23-02-2018, 05:09 PM
That was an interesting debate between Greenwald and Risen, though they spent a lot of time arguing about the meaning of the word "treason." Note that Greenwald concedes:
[FONT=&]GG:[/FONT][FONT=&] "The idea that I ever thought or said that it was a hoax that Russia was meddling in the election is completely false. I never said anything like that…On the question of Trump lying, there's no question Trump and lots of people have repeatedly lied about the core questions of this case, their meeting with Russian officials, and a whole bunch of other related issues."
[/FONT]
But then he falls back on this argument: "What I've said from the beginning is the same thing that I say now, which is that the lesson of the Iraq war for sure, when, you know, it seemed like there was a whole bunch of evidence because it was appearing on the front page of the New York Times quoting foreign officials and intelligence officials with not-firsthand knowledge and all of that about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and his alliance with al Qaeda, the lesson is that we shouldn't believe claims from the U.S. government absent convincing evidence. Meaning not anonymous sources inside of governments making assertions without underlying corroboration, but actual tangible evidence that we can see and assess for ourselves in order to make that assessment."
Personally, I never believed the Saddam/WMD claims for a moment. I didn't need to rely on the government's "evidence," either. I could see for myself that the circumstantial evidence didn't support it. A country that was under 24/7 surveillance since 1990 (by the US, Israel, the UN and others) couldn't possibly rebuild and hide any WMD program. A nuclear weapons program can't be hidden in the basement of a factory. And when the UN weapons inspectors spent months in Iraq in late 2002/early 2003 and FOUND NOTHING, that pretty much sealed the deal.
The Trump-Russia case is entirely different. The circumstantial evidence is just overwhelming, as I've posted in other threads. You don't need to be a software/hacking expert (which I am not) to observe the public behavior (and now-available text messages and emails) of various people and determine that they were receiving stolen DNC emails and happily distributing them. If Seth Rich had really leaked the emails to Assange, by now Assange would have put forth the evidence to prove it. It would be very easy to do.
Additionally, Greenwald mimics the Trump party line by giving us this idiocy: "That they were also supportive of Bernie Sanders, of Jill Stein, that they were really interested in sowing division. That was the motive that they had attributed to the people that they indicted."
Greenwald is smarter than that. He knows that the Russians supported anyone and everyone who might damage or destroy HRC's campaign. Sanders could at least damage Clinton in the primaries, and maybe even take the nomination from her. Jill Stein drew leftist voters away from her in the general election. In fact, if all of Stein's voters had picked Clinton in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan, Clinton would have won all three states and the electoral college. This is not rocket surgery, Glenn.
[FONT=&]GG:[/FONT][FONT=&] "The idea that I ever thought or said that it was a hoax that Russia was meddling in the election is completely false. I never said anything like that…On the question of Trump lying, there's no question Trump and lots of people have repeatedly lied about the core questions of this case, their meeting with Russian officials, and a whole bunch of other related issues."
[/FONT]
But then he falls back on this argument: "What I've said from the beginning is the same thing that I say now, which is that the lesson of the Iraq war for sure, when, you know, it seemed like there was a whole bunch of evidence because it was appearing on the front page of the New York Times quoting foreign officials and intelligence officials with not-firsthand knowledge and all of that about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and his alliance with al Qaeda, the lesson is that we shouldn't believe claims from the U.S. government absent convincing evidence. Meaning not anonymous sources inside of governments making assertions without underlying corroboration, but actual tangible evidence that we can see and assess for ourselves in order to make that assessment."
Personally, I never believed the Saddam/WMD claims for a moment. I didn't need to rely on the government's "evidence," either. I could see for myself that the circumstantial evidence didn't support it. A country that was under 24/7 surveillance since 1990 (by the US, Israel, the UN and others) couldn't possibly rebuild and hide any WMD program. A nuclear weapons program can't be hidden in the basement of a factory. And when the UN weapons inspectors spent months in Iraq in late 2002/early 2003 and FOUND NOTHING, that pretty much sealed the deal.
The Trump-Russia case is entirely different. The circumstantial evidence is just overwhelming, as I've posted in other threads. You don't need to be a software/hacking expert (which I am not) to observe the public behavior (and now-available text messages and emails) of various people and determine that they were receiving stolen DNC emails and happily distributing them. If Seth Rich had really leaked the emails to Assange, by now Assange would have put forth the evidence to prove it. It would be very easy to do.
Additionally, Greenwald mimics the Trump party line by giving us this idiocy: "That they were also supportive of Bernie Sanders, of Jill Stein, that they were really interested in sowing division. That was the motive that they had attributed to the people that they indicted."
Greenwald is smarter than that. He knows that the Russians supported anyone and everyone who might damage or destroy HRC's campaign. Sanders could at least damage Clinton in the primaries, and maybe even take the nomination from her. Jill Stein drew leftist voters away from her in the general election. In fact, if all of Stein's voters had picked Clinton in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan, Clinton would have won all three states and the electoral college. This is not rocket surgery, Glenn.