoods and irrational fear-mongering like most. And I was/am very disappointed that even after we saw that we'd opened the gates of hell to no benefit to most anyone of "the people," he defended his stand.

But still, his oeuvre is so rich in knowledge, wit and logic that I choose to forgive what I see as his rare, emotional response to the Fatwa placed on the head of his dear friend, Salmon Rushdie.
 
 
-8 # John Escher 2017-01-17 13:14
Quoting librarian1984:
Too bad Christopher Hitchens isn't around to do an expose of aw shucks Rachel.


And of Hillary hater and hater in general librarian1984 .
 
 
+16 # Radscal 2017-01-15 23:02
The US has no valid excuse to be waging an economic war on Russia to begin with. In fact, as signatories to the WTO Treaty, it's actually illegal.

There are PLENTY of reasons to be critical of Tillerson and EXXON, but wanting to normalize trade relations with Russia is NOT one of them.

Note: I am NOT referring to "Free Trade" which is a corporate/banki ng scam, but fair trade. It's much better to do business with another country than wage war with them.
 
 
+2 # Realist1948 2017-01-15 17:31
Trump is having a grand time discrediting the news media and getting various journalists to argue with one another rather then focus on Trump's lies and verifiable negatives. Getting Greenwald and Ash to fight each other plays right into Trump's game of dividing the media into warring factions. The latest installment of "On the Media" had a lot to say about how Trump is seemingly changing the rules of journalism. It's worth a listen IMHO.
http://www.wnyc.org/shows/otm
 
 
+15 # Radscal 2017-01-15 23:14
Maybe if the media didn't pour out so much fake news, journalists like Greenwald could focus on other things.

I'm more sure all the time that the media is just playing us, and has been since before this election campaign began. We are divided. The 0.01% are Ruling.
 
 
+47 # RWP 2017-01-15 17:36
Marc,
I think you are on the wrong side on this one, or you cannot see the nature of the arguments clearly. Greenwald et al are not supporting Trump, but only trying to ask what is the evidence and how do we deal with it (or lack of it). This piece is off base and I think a bit out of synch with your readership.
 
 
-5 # John Escher 2017-01-17 13:20
Quoting RWP:
Marc,
I think you are on the wrong side on this one, or you cannot see the nature of the arguments clearly. Greenwald et al are not supporting Trump, but only trying to ask what is the evidence and how do we deal with it (or lack of it). This piece is off base and I think a bit out of synch with your readership.


I think this is nutty. People like Greenwald and Parry are wonderful and have been published here regularly and all along. And having read this material, I've never thought they liked Trump at all. Still, it's easy for anyone to get off track for a minute. Or in tennis, not to hit a controlling shot so that one immediately loses the argument or the point.
 
 
-28 # DongiC 2017-01-15 18:53
I think our intelligence agencies do a fantastic job but they must protect their sources. They can not share them with the general public like so many commentators on RSN wish or those sources will disappear. Come on folks, it's the way the cold war goes. What we should be focusing on is what is Putin's plan? Support of Assad, lifting of sanctions, removal of NATO forces from the borders of Russia, development of hydrocarbons with Exxon, under the Arctic circle. Maybe, peace with China, the military ally of Russia.

I think you have the right idea, Marc and you are out of sync with only part of your readership.
 
 
+23 # tedrey 2017-01-15 21:02
The "cold war" exists only in the interests and hopes of neolibcons.
 
 
+29 # wrknight 2017-01-15 21:30
If, in fact, they had the mountains of evidence as they claim, there has to be some that can be shown that in no way jeopardizes the sources.

The fundamental problem is that the intelligence agencies squandered their credibility with reports of weapons of mass destruction in order to drag us into an unprovoked and unjust war. They have done nothing since to restore their lost credibility. Without credibility or solid evidence, they cannot be believed.

And if they cannot be believed, they cannot be trusted.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
 
 
-6 # Jaax88 2017-01-16 18:36
The problem with your comment of "show me the evidence" is that whatever is shown will likely and immediately be discounted or not considered sufficient as evidence. Someone will say that is not a smoking gun or you (the 3th party speaker or writer) did not actually hear directly from the speaker (who could lying) and even so that is hearsay. Or if it is on tape or a CD or in a document, they will say that could be faked so then people will say that is not good evidence.

What do you do? You add bits and pieces of info up like competent investigators do and try to come to rational conclusion based on the information one knows. That is without political dogma, personal feelings, hopes or wishes or choosing sides getting in the way of clear eyed, rational thinking.
 
