Greenwald is 100 percent wrong. What he's saying is that collusion with a hostile foreign power to influence a US election should have been ignored. The FBI and CIA didn't do enough! btw, Greenwald is a part of the fringe pro-Dotard "Left". "Left" in quotes because nobody on the real Left would work as hard as these people (interviewers and interviewee) to get Dotard a second term. Why you are such a fan. Despite lies from you about "intellectual integrity".
I like Greg Greenwald because he worked with Edward Snowden to release all the proof of NSA spying on American citizens... and unlike no-skin-in-the-game you, actually cares about the issue.
Quote: "A traitor is always useful", a Russian security service friend said to me while discussing NSA contractor turned defector Edward Snowden's arrival in his country. [end quote]
Who knows what useful info Putin got out of him. Are you a fan of Reality Winner too? She leaked "an intelligence report about Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections". To Glenn Greewald's Intercept. Yet Greenwald still denies the obvious? WTF?
Obviously she trusted the wrong people, given that "The Intercept's handling of the reporting, which included publishing the documents unredacted and including the printer tracking dots, was used to identify Winner as the leaker". A stupid mistake or did Greenwald f*ck her on purpose? Possibly because what she leaked didn't fit Putin's narrative?
That not every whistleblower is the same is the message of the video you linked to? I didn't get that. Reality Winner isn't a good whistleblower? Why? Because she blew the whistle under Dotard/revealed info that confirmed Russia interfered to help Dotard?
As for Greenwald, I don't know wtf his deal is. If he doesn't like Dotard why does he so desperately want Dotard to have a second term? Must be one of those "Lefty" idiots who think punishing the country further by electing Dotard again will teach the Democratic establishment a "lesson". Allow Dotard to continue destroying the country for four more years and we'll get a Progressive Democratic nominee next time for sure!
only one out of five whistles cause growth and don't blow up...thats the video lesson.
self serving do gooders aren't the whistleblowers we want. we want whistleblowers who expose our government wrongdoing... not simply reveal intelligence on foreign malfeasance.
OK, I got it. You mean the whistleblower who revealed that Dotard threatened the president of Ukraine unless he opened a phony investigation into Joe Biden. Although you could argue that that whistleblow blew up, in that thee "GOP" Senate (excepting Romney) ended up giving Dotard the go-ahead to continue with his wrongdoing.
Biden didn't threaten the President of Ukraine? He got an innocent prosecutor fired. You need to pay more attention. Was that an example of good/ fruitful whistleblowing?
Biden's threat was in the interest of the United States, Dotard's threat was in his own interest. Biden was doing his job, Dotard was acting corruptly. YOU need to pay more attention. Or simply stop lying in defense of this turd.
Nobody knew that because your conspiracy theory has been debunked. It was in the US interest to get rid of the corrupt prosecutor. btw, it was not only Biden, but "European diplomats, the International Monetary Fund and other international organizations" that wanted the prosecutor fired. WHY would European diplomats, the International Monetary Fund and other international organizations care about "protecting Hunter's paycheck"?
Do you even believe this BS? Or is it just that you'll go along with ANY lie to keep Dotard in office?
Prove they didn't. It has been widely reported that they did, yet none of these people have come forward to dispute that. Will any of these people be testifying before the Senate? "I'm from the IMF and I can tell you that we did not want the Ukraine prosecutor fired". Unless that happens you can GFY.
"European diplomats, the International Monetary Fund and other international organizations" were calling for the corrupt prosecutor to be fired. As I pointed out in my last comment. You can pretend this isn't the case all you like. FACTS matter, not your "alternative facts". Why your "Obamagate" bullshit won't result in ANY legal ramifications. The entire point of "Obamagate" is to confuse voters. In the hope that they will decide they can't vote for Biden. This is the Hillary Clinton email "scandal" take 2.
Article read. I found nothing that suggests "the in the tank for Biden NY Times wasn't buying it". Unless you mean the truth. They were "buying" that.
Quote (from the article you link to) The United States and other Western nations had for months called for the ousting of Mr. Shokin, who was widely criticized for turning a blind eye to corrupt practices and for defending the interests of a venal and entrenched elite. He was one of several political figures in Kiev whom reformers and Western diplomats saw as a worrying indicator of a return to past corrupt practices, two years after a revolution that was supposed to put a stop to self-dealing by those in power. [end quote]
Quote: "...veteran observers of Ukrainian politics said that the prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, had played an important role in balancing competing political interests, helping maintain stability during a treacherous era in the divided country's history".
There are pros and cons in regards to any decision. In this case it was more important to get rid of a corrupt prosecutor. Despite the role he HAD played. The gist of the article is that Mr. Shokin was corrupt and lots of people were calling for his ouster.
what was the evidence of his corruption? The gist of the article was that many people didn't LIKE him. He had aids that may have been corrupt and for which there was evidence, but as far as we know, none of THEM were fired.
