Glenn Greenwald To Testify Before Congress

[ProSense]

Glenn Greenwald To Testify Before Congress

A congressional hearing next Wednesday on the National Security Agency's surveillance efforts will include testimony from critics, including the journalist who first reported on the programs.

Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL) told The Guardian that he's working with other lawmakers to spearhead the hearing in order to rebut "constant misleading information" from the intelligence community. It will not be a formal hearing, but will feature rougly a dozen lawmakers from both parties.

Grayson said that The Guardian's Glenn Greenwald, who reported on the surveillance programs based on information provided by NSA leaker Edward Snowden, has been invited to participate in the hearing via video conference from his home in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Greenwald indicated over Twitter on Friday that he will participate.

Glenn Greenwald ✔ @ggreenwald

NSA surveillance critics to testify before Congress: I'll be there via video http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/26/nsa-surveillance-critics-testify-congress …
1:49 PM - 26 Jul 2013

NSA surveillance critics to testify before Congress

Democrat congressman Alan Grayson says hearing will help to stop 'constant misleading information' from intelligence chiefs
The Guardian@guardian

104 Retweets 43 favorites

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/glenn-greenwald-to-testify-before-congress

What does "not be a formal hearing" mean? Why not a real hearing?

[NoPasaran]

1. Not a "formal hearing"

And Greenwald will be there by video? If he's not sworn it's not testimony.

Sounds like a Grayson/Greenwald wankfest.

[Whisp]

35. 'Sounds like a Grayson/Greenwald wankfest'

Yup. Both are stage hungry bad actors that can only get attention by extremist nonsense, if you ask me.

[JackRiddler]

63. This reflects on the official committees.

It means only that the official committees of the House are not willing to take it up, and so Grayson has to run a non-formal hearing. This reflects entirely on the cowardice and foolishness of the Intelligence Committee (for example) and not on Grayson or Greenwald. Of course they would prefer to have an official committee hearing, why not?

That you should choose to mischaracterize this in such an outrageous fashion is telling. Of course, your avatar is a genocidaire, so I suppose it's not surprising.

This is supposed to be Democratic UNDERGROUND.

[Cha]

71. Agree.

[SunSeeker]

2. That is what struck me too. Will he be under oath? nt

[ProSense]

7. Sounds like a Congressional chat session. n/t

[sufrommich]

3. Kind of an odd thing for a super fascist authoritarian

government to allow.

[dionysus]

4. well since douchewald knows more about the NSA than the govt does, i'm sure

he'll be key in resolving his difficult issue...

[Cha]

87. lol

[AllINeedIsCoffee]

5. Another waste of time and money, comparable to the Benghazi hearings. nt

[RobertEarl]

8. You compare Grayson to Issa?

You really are pushing the spy-on-everyone program rather hard.

Now you are saying our man, Grayson, is just wasting time?

Maybe you have had too much coffee?

[AllINeedIsCoffee]

9. If the shoe fits. nt

[RobertEarl]

10. It doesn't fit.

You trying to cram it is not smart at all. In fact, you seem to be against Grayson asking the questions that most of us want to hear the answers too.

Why is that? What is your agenda? Why attack Grayson, one of the best Democrats we've had in a long time?

[ProSense]

11. The Issa hearings were witchhunts.

In this case, real hearings are justified. Real hearings, not informal chats.

Why not have a formal hearing?

[RobertEarl]

12. Formal hearing?

Maybe because Obama doesn't want one?

Either be for the truth or continue to obfuscate.

[ProSense]

13. Wait

"Formal hearing? Maybe because Obama doesn't want one?"

...Obama controls Congress? Are you saying the hearing is a sham?

[RobertEarl]

14. No

I am saying Grayson has to fight even Obama to get the truth out.

Why is that? What is Obama hiding?

You think Obama is a weakling who can't influence congress at all? Of course not. So why obfuscate like this? What is your agenda?

[ProSense]

15. What does that have to do with a formal Congressional hearing?

"You think Obama is a weakling who can't influence congress at all? Of course not. So why obfuscate like this? What is your agenda"

You're implying that Grayson is caving to Obama by not holding a formal hearing.