 
+11 # beeyl 2017-01-17 03:58
This is the lamest defense of the CIA's failure to reveal evidence that I've ever seen: if they show you the evidence, you'll just say it's insufficient, so why should they bother even trying! Many elements of Stockholm Syndrome there, Jaax.
 
 
0 # Jaax88 2017-01-18 20:11
What do you mean? Have you ever investigated and put a case together to prove something that is denied or there is no eyewitness?

Actually I believe US agencies are still trying to investigate and tell us what happened.

Don't insult me. The Stockholm Syndrome presumes a physical hostage in close reltionship to the captors.
 
 
+11 # PaulK 2017-01-15 20:59
It's better to say, not that one candidate is in the clutches of a brutal foreign dictator-for-li fe, but that lots of candidates are in their clutches. The practical questions are which way does each turncoat turn, how much, and how much does it cost to rent the entire U.S. Army for funerals and for border disputes?
 
 
+12 # wrknight 2017-01-16 09:09
That's absurd! The candidates are not in the clutches of foreign dictators. They are in the clutches of corporate oligarchs. Why would anyone think that the oligarchs would, even for one second, release the candidates to foreigners.
 
 
-32 # Ralph 2017-01-15 21:03
Whilst I appreciate Greenwald's commentaries over the years, he's no sacred cow like you folks are making him out to be. Truth, justice, Glenn Greenwald. In reality, he has his own seedy shyster porno past. It's somewhat alarming how the cult of personality is so much embraced by modern America.
 
 
+18 # Diane_Wilkinson_Trefethen_aka_tref 2017-01-16 01:32
Quoting Ralph:
In reality, [Greenwald] has his own seedy shyster porno past.
Source please. You've just made accusations that I have never heard before. Perhaps it is I who is ignorant and the rest of the world knows all about Mr Greenwald's "porno past" but frankly, I don't think so.
 
 
-6 # Ralph 2017-01-16 19:08
I don't mean anything by this other than the fact that people make errors in judgement, including myself. He's a great journalist and I appreciate much of what he has done. That said, I think it is an error in judgement to defend the president elect on this issue.

http://gawker.com/glenn-greenwald-takes-his-turn-in-the-spotlight-593163038
 
 
+9 # librarian1984 2017-01-17 13:26
So your statement about a 'seedy shyster porno past' was made up out of whole cloth?!

You should work for the CIA. They love that stuff.
 
 
+26 # wrknight 2017-01-16 09:11
The question, Ralph, is how can one give credibility to those who have lied repeatedly simply because they say something you wish to believe.

To the best of my knowledge, no one has proved Greenwald ever lied to us.
 
 
0 # Ralph 2017-01-16 18:58
The big Cheeto needs to be put under the microscope because he is going to become the leader of this nation. I think anyone who protests that due diligence is lacking good judgement. Nothing more, nothing less.
 
 
+8 # economagic 2017-01-17 18:24
We're all for due diligence on all sides, NOT for hype of unsubstantiated claims on ANY side.
 
 
+17 # pro54 2017-01-15 21:12
I am sure this will not pass through the censors but I will still post it.

I am happy that they are progressives like Greenwald who are still able to look at things objectively and arrive at rational conclusions and not consumed by the Trump derangement syndrome that appears to have totally eaten up Marc Ash that he now believes a CIA coup is what is best for our country. he needs to see how it worked out for them in Iran, Chile, Argentina Iraq ans etc.

The censors can delete the post as usual and think themselves better protectors of press freedom than Trump. take out the log in your eyes before trying to dig the speckle in your opponents eye.
 
 
-4 # John Escher 2017-01-17 13:23
Quoting pro54:
I am sure this will not pass through the censors but I will still post it.

I am happy that they are progressives like Greenwald who are still able to look at things objectively and arrive at rational conclusions and not consumed by the Trump derangement syndrome that appears to have totally eaten up Marc Ash that he now believes a CIA coup is what is best for our country. he needs to see how it worked out for them in Iran, Chile, Argentina Iraq ans etc.

The censors can delete the post as usual and think themselves better protectors of press freedom than Trump. take out the log in your eyes before trying to dig the speckle in your opponents eye.


Didn't happen, did it?
 
 
+6 # Radscal 2017-01-17 19:21
It's happening all too often.
 
 
+19 # citizen jack 2017-01-15 22:32
The "left" is now supporting the CIA. For debasement, there is nothing like Clintonism
 
 
+15 # Winston Smith II 2017-01-16 07:53
I take Greenwald's side on this one. Marc is just piling on in the feckless democratic party attempt to smear Trump with anything they can find. The Russian hacking story and now the dossier are classic CIA disinformation. This is how covert operations usually work. It will keep going until Trump is neutralized. He will be so toxic that he will not be able to do anything. He will never be able to have a press conference because the snapping journalist will not get off of the disinformation they've been given.