Quote: Daria Kaleniuk, executive director of the Kyiv-based Anti-Corruption Action Center (AntAC), told RFE/RL that Shokin "dumped important criminal investigations on corruption associated with [former President Viktor] Yanukovych, including the Burisma case".
"There was no pressure from anyone from the United States" to close the case against Zlochevskiy [owner of Burisma Holdings], Vitaliy Kasko, who was a deputy prosecutor-general under Shokin and is now first deputy prosecutor-general, told Bloomberg News in May. "It was shelved by Ukrainian prosecutors in 2014 and through 2015". [end quote]
...and then cases were "shelved AGAIN" after Biden replaced Shokin.
Imagine that...
The Prosecutor General of Ukraine Ruslan Ryaboshapka declared that Konstantin Kulik, who led the case associated with ex-Vice US President Joe Biden Burisma company, did not come to mandatory recertification and, therefore, will be dismissed from the Prosecutor’s office. He told about it in interview to the edition “Now”.
According to him, according to the new law on Prosecutor’s office, recertification is mandatory and the law leaves no other options other than dismissal of the Sandpiper.
So why didn't Dotard try to do something about that? Dotard didn't mention Burisma at all during his phone call with Zelensky. Crowdstrike and the DNC server have nothing to do with the shelved investigation into Burisma.
No. Dotard didn't mention Burisma at all during his phone call with Zelensky. Crowdstrike and the DNC server have nothing to do with the shelved investigation into Burisma.
Joe Biden's son has nothing to do with the Burisma investigation. CrowdStrike and the DNC server have even LESS to do with the Burisma investigation. And Rudy (who doesn't represent the US government) went to the Ukraine to receive Russian propaganda, not discuss a serious investigation of Burisma.
Greenwald is 100 percent wrong. What he's saying is that collusion with a hostile foreign power to influence a US election should have been ignored. The FBI and CIA didn't do enough! btw, Greenwald is a part of the fringe pro-Dotard "Left". "Left" in quotes because nobody on the real Left would work as hard as these people (interviewers and interviewee) to get Dotard a second term. Why you are such a fan. Despite lies from you about "intellectual integrity".
ReplyDeleteI like Greg Greenwald because he worked with Edward Snowden to release all the proof of NSA spying on American citizens... and unlike no-skin-in-the-game you, actually cares about the issue.
ReplyDeleteBy George Bush.
ReplyDeleteQuote: "A traitor is always useful", a Russian security service friend said to me while discussing NSA contractor turned defector Edward Snowden's arrival in his country. [end quote]
Who knows what useful info Putin got out of him. Are you a fan of Reality Winner too? She leaked "an intelligence report about Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections". To Glenn Greewald's Intercept. Yet Greenwald still denies the obvious? WTF?
Obviously she trusted the wrong people, given that "The Intercept's handling of the reporting, which included publishing the documents unredacted and including the printer tracking dots, was used to identify Winner as the leaker". A stupid mistake or did Greenwald f*ck her on purpose? Possibly because what she leaked didn't fit Putin's narrative?
So Greg Greenwald's a Russian agent? What's he doing in Brazil then?
ReplyDelete… and not every whistleblower is the same.
ReplyDeleteThat not every whistleblower is the same is the message of the video you linked to? I didn't get that. Reality Winner isn't a good whistleblower? Why? Because she blew the whistle under Dotard/revealed info that confirmed Russia interfered to help Dotard?
ReplyDeleteAs for Greenwald, I don't know wtf his deal is. If he doesn't like Dotard why does he so desperately want Dotard to have a second term? Must be one of those "Lefty" idiots who think punishing the country further by electing Dotard again will teach the Democratic establishment a "lesson". Allow Dotard to continue destroying the country for four more years and we'll get a Progressive Democratic nominee next time for sure!
only one out of five whistles cause growth and don't blow up...thats the video lesson.
ReplyDeleteself serving do gooders aren't the whistleblowers we want. we want whistleblowers who expose our government wrongdoing... not simply reveal intelligence on foreign malfeasance.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOK, I got it. You mean the whistleblower who revealed that Dotard threatened the president of Ukraine unless he opened a phony investigation into Joe Biden. Although you could argue that that whistleblow blew up, in that thee "GOP" Senate (excepting Romney) ended up giving Dotard the go-ahead to continue with his wrongdoing.
ReplyDeleteBiden didn't threaten the President of Ukraine? He got an innocent prosecutor fired. You need to pay more attention. Was that an example of good/ fruitful whistleblowing?
ReplyDeleteYOU may find such conduct "threatening or "improper". I certainly don't. It's what I expect a diplomat to do.
ReplyDeleteBiden's threat was in the interest of the United States, Dotard's threat was in his own interest. Biden was doing his job, Dotard was acting corruptly. YOU need to pay more attention. Or simply stop lying in defense of this turd.
ReplyDeletelol! Protecting Hunter's paycheck was in the American interest? Who knew?
ReplyDeleteNobody knew that because your conspiracy theory has been debunked. It was in the US interest to get rid of the corrupt prosecutor. btw, it was not only Biden, but "European diplomats, the International Monetary Fund and other international organizations" that wanted the prosecutor fired. WHY would European diplomats, the International Monetary Fund and other international organizations care about "protecting Hunter's paycheck"?
ReplyDeleteDo you even believe this BS? Or is it just that you'll go along with ANY lie to keep Dotard in office?
Says you. Now Prove that they wated him fired.
ReplyDeleteProve they didn't. It has been widely reported that they did, yet none of these people have come forward to dispute that. Will any of these people be testifying before the Senate? "I'm from the IMF and I can tell you that we did not want the Ukraine prosecutor fired". Unless that happens you can GFY.
ReplyDeleteWho, other than Sleepy Joe was calling to fire the prosecutor? The Open Society astroturf? lol!
ReplyDeleteEven the in the tank for Biden NY Times wasn't buying it
ReplyDelete"European diplomats, the International Monetary Fund and other international organizations" were calling for the corrupt prosecutor to be fired. As I pointed out in my last comment. You can pretend this isn't the case all you like. FACTS matter, not your "alternative facts". Why your "Obamagate" bullshit won't result in ANY legal ramifications. The entire point of "Obamagate" is to confuse voters. In the hope that they will decide they can't vote for Biden. This is the Hillary Clinton email "scandal" take 2.
ReplyDeleteI am not a NYT paying subscriber so I couldn't read the article you linked to. Do you pay to read a source that is "in the tank for Biden"?
ReplyDeleteThe NYT allows your first few monthly views for free. Try again on June 1.
ReplyDeleteArticle read. I found nothing that suggests "the in the tank for Biden NY Times wasn't buying it". Unless you mean the truth. They were "buying" that.
ReplyDeleteQuote (from the article you link to) The United States and other Western nations had for months called for the ousting of Mr. Shokin, who was widely criticized for turning a blind eye to corrupt practices and for defending the interests of a venal and entrenched elite. He was one of several political figures in Kiev whom reformers and Western diplomats saw as a worrying indicator of a return to past corrupt practices, two years after a revolution that was supposed to put a stop to self-dealing by those in power. [end quote]
The gist of the article is that Mr. Shokin was a stabilizing political force in Ukraine and that those calling for his removal were destabilizing.
ReplyDeleteQuote: "...veteran observers of Ukrainian politics said that the prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, had played an important role in balancing competing political interests, helping maintain stability during a treacherous era in the divided country's history".
ReplyDeleteThere are pros and cons in regards to any decision. In this case it was more important to get rid of a corrupt prosecutor. Despite the role he HAD played. The gist of the article is that Mr. Shokin was corrupt and lots of people were calling for his ouster.
what was the evidence of his corruption? The gist of the article was that many people didn't LIKE him. He had aids that may have been corrupt and for which there was evidence, but as far as we know, none of THEM were fired.
ReplyDeleteQuote: Daria Kaleniuk, executive director of the Kyiv-based Anti-Corruption Action Center (AntAC), told RFE/RL that Shokin "dumped important criminal investigations on corruption associated with [former President Viktor] Yanukovych, including the Burisma case".
ReplyDelete"There was no pressure from anyone from the United States" to close the case against Zlochevskiy [owner of Burisma Holdings], Vitaliy Kasko, who was a deputy prosecutor-general under Shokin and is now first deputy prosecutor-general, told Bloomberg News in May. "It was shelved by Ukrainian prosecutors in 2014 and through 2015". [end quote]
...and then cases were "shelved AGAIN" after Biden replaced Shokin.
ReplyDeleteImagine that...
The Prosecutor General of Ukraine Ruslan Ryaboshapka declared that Konstantin Kulik, who led the case associated with ex-Vice US President Joe Biden Burisma company, did not come to mandatory recertification and, therefore, will be dismissed from the Prosecutor’s office. He told about it in interview to the edition “Now”.
According to him, according to the new law on Prosecutor’s office, recertification is mandatory and the law leaves no other options other than dismissal of the Sandpiper.
So why didn't Dotard try to do something about that? Dotard didn't mention Burisma at all during his phone call with Zelensky. Crowdstrike and the DNC server have nothing to do with the shelved investigation into Burisma.
ReplyDeleteSo why didn't Dotard try to do something about that? I thought you impeached him for that? lol!
ReplyDeleteNo. Dotard didn't mention Burisma at all during his phone call with Zelensky. Crowdstrike and the DNC server have nothing to do with the shelved investigation into Burisma.
ReplyDeleteHe didn't mention Biden's son or a stopped prosecution or to meet with Rudy? Who knew?
ReplyDeleteJoe Biden's son has nothing to do with the Burisma investigation. CrowdStrike and the DNC server have even LESS to do with the Burisma investigation. And Rudy (who doesn't represent the US government) went to the Ukraine to receive Russian propaganda, not discuss a serious investigation of Burisma.
ReplyDeleteHunter Biden didn't work for Burisma? Who knew?
ReplyDelete