Glenn Greenwald Moves to Close the Deal on Trump’s Election Help Quid Pro Quo

Two days ago, Glenn Greenwald started teasing a cable appearance where he was going to discuss — he claimed — the dangers an Assange extradition poses to press freedom. He was coy, however, about what outlet it was.

When he announced that his appearance had been postponed, he was again coy about what outlet this was.

The next day he described how “tyrannical” the hawkish civil servants who inhabit the Deep State are.

Last night, shortly before he went on, he revealed the cable outlet was Tucker Carlson’s show, which, he claimed, was “one of the few places on cable” where he could discuss the dangers of the prosecution of Julian Assange and the persecution of Edward Snowden. He excused his appearance on a white supremacist’s show by explaining that he cares more about having an opportunity to speak to “millions of Americans” about the “abuse of power by CIA/DOJ in persecuting those who expose the truth” than he does about the “sentiments of online liberals.”

Here’s the appearance, with my transcription to follow.

Tucker: WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange has been held in a high security prison since his arrest last spring in the Ecuadorian Embassy where he effectively was held for many years, in isolation. His extradition hearing is now finally under way. Assange’s lawyer estimates he could face 175 years in prison if he’s extradited to the United States. He faces Espionage charges here. WikiLeaks exposed all kinds of things, some of which it was good to know — including corruption by the Democratic National Committee in 2016. So what is the story on Julian Assange. Why is the DOJ pursuing this case so aggressively? Glenn Greenwald has followed this from the very beginning. He is of course a journalist, founded The Intercept. And we’re happy to have him tonight. So Glenn, thanks for coming on. I think a lot of people have heard for years that Julian Assange is a bad guy who hurt the United States, now the United States is going to bring justice in this case. What’s your view of this? Tell us what we should know, in 3 minutes, about Julian Assange.

Glenn: Let’s remember, Tucker, that the criminal investigation into Julian Assange began by the Obama Administration because in 2010 WikiLeaks published a slew of documents — none of which harmed anybody, not even the government claims that. That was very embarrassing to the Obama Administration. It revealed all kinds of abuses and lies that they were telling about these endless wars that the Pentagon and the CIA are determined to fight. They were embarrassing to Hillary Clinton, and so they conducted, they initiated a grand jury investigation to try and prosecute him for reporting to the public. He worked with the New York Times, the Guardian, to publish very embarrassing information about the endless war machine, about the Neocons who were working in the Obama Administration. To understand what’s happening here, we can look at a very similar case which is one that President Trump recently raised is the prosecution by the Obama Administration, as well, of Edward Snowden for the same reason — that he exposed the lies that James Clapper told, he exposed how there’s this massive spying system that the NSA and the CIA control, that they can use against American citizens. Obviously this isn’t coming from President Trump! He praised WikiLeaks in 2016 for informing the public. He knows, firsthand, how these spying systems that Edward Snowden exposed can be abused and were abused in 2016. This is coming from people who work in the CIA, who work in the Pentagon, who insist on endless war, and who believe that they’re a government unto themselves, more powerful than the President. I posted this weekend that there’s a speech from Dwight Eisenhower warning that this military industrial complex — what we now call the Deep State — is becoming more powerful than the President. Chuck Schumer warned right before President Obama — President Trump — took office that President Trump challenging the CIA was foolish because they have many ways to get back at anybody who impedes them. That’s what these cases are about Tucker, they’re punishing Julian Assange and trying to punish Edward Snowden for informing the public about things that they have the right to know about the Obama Administration. They’re basically saying to President Trump, “You don’t run the country even though you were elected. We do!” And they’re daring him to use his pardon power to put an end to these very abusive prosecutions. One which resulted in eight years of punishment for Julian Assange for telling the truth, the other which resulted in seven years of exile for Edward Snowden of being in Russia simply for informing the public and embarrassing political officials who are very powerful.

Tucker: So, in thirty seconds, the President could pardon Julian Assange right now, and end this. Is that correct?

Glenn: He could pardon him and Edward Snowden and there’s widespread support across the political spectrum on both the right and the left for doing both. It would be politically advantageous for the President. The only people who would be angry would be Susan Rice, John Brennan, Jim Comey, and James Clapper because they’re the ones who both of them exposed.

As has become the new norm for Glenn, there’s a lot that is exaggerated or simply made up in this rant (I’ve bolded the four main claims above):

  • It is not the case that the government claims no one was harmed by Assange’s releases (even assuming we’re limiting the discussion to those already charged, and ignoring Vault 7, where the government presented hours and hours of testimony on the subject). The government has repeatedly claimed they caused a great deal of harm, even if they have not released their damage assessments publicly.
  • The files that Assange has been charged for do include the first (in the case of the Afghan and Iraq War Logs) and the first two years of Obama’s term (in the case of Cablegate). They also include details about Guantanamo that were helpful to Obama’s failed efforts to shut down the gulag set up by Bush. The files did cause grave embarrassment to the Obama Administration, both for some policy stances (Yemen remains, to my mind, one of the most important disclosures), and because the Obama Administration had to explain how candid conversations could leak. But to the extent one wants to (as Glenn appears to) make this about tribalism, they exposed far more about the Bush Administration, and many of the policies exposed (like support for torture and Saudi Arabia) are policies Trump is more supportive of than Obama was.
  • Glenn insinuates that the spying systems revealed by Edward Snowden were abused in 2016. He suggests that Trump was targeted by them. Glenn has made this error before, in his invention-filled defense of Mike Flynn. But there is no relationship between Snowden’s disclosures of NSA programs and the FBI surveillance that caught Flynn incidentally or FBI’s FISA targeting of Carter Page. And the worst abuses on the Page targeting happened in 2017, under Trump. Crazier still, Trump himself is worse on surveillance issues than Obama was! He has had enemies targeted by contract spies to thwart a peace deal. His DOJ got a Title III warrant on a suspected leaker to capture evidence implicating the journalists he was leaking to. Various of his agencies have been purchasing location data to bypass a Supreme Court prohibition on warrantless surveillance of location. ICE and other agencies have ratcheted up earlier spying on immigrants and those who advocate for them. And Trump’s Attorney General — the guy who unilaterally approved the predecessor of the spying systems Snowden exposed — has said the government doesn’t need Section 215 (one authority Snowden exposed) to conduct the surveillance it had been using it for until March 15, 2020; the suspicion is Barr has resumed reliance on legal claims rejected in 2010. It is, frankly, insane for Glenn to suggest that Trump is better on surveillance than his predecessors.

And while WikiLeaks releases have been embarrassing in certain ways to John Brennan, Jim Comey, and (especially) James Clapper, I’m particularly astounded that Glenn claims that Susan Rice was “exposed” by the releases.

I checked. I found just three Cablegate releases involving Susan Rice. One discusses efforts to remain engaged in the Democratic Republic of Congo. One discusses a meeting between Rice, Dennis Ross, and Ban Ki-moon where Obama’s officials described wanting to establish a bilateral channel with Iran in pursuit of peace.

Ambassador Rice and Special Advisor for the Gulf and Southwest Asia Ambassador Dennis Ross on June 9 met with UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to explain key elements of U.S. diplomatic outreach to Iran and to hear Ban’s assessment. Ambassador Ross explained that President Obama in various fora and particularly from Cairo has made it clear that the USG will engage Iran without any preconditions.


Ambassador Ross said the USG values the P5 1 structure for dealing with Iran because it is a statement of the international community’s resolve to deal with the nuclear issue in a coordinated fashion, and he said the USG will be a full participant in the P5 1 structure. Despite its importance, Ambassador Ross said the USG aims to engage Iran bilaterally, because that would allow for a broader treatment of the issues, which is more difficult to achieve in a multilateral context.

And one describes Rice engaging with UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) Director for Gaza John Ging to learn how supporting infrastructure projects in Gaza would counter the growth of Hamas.

In an October 22 meeting with USUN Ambassador Susan Rice, UN Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process (UNSCO) Robert Serry and UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) Director for Gaza John Ging emphasized the need to restart essential infrastructure projects in Gaza, including shelters and schools. As a result of the Israeli “blockade,” both Serry and Ging noted that Hamas now controls Gaza’s tunnel-driven economy, increasing people’s dependency on Hamas. Ging described a population in Gaza suffering from massive physical devastation. He pointed out that while Hamas has all the cement it needs to build a new checkpoint near Erez, the UN cannot get the cement it needs to build a single school. Serry stressed the need for a new strategy on Gaza, suggesting that the current policy has only strengthened Hamas’ position.

In short, purported anti-imperialist Glenn Greenwald claims that Susan Rice was “exposed” because Cablegate revealed her involvement in efforts to make peace in Iran and Gaza.

But Glenn’s lies and exaggerations aren’t the craziest thing about this appearance.

The craziest thing about the appearance is that Glenn doesn’t talk about the danger to journalism of an Assange extradition.

What Glenn does instead of discussing the very real dangers that the Assange extradition poses to journalism is instead push Trump’s buttons — the very same buttons that Sergei Kislyak first started pushing on December 31, 2016, when he called Flynn to tell him that Putin had not retaliated against Obama’s sanctions because, in part, the sanctions were “targeted not only against Russia, but also the president elect.”

KISLYAK: I, I just wanted to tell you that our conversation was also taken into account in Moscow and …


KISLYAK: Your proposal that we need to act with cold heads, uh, is exactly what is uh, invested in the decision.


KISLYAK: And I just wanted to tel I you that we found that these actions have targeted not only against Russia, but also against the president elect.

FLYNN: yeah, yeah

KISLYAK: and and with all our rights to responds we have decided not to act now because, its because people are dissatisfied with the lost of elections and, and its very deplorable. So, so I just wanted to let you know that our conversation was taken with weight.

Glenn’s case — made in an appearance that was transparently an attempt to lobby the President directly — wasn’t about journalism. It was about sticking it to the “tyrannical” civil servants in the Deep State™ who had the audacity to try to protect the country from Russian interference. Glenn pitched this as one more way for Trump to damage Obama (which is presumably why Glenn falsely claimed that Obama was the most embarrassed by the disclosures), spitting out the names — Jim Comey, James Clapper, and Susan Rice’s tyrannical consideration of how to improve life in Gaza — that serve as triggers to the President.

And, remarkably, at a time when all the messaging of WikiLeaks supporters is focused on claiming that Trump has targeted Assange as part of his larger war on the press (a bullshit claim, but politically useful in an effort to mobilize press advocates in support of Assange), Glenn does the opposite, suggesting that Trump wants to pardon Assange (and Snowden), but the Deep State that Trump has been in charge of for 45 months, that Trump has purged of any disloyalty and much competence, is preventing him.

Of course, Tucker knows his audience of one, and so tees this up perfectly, reminding Trump of the only information Assange exposed that Trump cares about: Democratic emails that Russia released to help Trump get elected.

Seven days after the election, Trump’s rat-fucker, Roger Stone, started pursuing a pardon for Julian Assange. I’m increasingly convinced that effort started earlier, as part of Stone’s efforts to optimize the release of the emails in August 2016. Up until now, the overt signs of the effort to pay off Trump’s debt to Assange (and Russia) for help getting elected seemed to cease in 2018, after the nihilistic damage of the Vault 7 releases made such an effort increasingly toxic (and perhaps because the Mueller investigation made it legally dangerous).

But last night, Glenn Greenwald joined Tucker Carlson to renew the effort explicitly, claiming to defend press freedoms but instead pitching it as an opportunity to stick to to a Deep State™ that both Glenn and Trump have inflated so ridiculously that they prefer real tyranny to civil servants pursuing draconian measures within the dregs of law that Trump hasn’t already blown away.

For four years, this campaign debt has been hanging over Trump’s head. And Glenn Greenwald, pushing all the same buttons Russia did starting in 2016, last night moved to close the deal.

48 replies
  1. Rugger9 says:

    I think the Russian help is a given and the pardon for Assange is in the bag. But such deal making would be better done under wraps and Putin’s continuing interference has been well known for a very long time along with the curious inability of DJT or the GOP to criticize it much less do anything else like sanctions. It is also not clear to me what the pro quo is for this marker being called in that isn’t already known or being done, so what does Putin get especially when DJT loses?

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      Trump, like Roy Cohn, famously does not pay his bills. He thinks people owe him tribute. Assange or his friends would need powerful dirt on Trump – something that could hurt him, whether or not he “wins” re-election – before he would grant Assange a pardon.

        • RMD says:

          Republicans and Russia
          Excellent investigative work by Ruth May, Dallas News
          How Putin’s oligarchs funneled millions into GOP campaigns

          Campaign finance reports show troubling connections between a group of wealthy donors with ties to Russia and their political contributions to Trump and top Republican leaders.

          in related news:

          In 2018, eight Republican senators opted to spend the Fourth of July in Moscow, visiting a top U.S. adversary on the day of American independence and despite Russia’s denials of interfering in the 2016 presidential election.
          Those senators included Richard Shelby (AL), Steve Daines (MT), John Hoeven (ND), Ron Johnson (WI), John Kennedy (LA), Jerry Moran (KS), John Thune (SD), and Kay Granger (TX)

          Republicans and Russian influence

          Here’s a list of Republicans in office who are confirmed to have taken Russian money in 2016
          During the 2016 election cycle, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell used his Super PAC to accept $2.5 million dollars from the pro-Kremlin oligarch in question, putting him front and center of the influence the oligarch was trying to buy. Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker took $1 million from the same oligarch, which was highly suspicious for a Governor of a small state that ended up being shockingly won by Trump. Money also went to Ted Cruz, Lindsey Graham, John McCain, Marco Rubio, and John Kasich – but these were much smaller amounts and could be interpreted as covering bases rather than trying to buy any real influence. The broader concern is McConnell’s Super PAC and what he did with that money in 2016.

          and elsewhere:

          Senate Finds NRA Provided Russians Access To Republicans For Money

  2. earlofhuntingdon says:

    Glenn’s message is at odds with the views of those who tune in to bantamweight presidential contender Tucker Carlson. But he knew he was casting seeds onto stony ground. He was appealing to an audience of one, the guy whose DoJ was seeking the extradition he opposes. Glenn has become one of the Skywalkers who submitted, and went over to the dark side.

    • BobCon says:

      I’m not 100% convinced this is true, although I can’t rule out some quid pro quos.

      I think there are a number of people, possibly including Greenwald, at that end of the horseshoe who are acting out of perverse contrariness. Savonarola greased the skids for the crackdown by the Medicis, but he wasn’t on their side at all.

      History is full of egotistical purists who would rather burn down a whole neighborhood than let one less than perfect person live there.

    • DaveC says:

      There is a spectrum of assets from the intentional to the unwitting. Not that I’m much of a Greenwald watcher, but his motivation for this round of gas lighting is opaque to me. I don’t understand why he would have any loyalty to Assange. I agree with Marcy, Greenwald’s Carlson interview is a pitch to Trump on Assange’s behalf. I just can’t see how that helps Trump’s re-election prospects.

      • BobCon says:

        I have a somewhat easier time understanding Greenwald and Assange than Greenwald and Carlson. There’s a veneer to Assange that doesn’t even exist with Carlson.

        The line about Carlson being the only place he could go to speak freely pretty much lays out game. I don’t know if he’s cut any deals with Russians or their cutouts, but there is no question he has made an explicit deal with a vicious racist for airtime.

  3. Oxcart says:

    Thanks, Marcy. “Exposed” makes a warped kind of sense if you imagine how the president (and Carlson) would react, on a visceral level, to any mention of potentially constructive engagement with Gaza, Iran and the Democratic Republic of Congo. “Exposed: Deep State Negotiating With Terrorists and Africans!” Buttons whacked with a mallet.

  4. RMD says:

    Thank you, Marcy. I no longer have the willingness or interest required to unpack Greenwald’s prevarications.
    Used to read his polemics until it became abundantly clear that he is an anti-Democratic partisan, quite willing to ignore or misrepresent details that don’t fit his favored narrative…. shorter: dishonest.

    “When someone shows you who they are; believe them the first time”~ Maya Angelou

  5. Mulder says:

    Wondering if the pardon was involved when Stone said (in August ’16) that he had an idea to save the campaign but it wouldn’t be pretty…

      • Mulder says:

        From Politico 11/12/19
        …On Aug. 3, Stone sent an email to Manafort about the prospect of more damaging documents released about the Clinton campaign. “I have an idea … to save Trump’s ass,” Stone wrote to Manafort, his former ’80s-era lobbying partner whom he helped land a job atop the Trump campaign.

        Less than two weeks later, Stone reached out to Bannon. “I do know how to win this but it ain’t pretty,” he wrote Bannon, who had just been announced that day as the campaign’s newly hired CEO.

        …On Oct. 3, Stone discussed the document dumps with Erik Prince, an informal 2016 adviser whom he called in an email a “great American.” One day later, Stone and Bannon were exchanging messages about a much-hyped Assange news conference that ultimately revealed little about the activists’ plans.

        “What was that this morning?” Bannon wrote Stone in an email prosecutors had read in court.

        Stone replied: “Fear. Serious security concerns. He thinks they are going to kill him and the London police are standing done [sic]. However – a load every week going forward.”

        Bannon replied: “He didn’t cut deal w/ clintons???”…

        This Bannon reply always bugged me. Was there speculation that Assange was negotiating with HRC to stop the releases for…a pardon???