[RobertEarl]

17. You make no sense

Obama, if he wanted a hearing, there would be a formal hearing.

Do you really want a formal hearing? Obama does not. He wants idiots running around attacking good people like Grayson, as far as I can tell.

[ProSense]

18. "Obama, if he wanted a hearing, there would be a formal hearing."

You think that makes Sense?

Issa held a whole bunch of hearings. President Obama does not control Congress' agenda.

"Do you really want a formal hearing? Obama does not. He wants idiots running around attacking good people like Grayson, as far as I can tell. "

After your claims, you really have no place calling others "idiots."

[RobertEarl]

19. idiots abound

You surely have noticed? Look at them, attacking Grayson now.

First they said we were racist, then paulbots. Now they attack Grayson? Sorry, that's idiocity to the 10th degree.

[ProSense]

20. It's not rational to believe that the hearing is not formal because that's what Obama wants. n/t

[karynnj]

27. What?

First, The Congressional Committee select what hearings they have. They are not directed by Obama.

But what takes the cake is you saying Obama wants people to attack Grayson - where is that coming from.

[RobertEarl]

30. Then I expect Obama to back Grayson

He is either for Grayson or against him.

Looks to me like he's in favor of what is being done here; attacks on Grayson.

Eat your peas, er, cake.

[karynnj]

33. Sorry but it is very possible to be neutral on Grayson

I seriously doubt the President reads DU often and he certainly does not orchestrate negative comments on Grayson. Grayson is not that important.

[Whisp]

37. what bollocksie superNonsense.

omg, just quit while you are behind, man.

[one_voice]

39. hmmmm...

for or against.

[Politicalboi]

28. What is Obama hiding?

Then why doesn't he tell us EVERYTHING he knows no matter the consequence. The GOP congress is NOT going to let the truth out either. I want Obama to work with these assholes for healthcare. All this spying stuff is closing the gate after the horses got out. We will NEVER know what really goes on. We will NEVER know if they have stopped spying. I want healthcare, not hearings based on what Glen Greewald has to say.

[treestar]

44. You consider our Executives "weaklings?"

if they can't "influence Congress?" The whole point was to have separation of powers. Of course they shouldn't be able to influence Congress. They should have to work with it as it is.

[Luminous Animal]

24. I suppose you were wringing your hands over Conyers holding informal

hearings over the illegal activities of the Bush admin, right?

[ProSense]

29. I realized

"I suppose you were wringing your hands over Conyers holding informal hearings over the illegal activities of the Bush admin, right?"

...they were informal, which is why nothing happened. Don't you agree that a formal hearing is better?

[railsback]

6. Issa is a virus

Its spreading fast.

[AllINeedIsCoffee]

23. +1 nt

[Major Hogwash]

16. It's not testimony if Greenwald is not sworn in first.

I don't know who is the bigger prima donna between the two, Grayson or Greenwald.

But, this "not a formal hearing" is just a charade.

[Hissyspit]

21. How is it not testimony if he is not sworn in?

I think you meant to say it is not "sworn testimony" if he is not sworn in."

[karynnj]

25. I would conjecture it means that people are more careful in what they say as sworn

testimony. Lying or not telling the full truth to Grayson would be no different than lying to Rachel Maddow -- or for that matter Sean Hannity!

There are committees in both the House and Senate that could and should hold hearings. Not to mention, they should have experts on what it does as well as critics.

[Hissyspit]

66. It's testimony.

It's not sworn testimony.

[think]

77. they might give the least untruthful answer if they are sworn in....

[flamingdem]

26. Yes, since it's not formal it's another chance for Greenwald to spread his bs

without consequence.

[Whisp]

38. or a subliminal call for more donations.

You know, to the superheroes that will save the planet from all ills.



Grayson is a bad actor. I think they make a good pair, GG and G.

[karynnj]

22. It is not a formal hearing because Grayson is not chair of a standing committee or subcommittee

I take it to mean that Grayson is using his ability to get media to get critics of the NSA on record and to give them a platform.