The nation suffers. Nothing gets done. Trump won't resign. He won't back off. We should understand that by now. His hardcore supporters will support him more than ever.

Marc is just abetting the efforts of the CIA to carry out a regime change at home. Is Pence really better than Trump?
 
 
-4 # Caliban 2017-01-17 23:06
New elections, please.

Ask Barak to hang around until the 2017 re-do is tabulated.
 
 
+6 # kenecon 2017-01-16 23:43
How come you didn't post my first comment on this. I disagreed with Marc Ash. I that why?
 
 
+16 # Barbara Glassman 2017-01-17 01:23
Trump's Progressive Enablers? Glenn Greenwald, Robert Parry and Ray McGovern? You're going after 3 journalists I admire most. At a loss for the right words.
 
 
+6 # davehaze 2017-01-17 03:15
Mark ashes alligations produced some really good responses and rebuttals which enabled the majority of the thumbs up.

Keep accusing, Mark.
 
 
+10 # beeyl 2017-01-17 03:54
One of the things I liked a lot about Glenn Greenwald when he wrote for Salon was that he often engaged his readers in the comments section. By my count, most of the comments here strongly criticize this article and defend Glenn Greenwald's behavior as real journalism. Where is Marc Ash's engagement with these criticisms?
 
 
+9 # Johnny 2017-01-17 15:51
Thank God for Glenn Greenwald! While the deep state and its presstitute media have been distracting the idiot tv-watching masses from the real dangers Trump poses to our civil rights with contemptibly transparent big lies about Russia, which poses no danger at all to the U.S. except in the fake news of the mainstream media, Greenwald would have us focus on reality.
 
 
0 # Depressionborn 2017-01-18 10:02
Trump's agenda indicates a neo lib foundation. It worked for decades.

ne·o·lib·er·al· ism (nē′ō-lĭb′ər-ə- lĭz′əm, -lĭb′rə-)
n.
A political theory of the late 1900s holding that personal liberty is maximized by limiting government interference in the operation of free markets.
 
 
0 # JJS 2017-01-19 05:27
Are you only referring to "personal" liberty? What about when the personal affects the public, the market and the political commons?
Free Market is fine, IMO, as long as it is regulated, which might negate some of the "free" part. "Limiting" government interference shouldn't mean ELIMINATING interference. I would not want to have a private toxic waste plant or even a personal residence with sewage spewing poisoned waste water into the Patuxent River. I would want government regulation to make sure the waste water from the industry or individuals to comply with regulations to be cleaned or treated and disposed of properly and safely. That is just one area of interference that, to me, is reasonable.
 
 
0 # Depressionborn 2017-01-19 13:14
0 # JJS 2017-01-19 05:27

0 # JJS 2017-01-19 05:27
Are you only referring to "personal" liberty?

yes. no one has the right to impose on another's life or property.
 
 
0 # JJS 2017-01-19 18:31
What about when your personal property is leaking hazardous waste into the aquifer that I draw water, for example, from your life choice of raising pigs and chickens?
You would be imposing on my life, my water and my property.
Wouldn't you deduce that regulating your pig and chicken poop with property zoning regulations and effluent limits are needed so you do not impose on my life and property?
Or would you prefer I get my gun and shoot your pigs and chickens to limit their number and protect my life and property?
 
 
+4 # John S. Browne 2017-01-18 20:14
#

I am not going to give up:

So this article makes clear why my comments are under threat. I, along with many others here, have been adamantly speaking out against this "al CIAduh(!)" false-propagand a that this site supports; so, rather than responding in writing to my comments, they are now being moderated for the first time in a long time, and mindgames are being played with them, deleting parts of them; and then, after I re-submit them, finally re-posting them, evidently hoping that I won't re-submit them.

Is anybody else here who is critical of the Russia-Trump meme also being retaliated against? Are everyone's comments being moderated now, or are some people being singled out and/or targeted because of their not towing the party line? It will be interesting to see if this present comment even gets posted in the first place, since they have already refused to post recent comments that I've made which had nothing wrong with them.

Selective freedom of speech, why am I not surprised? What I am surprised about is that for almost two years there wasn't any moderation, or very little, and apparently relatively little censorship. Now the censorship appears to be back in force [allegedly responding to "the (so-called) problem" of, and preventing, multi-part comments because of the arbitrary number-of-chara cters limitation---a way to limit freedom of speech while appearing to "not" be doing so]. If some people here are being censored, please stop it.

#
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN