Glenn Greenwald resigns from the Intercept

a reply to: TheAlleghenyGentleman

What a load of BS, and typical left- accuse others of EXACTLY what you are doing.

He literally point by point shows how the complaints the editor was making were already addressed in that draft...

3) For almost every personal opinion you express about Biden that you claim I omitted, I actually already included it explicitly in the draft. Just a few examples:

YOU: "But it’s very significant that the Journal found no corroborating evidence either of Joe Biden’s involvement in any such deals, or those deals being consummated. These are major issues that I feel undermine the draft’s thesis and are downplayed in the draft.”

MY DRAFT: "Thus far, no proof has been offered by Bubolinski that Biden ever consummated his participation in any of those discussed deals. The Wall Street Journal says that it found no corporate records reflecting that a deal was finalized and that “text messages and emails related to the venture that were provided to the Journal by Mr. Bobulinski, mainly from the spring and summer of 2017, don’t show either Hunter Biden or James Biden discussing a role for Joe Biden in the venture.”

YOU: "You can certainly note that Shokin’s successor let Burisma off the hook, but that’s not evidence he was installed by Biden in order to achieve that end."

MY DRAFT: "It is true that no evidence, including these new emails, constitute proof that Biden’s motive in demanding Shokhin’s termination was to benefit Burisma."

YOU: "A connected problem is that your draft asserts there is a massive suppression attempt by the entire major media to not report out these accusations, but then doesn’t explore how major news organizations have done significant stories, and those stories, such as the Journal’s, have not found anything of significance. The Times has also reported on the China deal and found the claims wanting."

MY DRAFT: "The Wall Street Journal says that it found no corporate records reflecting that a deal was finalized and that “text messages and emails related to the venture that were provided to the Journal by Mr. Bobulinski, mainly from the spring and summer of 2017, don’t show either Hunter Biden or James Biden discussing a role for Joe Biden in the venture.”...The New York Times on Sunday reached a similar conclusion: while no documents prove that such a deal was consummated, “records produced by Mr. Bobulinski show that in 2017, Hunter Biden and James Biden were involved in negotiations about a joint venture with a Chinese energy and finance company called CEFC China Energy.”

I could go on and on.

He then goes on to point out how they've already done an article that was even more baseless and dishonest about the emails, the only article they have done on them, that defends Biden.

It was The Intercept that took the lead in falsely claiming that publication by the NY Post was part of a campaign of "Russian disinformation" -- and did so by (a) uncritically citing the allegations of ex-CIA officials as truth, and (b) so much worse: omitting the sentence in the letter from the ex-CIA officials admitting they had no evidence for that claim. In other words, the Intercept -- in the only article that it bothered to publish that makes passing reference to these documents -- did so only by mindlessly repeating what CIA operatives say. And it turned out to be completely false. This -- CIA stenography -- is what meets the Intercept's rigorous editorial standards:

"The U.S. intelligence community had previously warned the White House that Giuliani has been the target of a Russian intelligence operation to disseminate disinformation about Biden, and the FBI has been investigating whether the strange story about the Biden laptop is part of a Russian disinformation campaign. This week, a group of former intelligence officials issued a letter saying that the Giuliani laptop story has the classic trademarks of Russian disinformation."

The Intercept deleted from that quotation of the CIA's claims this rather significant statement: "we do not have evidence of Russian involvement."

Repeatedly over the past several months, I've brought to Betsy's attention false claims that were published by The Intercept in articles that were designed to protect Biden and malign Trump. Some have been corrected or quietly deleted, while others were just left standing.

This rigorous editorial process emerges only when an article deviates from rather than recites the political preferences of The Intercept and/or the standard liberal view on political controversies. That The Intercept is now reduced to blindly citing the evidence-free accusations about foreign adversaries from John Brennan and James Clapper -- and, worse, distorting what they said to make it even more favorable to Biden than these agents of disinformation were willing to do -- is both deeply sad and embarrassing to me as one of the people on whose name, credibility and reputations the Intercept has been built and around which it continues to encourage readers to donate money to it.

Just more evidence to add to the pile showing how corrupt and dishonest the reporting lately has become...

Also pretty crazy how everyone rushed out an article on this but not a single one of them have added the emails provided as proof. All the articles I've seen so far have provided the intercept's response but neglect to show the email chain associated.

I have noticed that people have missed something... there was the agreement email that shows "10 held by H for the big guy?" but it actually ended up being held by Jim Biden not Hunter Biden. Or am I not understanding that correctly?

a reply to: twigbaby

From what I've read that sounds accurate...however we are discussing Greenwald, the intercept, and censorship here. Have you read his article, resignation, or emails with his editors yet? If not they are a great read and worth the time to look over and digest.

a reply to: KansasGirl

If he had dirt he would have already wrote about it. Glenn isn't the type to hide corruption...he has literally made a career exposing it. Hell he already posted emails over this article within an hr of breaking this resignation news and promised the emails before the intercept even responded.

a reply to: Assassin82

Thanks for linking that, 23 minutes in, pretty interesting podcast. Making nice backround noise as I get some work done.

If he had dirt he would have already wrote about it.

Is The Intercept A "Honey Trap"

The Intercept is a continuation of that blockade [of WikiLeaks]. [It] was set up with that purpose. Specifically, it was set up to block true, real information and put forth narrative that has already gotten the approval of special interests

originally posted by: Infoshill

If he had dirt he would have already wrote about it.

Is The Intercept A "Honey Trap"

The Intercept is a continuation of that blockade [of WikiLeaks]. [It] was set up with that purpose. Specifically, it was set up to block true, real information and put forth narrative that has already gotten the approval of special interests

I wrote the following months ago in a thread about Trump pardoning Snowden:

Poster wrote: How is Snowden a traitor? He exposed the NSA illegal practices. Was Deep Throat a traitor? Or Woodward and Burstine for leaking the Pentagon papers?

Me: Wasn't Snowden also a part of creating SecureDrop? I believe that ended up being a honey pot used to catch whistleblowers?

Look into SecureDrop, SIGNAL and Freedom of the Press Foundation.

from the WaPo in 2017 - www.washingtonpost.com...

"By targeting devices, the CIA reportedly gains access to even well-encrypted communications, on such popular apps as Signal and WhatsApp, without having to crack the encryption itself. The WikiLeaks reports acknowledged that difference by saying the CIA had found ways to “bypass,” as opposed to defeat, encryption technologies."

www.abovetopsecret.com...




Not one response from anyone

This bit
While he accuses us of political bias, it was he who was attempting to recycle the dubious claims of a political campaign — the Trump campaign — and launder them as journalism.

They are not dubious claims. They are true no matter where they came from.