I think it would be better to have a real committee - preferably in the Democratic Senate that would have BOTH critics and the people who designed and oversee the programs. In that case, they could subpoena people or documents that are relevant. In addition, the seriousness of lying to the committee greatly increases.

It would be especially good if the Senator leading it could use a technique that Kennedy used on some HELP hearings and Kerry used on some foreign policy hearings. In those hearings, both the Senators and all the invited people were around a table and though the chair introduced everyone, the format was more relaxed so the various witnesses could engage in question/answer with each other or with the Senators. For something like this, it could be useful as it would get the right people speaking to each other. It could clear up some misconceptions - or lead to some changes that preserve the value of what is being done and lower the risk of invading privacy.

[railsback]

31. Grayson laughs all the way to the bank

[img][/img]

[burnodo]

36. What kind of shit is this?

DU has really gone downhill

[Whisp]

41. so Grayson should have more respect here than Obama gets?

why the fuck is that?

I am hoping I misunderstood you.

[burnodo]

43. Obama has shown his political leanings

Casual slander against Grayson should be the purview of numbnuts at Free Republic

[Whisp]

45. I see I did not misunderstand.

and blatant slander and lies against the President?

you wouldn't be a pom pom sycophantie for Grayson now would you? Because that is not allowed here.

Thanks for the humour tho!

[burnodo]

46. No slander against the president

His true feelings are shown by his actions

By the by... Pom Pom sycophanties for Obama are allowed?

[Whisp]

49. You have yourself a nice stay, now.

[burnodo]

57. Why thank you!

That's sweet

[Cha]

73. Yes, we do know President Obama's Record on helping the Poor..

1) A $20 billion increase for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly known as Food Stamps.

2) A $1 billion in funding for the Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) that is intended to revitalize low-income communities via "Job training and placement assistance", "Financial literacy programs", et al, to helping families become self-sufficient.

3) A $2 billion in new Neighborhood Stabilization Funds that will allow ailing neighborhoods be kept maintained.

4) A $1.5 billion in Homelessness Prevention Funds to keep people in their homes and prevent homelessness.

5) A $5 billion increase for the Weatherization Assistance Program to help low income families save on their residential energy expenditures by making their homes more energy efficient.

6) A $4 Billion program, The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010, "authorizes funding for federal school meal and child nutrition programs and increases access to healthy food for low-income children."

7) As part of the HCR bill, subsidies will be available to the uninsured and families with income between the 133 percent and 400 percent of poverty level($14,404 for individuals and $29,326 for a family of four).

8) Estabilished Open Doors to end the 640,000 men, women and children who are homeless in America by 2020.

9) Increased the amount of federal Pell Grant awards so that funds are available to those with less access to have opportunity.

10) Provided $510 Million for the rehabilitation of Native American housing.

11) Expanded eligibility for Medicaid to all individuals under age 65 with incomes up to 133 percent of the federal poverty level ($14,400 per year for an individual).

12) Providing assistance to low-income workers through the Earned Income Tax Credit giving millions of working families the break they need.

13) Education being the way out of Poverty, kicked off the "Race to the Top", a $4.3 billion program, that rewards via grants to States that meet a few key benchmarks for reform, and states that outperform the rest.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/01/04/932367/-Things-Obama-Has-Done-For-The-Poor-

"Obama’s Quiet Campaign to Fight Poverty"

When the federal government recently released its official statistics on poverty, they showed that more Americans are living below the poverty line now than at any time since the U.S. Census Bureau began collecting data in 1959.

This disturbing increase reflects the ongoing fallout of the economic downturn. But the fact is that the statistics would have been worse had it not been for a concerted effort by the Obama administration to ease poverty—an effort that deserves more attention.

http://www.spotlightonpoverty.org//ExclusiveCommentary.aspx?id=bcddfb97-ed90-42d0-ad7b-45661759b788

http://www.democraticunderground.com/110212904

Venomous bashing against Pres Obama "should be the purview of the numbnuts af free republilc."

[railsback]

55. Yeah, man, everything is FREE

that is, until someone like Issa.. or Grayson, makes you pay for things you already know so they can fund raise off it.

Downhill is right!

