'Frequently Told Lies' about Glenn Greenwald, by Glenn Greenwald.

[sabrina 1]

As you probably have observed there is an ongoing smear campaign aimed at Journalist Glenn Greenwald. It consists of a few 'talking points' which by now we are all familiar with.

This should not surprise anyone who followed the Anonymous Exposure of 'Security Contratctor', HBGary's internal emails.

What we found out from those leaked emails was what these Security Contractors view as their job of taking care of the 'security' of this country. Apparently it is very important for our security to silence Left Wing Bloggers, like Glenn Greenwald.

At the time, GG was a blogger, someone who, like thousands of other bloggers, Right, Left and Independent, Libertarian among others, expressed his opinions on his own blog.

He wasn't even that well known enough to strike such fear into our Security Contractors.

Yet, for some reason, Glenn Greenwald was singled out from among all those other bloggers by HBGary, seeking money in a bid for a contract, with a proposal for a SMEAR CAMPAIGN against him, according to the emails, to 'discredit him'.

Why? Because he was so anti-Bush policies? I think so. Not that he was the only one, we were ALL anti-Bush policies weren't we??

Why would they not go after, say, Andrew Breitbart, or Drudge?

Why a Leftist Blogger who had spent the Bush years since he became a blogger, telling the truth about Bush's Wars, his Anti-Constitutional Policies and relentlessly criticizing his administration for their Torture Policies?

Apparently Right Wing Bloggers do not warrant a smear campaign. No smear campaigns proposed for THEM.

But we are treated on a daily basis to attacks on a Left Wing blogger. Why?

Glenn Greenwald has provided facts about himself to counter the lies and smears so he doesn't need to address them each time they surface.

So rather than go into every thread trying to correct these distortions, this is a public service OP so that people can read the facts for themselves, spoken by the person most likely to know them:

Frequently told lies (FTLs)

He addresses pretty much all of the SIX commonly used smears we are now so accustomed to seeing:

1. I work/worked for the Cato Institute
2. I'm a right-wing libertarian
3. I supported the Iraq War and/or George Bush
4. I moved to Brazil to protest US laws on gay marriage
5. Because I live in Brazil, I have no "skin in the game" for US politics
6. I was sanctioned or otherwise punished for ethical violations in my law practice

Number six is a particularly egregious claim and so patently false and so easily proven to be false, you have to wonder why anyone would continue to try to pass it off as a fact.


If you have an interest in the facts, you can judge these smears against the facts. If not, then skip this OP.

If you see any of these smears and you will, I suppose you could respond with a link to Greenwald's own words, and of course his years of blogging on the issues is still available proving them false even without this.

FTLs = Frequently Told Lies.

It's important to correct wrong information, especially when there is a good chance it is coming from one of those Security Contractors who most likely got the Contract to Smear Greemwald, lost by HBGary after they were exposed by Anonymous, as far as we know.

[ProSense]

1. "I supported the Iraq War and/or George Bush "

This is Greenwald's debunk of his support for the Iraq war?
http://sync.democraticunderground.com/10023134060

[sabrina 1]

3. Thanks for an example of one of the six lies. You are free to read the correction made by

Greenwald himself. Or not. I had no trouble understanding it, it's pretty simply written and what is admirable about his position is, that unlike eg, Hillary Clinton, as soon as he knew we were lied to, he spent the next years slamming the Bush administration.

[ProSense]

12. "as soon as he knew we were lied to"

Why didn't he know immediately? I knew it was bullshit.

Also, 2005 was "soon"?

Seems like a lame excuse.

[sabrina 1]

18. Why didn't all those Democrats, Kerry, Clinton et al, know, and why have they never

acknowledged the lies, but continued to support the Iraq war and to vote to fund it? I really am interested in why they have never admitted they supported those lies, and why you never write about those Dems who had the power to help Bush start his war.

On the other hand, Greenwald admitted he had been duped AND he did not have the power to send our troops to war. I am certain that had he been in that position he would have been a lot more circumspect about whether to vote for it or not.

[ProSense]

21. Greenwald is not a member of Congress. I knew it was bullshit.

Claiming he was a gullible tool who followed Bush blindly and rejected the war in 2005 is not an excuse.

I mean, Kerry was slamming Bush in 2003.

[Bluenorthwest]

31. And yet you supported for Sec of Defense a Republican who voted for the Iraq War and for

every dime of funding Bush ever asked for, all while being anti gay and anti choice. The notion that it is damnation for a blogger to support the war but also reason to promote Republicans into high office to be in charge of wars is hypocritical beyond measure. Chuckie thought there were WMD and 'yellowcake'. He was a gullible tool. And your choice for Sec of Defense.
Really pretty amazing.

[ProSense]

38. Again,

" And yet you supported for Sec of Defense a Republican who voted for the Iraq War and for"

...I'm not a member of Congress. I knew the Iraq war justifications were bullshit. Here are the members of Congress who confirmed Hagel:


YEAs ---58

Baldwin (D-WI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Begich (D-AK)
Bennet (D-CO)
Blumenthal (D-CT)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Cochran (R-MS)
Coons (D-DE)
Cowan (D-MA)
Donnelly (D-IN)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Franken (D-MN)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Hagan (D-NC)


Harkin (D-IA)
Heinrich (D-NM)
Heitkamp (D-ND)
Hirono (D-HI)
Johanns (R-NE)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kaine (D-VA)
King (I-ME)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Manchin (D-WV)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murphy (D-CT)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)


Paul (R-KY)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schatz (D-HI)
Schumer (D-NY)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Shelby (R-AL)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Tester (D-MT)
Udall (D-CO)
Udall (D-NM)
Warner (D-VA)
Warren (D-MA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=113&session=1&vote=00024

[Bluenorthwest]

44. Again, it is unfair and hypocritical on a very basic level to criticize one person for doing that

for which another is given a pass. You supported for high office a Republican who voted for the IRW while you attack a journalist for doing the same. Hypocritical, selective and affected outrage, huge anger at the gay writer, big support for the Republican who actually voted for the war as one of jut 100 Senators with such a vote to give.
It is what it is. Inexcusably inconsistent. Intellectually void.

[ProSense]

45. Again, Greenwald was gullible is not an excuse. He supported the Iraq war. n/t

[Bluenorthwest]

49. And so did Hagel, who you felt was a great choice for Defense Sec.

Your double standard is glaring and definitive. You attack one person for an action but reward another for the same thing. That's you, not Greenwald or Congress, it's you doing that. It is hypocritical and hyper typical.
Hagel voted to send our troops to war based on lies. Gullible is being far too kind. All who supported that war were stupid, only a few were rewarded for their votes....

[ProSense]

50. Again,

"And so did Hagel, who you felt was a great choice for Defense Sec."

...I'm not a member of Congress. I knew the Iraq war justifications were bullshit. You may want to contact your Senators and complain. Here are the members of Congress who confirmed Hagel:


YEAs ---58

Baldwin (D-WI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Begich (D-AK)
Bennet (D-CO)
Blumenthal (D-CT)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Cochran (R-MS)
Coons (D-DE)
Cowan (D-MA)
Donnelly (D-IN)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Franken (D-MN)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Hagan (D-NC)


Harkin (D-IA)
Heinrich (D-NM)
Heitkamp (D-ND)
Hirono (D-HI)
Johanns (R-NE)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kaine (D-VA)
King (I-ME)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Manchin (D-WV)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murphy (D-CT)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)


Paul (R-KY)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schatz (D-HI)
Schumer (D-NY)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Shelby (R-AL)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Tester (D-MT)
Udall (D-CO)
Udall (D-NM)
Warner (D-VA)
Warren (D-MA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=113&session=1&vote=00024

[Bluenorthwest]

54. Hypocritical double standard blather. There is no excuse for it. None.

Just crazed to reward one person for doing a thing for which you endlessly attack another. Off the deep end in the hypocrisy pool.

[ProSense]

58. Yes, I opposed the war. Greenwald supported it. His excuse is "hypocritical double standard blather"

I can call his ass out because I knew Bush was a liar.

[sabrina 1]

262. You continue to avoid the very obvious fact that Greenwald was a private and unknown

citizen at the time. There is no shame at all in believing your government would not do something so heinous as to lead the country into war on false pretenses.

He was no doubt influenced, as many people were, by the fact that Congress gave Bush BI-PARTISAN support for the egregious crime.

You fault a private citizen with no access to the information Clinton eg, had but refused to check out because she ACTUALLY did support the war as we now know.

And even when it was public knowledge that there were never any WMDs, that we were lied to, she never once addressed these very disturbing issues.

It's difficult to read your comments on this and believe that your assignment of blame could be so off the wall in terms of who should be shamed for their support.

But keep bringing this up, it reminds me of the sheer anger I felt on the night of that awful vote, when right after Sen. Byrd's incredible speech opposing the war, Hillary stood up, and I, apparently as naive as Greenwald back then, waited for her expected rejection of the lies.

Instead, I was in shock when I realized she was supporting it. And angry, we needed ever vote to stop Bush.

And then, worse was to come that night. I saw Dem after Dem support an obvious lie.

I KNEW IT WAS A LIE, so why didn't didn't our brilliant elected leaders, because if they are at least as smart as you and I, they surely too knew Bush et al were lying.

Were they aware of the lies and voted for it anyhow, hard to express what this says about them if true, or were they naive, like Greenwald and the other 70% of the population, many of them Dems, influenced no doubt by the Dems who voted for it? Which is worse, elected officials knowingly voting for a lie, are so naive they believed the biggest liar in the country?

Your position on this is shameful, to let off the hook those WHOSE JOB IT WAS to NOT fall for lies about war, while attempting, a feeble attempt and not many are buying, to attach some shame on a private citizen who could not believe that Democrats and Republicans would support a criminal lie.

I would drop this if I were you. I wish I had not just remembered the anger I felt towards those Dems that night after being so certain they would do the right thing and stop Bush. I would prefer not to remember that, it was a dark day in this country.

But each time you bring this up, I and others will remind people of those who should really be shamed for their votes that night.

Maybe take that back, maybe it's a good thing to remind us. Those Dems have never had the courage to do what Greenwald did, admit that they were wrong, and then work to try to make up for it, by NOT voting for the funding anymore.

[Android3.14]

303. "Intellectually Void"

Now that's a damning description, don't you think ProSense?

[blm]

80. Correction: Kerry was against the INVASION of Iraq. He voted for IWR, then when inspectors

went in and reported back that there were no WMDs he very publicly sided with weapon inspectors that no military force was needed.

So, he was attacked from the left for voting for IWR and attacked from the right for standing with weapon inspectors in opposing Bush's invasion of Iraq.

[blm]

134. chimp, what the hell has gotten into you? Just because you got burned by Edwards doesn't

mean you can go all apeshit attacking people who are FAR, FAR, FAR, FAR more honorable and unselfish in their service.

Really....are you drinking or something?

Edwards helped WRITE the IWR and never denounced the invasion. YOU saw him as a hero. Now you have the gall to attack Kerry for standing with the weapon inspectors and against the invasion?

Geez - your bitterness is spilling over.

And, apparently you can't read, either.

John Kerry, The Tenacious Diplomat

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/david-ignatius-john-kerrys-middle-east-work-bears-fruit/2013/07/24/cd67f60a-f3e7-11e2-aa2e-4088616498b4_story.html

Two qualities rarely associated with modern secretaries of state are patience and keeping your mouth shut in public. But in his first six months, John Kerry has demonstrated both — and his stubborn silence appears to have brought him to the door of renewed Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations. . .There has been a little of Captain Ahab in Kerry’s quest. He has made six trips to the Middle East, shuttling back and forth trying to coax concessions on what President Obama in 2010 called “as intractable a problem as you get.” Perhaps because of Obama’s frustrations, White House officials concede that Kerry has been operating mostly on his own.

Kerry has persisted, to growing yawns and catcalls from Washington observers. Jeffrey Goldberg, a well-informed columnist for Bloomberg News and the Atlantic, said Kerry was on a “fool’s errand.” The buzz before Friday’s announcement was that Kerry had botched his first six months by obsessively pursuing the great white whale of the peace process and ignoring more urgent problems such as Egypt and Syria.. .
Kerry did two smart things to grease the process. He persuaded the Arab League to amend its 2002 peace initiative to drop the old demand for a return to the 1967 lines and instead allow border swaps. And the Arab League renewed its promise of eventual recognition of Israel. Kerry also encouraged Israeli and Arab entrepreneurs to craft a showy $4 billion plan that hints at the prosperity that could come with peace and Palestinian statehood.

To manage the detailed negotiations, Kerry will turn to his longtime aide Frank Lowenstein, perhaps joined by Martin Indyk, a highly regarded former U.S. ambassador to Israel. In a 2012 book Indyk ­co-authored, he summed up the problem facing negotiators: “Nowhere in Obama’s foreign policy has the gap been wider between promise and delivery than in the Middle East.” Kerry has been plugging along these past six months, and he seems to have gotten somewhere. People rarely make money gambling on Middle East peace, but once again, it’s time to place your bets.
>>>>>

[chimpymustgo]

275. blm, I owe you an apology. I allowed myself get unduly upset yesterday.

I so applaud Edward Snowden's courage to expose the wrong-doing in our government. And the slander and derision he gets on this board - from DEMOCRATS - baffles me, saddens me, and yes, angers me.

I have supported John Kerry's efforts for decades now and respect his tenacity. But I'm disillusioned with anyone's ability to affect real change in our political system.

I do wish Kerry well in his efforts to broker a 2 state solution in the ME.

[JI7]

141. he caved when he picked that miserable failure John Edwards to be VP running mate

you supported edwards when he co sponsered the IWR .

[blm]

145. AHAHA...just realized. You're mad because you're a Hillary supporter

and you can't stand that Hillary stuck by Bush throughout that entire war, so you need to try and diminish Kerry's position of opposing the invasion when the weapon inspectors clearly stated that use of force was not needed.

Geez, chimp....get a grip on yourself. If you're going to act this reactionary now, you're in for a tough time for the next few years.

Perhaps YOU should "give it the fuck up" chimp.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

196. REDUNDANT (It's linked in the OP) But thank you for illustrating the point

so promptly, too

[Thinkingabout]

2. Has anyone noticed GG has attempted to smear the current adminstration with events

Which occurred pre 2009. Why would GG do this?

[sabrina 1]

5. No, enlighten us please. With some links if possible.

[Thinkingabout]

6. Download the Meet the Press from today, GG was on there today.

[sabrina 1]

9. I don't watch the Corporate Media anymore. You made a claim, if you can't provide proof

of the claim then I will go with what I know already of who Greenwald blames for what. I know this, he has never blamed anyone but BUSH for what BUSH did.

[Thinkingabout]

13. The proof was on this morning, if you don't watch corporate media than you are not interested in

Proof. I have provided you the proof.

[sabrina 1]

15. Iow, you cannot prove what you just stated. Fine, it happens.

[Thinkingabout]

17. Can you prove GG was not on Meet the Press this morning? Prove he was not on the show.

[sabrina 1]

19. If that was the topic, I would not question something so easily proven. You otoh, are

making a claim that apparently is not easily proven to be true.

[Thinkingabout]

30. You apparently don't like proof GG lies, can't help you, I gave you proof but you don't have proof

GG was not on MTP.

[sabrina 1]

33. So you lied?? For what purpose? I don't know or care whether he was on MTP or not.

I have no interest in anything other than the claim you made, which you have failed to prove.

So either link to proof of the claim, or you continue to demonstrate exactly what this OP is all about, which is fine by me, btw.

In fact I thank you for proving MY point.

[Thinkingabout]

91. Try this one

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023361622.

I was mistaken on the MTP but he was actually on This Week, oh yea, you don't watch these shows

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023358435

[sabrina 1]

114. You were mistaken about a lot of things.

No, I don't waste time on the Corporate controlled media. I'm not interested in propaganda and seek news from reliable sources, like a majority of people do these days.

[Thinkingabout]

131. Then why did you ask for proof? I wonder if you are interested in the truth but then you have to

deal with yourself. It doesn't seem you are interested in anything which discredits GG and I hear a lot of propaganda and it is coming from GG.

[Maedhros]

302. You have absolutely zero credibility.

If you make an outrageous statement ("Greenwald blames Obama for things done under Bush&quot , a claim which would be easily proven if true, then provide a link so we can read it ourselves.

Otherwise, you're just making shit up.

[Astrad]

55. Here's proof

He's not listed on the guest list. Plus I watched the show. He wasn't on there.

http://presspass.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/07/28/19734664-watch-meet-the-press-more-fighting-in-washington?lite

[Thinkingabout]

93. Sorry got my shows confused, it was This Week

[Vanje]

146. Oh! FFS!

nt

[delrem]

329. Hey, don't worry, keep it up! Next time the shit might stick.

[Bluenorthwest]

4. A quote from Henry A Wallace:

"The American fascist would prefer not to use violence. His method is to poison the channels of public information. With a fascist the problem is never how best to present the truth to the public but how best to use the news to deceive the public into giving the fascist and his group more money and power."
Also, Greenwald is gay!!!! That's one of the reasons he was targeted, the Rick Warren Center still hates gay people with a purple passion.

[Catherina]

20. I was going to use that exact same quote

Imagine how different our country would be now if the corporate Dems hadn't succeeded in their brazen plot against Wallace when FDR renominated him as VP.

[msanthrope]

7. "The magistrate judge granted both motions, finding defense counsel's conduct unethical under two

separate rules: Local Rule 83.58.4(a)(4), prohibiting "dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation;" and Local Rule 83.54.4, stating "a lawyer shall not ... use methods of obtaining evidence that violate the legal rights of person.""ANDERSON v. HALE 159 F.Supp.2d 1116 (2001)

http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=20011275159FSupp2d1116_11178.xml

He also attempted to manipulate the witness statements, per the magistrate's findings of fact-

"A 52-page transcript of one conversation showed defendants' counsel steered the conversation by eliciting particular responses to detailed questions, leading to more detailed questions, to lure the witness into damning statements for later use." Anderson v. Hale, 202 F.R.D. 548 (N.D.Ill. 2001),

I think the Center for Constitutional Rights' victory over Mr. Greenwald's client was a direct result of Mr. Greenwald's egregious fuckup of Rule 26(b)(3). There is justice, after all.

[sabrina 1]

10. There it is, right on cue. Thank you for providing exhibit #1 of what Greenwald has

addressed in his 'freguently told lies' blog.

[msanthrope]

16. I am posting a false legal cite? nt

[sabrina 1]

24. You are doing what you always do, although it's good to see the lie that he was ever

sanctioned as a lawyer, dropped. I have read more about this case than I wanted to actually, and apparently you have refused to do so yourself, selecting with a fine tooth comb anything you think might make GG look bad.

It isn't working, surely you know that by now??

[msanthrope]

26. Kindly cite, specifically, where I ever claimed he was "sanctioned." He lost the case for his client

and one might argue that losing a case for Matt Hale might be sanction enough.

[sabrina 1]

34. OMG, a lawyer lost A case???

Throw him jail!! Lol, you amuse me, seriously.

[msanthrope]

43. When violate your client's privilege, it's a pretty big deal. Screwing up 26(b)(3), followed by a

settlement tends to be a major fuckup.

Glenn isn't practicing anymore.

In fact, I'd love to know who his next 'civil rights' client was, after that.

[sabrina 1]

263. Yes, that would be serious. Fortunately for his client, that was not the case here.

There was no need for a settlement, which I'm sure you know.

Glenn moved on to a clearly more lucrative career. Many lawyers do this. Many teachers do it, many nurses do it. Many doctors even do it. Many carpenters do it. Many bus drivers do it.

Do you have a point in there somewhere??

Why don't you just ask him? You claim to be a lawyer, any lawyer I've ever known would not hesitate to call another, lawyer, former or otherwise.

Meantime, I'm sure you'll be looking to see if you can, what shall we call it, creatively move the facts around for political purposes.

[msanthrope]

269. That is exactly what happened here, which is why the court ruled against him and granted the motion

of CCR.

[sabrina 1]

284. Yes, he lost one case. Is that a crime now, because if it is there are a whole lot of far worse

criminals practicing law these days..

Next up, so far you're not doing very well here.

[MotherPetrie]

8. K&R

[Cleita]

25. Another K&R

[Whisp]

11. so he is lying about the lies he told.

of course, that's how he rolls.

[sabrina 1]

14. Really? What lies did he tell? I look forward to discussing the content of the linked

blog with you, so we can determine why you came up with this claim??

[msanthrope]

23. Well, he's depending on his supporters being too ignorant about the law on #6.

I mean, yes, the magistrate found that he acted unethically. But Glenn's point seems to be that he wasn't sanctioned for it.

I mean--that's the lawyer I want!!! Sure, he made an elemental fuckup of attorney-client privilege/work product!! Sure he acted in a way that probably forced his client to settle!! But he wasn't sanctioned for it!

[Whisp]

27. in other words, if you can get away with it

you are in the clear.

this guy is not to be trusted, I have no idea why he has such a loyal base. the only reason I can think of is most of his fanclub also hate the President as he does.

[msanthrope]

40. Well, he didn't get away with it. Glenn apparently was dumb enough to wiretap--and make transcripts

of what he had done.

CCR, defending the victims of his client's hate crimes, obtained the transcripts thanks to Glenn screwing up Rule 26(b)(3).

And then the case settled.

And Glenn isn't practicing anymore. And when I looked for any more civil rights cases he had done, I could not find any. I could be wrong, though. I'd love to read about other people he represented.

[Civilization2]

69. wow you are hilarious,. so the white supremacist lost,. boo hoo.

"The only specific example I've ever seen raised in support of this innuendo was a 2001 ruling on the propriety of my tape recording of a witness which arose in a First Amendment free speech case I litigated in defense of a white supremacist church. When I was in my office in New York (where tape recording witnesses was permitted), I interviewed a witness by telephone who was in Illinois (where tape recording witnesses was not permitted). There was a split in legal authority on which rule applied: the rule of the jurisdiction where the recorder was physically located, or where the witness was physically located. The American Bar Association had expressly ruled that surreptitious tape recordings of witnesses by lawyers was permitted.

I took the position that New York rules should apply and the other side took the position that the Illinois rules should apply. The district court judge - 12 years ago - ultimately ruled that Illinois rules applied, but made expressly clear in his written opinion that this was a mere standard legal dispute with reasonable views on both sides, not a question of whether anything unethical had been done:

Given the rhetoric in the papers filed with respect to this difficult ethical question, we wish to clarify one last matter. We are applying rules here, not judging character. As the magistrate judge noted, although ultimately unsuccessful, defendants' arguments were reasonable. Defense counsel could have reasonably believed that his conduct was permissible. Although we find that his conduct did violate the rules, our rejection of his position does not equate to an indictment as an unethical person.

There was zero sanction, penalty, or any other form of disciplinary action proposed or taken as the result of that. As the district court judge said, it was a "difficult" question on which there was conflicting precedent and the arguments for the legality of the tape recording were "reasonable". Anyone claiming that this was a finding of unethical behavior or that I was sanctioned in any way is either lying or ignorant. I continued to practice law for six years after that."

from; http://ggsidedocs.blogspot.com.br/2013/01/frequently-told-lies-ftls.html

[msanthrope]

72. Um--the New York Bar thought taping was improper, too. See post 62, referencing Glenn's case.

I think the defense presented here, by his supporters is hysterical--Glenn's wiretapping is okay, because he didn't get sanctioned for it.

[Civilization2]

78. lol "wiretapping",. he was recording a witness by phone,. not tapping it like the NSA does!

hilarious,. I keep wanting to go watch TV, but you guys and your pathetic character assassination attempts are so funny,. I can not pull myself away!

[msanthrope]

110. Did the witness give permission to be recorded by him? nt

[sabrina 1]

237. I know, they are funny, more entertaining than anything on TV. I love this thread.

[revmclaren]

321. So....

NSA wire taping BAD... GG wire tapping GOOD...??????



Proceed!

[sabrina 1]

331. So you support Government Surveillance of the entire population?

How sad ...

[OilemFirchen]

97. That's the Senior District Judge's opinion as to character.

Why did Greenwald avoid the Magistrate's Judge's opinions as to conduct?

The magistrate judge granted both motions, finding defense counsel's conduct unethical under two separate rules: Local Rule 83.58.4(a)(4), prohibiting "dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation;" and Local Rule 83.54.4, stating "a lawyer shall not ... use methods of obtaining evidence that violate the legal rights of [another] person."

Per se, BTW, the Senior District Judge concurred.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8881375921339474218&hl=en&as_sdt=2,36&as_vis=1

[sabrina 1]

28. Lol, are you serious? We know the law, we know the law differs from state to state,

perhaps you weren't aware of that?

Why don't you just go read the facts of the case.

Let me put it this way, as a lawyer, his record compared to other lawyers, is pretty pristine.

This is why I love that you had to dig so deep to try to find anything, something, and this is all you could come up.

That speaks very highly of Greenwald's record as a lawyer.

They could not find anything at all to discredit him with.

Keep posting this one piece of propaganda as it only emphasizes how squeaky clean his record as a lawyer is.

[msanthrope]

35. Ahem---so wiretapping a witness is okay? Because that's not what this court found.

I mean--the SUPREME irony of you defending wiretapping makes this thread worthwhile.

[Whisp]

46. oh, I think I just took an arrow to the ironknee...

(Skyrim reference).

Amazing isn't it, how wiretapping is fine and dandy if Glennie does it.

Gotta love it. So entertaining to watch.

[msanthrope]

51. Not just wiretapping a witness--making a transcript of it and being stupid enough to

show up to deposition with it.

Then--when the Center for Constitutional Rights filed to get a copy of the tape and the transcript, Glenn LOST the argument that this is attorney work-product and subject to privilege. With the privilege argument lost, the case settles.

Understand that Glenn also lost a trademark case for Matt Hale, previously. So this made him 0-2.

I've tried to find another one of Glenn's "civil rights" clients, but so far, just the Nazi.

[sabrina 1]

52. Except that is a lie. But don't let that bother you. I notice you haven't taken my invitation

to discuss the actual content of the OP.

But here, for the benefit of others who actually are interested in the facts.

Greenwald was in NY during that case.

As a NYer, I know that the law allowed the taping of testimony.

In the state in which the case was heard, the law did not permit the taping of testimony.

There was a conflict as to whether to apply the NY law or the law in the state in which the case was heard.

Happens every day in courtrooms across the country.

What I love about this case being dragged out is how little they have on Greenwald's career as a lawyer. THIS IS IT! LOL!

A slight misunderstanding which was resolved and after which the court praised Greenwald.

If only EVERY LAWYER had as clean a record as Greenwald, but I know for a fact that they do not.

This reeks of desperation. What are they so afraid of?? Don't you wonder about that?

[msanthrope]

62. Taping in NY was improper, too. Here's the NY State Bar Opinion, citing Glenn's case:

This Committee remains of the view, first expressed in NY City 1980-95, that undisclosed taping smacks of trickery and is improper as a routine practice.


None, in the view of this Committee, provides persuasive support for the conclusion that undisclosed taping, as a routine practice, should be permissible for attorneys.


We are unpersuaded that there has been any material change in societal attitudes or practices with respect to undisclosed taping since the 1970s. While it is certainly true that many states currently permit the recording of conversations without the consent of all parties and that courts routinely accept evidence acquired by such techniques, the same could have been said at the time the ABA issued its 1974 Opinion. Similarly, we are unaware of any reason to believe that undisclosed taping is significantly more prevalent today as an investigative technique than it was in the 1970s. To the contrary, as at least one court has noted, the ABA?s 1974 opinion expressly cited the prevalence of surreptitious recording as the reason why a formal opinion on the subject was advisable. See Anderson v. Hale, 202 F.R.D. 548, 557 n.5 (N.D. Ill. 2001). 2

The fact that a practice is legal does not necessarily render it ethical. Moreover, the fact that the practice at issue remains illegal in a significant number of jurisdictions10 is a powerful indication that the practice is not one in which an attorney should readily engage. Similarly, the fact that there are times when a valid reason exists to engage in undisclosed taping does not mean that if should be permitted when there is no valid reason for it. No societal good is furthered by allowing attorneys to engage in a routine practice of secretly recording their conversations with others, and there is considerable potential for societal harm.

http://www2.nycbar.org/Publications/reports/show_html.php?rid=122

Why didn't Glenn let people know he was taping them?

I just love how you are defending wiretapping on this thread on behalf of Greenwald--it's great!!!

[sabrina 1]

63. I live in NY and have spent hours in NY courts and this was not just legal it was well

known and used all the time, and most witnesses, lawyers, and others involved in cases, expected it.

I don't know a single person here who went to meet a lawyer who didn't know or expect that they were being taped, it was later transcribed, and used mostly to save the cost of a Court Reporter..

Try something else, this one has been used to death and is a complete dud.

However, as I said already, considering the amount of time and money spent to discredit Greenwald, that this is all they could find, shows what an unusually clean record he has as an attorney.

Got anything that we could actually go OMG over yet? If this is what they spent their money on, what a waste. I just hope it wasn't tax payer money.

[msanthrope]

67. Okay--so after being shown the NY State Bar Opinion that contradicts you, you say wiretapping

is okay because it was "expected?"

Seriously Sabrina---your defense of Glenn's wiretapping that lead to the ruling against his client, (Rule 26(b)(3)) is hysterical and makes this thread worthwhile.

It's the Striesand Effect, Sabrina....thank you.

[sabrina 1]

71. The NY Bar? Lol, do you know the reputation of the NH Bar when it comes to

dealing with crooked judges and lawyers who actually do misrepresent their clients, abuse their positions and are reported to the NY Bar?? I give their opinions on anything the same amount of respect I give to their decisions on crooked lawyers, and trust me, we have plenty of them in NY. Most of them still practicing despite many, many complaints to the NY Bar. I have a letter myself from the NY Bar regarding a crooked lawyer.

It is an opinion, nothing more, and knowing some of them, my five year olds have had had more intelligent opinions than the NY Bar.

Keep digging, you are determined to prove me right about talking point #6!

And here I thought you had 'nothing more to say to me'!

Thanks for the kicks, btw.

[msanthrope]

74. The NY Bar where Mr. Greenwald's license is suspended? Like I said, Sabrina, your defense of wire-

tapping on this thread has been an eye-opener.

[sabrina 1]

76. Now you really are reaching a new low. Greenwald's license was NEVER suspended, he

simply stopped practicing law and decided not to pay the fees. Anytime he wants to renew it he can.

Despicable smears, thanks for showing anyone who might have doubted the OP or Greenwald's own statements, how true they were.

Keep going, I'm enjoying our little conversation here.

I hope my comments on this thread have been eye-opening, that was the purpose of the OP.

So thanks for the affirmation.

[msanthrope]

83. So now the NY State Bar computer is lying???? Take a look--

http://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/attorney/AttorneySearch#search_result


GLENN E. GREENWALD 2689883 NEW YORK NY 1995 Suspended

You'd think four years would be enough time for a lawyer to get re-registered and clean up his old tax liens.

[sabrina 1]

95. This truly is shameful. What a totally transparent example of how propaganda is applied.

What a blatant, transparent attempt to cause readers to believe that his license was suspended for malpractice when nothing could be further than the truth. But I am truly glad to have this opportunity to demonstrate the depths to which people are sinking to try to silence a journalist. So thank you for that.

Let me give you a chance to TRY redeem yourself.

WHY is Greenwald's license currently suspended?

[msanthrope]

103. I have no idea why he is 'suspended' as opposed to 'resigned.' If I were winding up a law practice

and moving to a foreign country, I would make sure that I kept in good standing with my state bar and would resign with the ability to readmit before I'd allow myself to be listed as 'suspended.'

I am sure Glenn has a reason why he chose suspension.

[sabrina 1]

109. You would know if you wanted to know. All you had to was to read the OP linked article.

Better to pretend not to know for the purpose of creating a false scenario? No, you would never, ever do that, would you?

He is in good standing, just for the record. I'm sure now you will not try this particular 'trick' again since now you are in possession of the facts.

[msanthrope]

115. No--he is not "in good standing." He is "suspended." I am sure he has a very good reason

for not properly winding up his business and resigning voluntarily--here's a helpful faq on how to do that, maybe you can pass it along....

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/courts/ad2/attorneymatters_VoluntaryResignation.shtml

But what you are now suggesting is that the computer database of the NY State bar is lying--that it should not read 'Suspended' but 'In Good Standing."

Wow.

[sabrina 1]

117. He is in good standing, all he has to do is pay the fee if he ever decides to return to

the practice of law. You have no IDEA of what he did or did not do, do you? The Bar is NOT lying, YOU may be though. The NY Bar Association is merely recoding that he is no longer practicing law. That is all.

Keep posting in my thread though. Your 'concern' for Greenwald's standing with the Bar Association is touching, but you need not worry at all. He can pick up his license from where he left off any time he wants to.

I do love the exposure we are seeing here though.

So please continue!

[msanthrope]

132. No--Mr. Greenwald would not qualify for a Certificate of Good Standing:

Certificates of Good Standing


Introduction
A certificate of good standing attests to an attorney’s admission to practice and current status of good standing before the bar. The phrase “good standing” means that the attorney has been duly admitted to practice, is not currently suspended or disbarred, is currently registered with the Office of Court Administration, and is not in arrears in the payment of the $375 biennial registration fee required by Judiciary Law § 468-a.

Certificates of good standing can be obtained either in person at the general clerk's office or by mail. Each certificate costs $5, payable in advance (22 NYCRR 670.22[5]).

My understanding is that for reinstatement, he would have to pay the fees, do his CLE's, and file a motion with the disciplinary committee-


http://www.courts.state.ny.us/courts/ad1/Committees&Programs/CFC/Notice%20and%20Instruction%20for%20Reinstatement%20revised.pdf

This of course assumes that the NY State tax lien and other judgments and incidents did not precipitate suspension. That is a different form.

[Number23]

159. You have the wisdom of Solomon and the patience of Job. Seriously

And it's entirely possible that I'm not using the right biblical references because it's been about 30 years since my last Sunday school class but I think you know exactly what I'm trying to say.

You are The Bomb. PLEASE don't stop doing what you're doing though I truly don't understand how you have the patience to deal with this stuff from some of these people. The endless wells from which you draw your legal knowledge and patience are sorely needed around here. As is THOROUGHLY obvious by now.

[msanthrope]

168. I thank you, my fellow persona.***

I know exactly what you are saying, and I thank you for the compliments. We need patience right now. The emoprogs will finish the tantrum, and we will still have the 2014s to get through.

Although I had to laugh--apparently the computers are in on smearing GG. Maybe the NSA hacked them.


***That's the new insult. I thought I'd save you the wade through the mired shit that is GD right now. It's some sort of uber-sockpuppet.

[Number23]

170. I'm wading through DU now. And I'm seeing thread after thread about sock puppet hysteria

all throughout GD posted by some of the most perpetually ill-informed and hysterical people here.

You know, there has got to be a point when this place hits the floor (or ceiling) on paranoid foolishness. Isn't there???

[msanthrope]

176. It's the online equivalent of looking for the black helicopters. It's actually pretty funny.

I wonder if they've figured out yet that the FB group they think is hidden, isn't.

[sabrina 1]

286. He is in excellent standing. Your concern for him is touching though.

Pay the fee, case over. Happens every day.

I would start brushing up on the law if I were you.

[dionysus]

84. they sound like cultists, worshippers, and apologists to me.... sweet bebe jesuS GG...

respect GG's authority on this subject!
did I get in all the shit they sling about?

[msanthrope]

86. "Personas" seem to be new insult. Paid by the NSA, I think. Did you get your check? nt

[dionysus]

105. yes.. 5 billion.. dollars..

[msanthrope]

108. The NSA pays well, eh? nt

[sabrina 1]

112. And there it is again, the old 'worship' talking point. I'll tell you what I respect, JOURNALISM

A free press, Journalists free from Government interference, and since we found out that Security Contractors were proposing in their bids for contracts, the SMEARING OF GG, we Democrats decided that something is very, very wrong when Journalists become the objects of Security Contracts.

Ymmd, but in my world, journalists should be free from mafia style contracts to try to silence them.

You go right ahead and call that 'worship' all you want, it won't change a single fact.

[msanthrope]

116. Is the NY State Bar computer in on the conspiracy to smear Mr. Greenwald? nt

[sabrina 1]

127. The NY State Bar computer correctly informed the public that Greenwald is not practicing law

anymore.

Again, why is he not practicing law? The truth shall set you free!

You're not very good at this kind of propaganda. What Rove does is to take something that is hard to prove right or wrong.

What you are doing is taking something that is easy to prove in his favor. That is a recipe for failure.

I have to say I am overjoyed that you chose to do this here tonight.

Anyone with doubts about how the lies are spread, have received a clear look at how it is done.

Thank you, thank you for this perfect demonstration of what Greenwald explained in the link in the OP.

You have no idea how you have helped him tonight.

But I do!

[msanthrope]

136. Attorneys who are suspended are not allowed to practice law in NY State. If this was voluntary

on his part, why didn't he just 'resign' and not incur fees and a CLE obligation?

[sabrina 1]

137. Lol, thanks again for the display of how these smears are created.

I couldn't have found a better example if I tried.

Please continue ....

[msanthrope]

138. I don't think an accurate computer listing of one's status is a 'smear.'

http://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/attorney/AttorneySearch#search_result


GLENN E. GREENWALD 2689883 NEW YORK NY 1995 Suspended

[sabrina 1]

147. Again, thanks for this demonstration of how lies and smears are made. But once again,

you are not very good at it, as I have already explained.

But carry on, we are enjoying the best example of what the OP was about, although I did not have such a perfect example, not being privy to the private preparations of these smears and lies.

I mean it sincerely, you wouldn't believe the 'impression' you are making.

Thank you, thank you again. I never thought you would want to be exhibit #1 of the making of a smear.

http://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/attorney/AttorneySearch#search_result


GLENN E. GREENWALD 2689883 NEW YORK NY 1995 Suspended

Omg, do you have any clue what you are doing here in this thread?

I am tempted to send this entire thread to Greenwald. He would appreciate the proof I lacked when I wrote the OP as to how they do it.

[msanthrope]

149. This might be the funniest thing you've written on this thread---

I am tempted to send this entire thread to Greenwald. He would appreciate the proof I lacked when I wrote the OP as to how they do it.

Sure...go right ahead. Let us know what he says.

[sabrina 1]

155. No, definitely not the funniest thing I've ever written. I've written some hilarious stuff. You

are way too easily amused. It was meant to be mildly amusing, but not outright funny, so thanks, I suppose.

But keep going, I'm thoroughly enjoying watching how smears and lies are created. I could only guess before, my mind doesn't work that way, so I truly am interested in this.

And thanks for kicking my thread.

[msanthrope]

158. I cannot wait for you tell Glenn Greenwald how the NY State Bar computer is smearing him

by listing him as "suspended."

[sabrina 1]

167. Why would I do that? He knows what the Bar computer does when someone voluntarily

decides not to practice law anymore and doesn't pay the fees since they won't be needing the services of the Bar Association.

If they have a change of mind, all they have to do is pay the fees and they are back in business.

Did you not know this? I though you said you were an attorney??

It just goes to show that you can be anything you want on the internet, until you slip up like this.

Oh well, so much for the 'I'm an attorney claims' I guess.

[msanthrope]

173. Do you have a cite for your claim this is over non-payment of bar fees?

And yes, I am an attorney. One who pays her bar fees.

[sabrina 1]

177. Well I'm sorry, but I don't believe any attorney would not know that this is standard

procedure when an attorney decides not to practice law anymore.

I am the Queen of France. Ask me anything.

[msanthrope]

184. Um no--it's not standard practice in NY State or anywhere else. In NY State, lawyers who don't

practice law anymore have two legal options--retire or resign voluntarily. The non-payment of bar fees results in a suspension because of the violation of the Judicial Code which then requires a motion to the disciplinary committee to lift. I've helpfully provided the links up thread. If Mr. Greenwald wished to not practice law, but not incur the fees, the CLE obligations, and the added trouble, all he had to do was the proper paperwork. ***

In other states, like mine, lawyers who don't practice have the option of going inactive. But non-payment of fees due isn't an 'option.'

***Unless of course, the suspension wasn't for fees. If it was for fees, then Greenwald strikes me as a friggen' idiot. Why would you ever voluntarily list yourself as "suspended?"

[sabrina 1]

187. Uh yes, it is. As I said, any attorney would know this is standard for the Bar Assoc. to do.

You are droning on about something you apparently know nothing about. Sorry if I'm not impressed. .

The process of restoring a license, absent anything other than lapsed fees, is merely a formality. I happen to know lawyers who have done exactly what Greenwald did when they did not wish to continue paying fees for services they were not going to use.

They had no sanctions against them, so all they had to do was to go through the standard procedures, pay the fees, and return to their practice. It happens more than people might think.

Your goal has been clear from the start. I just wanted to make it clear what you were trying to do, and that goal, not hidden by me as I prefer complete honesty, has been accomplished.

[msanthrope]

192. And you've hit the point--"absent anything other than lapsed fees."

I mean, if it were merely lapsed fees, why wouldn't Glenn just pay them and then retire or resign with the ability to return to the NY State Bar?

Why would he keep incurring the fees and everything else?

Apparently it isn't as easy-peasy as you think.....

Upon being suspended for nonpayment, the attorney must cease practicing law. Continuing to practice constitutes contempt of court. Getting reinstated does not merely involve tendering the past-due amounts. The process, while not onerous, can take months from the time of filing the petition to when the appellate division grants reinstatement.

Once suspended, several steps need be taken to end it. A petition to terminate the suspension must be prepared and filed in the appellate division, with the required number of copies. Copies must be served upon the Grievance Committee. A $45 filing fee for the proceeding is required.

The moving papers should include an explanation for why the attorney failed to re-register and if the attorney failed to notify OCA of a change of address, for that as well (which is a violation in itself, Matter of Cintron, 52 AD3d 156 [2d Dept 2008]), see Judiciary Law § 468-a(2); 22 NYCRR 118.1(f).

Also, the motion papers should show a receipt from OCA that the attorney has tendered the back-due amounts of registration fees.


Read more: http://nydailyrecord.com/blog/2011/11/28/attorney-client-reinstatement-after-suspension-for-non-payment/#ixzz2aPk76dPT

Do you have a cite from Glenn stating this suspension is over fees?

[sabrina 1]

195. Getting desperate now, aren't we??

A British Tabloid Rag. And not even related to this issue.

These are really bad propaganda tactics. Really bad.

But I LIKE it, now I know Greenwald has nothing to fear from the smear campaigners.

I was hoping at least for a challenge.

Keep going, at least you're keeping the thread kicked. Other than that, I'm getting bored.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

198. They reveal themselves so easily

Thanks for helping to shine the light, it's much appreciated

[msanthrope]

202. Dude, Sabrina just confused a NY legal paper with a British tabloid.

I don't know what light that's shining, but maybe you could hold it a little closer so she can see the masthead.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

204. YOU are deliberately trying to muddy the waters on GG

and create a sense that their is some kinda valid debate on this issue, when there is not, just like the M$M do, daily.

GG is a journalist, and former lawyer who was sickened by what he seen our country devolving into, since the chimp, and has been consistently railing against the injustices perpetrated by the gov, in our name, ever since.

So if you are against him for that, you must be against many DUers, too.

Think about it...

[msanthrope]

205. By making wild accusations that people are using British tabloids when they are not?

That would be Sabrina.

Doesn't Glenn write for a tabloid, anyway?

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

208. Don't change the subject, you are spreading disinfo to smear a journalist who is doing his job

informing the public on critical matters of our time, and that is about as low, and tabloid as it gets.

Look in the mirror.

[msanthrope]

212. I am not the one who brought up British Tabloids...and doesn't Greenwald write for one, anyway?

Further...how is accurately reporting what a computer database reports a "smear?"

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

271. Thank you for illustrating the OP's point so well

Your tactics highlight the methods commonly practiced in yellow journalism.

[msanthrope]

272. Well, doesn't Greenwald write for The Guardian? I'm not the one who brought up

"British Tabloids" but it seems a bit hypocritical to be upset when a writer for a British Tabloid is purportedly critiqued by one.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

273. That has absolutely nothing to do with the point

Just another strawman to distract from the disinformation being spread against GG.

[msanthrope]

276. I agree...which is why I have no idea why Sabrina would bring up British Tabloids in the

middle of the thread. Best speak to her on that.

But he does work for the Guardian, does he not?

[sabrina 1]

203. You're welcome, it is a bit exhausting, but it was worth it to see how it is done.

For the record, and this is for others who might fall for the deceptions above, Greenwald made the decision to stop practicing law when he decided to become more politically active and to start writing a blog and a book.

They know this, but pretend they do not for the purpose of distorting the facts.

He stopped paying the fees as many lawyers who make the same decision do, but can pick up his practice again simply by paying the fees, if he chooses to do so.

If you go back to the initial posts in this subthread you will witness a smear being born.

It is a vile thing to watch. But necessary.

I am glad it is here for all to see. To try to imply that he was sanctioned, that he committed some crime in such a sneaky and deceptive way, when that is a complete lie, right here, in this thread we got to see it happen, is reprehensible.

Thanks for your comment, I know other people were watching too and have now witnessed how it is done.

And yes, they do reveal themselves so easily.

[msanthrope]

206. Sabrina, have you retracted your wild accusation that I was using a British tabloid? nt

[sabrina 1]

209. Of course, which you know already. Still trying to distract from the fact that you just spent

a couple of hours creating a smear against a journalist.

For me, mission accomplished.

Thanks for the demonstration.

Btw, have you retracted your multiple statements that you do not speak to me anymore?

I think I know what is going on with that.

[msanthrope]

211. No, I don't answer your questions anymore. I still speak with you because you are useful.

How a NY court reporter missed that she was reading the Record is puzzling. Are you tired?

[sabrina 1]

216. The only reason I speak with you is because you are very useful as you were tonight,

in helping me demonstrate the points made in this and other OPs.

I speak to and answer questions from anyone. I have no fear of answering questions but I can see you might have.

[msanthrope]

220. You didn't answer my question about citing your claim that his suspension was over fees...

in fact you've spent most of the thread avoiding that.

[sabrina 1]

223. Lol, when losing the battle, try going on the offensive. Lawyer tactic? Possibly or just

a desperate attempt to distract from the facts, all available btw, in the OP.

And it is soooo very revealing that you failed to read it, or pretended you didn't.

Lol, I love these games, some people hate them, but me, no, I love them.

[msanthrope]

224. Still can't cite it Sabrina? nt

[sabrina 1]

226. The last stand of msanthrope, resort to losing tactic.

Seriously, I am getting embarrassed for you now.

Again, remember, people have read the thread AND the OP. And some must be wondering why you haven't. This is fascinating.

Are you tired, lack of sleep maybe?

[msanthrope]

230. Still can't cite it, Sabrina? Where's the cite that Glenn is suspended because he didn't pay fees?nt

[msanthrope]

200. The NYDaily Record is a legal newspaper, not a British tabloid rag. If you are a court reporter in

NY, I'm sure you've seen it.

[sabrina 1]

207. Yes, my one mistake throughout this very revealing subthread. Thanks for your assistance

in helping me to demonstrate how smears and lies about journalists are created. I was pretty bored early on, but it is necessary that people see for themselves the vile tactics that are used to try to silence journalists.

Care to do as Greenwald has always done and prove you are an attorney that people can check up on, as they have on him? That would expose you to the same scrutiny he has allowed himself to be exposed to and handled very well so far.

Frankly after this display I do not believe it.

He, otoh, has not tried to hide behind an anonymous handle while flinging smears and lies at journalists. I will assume from now on you are just another person who knows little about the law, as demonstrated here, partly because I like to think that lawyers, most of the ones i know, are honest people, that they would never engage in deception and lies about another attorney, and mostly that they would certainly know the standard practices of the NY State Bar Association.

Thanks for the help, I will be using this subthread in the future to instruct others on what to watch out for when confronted with smear campaigns against journalists.

[msanthrope]

210. I will tell you what I tell every single DUer who challenges whether or not I am an attorney....

if you don't believe me, you should report me to admin.

After all, I've claimed to be an attorney working for the Obama campaign at election time. I even went on the Steve Leser show on Election Night 2012 claiming such.

Admin has my name, and my state has a searchable database. Heck, I'll even give them my bar number. If you think there is a poster on here masquerading as an Obama campaign attorney, when they are not, you should report them.

How a NY court reporter didn't recognize the Record, I will never know, but I think you just might be a wee tired and giddy.....

[sabrina 1]

213. I really don't care what you are. But no attorney would make the false claims you made and

no attorney would not know the standard procedures involved in the NY State Bar Association, regarding an attorney who chooses to stop practicing law.

So there is only one of two possibilities, you are either not an attorney, or you are and you were attempting to deceive people in order to smear a journalist. Frankly I'd rather think you were not an attorney than to think you were deliberately trying to smear a journalist knowing full well that that is what you were doing.

The answers to your questions about GG's decision to quit law, were in the OP, so there is no excuse for your pretense that that you didn't know.

I would prefer to think that lawyers are ethical people, that they would not engage in these kinds of deceptive, vile tactics.

Frankly, I don't much care about you personally, but I am grateful that you helped me demonstrate how smears and lies are born. That was invaluable.

[msanthrope]

218. How easily you back down, Sabrina. Now, I've asked you to cite Mr. Greenwald's claim that his

suspension was over late fees. You haven't done that. Why?

[sabrina 1]

221. How transparent you are, msanthrope.

No more needs to be said on this topic. I have the evidence in your own words of how smears and lies are created.

I will be using the subthread to demonstrate that. So thanks for your assistance, I truly do appreciate it.

Why btw, do you never discuss issues? Why only people?

You know what they say about that.

It's odd, I have no idea where you stand on Democratic issues. Well, it's not important. Just curious, that is all.

[msanthrope]

222. Of course you cannot cite the claim that Mr. Greenwald is suspended over fees, can you? nt

[sabrina 1]

225. Bad tactic, seriously. Remember, people have read the thread AND the OP.

They know you are just stalling, that the info is in the OP, and they know the answer you are pretending not to have.

I know how losing feels, believe it or not, it HAS happened to me on occasion, but I at least learned from the experience.

[msanthrope]

227. Still can't cite it Sabrina? nt

[sabrina 1]

229. Still trying to save face msathrope? n/t

[msanthrope]

232. Still can't cite your claim? Why not? nt

[sabrina 1]

233. And still pretending not to know the answer. I understand, everything.

[msanthrope]

235. I'm asking you to show me where Mr. Greenwald says the answer....now, I get that you

are close personal friends with Glenn and are going to send this thread to him, and I am sure he has no problem with you speaking for him, but I'd really like to read his explanation of why his license is suspended.

If you have a quote, that would be great!

[sabrina 1]

238. Still don't know the standard procedures of the NY State Bar Association.n/t

[msanthrope]

239. Again--can you cite your claim that Mr. Greenwald is claiming that his suspension is over fees?

If I missed it in your OP, then why not just point it out?

And when are you sending this thread along to Glenn?

[sabrina 1]

242. Still can't find it in the OP, lol! It's not working, the game. It doesn't distract from

the fact that you do not know the standard procedure of the NY State Bar Assoc. regarding an attorney who has decided to change careers.

Amazing that a self professed attorney doesn't know something like that.

[msanthrope]

243. Hey--if you see it in the OP, why not just copy it and show it? And if you've got a cite

Last edited Mon Jul 29, 2013, 05:16 AM - Edit history (1)

from the NY State Bar that instructs lawyers who are changing careers to stop paying their fees and get 'suspended' as opposed to 'retire' or 'resign' voluntarily, why not add that in, too?

I wanted you to see that NY State gives directions on how to do this process, so you don't have to be in violation.

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/courts/ad2/attorneymatters_VoluntaryResignation.shtml

[sabrina 1]

247. It's there. I don't care if you find it or not,

I got what I wanted in this thread. No one had to hold my hand, you were all very obliging, unwittingly I'm sure.

Besides, I don't want to spoil your little game. You can go on pretending and demonstrating how a smear is born, far more valuable to me than falling for your so very transparent tactics.

This is me, Sabrina, I know what you'r up to. Everyone does. But we're all enjoying the meltdown.

So please continue ..... 'Cite the whatever blah blah blah.'

Lol, hilarious, and so very old.

[msanthrope]

250. Well, don't be coy Sabrina! If you've got a part in your OP where Glenn explains why his license is

'suspended' then go ahead and repost it!! Show me!!!

Wait a second---you aren't still debating that's what's listed, are you????

[sabrina 1]

251. I admit I have encouraged you to demonstrate how little you know about the law.

That's probably mean, but I don't think so.

Please continue ... people are enjoying the charade it seems.

[msanthrope]

253. Which law would that be? Could you cite the law I am apparently in ignorance of? nt

[unapatriciated]

261. It wasn't too hard to find the answer to your question.

Just click the link and read.

I allowed my New York law license to lapse in 2007 when I ceased practicing simply because - due to my full-time work writing about politics - I no longer intended to practice and thus did not continue to renew it. But the law license is fully valid, and I can easily reinstate it at any time simply by paying the requisite fees and completing whatever continuing legal education requirements apply.

http://ggsidedocs.blogspot.com.br/2013/01/frequently-told-lies-ftls.html

[msanthrope]

270. Thank you---and I think he is not telling the truth. This explanation makes no sense---

why would a lawyer allow himself to be suspended when he could just as easily take the option of retiring or resigning, and still get reinstated? As I noted in another post, it takes months to get reinstated if you allow yourself to be suspended. What professional would do that?

I appreciate you taking the time to read Sabrina's links.

[unapatriciated]

274. Those who don't feel the need to pay for something they are not using and don't intend to use again.

I think you need to ask Greenwald that question, instead of insinuating that he was suspended for something other than non-payment of fees. I will ask you a similar question what kind of professional would insinuate another of being suspended for wrong doing with out facts to back it up.

You may not agree with Greenwald, but to attack on a personal level (especially without documentation) is not professional imho.

I still don't understand why you just didn't read the link and concede you might be incorrect. Instead you demanded over and over again proof. That's a little passive aggressive. That style does not help to convince those of us who might be on the fence regarding this whole issue, that we should move along cause there is nothing to see here.

[msanthrope]

277. Then there are legal options that do not violate the ethical code one has sworn to.

One can resign, or retire, and not violate 468-a. I don't know why a professional would do that.

And I am not accusing him of anything--I'm saying that his explanation doesn't make much sense when you look at the options available. The explanations offered by Sabrina were hilarious and grew increasingly so as the post-count grew. I love it when a fan substitutes their own made-up narrative for facts. I truly hope she sends this thread to him, as she says she will.

And I made no mistake--I never answer Sabrina's questions, and I take the 'quinnox' approach to Sabrina's posts.....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3364772

I'm not here to convince you of anything, unapatriciated. You are smart enough to make up your own mind.

[unapatriciated]

279. wow, just wow

You have that passive aggressive thingy down to a science with a little patronizing thrown in for good measure.

I'm not here to convince you of anything, unapatriciated. You are smart enough to make up your own mind.

Then why bother going back and forth on one minuscule point that has little relevance to the NSA issue. btw you did insinuate Greenwald was sanctioned for misconduct.

[sabrina 1]

280. There is one very good reason, to try to distract and use up time and energy.

I don't take them seriously anymore, fool me once etc. Now I just use them when I'm in the mood. See my exchanges above.

[Skraxx]

314. Oh, You Are Adorable! Yes Sabrina, You Are The Chosen One!

We must defeat you to stop you from your critical mission of racking up thousands of inane posts on DU. You've figured us out. You are that important. We must stop your insidious influence on society. I mean, dozens of people might join your mental masturbations. It's a threat we can't possibly ignore.

[sabrina 1]

315. Well, you're going about your mission the wrong way. Lol!

If you really want to stop the 'chosen one' omg, that was hilarious.

I think I like you!

Anyhow, if you want to stop 'the chosen one', it would be best not to kick my OPs.

Don't respond!!

Please!

[Skraxx]

317. I'm Simply Unworthy And Ill Equipped To Counter The Brilliance of Your nth Dimensional

Chess game. You've successfully unmasked all of us with your brilliant scheme. The world can rest easy now that you're on the case! You've truly changed the real world with your clever DU machinations!

[Octafish]

316. Interesting metaphors and word choices.

Revelatory, actually.

[Skraxx]

318. You've Got Me! I've Been Revealed! Now What?

[Octafish]

324. LOL! Not my problem.

Best of luck with that.

[Skraxx]

328. No, I Do Suppose You Have Many More Pressing Problems To Deal With

Thankfully, as I assure you, your scrutiny of me has me quaking.

God luck with THAT!

[msanthrope]

283. Why not bother? Of what importance do you think these threads are? nt

[sabrina 1]

282. Amazing how little you know about the NY State Bar Assoc. and the standard procedures that

are well known when an attorney decides to change his career.

Making stuff doesn't ever compensate for lack of knowledge.

[sabrina 1]

333. Just to explain why I refused to comply with the 'request' for a link. I knew the game that was

being played. I also knew that msanthrope KNEW why GG stopped paying the feees because I remember that another DUer had provided the same link I provided in the OP a while ago, after another session like this.

I also knew that the 'end game' if I had responded with the link, would be exactly what it was after you very kindly provided the link. Almost word for word, the response was exactly as I expected.

We've been through this before. It never changes, same game playing, same pretense of 'not knowing' so that 'speculation' can be posted hoping people will read it and assume the worst.

I find it despicable frankly. But now anyone reading this thread knows how a smear campaign works.


Thanks for your comments, I am sorry that your genuine attempt to help was misused.

But it was no surprise to me having experienced it all before.

[unapatriciated]

338. Don't be Sorry

I and I'm sure others saw and understood what she was doing. She did what I expected, once again proved the point of your OP.

[sabrina 1]

332. Lol, perfect, exactly what I knew you would do if I had entertained your pretense that you

'couldn't find it' in the OP. So predictable. Too bad YOU didn't, or pretended not to 'read Sabrina's links'. You didn't have to, did you, you already knew why Greenwald ended his career as an attorney and why at that point he stopped paying for a service he no longer needed.

Here's what you tried to do. For those who tuned in late. You pretended that you didn't know why Greenwald didn't pay his Bar Assoc. fees. That, you thought, left you free to 'speculate' that 'maybe it was not the fees that caused the standard announcement of 'suspenstion' for lack of fees on the Bar Assoc. computer. The problem was that I KNEW YOU KNEW Lol, because you were told on this forum, with a link to the very same link I posted in the OP.

It was hilarious for me to watch you acting though, knowing all the time that you knew.

I had the most fun NOT providing you with the 'cue' you were hoping to get, the facts iow, so your next move would be 'I don't believe him'. But I didn't play, so you had to keep up the pretense.

Finally someone else gave you what you wanted, a very nice DUer not realizing the 'game' you were playing.

And there it is, exactly as I knew it would be.

Too bad I'm not the only one who understood what the 'game' was. Did you not wonder why no one else responded to your 'request'?? I did, but I guessed it was because they knew what you were doing just as I did.

Absolutely fascinating to watch a 'smear' go down in smoke.

I feel confident that Journalists like GG have nothing to fear from the smear campaign after this feeble attempt.

Thanks again for the demonstration. I apologize for making it so difficult for you to finally get to the end game.

[Skraxx]

306. You've Fully Completed Epistemic Closure!

Congratulations! All hail the Greenwald! The non-payer of fees! That can't be referenced!

[sabrina 1]

308. Well, thank you!

Care to go into more depth about your 'knowledge' of this case?

I'm interested in learning more about the issue of when an attorney, and it happens quite often, decides to change careers, from YOUR perspective.

The person to whom I responded there has shown a serious lack of knowledge on the subject.

[Skraxx]

309. I'll Wait For Your Citations First

Your claim honey, I'll wait for u to back it up.

[Swagman]

322. I support every statement you have made

and the fact you have the energy and good humour to respond to every attempt to derail good work done by others who expose dishonesty.

I just get to angry.

[Swagman]

320. your posts sicken me and this is why :

..and I must question what your motives are for they appear to be dis-honest.

: I have a license to act in New York State in a certain area that touches on law (not a lawyer).

That license is 'suspended' and has been for 12 years in exactly the same way a lawyers license (or indeed an electrician's) license can be. It is suspended because I chose to suspend it.

The reason is I have not lived in New York 12 years. I live in another country. I fantasies that I may one return to New York and take up my former career and to do so I can re-activate my license to operate by paying the required fees and completing whatever local government red-tape requires.

Glen Greenwald has explained that his 'suspension' is exactly the same and he can re-activate his license should he wish or need to by similar action.

It is completely dis-honest to mis-interpret as you do facts about his license to operate...it is completely dishonest to make leaps of faith and insinuate that because you have seized upon the use of a word 'suspended' then all sorts of improprieties can be woven into it.

And it is a great mystery why you mock posters on here who support a journalist who exposes illegal wiretapping who did what thousands of lawyers around the country do every day- test the limits of the law- and do not succeed ....and make the spurious claim that he himself illegally wiretapped (he did not : he was not charged or convicted for such an alleged crime) and extrapolate out of the mess that therefore the Government's exposed wiretapping is somehow all OK.

I suspect your motives but I believe the majority of DUers now also suspect such motives and understand why these attempts to derail threads and distort the narrative are underway.

[msanthrope]

323. They may be how your license operates--it is not how a law license operates.

As I've demonstrated on this thread, "suspended" is not something that makes sense to choose--not when "resigned" or "retired" are available. A lawyer who has not paid fees is in violation of the Judicial Code, Section 468-a, and must file a motion with the Disciplinary Committee in order to get reinstated. It can, per the links I provided, take months.

Why would a competent attorney choose that route when there are less troublesome avenues available? I simply do not believe Mr. Greenwald's explanation, because it does not accord with good business practice and common sense.

[sabrina 1]

334. Thank you so much for verifying what most people, especially attorneys or other license holders in

NY State would know. Which is why I question the claims of this poster of being an attorney.

Your comment is that of an honest person, who like me, cannot imagine how anyone could DO something like this, to try to create a false impression that a former attorney, and now a journalist had done something wrong even though they knew he had not. THAT is why I refused to play the game by providing the link s/he was pretending s/he could not find.

I knew what the next move would be had I provided a link s/he was provided with weeks or months maybe, before by another DUer.

You are correct that DUers know what is going on but this thread has made it crystal clear that lies and smears ARE being directed towards GG because we got to see out in the open, how they are created.

Thanks again for your comment.

[OilemFirchen]

65. Sad.

"There was a conflict as to whether to apply the NY law or the law in the state in which the case was heard."

The magistrate judge granted both motions, finding defense counsel's conduct unethical under two separate rules: Local Rule 83.58.4(a)(4), prohibiting "dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation;" and Local Rule 83.54.4, stating "a lawyer shall not ... use methods of obtaining evidence that violate the legal rights of [another] person."

<snip>

More importantly, the magistrate judge found the majority position better reasoned, and so do we.

<et al>

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8881375921339474218&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr

"A slight misunderstanding which was resolved and after which the court praised Greenwald. "

Utter, absolute and total bullshit.

Are you one of those Greenwald personas I've been reading about today?

[sabrina 1]

68. Excuse me?? Please explain this:

Are you one of those Greenwald personas I've been reading about today?

Is this one of those smears we are talking about, now aimed at ANYONE who dares to correct the lies being told?

I hope you are not implying what I think you are implying so I will give you a chance to explain.

Before you respond, I am well known here on DU and have both spoken to and met many of the people who have been longtime DUers.

That smear, that lie, if it is what I think it is, loses YOU any shred of credibility you might otherwise have had.

And yes, Greenwald WAS complimented for his advocacy in that case. But from now on I will give ANYTHING you have to say the exact amount of credence you have earned here.

[OilemFirchen]

77. Been working all day.

Just knocked off and skimmed a bundle of threads accusing some here of being "personas" - presumably paid agents, perhaps bots... maybe alien lizards? I've never encountered one - at least insofar as I can determine - so I'm not sure how to spot one.

I just thought that, as Greenwald relies on "citizen contributions" to augment his meager income as a Guardian editorialist, perhaps he kicks back some of those funds for a bit of self-promotion. It is, of course, consistent with his "journalistic" ethos... pay to play, as it were.

So I just asked. Nothing personal, mind you, just trying to grok the means by which we uncover the subterfuge running rampant here. If it isn't professional promotion, I'll just have to scratch that off my list. 'Sokay, I'll figure it out.

[sabrina 1]

81. Your 'question' was completely unwarranted. I do not know Greenwald other than by his

writing, and to even ask such a question is an insult to me personally considering the years I have spent working for Democrats to make this a better country without receiving or asking for one cent.

You are also insinuating that Greenwald pays people? Or are you saying he is paying people to 'augment' his salary, assuming he isn't earning enough money? He is an author who is most likely earning quite a bit of money But aside from that how could he augment his salary by paying money OUT of his income?

Unless you have some proof or something, anything to even consider posting that, then you ought to retract it.

Thanks for at least trying to explain your outrageous ''question'.

[OilemFirchen]

118. Hey, no problem.

IIRC, you seem to have been actively participating on the persona-pro-gratis threads, so I thought maybe you had some insight. Pay-for-post is a recurring accusation, and it's apparently reached fever pitch today. I would never accuse someone of that... would you?

Anyway, it was just a question.

"You are also insinuating that Greenwald pays people? Or are you saying he is paying people to 'augment' his salary, assuming he isn't earning enough money? He is an author who is most likely earning quite a bit of money But aside from that how could he augment his salary by paying money OUT of his income?"

Actually, yes I'm insinuating just that. I have no proof, but it's entirely reasonable. You are aware that Greenwald boasts of his "reader funding", yes?

Ever since I began political writing, I've relied on annual reader donations to enable me to do the journalism I want to do...

Now... I'm not a journalist but I do know how journalists work. And being paid for advocacy is not actually journalism. In my neck of the woods we call that advertising. I'm also not a marketeer, but I know how they work as well. Pay out a bit for promotion, reap the rewards in more client income. Mind you, and as I've clearly stated, it's just a hunch.

Don't take it personally. I just have a curious nature, that's all.

[sabrina 1]

120. So you have no proof of anything you are speculating about. Here on DU we generally

do not take seriously someone's biased speculations. We require some standard of proof if someone wants to gain any kind of respect.

I have NEVER suggested to anyone here that they are being paid simply because I have no proof about any individual here. Nor have I asked them a pointed 'question'. Save your accusations for those who have done so.

I take personally any suggestion about me even a hint, a pointed question, that is simply not true.

So do most people here, just so you know. I appreciate curiosity, about issues, not about personalities. If you want to gain respect here, deal with the issues people are talking about, not with the people.

I comment on issues that interest me, right now the issue is the attacks on journalists. Greenwald is ONE of them who are under attack. I find attacks on journalists to be very serious in a democracy. Point out where you think they are wrong, but when they come under attack from Security Contractors, you can bet I will be commenting on it. And I don't particularly care WHO the journalist is. Right now it happens to be Greenwald, tomorrow it may be another journalist. If it is expect to see me commenting on it.

[OilemFirchen]

128. Uh huh.

Old habits die hard, as they have proven over and over, throughout the years. Not much

'thinking' going on with these shills, they have a job to do and clearly the originators of the tactics are not too creative either.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023359801#post84

[sabrina 1]

129. Oh there are shills here. No doubt about that. And while most of us know who they most

likely are, without proof, smart people simply take note and take nothing they say seriously.

Iow, they fail to do what they intend to do. Which is a good thing.

Sorry, were you trying to make some point that I missed or something?

[OilemFirchen]

139. Thank you for the needed excuse to retire.

Should've been in bed hours ago, but this was too much fun. Now you've stooped to calling your own self a liar.

I can't snark when I feel such pity.

G'night all!

[sabrina 1]

143. You can't 'snark' period. Don't give up your day job, unlike Greenwald, who was able to

give up his law career and find another with no problem, I don't think 'snarking' is for you.

Have a good sleep, I was having fun and could go on doing so, sorry to have worn you out so quickly.

That's what happens when you pick a fight you can't win. The truth never changes. I always try to keep that in mind. And the truth is, there are shills here and everywhere else on the internet, but until there is absolute proof to expose them, and it HAS happened btw, it's best to refrain, as you unfortunately did not ruining any credibility you might have, from risking making a false accusation against any individual.

[OilemFirchen]

87. Also...

"And yes, Greenwald WAS complimented for his advocacy in that case."

That calls for a cite, yer honor.

"Before you respond, I am well known here on DU and have both spoken to and met many of the people who have been longtime DUers. "

I seriously don't know what the fuck I'm supposed to do with that information. I've been a member here since DU's inception and, though I haven't racked up 36,000 posts by exclaiming +1 and K/R, I'm guessing a few here know me as well. Is this some kind of beauty contest? Is there a prize? Does it involve a PONY?

"But from now on I will give ANYTHING you have to say the exact amount of credence you have earned here."

I'm sorry. Really. But who the fuck are you?

[Bobbie Jo]

111. But...

don't you know who I am?

[OilemFirchen]

119. If I find out that she's the Queen of Sheba...

I'm going to be really embarrassed.

[msanthrope]

151. She's threatening to send this ENTIRE thread to Glenn Greenwald!

Omg, do you have any clue what you are doing here in this thread?

I am tempted to send this entire thread to Greenwald. He would appreciate the proof I lacked when I wrote the OP as to how they do it.

Then you'll REALLY be embarrassed!!!

[stonecutter357]

307. K&R

[sabrina 1]

335. No, you missed it, but I already stated upthread somewhere, that i am the Queen of France.

[Number23]

165. And you gotta love the poster who joined in 2008 attempting to "school" the poster who joined

in 2003. And not even doing it right.

Some of these people around here... Lord, have mercy. There are no words.

[sabrina 1]

228. Hey, my old friend, I nearly missed thanking you for kicking the thread.

[Number23]

162. "I'm sorry. Really. But who the fuck are you?"

If that person's response doesn't explain the danger of spending waay too much of one's time in the knowledge free echo chamber that GD has become, I don't know what will. That answer is nothing short of astonishing. Hilariously astonishing.

[Ikonoklast]

299. The Master Of The Circular Argument.

Facts mean nothing.

I see an actual attorney upthread easily making a mockery of said poster's positions and factually bereft argument, and said poster doubles down, changes direction, invents new premise based on fog, again gets shot down and repeats process yet again.

Same old, yet again.

[msanthrope]

311. Never answer its questions. Never look at its links..and watch it skate in circles.

I was hoping the thread would get to Glen Greenwald! I am disappointed.

[unapatriciated]

339. so what you are really saying is

that your purpose is to disrupt sabrina's threads not engage in honest debate. I believe you are an attorney. In fact I have met a few just like you, only they worked for Blue Cross. Their back and forth double speak cost my son more pain and disability during his illness than necessary. They ignored my questions and did not really look at his claims until forced by law. You know what is really sad about those type of tactics. Innocent people are the one's who pay the price for those games.

[msanthrope]

340. I am extremely sorry about your son. nt

[sabrina 1]

336. Where was the 'actual attorney'? I saw a person who claims to be an attorney display a stunning

unawareness of the procedures in NY State when an attorney decides to change careers. I saw the same person attempt, and fail, to attach some nefarious reason to the Bar Assoc's normal procedures under those conditions. I saw other posters attempt explain to this 'attorney' how it works and I saw that 'actual attorney' dig deeper rather than accept the fact that people were now aware of what they were trying to do.

The 'actual attorneys' I know in NY State where I live, would never have made such a blatant mistake about the standard procedures of the NY State Bar Assoc.

If this is an 'actual attorney' I would hope they would now educate themselves on something so commonly known by anyone in the legal profession because I can't imagine any attorney not being aware of this simple, standard procedure of the NY State Bar Assoc.

[Skraxx]

313. LOL! That's Cute! I For One Commend Sabrina on her DU Accomplishments!

Though I somehow get the feeling the real world continues to be decidedly unimpressed and supremely indifferent. I'm sure she feels very, very accomplished. With what, I can't imagine.

[msanthrope]

70. Do you know how it was "resolved?" Greenwald had to turn over the tapes and transcripts after

the court determined that Greenwald's ethical violations violated the attorney work-product privilege under Rule 26(b)(3). His client settled. He lost.

But this is presented as Greenwald being "praised?"

[OilemFirchen]

61. Got paid for it, too.

That's our "pristine" Glenn!

[pkdu]

22. 7. He has an exclusive coming out very soon that will shock the world.....nt

[msanthrope]

29. Sure he does. Today it was an exclusive from 2008.....nt

[Cali_Democrat]

59. SHOCK!

[Autumn]

32. Very interesting read. Thanks for posting this.

It's good to see his own words on what has been said about him. Rec

[enough]

36. I first read and respected Greenwald as one of the most cogent, effective and vigorous critics

of Bush and all his works. Those years allowed me to gain a respect for his intelligence and integrity.

I have watched with dismay as things have disintegrated to the point where we are supposed to hate someone because he is saying something uncomfortable for us. Something that doesn't fit our particular current myth.

It was much easier to agree with everything critical that was said about Bush and his administration, much more difficult, in fact painful, to understand his criticism now that we WANT to admire and respect the current administration. But I am not an apparatchik.

[sabrina 1]

39. Thank you for your comment. Exactly how a majority of people feel about those who

stood up to Bush back when it was often dangerous to do so. Greenwald earned his credibility as a journalist. Interesting then to see someone who has actually reported the facts about the past decade be the target of these smear campaigns. I notice though that most of the time, they never deal with the issues he has raised.

[stupidicus]

37. I've always referred to them as "frequently repeated lies"

and as we know, it's just another thing on a rather lengthy list of behaviors that rightwingnuts do not have a monopoly on.

Dishonesty is most frequently employed by those that know they can't win honestly

[sabrina 1]

99. He certainly has scared the living daylights out of someone or someones for them to struggle

so hard to try to discredit him. And failing to do so hasn't stopped them, so what are they so worried about? Real Journalism, a Journalist they cannot control. They control the stenographers (thanks Colbert) on the Corporate Media and they thought their job was done. But it wasn't. Shockingly there still are real journalists around and some of them have found a way to make a difference.

The truth is what they are afraid of.

[stupidicus]

106. you know it sabrina

one could replace "ERROR" with the apprpriate term

"It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry."
-- Thomas Paine, philosopher and writer (1737-1809)

I'd say their efforts are a measure of how much of a threat they think he and the truth are. If he wasn't close to the truth they'd not be giving him the notice and kind that they are.

have a good one sabrina

[Vinnie From Indy]

41. K&R

eom

[Catherina]

42. Thanks for posting this. Greenwald's FTL only reinforces how low the opposition has sunk

"Trying to judge someone for where they write or speak - rather than for the ideas they advocate - is about as anti-intellectual and McCarthyite as it gets"

...

"libertarianism" has an actual meaning: it's not just a slur to mean: anyone who criticizes President Obama but disagrees with Rush Limbaugh. Anyone who applies this label to me in light of my actual views and work is either very ignorant or very dishonest - or, most likely, both.

...

I never once wrote in favor of the Iraq War or argued for it in any way, shape or form. Ask anyone who claims that I "supported" the Iraq War to point to a single instance where I ever supported or defended it in any way. There is no such instance. It's a pure fabrication.

...

But anyone using this Preface to claim I was a "supporter" of the Iraq War is simply fabricating. At worst, I was guilty of apathy and passivity. I did nothing for or against it because I assumed that those in positions to exercise adversarial scrutiny - in journalism and politics - were doing that. It's precisely my realization of how profoundly deceitful and failed are American political and media institutions that motivated me to begin working on politics, and it's those realizations which continue to motivate me now.

Bookmarked

[sabrina 1]

47. It shows how hard the opposition researchers worked to try to discredit him, and still

came up with nothing.

I never once wrote in favor of the Iraq War or argued for it in any way, shape or form. Ask anyone who claims that I "supported" the Iraq War to point to a single instance where I ever supported or defended it in any way. There is no such instance. It's a pure fabrication.

This is something they know ONLY because of his own honesty in talking about his political evolution in his book.

See this thread to once again see the feeble attempts, as he stated, rear their heads again. Same old smears. This is all they have on someone they have been digging so hard to find dirt on for so long?

The man looks like saint frankly, if this all the money and the time could buy.

[Galraedia]

48. 'Frequently Told Lies' about Glenn Greenwald, by Glenn Greenwald?

Yeah, because whatever Greenwald says it must be true. Nothing cult-like about that at all.

P.s. Glenn Greenwald is NOT a left-wing blogger. He's a lyin Libertarian.

[sabrina 1]

53. I see you didn't read the OP. Thanks for providing an exhibit of what the OP .

is all about.

I welcome all the perfect examples I could not have given without spending hours finding them, that are right here in this thread.

Come back if you ever read what you feel qualified to post on without reading. Maybe we could have an INFORMED discussion of the facts if that were to happen

[JoeyT]

57. A man defending himself against accusations is cult like?

You have a weird definition of cults.

What's cult-like is when criticism is met with "You never loved him anyway".

I honest to goodness thought that was a hyperbolic reference to a personality cult, until I saw someone actually use it in all seriousness.

Projection: It isn't just for Republicans anymore.

[Galraedia]

89. No, what's cult-like is taking whatever he says as truth just because he says it.

[UTUSN]

56. My fave FTL from Glenny:

*********QUOTE********

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023225969

[font size=5]If I could interrupt for a moment, how about... the Hate Mailbag![/font]

(by EarlG, DU Administrator)

[FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: yellow"]Democratic Underground may be a contentious place at the moment, but thank goodness there are some common truths which still bring us together[/FONT] after all these years. For example, I think we can all agree that no matter which side of the Snowden vs. Obama debate you come down on, you're a right-wing ratfucking paid-to-post shill. Amirite?!?!

Anyway, [FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: yellow"]if you've been spending a little too much time scrapping with your fellow progressives[/FONT] in the DU bubble lately it may have slipped your mind that [FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: yellow"]there are real right-wing assholes out there who wish for nothing more than to see us all crucified and burned[/FONT] at the stake simultaneously. (Which I've got to admit would make for a pretty sweet heavy metal album cover).

So here's the Hate Mailbag to give you a taste of [FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: yellow"]what conservatives are saying out there in the real world[/FONT], sprinkled with a dash of good old-fashioned WTF. Enjoy!


http://ggsidedocs.blogspot.com.br/2013/01/frequently-told-lies-ftls.html

[font size=5]Frequently Told Lies (FTLs)[/font]

by Glenn GREENWALD

.... I'm a right-wing libertarian
Ever since I began writing about politics back in 2005, people have tried to apply pretty much every political [FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: yellow"]label[/FONT] to me. It’s almost always [FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: yellow"]a shorthand method to discredit someone without having to engage the substance[/FONT] of their arguments. It’s the classic [FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: yellow"]ad hominem[/FONT] fallacy: you don’t need to listen to or deal with his arguments because he’s an X. ....

**********UNQUOTE**********

[unapatriciated]

267. Your post is unclear to me.

Since it was an answer to Sabrina's OP, it comes off that you are chastising her for spending too much time on DU and forgetting that there are true RW enemies out there in the real world (by using EarlG's op). You than paste GreenWald's blog right under this highlighted quote from EarlG

what conservatives are saying out there in the real world

Are you saying that EarlG considers Greenwald to be a RW troll?

It might be your placement with

*********QUOTE********

and

**********UNQUOTE**********

[UTUSN]

278. (Since this thread is still on p. 1, ) And 'tw'll ever be so!1

Those ***QUOTE*** and ***UNQUOTE*** are SO unclear!1

[ProSense]

60. Glenn Greenwald’s Hilarious Denial About His Support for Iraq War

Glenn Greenwald’s Hilarious Denial About His Support for Iraq War
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023362480

[Catherina]

64. DU has the dubious distinction of being the main source of spreading one of those lies

I just posted about that in this thread "Glenn Greenwald’s Hilarious Denial About His Support for Iraq War" with graphic proof but that won't stop the two minutes of hate.

I'll post the longer graphic here. There's a very odd pattern of where this fabricated quote is found:



Google search for the phrase “Had I known then what I know now, I would not have supported it”

[sabrina 1]

66. How shameful, for DU. It's not like anyone takes this small contingency seriously here

as we can see from this thread, it is always the same people. But that certainly gives the impression that DU is the main source for the spreading of these lies. That's too bad.

[Catherina]

73. I just clicked through the DU results

Other than today's thread, the DU links go to one other thread where someone obviously had deplorable reading skills to put it kindly.

It is shameful. What's even more shameful is the persistence and making DU look like a source of misinformation. But like you said, it's not like anyone takes those efforts seriously.

[sabrina 1]

75. Yes, and that is unfair representation of DU's opinion of all of this. But I guess

that won't bother them one bit.

[dionysus]

85. the GG cultists\apologists\worshippers\pop pom crowd\sockpuppets can

dish it out but apparently they can't take it.
you just got a small taste of what actual democratic voters have been getting flung at them on here from you guys. cry me a river.

[Whisp]

126. Funny how that works, eh?

Obama has been bashed and lied about and called the filthiest names here, but, ooooo, we can't touch the Glennie! Glennie is a truther saviour.

lol. gotta love the madness.

[99th_Monkey]

79. Glen Greenwald is not the issue

But I'm glad he's going on record, to set it straight, regarding the six-pack of lies being
peddled by the dark side about him, to try to make HIM the issue, not what was revealed
by Snowden.

[sabrina 1]

88. He's not the issue when it comes to the NSA surveillance program, but when we got to such

a low, McCarthyesque point that journalists are under attack, that is a separate and very serious issue.

What they have done is to raise the issue of Journalists doing their jobs now being targeted in this country. That is truly scary and the intention is obviously to scare others from telling the truth, from reporting the news, from using sources, such as Whistle Blowers which it is necessary to do if we are to be an informed citizenry.

Someone, some entities, do not want us to be informed, obviously. Why, what are they doing they are so scared the people will find out?

THESE are the questions the smear campaign against Greenwald have raised. Not what they wanted I'm sure, but this is what they are getting.

[99th_Monkey]

92. Totally Sabrina. That's how I see it too. ~nt

[OilemFirchen]

122. On a thread about Glenn Greenwald, BY Glenn Greenwald

Glenn Greenwald is not the issue.

Beautiful.

[99th_Monkey]

130. I'm glad you can appreciate the hilarity of the situation

there are more layers of absurdity than a Monty Python movie.

[sabrina 1]

231. Lol, you can say that again! I have not had this fun in a long time. The gang's all here!

[99th_Monkey]

236. LOL back at you. :-) eom

[AnotherMcIntosh]

82. Thank you.

[baldguy]

90. Remember that Star Trek episode with Harry Mudd?

[sabrina 1]

96. No, wish I did. Maybe you could explain, I am ashamed to admit to not having been a Trekkie.

[baldguy]

101. .

Start at 1:25 -

Mudd: "I lied."

Kirk: "He lied. Everything Harry tells you s a lie. Remember that: Everything Harry tells you s a lie."

Mudd: "Now, listen to this carefully Norman: I am lying."

-------------------------------

In case you were wondering: Greenwald is Harry Mudd in this scenario.

[sabrina 1]

104. Lol, good one. Thanks for the link.

Illogical! Illogical!

[mimi85]

121. After watching that

I am VERY glad I'm not a Trekkie. And I'm not lying. Especially when I say that this is one of the most asinine threads I've ever read.
I have no idea why I even read a thread about Greenwald. He makes me nauseous.

[neverforget]

94. The hate for Glenn is up to 11 today because he's releasing another article that will put

the NSA in bad light under the Obama Administration. Everything must be done to make Glenn the issue and not the content of the forthcoming article.

[sabrina 1]

100. Yes, but it won't work, the more they attack journalists, the worse they look and the more

curious people become about what it is they are trying so hard to hide.

Attacking Journalists is a separate issue from the NSA revelations. In itself it is a very serious issue when a country stoops to such a low level that they smear journalists for simply doing their jobs.

We will be talking about the NSA no matter what they do to try to distract us. It is way, way too serious an issue now. And a majority of Americans are showing an increasing anger about all of this in the latest polls, where nearly double the numbers from early July, now support the fact that Snowden is a Whistle Blower, not a traitor, despite all the propaganda to try to convince them otherwise.

[dionysus]

107. and you guys spew about hero worship...

[sabrina 1]

113. 'You guys'. Link to a post of mine that ever mentioned 'hero worship'. Thanks, I'll wait.

As I said before and repeat as often as necessary so thanks for the opportunity to do so again as I consider this to be very, very important. When people discover that a Journalist is the object of a Contract Bid by a 'Security Corporation', it is time for citizens to sit up and take notice.

You don't seem to take the assault on journalists very seriously. That is your choice, a majority of the population here believes in a free press. Free from this kind of McCarthyesque propaganda. As you can see, it is not working. All the attempts to shame people by calling them 'cheerleaders' (so old that one) or 'worshippers' are having the exact opposite effect.

Some new tactics will be necessary as support for journalists only increases as a result of these shameful attempts to silence journalists.

[sabrina 1]

234. Mmm, no response, though to be truthful, I didn't expect one.

[idwiyo]

98. K&R

[OilemFirchen]

123. Ya know who ELSE they used to lie about all the time?

Andrew Breitbart.

AND THEN THEY KILLED HIM.

[sabrina 1]

124. You are not making much sense here tonight. Breitbart was the liar. And who exactly do

you think 'killed him'?

[OilemFirchen]

133. Not much I hate more than pointing out the obvious...

but your cloying, sycophantic defense here is playing out just like the Breitbrats. Frankly, it's a bit nauseating.

But it's kinda funny, too.

[sabrina 1]

135. As I said, and I will repeat it just for you, 'you are not making much sense here tonight'.

Why would you continue to post in a thread that you find 'nauseating'? And considering the source as I always do, I take that as a incredible compliment. I have explained this before, how to judge if you are being insulted or complemented. I am immensely complimented by your reaction.

Seems to me it's playing out just as I wanted it to. Thanks for playing.

[HardTimes99]

125. Bravo! You deserve the internet equivalent of a Pulitzer for this thread and

your eloquent rebuttals of all the Greenwald character assassins.

My sincere compliments.

[sabrina 1]

140. Lol, thank you! Not sure about a Pulitzer, but the thread sure has helped to prove the whole

premise of the OP. How smears are created. See upthread if you like, for a perfect example, played out right here in this thread. I couldn't have asked for more. Lol!

[Whisp]

142. When Greenwalds Attack! 10 Examples From His Past

http://extremeliberal.wordpress.com/tag/glenn-greenwald/

I won’t spend time pushing back against the Snowden claim, you can go read some of Bob Cesca’s work here, here and here if you want to get up to speed on the issues surrounding the Edward Snowden leaks.

One of the main tactics Glenn Greenwald uses is to attack anyone who challenges him, with venom and over the top projections of all things evil onto his target. I’ve personally been called a few names by him, mostly because I support President Obama. He really dislikes people who support President Obama. Joy-Ann Reid wrote about this a while back.

Anyone who fails to loathe Obama as he does is an “Obama lover” (just chew on that, if you’re African-American) or a “cultist.” It isn’t possible that Obama could do anything that isn’t vile and insipid and worthy of continual, emphatic condemnation.

Since I’ve spent way too much time reading and writing about Glenn Greenwald, mostly because I despise his tactics, but in all candor, partly because he has such a profound hatred for President Obama, I thought I’d share some links I have gathered over the years. You can decide for yourself how you feel about Glenn, considering the following.
10 Examples of Glenn Greenwald Attacks:

Nasty little man, Glenn is. He has accumulated a lot of enemies with that mouth of his. Despicable little cretin.

[sabrina 1]

144. Lol, who is this person who thinks he CAN attack someone and not expect a response??

What a sensitive creature, if those are examples of what he calls 'nastiness'. Lol, just go back in this thread to see the attacks on me, simply for writing my opinion. But being accustomed to real nastiness on the internet, I am hardly as sensitive as this poor man.

How lame, he appears to be obsessed with Greenwald, constantly attacking him, then whining when he gets a pretty tame response by internet standards.

Poor guy, maybe he should just stay off the Internet, it's a pretty rough place for people whose sensibilities are so easily hurt.

HE appears to be a 'nasty 'little' man. Are we into attacking people because of how tall they are now?

[Whisp]

148. you wouldn't be attacking the messenger now, would you?

and not dealing with the content?



please proceed...

[sabrina 1]

153. No, I wouldn't. I dealt very succinctly with the 'content'. An unknown blogger was linked to

by you, and I commented on the content of the blog which appears to be 'all about Greenwald'. Admittedly there wasn't much content to address other than the sensitivity of the blogger in question, someone I never heard of before.

[Whisp]

150. Glenn Greenwald Supported President Bush As He Signed The Patriot Act!

Glenn Greenwald Supported President Bush As He Signed The Patriot Act!

The Patriot Act was signed on October 26, 2001 and this is what Glenn Greenwald wrote in the preface to his own book – his words, not mine…

This is not to say that I was not angry about the attacks. I believed that Islamic extremism posed a serious threat to the country, and I wanted an aggressive response from our government. I was ready to stand behind President Bush and I wanted him to exact vengeance on the perpetrators and find ways to decrease the likelihood of future attacks. During the following two weeks, my confidence in the Bush administration grew as the president gave a series of serious, substantive, coherent, and eloquent speeches that struck the right balance between aggression and restraint. And I was fully supportive of both the president’s ultimatum to the Taliban and the subsequent invasion of Afghanistan when our demands were not met. Well into 2002, the president’s approval ratings remained in the high 60 percent range, or even above 70 percent, and I was among those who strongly approved of his performance. [...]

====

oh my, he thinks The Chimperor is eloquent.

insert about a thousand of these here:

Here is a reminder of how serious and coherent and ELOQUENT the Chimp is/was:
The 50 Dumbest Bush Quotes of All Time
http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/bushquotes/a/dumbbushquotes.htm

42. "I'm the commander -- see, I don't need to explain -- I do not need to explain why I say things. That's the interesting thing about being president." --as quoted in Bob Woodward's Bush at War

41. "Oh, no, we're not going to have any casualties." --discussing the Iraq war with Christian Coalition founder Pat Robertson in 2003, as quoted by Robertson

[sabrina 1]

152. There goes one of the six talking points. How come Clinton and Biden and

so many other Democrats 'trusted Bush'??

You are using someone's HONESTY to attack them with. Do you realize how despicable that is? Maybe YOU didn't come up with this attempt to smear a journalist, but to even use it, to attack someone being honest? Do you really expect these tactics to work? So far from my observations, they have had the OPPOSITE effect.

When can we expect an apology from all those democrats who 'Trusted Bush', we've been waiting a long, long time for them to do what Greenwald did.

[Whisp]

157. You sound upset, maybe you should have a little lie down. n/t

[sabrina 1]

164. Do I? Thanks for your concern, but I was of the opinion that you were pretty upset.

I'm having a ball in this thread. I love it when people pop in to prove my OP's main points.

Please continue ...

.... kicking my thread! Lol!

[Whisp]

169. hmm, that was pretty weak for a comeback.

don't you have your own words instead of using mine?

odd.

[sabrina 1]

175. Was it? Well, you may be right but this isn't about ME. This is about the attacks on Journalists

in this country. I would prefer to talk about the issues, but you appear to more interested in personalities. There is an old saying about this ... 'great minds talk about issues, weak minds talk about people' or something like that.

The fact is that Journalists who don't comply with the status quo are under attack in this country. Today it is Greenwald, tomorrow someone else, and I and others will continue to counter those attacks whenever possible because most people believe in the freedom of the press whether you like or not.

[Whisp]

180. Greenwald isn't a journalist, he's a Hack.

A scamming hack asking for dollars for more hackery.

[sabrina 1]

182. A prominent news paper doesn't agree with you. But there you go again, focusing on

people, rather than issues.

[Whisp]

183. I am questioning his 'writing skills'

and other skills, like getting along with other humans.

You approved and used that yourself a couple posts up.

[sabrina 1]

189. To repeat your own question to me a few posts up, 'can't you use your own words

rather than repeating mine? Lol!

Greenwald seems to have no problems getting along with people, other than Right Wing jerks who flood his blog with smears and generally end up having the floor wiped with their feeble attempts. Can't fault someone for dealing with the Far Right nuts he has had to deal with, by tearing their commentaries apart. It was a thing of beauty to watch and won him many friends, many of them right here on DU throughout the Bush years. But like so many Liberals who dare to criticize this administration's policies, some of those 'friends' have done an about turn despite the fact that he is saying exactly the same things he always said about Bush policies. The list is long and growing of those former 'liberal' heroes, who have been thrown under the bus.

[Swagman]

327. scandal scandal !! journalist expects to be paid so he can eat

stop the presses !

[Swagman]

326. what a cheap and unproductive insult

[Swagman]

325. Glen clearly states he was wrong on some things- which doesn't automatically mean he is

wrong on everything.

But that's a a good attempt at character assassination and you should carry it through to the logical conclusion : If Greenwald as a private citizen mistakenly agreed with Bush about the Patriot Act and the invasion of Iraq etc etc...although he now regrets that-- what does that say about the current US president who was a politician in the thick of it at the time and is now in the position to prosecute the lying murderous Bushs of the world...but chooses not too ?.

sorry to divert from the Assassination of Glen Greenwald.

[Whisp]

154. Anatomy of a Glenn Greenwald Smear Job (updated)

I was searching Google one day and came across an article in The Nation titled “A Response to Glenn Greenwald“, written by Mark Ames and Yasha Levine. Of course, I had to click on it. In recent years, Greenwald has become an example of how — with the growth of the internet — people have been given platforms who don’t deserve it and don’t have enough integrity to wield such power. Glenn Greenwald has shown time and time again that he is vicious in his attacks on people and uses every sleazy rhetorical technique known to humans to push his narrative. He is completely anti-Obama, anti-government and anti-Democratic Party. He used to be anti-Republican Party during the Bush years and that is when he established some false credibility with the left.

I did a study of his posts on Salon.com for a period of just over a month. What I found was — out of 43 posts, 38 of them were anti-Obama and the remaining 5 were about something non political. There were zero posts that attacked Republicans. ZERO! I guess the GOP hasn’t done anything recently that has upset Glenn.

http://extremeliberal.wordpress.com/tag/glenn-greenwald/

[msanthrope]

160. Sabrina is going to send this whole thread to Glenn, per her threats upthread. Are you scared yet?nt

[Whisp]

163. what? she going to sic The Glennie on us? Bring It.

now that made me laugh out loud.

Gimme the post number, I'm curious how that was worded.

[msanthrope]

172. Post 147--you've got to read it for tone....nt

[Whisp]

178. I think we need The Tattletale Portable Alarm System.

[msanthrope]

186. OMFG.....we need an app for that on DU!!! It should go straight to Glen! Oh--and in other news,

apparently I am not a lawyer anymore.

[sabrina 1]

240. I love this sub thread. Amazing to watch. I wouldn't bore GG with such childishness. But

I am glad to have on the record, a complete demonstration of how lies and smears are born. Thank you again for that.

I know you are embarrassed now, thus this little temper tantrum.

And thanks for kicking the thread. hi:

[msanthrope]

241. Where's the cite that Glenn is suspended because he didn't pay fees? When you send this thread

to Glenn, will you ask him?

[sabrina 1]

244. Unfortunately for the smear campaign, the only one who can't find it is YOU!

I would ask him, if I knew him, which I would very much like to. I hope to get to one of his talks some day, I hear they are very popular around the country. The smear campaign has apparently made him even more popular and more in demand.

So how do you feel about the McCarthyesque attacks on Journalists especially the ones coming for the supposed 'left'?

I'm going to have more on this, the assault on Journalists from the 'left' and whether they really are coming from the 'left' or not. Stick around, this is becoming a big topic, bigger if you can believe it, than GG.

[msanthrope]

246. If you've got the cite, why not just copy and paste it? Don't be coy! And when you send this off

to Glenn, maybe you can introduce yourself! I'm sure you already feel close to him!

[sabrina 1]

249. If I cared I would do so. I'm much happier watching you embarrass yourself, over and over

again. That is your choice, far be it from me to stop you.

And no, I do not believe you are a lawyer. A lawyer would know the standard procedures of the NY State Bar Assoc when an attorney changes his career.

[msanthrope]

252. Sabrina! If you've got a cite from the New York State Bar that says when a lawyer changes their

career they should neither 'retire' nor 'resign' but should decline to pay their bar fees, thereby violating Judicial Code Rule 468-a, and getting themselves listed as 'suspended' on the public, searchable database I totally wanna see that!!!

In fact, that sounds like the greatest, most fantastic, new career advice, EVAH!!!

But really, still waiting for the cite in where Glenn claims his suspension was over fees. If I missed it in your OP, why not just cut and paste it?

[sabrina 1]

255. There you go again, spreading false information under the pretext of just innocently seeking

an answer.

Wait, you can't be this unaware of how much of a failure this is. I just thought of something else.

Are you trying to help GG?? Because you are. That hadn't occurred to me, reverse psychology.

YOU ARE A FAN OF GG!! That explains the seemingly politically suicidal attempts to smear him.

You are trying to generate sympathy for him!! And it's WORKING!!

You, me and GG, bestest friends forever!!

Yay for you. Now THAT'S clever strategy! Now it all makes sense.

[msanthrope]

257. No--really!! You can resign or retire, rather than be suspended from the practice of law in NY--

So you don't accrue fees.


Here's the directions.....


http://www.courts.state.ny.us/courts/ad2/attorneymatters_VoluntaryResignation.shtml


Again....do you have an explanation from Glenn why his license is suspended?

[sabrina 1]

258. *yawn* ... good night partner in the fight against the smearing of and lying about

journalists. You sure fooled me into thinking you were a lawyer who was on the dark side.

Nothing you were doing made sense, you were HELPING Greenwald. Why would you want to HELP him I asked myself, and then the answer came.

It's been fun.

[msanthrope]

259. I hate it when you stomp out of the sandbox, Sabrina!! But don't forget to send this thread to GG!!

You promised!!!

[sabrina 1]

312. Lol!

[questionseverything]

330. all i can say is

how do "lawyers" stay up all night,from 848 pm to 523 am on discussions boards?

and then back at it by 938 am..checking in a few times thru out the day?

[stonecutter357]

310. GG

[OilemFirchen]

289. I'm waiting as patiently as I can.

Though I've vowed never to become a Twit, I'd join just for the sheer amusement of being on the receiving end of one of Greenwald's juvenile ad hominem Twitter rampages.

Please gawd, make it happen.

[msanthrope]

296. Glenn Greenwald follows me on Twitter. I don't follow him.

So I guess that makes him an unrequited twit.

[sabrina 1]

161. More whining from an anonymous blogger. Seems to be jealous of Greenwalds work but

that's just my opinion. Never heard of him so can't say much more other than his whining is rather nauseating.

Also notable is his sheer, blind inabiolity to see that Greenwald attacks policies, the same policies he always attacked, BUSH policies.

My reading of this person's whine, is that he has a cult like attachment to the President and everything he says is clouded by that. He needs to step back and look at the ISSUES Greenwald talks about and has ALWAYS talked about.. But I doubt that is possible for him judging by his obvious obsession with Greenwald.

Most Americans are not particularly attached personally to politicians. They are way more concerned about policies that affect them. This person seems to be one of those who develop unhealthy attachments to politicians.


Iow, he has not changed one bit since he began blogging about Bush's policies.

I've tried to address the content of that blog, but it appears to be all about the Blogger himself, his 'feelings' about both Obama and Greenwald, and not much else.

He made it about HIM, so I had no option to comment on HIM.

Does he talk about anything other than Greenwald? Judging by your links, I am not inclined to read any more of his blog.

[Whisp]

166. Doesn't everything and the Sun revolve around Greenwad?

Here is an interesting piece. I think you should take special note:

All Blame And No Credit From The Professional Left Towards President Obama!

I remember all those many months ago when President Obama made clear that he was going to pull our military out of Iraq by the end of 2011 and how it was met with skepticism and pretty much dismissed by those in the Professional Left, who see everything through a filter that turns President Obama into another one of the Bush children.

Here are just some of the headlines from those supposedly über progressive blogs that have spent the last 3 years trashing on the most liberal president in a generation.

From Salon.com – Justin Elliott on September 12, 2011
Obama poised to break Iraq pullout promise

This one was from May 11, 2011 from Huffington Post’s Amanda Terkel
Iraq Withdrawal Date For U.S. Troops May Be Pushed Back Beyond 2011

There are many more where those came from. It’s been interesting to watch as these same people who were heaping blame and skepticism on President Obama’s promise to get all the troops out of Iraq are now failing to give him any credit for it. Glenn Greenwald and others are doing all sorts of contortions in order to avoid admitting that President Obama has kept another of his promises and has ended the Iraq War, which should send the likes of Greenwald into the streets in celebration. Instead, they are, in a round about way, praising President Bush for setting the initial timetable, which everyone met with skepticism as just a temporary measure that would be changed later on. That is why the Republicans are freaking out so much about it, they never intended on leaving Iraq at the end of 2011. Robert Parry spells it out in this piece called “Why the Left Won’t Accept Success”…

[sabrina 1]

171. Yes, for some people the world does seem to revolve around Greenwald.

And all that is is more whining, and so very childish. I have first graders who could write better than and without the emotion. It's all attack, attack. He seems to very emotionally involved with this President which is what his writing is all about. Defending Obama.

Let me put it this. I have more respect for this President than to think he cannot handle what every other President has to handle. This person seems to think he is weak and in need of his assistance. How insulting to a man who made it all the way to the WH. You have to be tough just to get there.

He needs to focus on ISSUES if he wants to be a political blogger. Whining about personalities is not very professional.

That's my assessment of his WRITING skills. Too emotional to be an effective writer.

[Whisp]

174. You are focusing on 'writing skills'

and not on the content.

That could explain why you refuse to let go of the Snow and Glenn Hero Card collection you have. If you don't like the actual History of what Greenwald has Said and Done in the past - and there is sooooooo much material droppings of his - recorded and proven, then you carp about 'writing skills'.

o my.

[sabrina 1]

185. The content is about Obama and how he is being mistreated. I definitely did focus on the content.

The President is a strong man, I don't feel that he needs this kind of whining complaint about legitimate criticisms of policies. I doubt he does either. He doesn't seem to mind criticism from the 'left'. In fact he has boasted about it.

Sorry, but when the content is nothing more than a whine, I can't make a silk purse out of a cow's ear, as the saying goes.

[Whisp]

188. Are you calling Greenwald weak?

If the President is a strong man (and I agree) and doesn't need 'that kind of whining complaint... bla bla doesn't mind criticism' then that should also apply to GG as well? no?

Why is GG the delicate one that shouldn't be criticized? Isn't he strong enough?

I happen to think GG is a very weak person (those who lash out constantly and treat others badly as he does usually are very insecure) but to hear that from you is a bit surprising, considering Hero Card Collections usually involve characters with some perceived strength.

[sabrina 1]

190. GG is a journalist and no he does a very good job of defending himself. I am posting

facts about the campaign against journalists like Greenwald.

These smear tactics are a reality. And they affect not just GG, they affect this country and they need to be exposed. He is just the Journalist being attacked at the moment, others have been attacked before him, and more will be attacked with the same Rovian tactics soon enough and I will continue to expose these tactics as we always have on the Left.

Nice try though, but weak. Still talking about people rather than issues.

[Whisp]

191. Finding his own words, that he said Himself, is not a smear tactic. n/t

[sabrina 1]

193. Distorting his honest words is despicable. It is Rovian in its sheer reprehensibility. But it is a

reality in this country now. To take someone's words and distort them, to do 'opposition research' on someone who is merely writing about politics, and try to dig up dirt and when, as in Greenwald's case there is no dirt, to make it up.

THIS is a threat to this country and I am encouraged to see how many people are speaking out against it. Showing their disgust, as the people did when Clinton came under attack by the Far Right lunatics. People viewed their transparent goals as far more vile than Clinton's own behavior. But in the process they destroyed a president's ability to do the job the people wanted done.

And that is why these smears and lies about journalists must constantly be exposed. As they are.

And anyone who actually cares about this country would never dream of participating in such Rovian tactics. They would set aside their own biases, and refuse to be tempted to join the perpetrators even if it might help them politically.

I can't think of anything that would get more respect than for our elected officials on all sides to condemn these vile tactics.

[Whisp]

194. Poor King Ratfucker Greenwald.

So hard done by, so misunderstood, so honest...

[sabrina 1]

197. I knew we would get to this. Thanks for obliging me. I was hoping it would happen sooner

It's always instructive for people to see these kinds of comments. They are very helpful to those of us who are exposing the tactics.

'Ratfucker', one of the newer 'words' being handed out people have noticeed.

Can't you at least use your own words?

Hey, thanks, it took a while, but I got what I expected. Next time do it sooner, this has been very boring to say the least.

[Whisp]

199. The word applies to Greenwald:

Ratfucking is an American slang term for political sabotage or dirty tricks. It was first brought to public attention by Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein in their book All the President's Men.

Glenn sort of pretending to be Left so he can attack the Left. It's a common thing and was quite well used just before the 2010 midterms, where Glenn partnered with Hamsher and ratfucked 24/7.

[sabrina 1]

219. No, it doesn't. It does reek of desperation though, so carry on.

[msanthrope]

214. The term 'ratfucking' is about 40 years old. To think it new indicates a lack of knowledge

of American politics that is regrettable.

[sabrina 1]

217. I didn't say the 'word' was new, I said it was new to the anti journalist dialogue.

I'm not concerned where it came from, not my style to have to stoop to such depths to try to defend my positions. I can do that perfectly well without resorting to vile epithets and name-calling. That is for those who cannot defend their positions.

Thanks again for kicking the thread.

[great white snark]

245. That maybe could be explained away but..

Simple law escaping a supposed court reporter? Things that make ya go hmmm.

BTW, I'm with Number23 but I have no biblical references so I'll just say THANK YOU!

[msanthrope]

248. You are quite welcome. nt

[sabrina 1]

266. No, actually, it was the 'lawyer' who didn't understand the standard procedure

of the NY State Bar Assoc when a lawyer changes careers.

It happens often, the procedure is standard, the lawyer generally doesn't pay the fees for something s/he won't be using. IF the lawyer, and I've known a few, decides to go back into law, s/he goes through the standard process, pays the fees, and is back in business.

It is astounding that anyone claiming to be a lawyer here is so unfamiliar with something this simple regarding the profession they claim to be in.

Amazing the lack of concern for FACTS and ACCURACY from someone professing to be lawyer.

And equally amazing to watch the creation of a smear campaign right here in this thread. I am very pleased about that, to have it as an example of how it's done was worth its weight in gold.

[Chan790]

156. GG's problem is that all six are verifiably true in so far as they're things based on his own words.

So either he's lying now to say they're FTLs or he lied when he said them himself about himself.

It's very Wizard of Oz "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" of him.

[sabrina 1]

181. Explain what you mean. Your comment is just a reiteration of the smears with no context.

[whatchamacallit]

179. Luckily, his detractors act like such raving assholes

no one could ever be swayed.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

201. And it is interesting how facts do not seem to matter either

classic disinfo tactic, create a false debate so uninformed readers think there are two equally valid sides.

reminds me of how our M$M functions today, too.

sad to see it so often on DU, but I guess it is sign that we have made it to the big leagues of politics that they spend so much time and energy here.

[sabrina 1]

256. See msanthrope's perfect demonstration of how smears and lies are born, right in this

thread. It is classic and worth the whole thread to have it as an example of how it is done. The problem is, a majority of people see right through it. But that doesn't take away from the fact that they are willing to outright lie about someone simply because they do not like his work as a journalist.

I sure hope these are not representative of the Dem Party.

[Divernan]

268. Rec the OP & thanks also to Sabrina 1

for flushing out more of the sock puppets to add to my ignore list. I just started the list yesterday, and WOW!, getting rid of (so far) 20 sock puppets/bots has drastically reduced the level of insultingly offensive, off-topic and demeaning posts to be waded through and greatly improved my quality of time spent here.

[Blue_In_AK]

215. Thank you.

I have supported Glenn Greenwald's reporting for quite a while, and I have not been swayed by recent arguments. Glenn Greenwald has been consistent, and I tend to believe what he says.

[backscatter712]

254. K&R to debunk all the Prosense and disinformation... n/t

[cantbeserious]

260. Thank You For Sharing

eom

[Fumesucker]

264. This thread went through the looking glass so many times it needs its own BART train

Awesome tenacity Sabrina, I lost my ability to deal with total liars in this type of back and forth without telling them what to kiss and how some time during the Cheney regency.

You go, girl!

[Kolesar]

265. 7. Pushed out of Salon.com for being a dick ... eom

[sabrina 1]

281. Or took a better paying job at an Internationally read News Paper.

So many 'dicks' so little time. The top 'dick' is still wandering around freely despite being a Criminal. 'Dicks' are in these days, it seems. GG couldn't win a 'top dick' competition of he tried.

[myrna minx]

285. This thread was very informative. Thanks Sabrina.

[sabrina 1]

287. You're welcome, myrna. I did say it was public service OP, but could not have predicted how true

that turned out to be. It certainly has been a lot of fun ...

[FredStembottom]

288. A million thanks, sabrina

One of the most enlightening threads ever at DU.
I don't know how you have the patience for it all - but glad someone does!

The DisInfo Swarm sent one of their least talented into this thread and, with admirable diligence, set about to give the most transparent example ever of how a smear campaign attempts to get 'r done.

The requisite cheering squad even seemed a little daunted by the weakness of all that "lying computer" stuff.

Can this thread be permanently mounted on DU's homepage as a kind of museum exhibit/cautionary tale for all newcomers?

Thanks so much, again, sabrina. There is hope thanks to you.

[sabrina 1]

293. I had a feeling people would be following and I really did want to lead the way to complete exposure

of how a 'lies and smear campaign' is born. But I never, in my wildest dreams expected to strike gold so completely.

I do intend to use those exchanges in the future to demonstrate how it is done. I knew it WAS being done, but you have to have a certain mindset to actually be able to imagine the level of commitment to distortions and lies and smears that is required to actually engage in such campaigns. I am proud to have extracted so much evidence of how it is done, and to have had so much fun doing it. The cheering section was a bit flummoxed by the 'ABA computer' nonsense. Lol. Who wouldn't be?

As for patience, I spent my early online years duking it out with Bush loyalists and enjoyed every minute, much to their distress. It was like going to Political Forum Boot Camp so I developed a very useful thick skin, insults amuse me. Maybe I'm a little weird, but every once in a while I have nothing better to do, I thoroughly enjoy going back to the old days where I learned so much about these things.

[FredStembottom]

341. So sorry to be responding so late.....

Your cheerful response above didn't appear properly in my Postings section - so I missed it earlier.
Just wanted to say thank you for just being you. Sincerely.

What I have learned from you and your exchanges with Disinfo warriors is to look for the "frozen in amber" effect (among other things of course).
As some virulently promoted little side distraction is exposed as..... a little side distraction, the disinformer has no where else to go leading to a spiraling downward as they refuse to simply stop posting the original, stupid shiny object. Or even to just simply stop posting!

Very educational.

[sabrina 1]

342. Thanks, it was a very enlightening demonstration of how a smear

campaign is born.

[sabrina 1]

301. Just wanted to thank you for your thread which I just saw. It was locked I see, but I do appreciate

your support.

[myrna minx]

290. It was like watching a "Microsoft Office Smear Wizard" tutorial.

Is there an animated paperclip that says "It looks like you're smearing a journalist. Would you like help?"

Thanks again, Sabrina. I always appreciate what you have to say.

[sabrina 1]

294. Lol, you hit the nail on the head! That has conjured up a hilarious image for me. Thanks again Myrna

[Pholus]

291. That was an illuminating set of exchanges. Thank you! nt

[marions ghost]

292. K&R

sabrina 1

[PufPuf23]

295. kr

[grantcart]

297. So we can now quote GG that he admits he was "apathetic and passive" on THE most central

political question of the first decade of this century. Not sure how this helps him. In any case he still remains a marginal figure in important political issues.

The other issues, especially related to living in Brazil are completely unfair to him. Who cares that he wrote a couple of articles for Cato. Who he defended in court should not be an issue either. He may not be a libertarian but he is exceedingly generous in his writing to Ron Paul so it is easy to see why people would come to that conclusion.

[sabrina 1]

298. Honesty is always an admirable trait, don't you agree?? He obvioulsy wanted people to

quote him since at the time of his political awakening, way back in the early Bush years, he was an unknown private citizen. Without his decision to speak about what prompted him to spend the next several years slamming Bush and his polices in his own book, none of the smear mongers would even have known about it.

I always wondered why anyone would think that attacking someone for being voluntarily honest would somehow work to discredit them?? Can you explain that thinking?

It hasn't worked that way, even when the Right Wing morons attempted to use it against him during the Bush years. It had the opposite effect actually. causing people to admire his honesty and not think too kindly about the attempt to use that honesty against him.

When did we start thinking that honesty is a negative?

Re Ron Paul, one of the premier Liberal blogs Daily Kos, had in its mission statement, not sure if it's still there, that Left leaning Libertarians were welcome on the forum and specifically named Ron Paul as one Republican who opposed the war at the time.

Not sure why Ron Paul is such an issue, when we have Republicans like Clapper and Comey a very Conservative Republican, among others who actually supported Bush's wars etc in positions of power in a Democratic Administration.

When this President appoints Republican Paul to his cabinet, I will have something to say about it, as I have about all the others we threw out of power, for what thought was good reason.

[grantcart]

305. I agree

And Glenn Greenwald has made it perfectly clear that he is not interested in electoral politics and doesn't think it particularly helpful if the Democratic Party wins.

As I have said before neither a hero, a saint or a villain he is not a major political player. Everything about Snowden would have been published if not by the Guardian by someone else. I find the obsession with Greenwald another interesting diversion where people on both sides are significantly invested and intractable.

But you are correct when you and I and a lot of other people were in heated discussions about the Iraq War, GG was not particularly interested. I suffered significant business losses when those arguments blew up into shouting matches with clients about this needless war. If you can believe this I got into shouting matches with friends at a BUDDHIST temple where tons of people were apathetic and out of touch. And yet millions of people were upset, just not GG. OK fine but I find reading GG that he isn't the most intellectually honest writer, that he cherry picks his facts and presentation.

Again he has his positive contributions but is a guy who will not commit to a political strategy or party and looks down rather patronizingly at those who bother. I agree that a lot of the anti Greenwald hysteria is completely dishonest or unfair. But this is a community that is committed to electing real people to real positions in the political arena and in that context Greenwald is still, in his own words, "apathetic and passive".

[Jakes Progress]

300. Easy self-identification.

Anyone on DU who uses any of these frequently told lies has self-identified as:

1. Right wing troll,
2. Uninformed fool,
3. Blatant toady apologist who doesn't care about truth.

Of course they can also be any combination of the above.

(Sorry to post so late in the thread after some have self-identified in the replies above. They probably hoped that we would overlook or not notice their calling themselves out.)

[Maedhros]

304. Way to go Sabrina!

You've got the entire hyena pack ganging up on you in a battle of wits.

Too bad they came unarmed

[Octafish]

319. Great OP and thread, sabrina 1. N.G.U.

“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.” -- Mahatma Gandhi

[dreamnightwind]

337. K & R just to piss off the Greenwald attackers

Personally I don't care about him a whole lot, just like I don't care about Snowden. I do care about a runaway NSA domestic spying operation. It's a direct path to a totalitarian state, and we've gone too far down that road.

The intensity and doggedness of the Greenwald and Snowden smears is insane. Disruptive to the issue of NSA spying, IMO, serves no purpose other than to distract and disrupt. I can't believe these people spending so much of their time and effort to shoot the messengers are acting in good faith, makes me think of pizza.