[NuclearDem]

74. Seriously, when the fuck did we throw Alan Grayson under the bus?

[Whisp]

84. what's so delicately special about Grayson?

really. Take a grip.

After all these years of us having to hear the most repugnant, viscious words towards President Obama, you are going to get the vapors over This?

jaysuz.

[Laelth]

90. Here's what's special about Alan Grayson ... just FYI.

DU is (and has been for a long time) the largest and the best liberal discussion forum on the internet. The Honorable Alan Grayson is not perfect, but he is definitely a liberal, and, I might add, a posting member of this community. To libel him in this environment shows both bad taste and poor judgment.

Of course, your goals may be different from his. If so, you might be happier posting in a different online discussion forum.

-Laelth


Edit:Laelth--fixed bb code.

[Whisp]

100. I disagree.

I would say that if one disagrees with the President in the same vernacular that the Baggers and Pugs use, it is they who would be happier elsewhere rolling in that dung.

[Laelth]

103. I hear you.

There is, and has been since at least 2009 (if not before), an ongoing debate about the purpose of DU. Some of us think this is a platform for liberals. Others, like you, think this is a platform for the Democratic Party. As painful as this ongoing debate has been, I think it's a useful discussion for us to have ... over and over, if necessary.

Our administrators have done their best to tackle this issue when they had to, but they have shown immense restraint and a willingness to change when they felt it was appropriate to do so. As it now stands, however, official DU policy is that criticism is allowed (even of Democrats) when that criticism comes from the left. That's why liberal and left-leaning criticisms of the President are allowed here.

The attack on Alan Grayson that inspired the present discussion is not from the left. If Railsback's post were alerted on, I would vote to allow it to stand, but I would still call it shameful and inappropriate. That's because I continue to see DU as a forum for liberals and leftist-patriots. You see this site differently. Fair enough, but I think the site's rules confirm my opinion of DU's purpose and function.

-Laelth

[Whisp]

40. LOL!!

[Hissyspit]

65. Yeah, it absurdly hilarious isn't it?

EVERYONE under the bus!

[railsback]

70. It truly is

For the mere fact that Grayson is now making the taxpayer pay for things we were getting for free.. and fund raising off it. Absurdity at its most absurdness!

[Hissyspit]

64. Oh for fuck's sake.

[Whisp]

67. whatsamattaU?

don't you like constructive criticism?



don't worry, you'll get used to it.

[Cha]

75. ..

Last edited Sat Jul 27, 2013, 04:53 AM - Edit history (1)

I'm thnking they don't like it when it touches one of their own.. Just a guess. rofl

yeah, we got use to like it's fucking nothing now. Another greenwald regurgitator lying about the President. ho hum.

[Whisp]

83. Oh, the shock! Poor little sensitive things.

Guess they lead a sheltered politics forums life or have bashed all along and have no loyalties to anything but bashing and now it hurts putting the shoe on the other foot.

[Laelth]

91. In what possible way is that criticism constructive?

And why are you laughing?

Seriously.

-Laelth

[Whisp]

101. I laugh because 'constructive criticism' and 'progressive'

have taken on different meanings here since 2008.

Seriously.

[Laelth]

104. That's very true.

Certainly, there's now a legion of people willing to "call out" posts and posters whose criticisms are not constructive. As a result, we are all more aware that we share different ideas about the purpose and function of DU. As I mentioned to you in another post, I think this is an important discussion for us to have.

But this discussion is impossible when we are laughing at one another. Both sides (on this issue) are guilty of destructive derision. I just don't think it's useful. If you believe derision is useful in some way, I am open to hearing what you have to say about that.



-Laelth

[reusrename]

68. Right wingnuts posting here at DU?

WTF?

[railsback]

69. Right, Left, Snowden, Greenwald, 'Baggers

Peas in a pod.

[Cha]

78. Oh, and do you ask that when members are

pissing on President Obama?

[reusrename]

79. I haven't seen that here.

This rates up there with the Obama pictures with the bone in his nose. Are you saying that those pictures are just fine with you?

[Cha]

82. I'm saying this board craps on Pres Obama on a daily basis..venomous disrepect

and stupid lies. Not constructive criticism. If you haven't seen it then you're not paying attention.

I'm use to it and don't give a shit anymore but, don't get all hypocritical and freak out because another dem is getting called out for his prodigious grandstanding, fundraising skills.

[Laelth]

93. Sigh.

I don't deny that a lot of anger and frustration gets vented here, and the President takes the brunt of it, even when he doesn't always deserve it. That is very, very true. As the President and as the leader of the Democratic Party, the buck stops with him. It is only natural that he would take the heat for many things that are both beyond his control and for which he is not responsible. Some of that "heat" is not constructive. On that, I agree with you.

But I have never seen a graphic posted here featuring President Obama that is nearly as offensive and libelous as the one posted by railsback (above). Never. If I missed one, please point it out to me.

Please remember that DU is (and has been for a long time) the largest and the best liberal discussion forum on the internet. The Honorable Alan Grayson is not perfect, but he is definitely a liberal, and, I might add, a posting member of this community. To insult him with that graphic in this environment shows both bad taste and poor judgment.

Of course, ymmv.

-Laelth

[Cha]

72. thank you. Or as one comment said.. "our favorite gasbag." nm

[Cha]

76. Excellent graphic of grayson raking in the do re mi.. I'm sure

he's gotten many buckolas from those who aghast at your image. Shocked I tell ya.

[Laelth]

89. That post is shameful.

If it were alerted on, I would vote to allow it to stand, but I would still call it shameful.

DU is (and has been for a long time) the largest and the best liberal discussion forum on the internet. The Honorable Alan Grayson is not perfect, but he is definitely a liberal, and, I might add, a posting member of this community. To insult him with that graphic in this environment shows both bad taste and poor judgment.

Are you sure you wouldn't be happier in a different online community?



-Laelth

[Starry Messenger]

92. +1

[NorthCarolina]

32. Do I sense panic amongst the troops?

So many progressives to attack, so little time.

For our neo-con third way crew and their efforts, I can honestly say I HOPE that time is running out.

[Laelth]

94. I hope your assessment is correct.

The vitriol against liberals from DU's permanent election campaigners who, for no apparent reason, continue to campaign for a man who will never again be elected to public office, is getting quite tiresome.

-Laelth

[NorthCarolina]

97. They are not campaigning for the man

as much as they are campaigning for the neo-conservative policies he espouses. However, in discussions it is safer to present yourself as a defender of the man rather than a defender of his policies, such as NSA spying on American citizens, trade deals that harm American workers, etc.

[Laelth]

98. You may be right.

However, when I am in a generous mood and when I want to imagine the best about my fellow citizens and my fellow Democrats, I tend to think that they simply can't stop campaigning for the President, even though it's utterly pointless, now, to do so.



-Laelth

[NorthCarolina]

99. I believe their function is

quite simply to obfuscate the egregious policies of our corporate overlords. The NSA spying scandal serves as a prime example of their purpose turned up to a fever pitch.

[Whisp]

34. not a formal meeting = Glenn can continue lies and won't be held accountable

propaganda device only.

surprise surprise.

I want to see him swearing on a bible for the truth and nothing but, and perjur his own ass.

[Luminous Animal]

51. What if he's an atheist?

[Whisp]

52. or whatever they do these days.

take an oath to tell the truth, bla bla bla.

[treestar]

42. By videotape from his "home"

in another country.

[Luminous Animal]

53. And?

[treestar]

54. Something about it bugs me

When I first read the headline, I thought he was coming to Washington D.C., before I realized it was not a real hearing. It just seems strange he should lecture us from another country.

[Luminous Animal]

59. He's a U.S. citizen and living in another country because

that is where is long term partner lives. Until very recently, they were barred from relocating to the U.S. Thus, he made a home life for himself, his partner, and his 8 dogs in Brazil. They travel to the U.S. often and sometimes stay as long as his boyfriend's visa allows.

Conyers, during the Bush years, held many informal hearings. Were they not real?

[madmom]

105. I remember most on this board were

outraged about the "informal" not under oath testimony of Bush and Cheney!

[Waiting For Everyman]

47. The venom against transparency on the NSA is becoming funny.

I've seen some screwed up positions in my time, but this takes the cake.

Yay! Big Brother! Yay! Total surveillance, Yay! More, More!

[ProSense]

48. I think your comment is extremely hilarious.

"I've seen some screwed up positions in my time, but this takes the cake. "

I mean, WTF are you talking about? The OP is a post about a hearing, and a question about why it's informal.

Don't want to participate in that discussion? Fine. No need to post disruptive an hilarious stuff that has nothing to do with the topic.

[Waiting For Everyman]

50. Nobody "needs" your posts either, but have you read your comments lately?

That might provide a clue as to what I meant.

Ironic that the DU backrolling champion would have a problem with bouncies. We really need a cheerleading smiley, but oh well, that will have to do.

As to your question on why it's informal... just a guess, but it may have to do with the fact that Repubs are the House majority, and as such, they control how hearings are conducted.

[ProSense]

58. I read yours, and they're hilarious. n/t

[Cha]

80. Because it's time to change the subject from the "informal, not under oath hearing"

aka "greenwald grayson wankfest" to "Surveillance Surveillance Surveillance!" rofl

Mustn't discuss greenwald's vicious threats or snowedem's lying hypocrisy. bad form. roflmao

[muriel_volestrangler]

88. Have you no shame? The one Democratic congressman who posts on DU

investigates the surveillance of the American people, and you smear it as a 'wankfest', and have the gall to claim that pointing out this is about surveillance is 'changing the subject'?

I really have never seen an established DUer sink as low as you are now. Seriously, you are acting worse than Rush Limbaugh. Where have you left your conscience?

[Laelth]

95. +1 n/t

-Laelth

[Waiting For Everyman]

96. Venom, venom everywhere, but ProSense can't find it.

Look upthread, look downthread, look anywhere you want in this thread.

I wonder if there is such a thing as "selective vision", similar to selective memory?

[olddots]

56. is he testifying under oath ??????

no this sounds like a photo opp/sound bite fest for both side to try to politicize a serious issue that won't get any real help until people stop idolizing people .

[Luminous Animal]

60. Conyers held informal hearings regarding the Bush Admins shenanigans.

What do you think his motive was?

[kentuck]

62. I remember once they were kicked out of the Capitol building...

and had to have their hearing outside. It is not a formal hearing when it is not approved by the leadership.

[kentuck]

61. Maybe they will have him raise his right hand and take an oath?

Would that make any difference?

[Cha]

81. Btw, Is greenwald going to threaten the USA like a freaking "Bond Villain"

again? Or is he going to STFU about that?


Snowden/Greenwald Threaten The United States

by WinSmith.

I've made no secret of my utter disdain for both Edward Snowden's lawbreaking and for his agent/advocate Glenn Greenwald, both in how they've spun the story, manipulated the press like masterful carnival barkers, and provided as little original sourcing as possible.

All of this, despite the fact that I actually partially agree with them. I, too, have utter contempt for the Patriot Act. I, too, would like to see it overturned and serious oversight/regulations brought back into the FISA court to ensure warrants for any data review.

So why my contempt for these two? Because of bullshit like this, published in today's Reuters:

"Snowden has enough information to cause harm to the U.S. government in a single minute than any other person has ever had," Greenwald said in an interview in Rio de Janeiro Argentinean daily La Nacion.

"The U.S. government should be on its knees every day begging that nothing happen to Snowden, because if something does happen to him, all the information will be revealed and it could be its worst nightmare."

The USA should be "on it's knees"? Who talks like this? What is this, the W.W.E.? This is an absolute joke.

Is Greenwald a journalist or Snowden's agent? I've seen subtler hype machines for Paris Hilton reality shows.

.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/07/13/1223308/-Snowden-Greenwald-Threaten-The-United-States#

I think it's fair to point out that in "manipulating the press".. ol greenie had willing subjects.

[Whisp]

85. Green & Gray tell America the Truth!

[Cha]

86. Get your Red Hot Green and Gray,

Pure as the Driven Snow, Propaganda, right here!