        And also wondering who carried Stone’s not “pretty plan” to Trump. Did he do it directly or did Bannon make the pitch?

  6. whackedupside says:

    This quote…

    “I posted this weekend that there’s a speech from Dwight Eisenhower warning that this military industrial complex — what we now call the Deep State — is becoming more powerful than the President. ”

    When did “we” start calling the military industrial complex the “Deep State”? To me, they are not synonymous, even if some of members of one are members of the other.

    I think most people believe that the “military industrial complex” exists, but I think the jury is still out on the “Deep State”. Is this an attempt to bring that idea from the folds of the conspiracy theorist wing into the mainstream?

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      There is a deep state, but as usual, Trump has it backwards. He uses the phrase to describe his political opponents inside government. His objective is to demonize them and government in general, not to accurately identify them, which would detract from his propaganda.

      Normally, the phrase principally refers to the wealthiest individuals, the corporations they control, and their senior courtiers, most of whom are outside government but exert substantial influence over it. The classic examples are the DuPonts and Rockefellers. Today, I would add the West Coast billionaires. Classic courtiers would include Henry Kissinger, Samuel Huntington, John J. McCloy, and Dean Rusk. Eugene “Revolving Door” Scalia is a contemporary example.

      The deep state’s membership ebbs and flows at the margins, and its members’ interests often conflict. But they coalesce around limited foreign and domestic policies. They exert considerable influence over these, whether in or out of government and regardless of which party holds power. That’s the attribute that led to the phrase.

    • Ginevra diBenci says:

      Greenwald seems to think he can co-opt Cold War history and just flip it for his self-serving purposes. Eisenhower’s military-industrial complex may have a Venn Diagram overlap with the, ahem, “deep state,” but ideologically the defense contractors who favored “endless wars” wound up at the Cheney end of the spectrum–alongside those craving tax cuts. To the extent that it exists, the deep state would seem to resist the ensuing compromises of national character and security. Greenwald’s just counting on the ignorance of his audience–of one.

    • ButteredToast says:

      I think “Deep State” originated as a term for the secular military establishment in post-Ottoman Turkey, which maintained its character and traditions regardless of the civilian government of the moment. The military threatened, sometimes explicitly,
      to intervene in civilian politics if leaders tried to change the Kemalist attributes of the state. I don’t know when/how the “Deep State” term came to be applied to U.S. intelligence. No doubt it’s so attractive for RW conspiracy theorists because it sounds sinister. So it’s a convenient catchall for anyone who dares to question the absolute powers of Trump over the executive branch. It’s sort of like how “draining the swamp” for the Trump cult has nothing to do with fighting corruption…it’s code for eliminating all the guardrails on him and the purging of anyone who doesn’t turn government institutions into his instruments.

      • earlofhuntingdon says:

        Bureaucratic elements of the deep state – in charge of programs that transcend individual administrations – sometime just want to get their work done, despite the incompetence, destructiveness, or laziness of political appointees.

        But the deep state is often sinister and virtually always unaccountable. John Foster Dulles, for example, wielded enormous influence over American foreign policy, as managing partner at Sullivan & Cromwell and as an informal adviser to Harry Truman, long before Eisenhower actually made him Secretary of State. He was proud of not drawing distinctions between his, his client’s and the state’s interests (1953 Iran, 1954 Guatemala).

        David Rockefeller wielded enormous influence over 1960s and ’70s American foreign policy. The Rockefeller Foundation was both training ground and sinecure for his courtiers. He heavily influenced the botched response to the 1979 Iranian revolution, owing to conflicts over his banking and oil interests. See, Dick Cheney;s oil baron advisers. Today, Rupert Murdoch controls the house of mirrors that has mesmerized and captured Donald Trump.

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      The deep state or deep politics can include the permanent bureaucracy, because it is often in unavoidable conflict with a succession of governments. That’s a cross-national phenomena well-known in China, France, and the UK, for example, as the British comedy, “Yes, Minister,” illustrates.

      As the Trump administration has shown, many political appointees know little and care less about the work of their departments, and focus entirely on self-promotion (Scott Pruitt, Ben Carson, Seema Verma). But while devaluing their government employees as careerists – like themselves, but underpaid – they rely on them to do all the work. The Trump model, as befits its patron, is to stop them from doing actual work.

      But I think emphasizing the bureaucracy’s role undervalues the influence of massive wealth. Like Rupert Murdoch, it operates outside of government, while, paradoxically, insisting it plays no role other than what one might read in a newspaper. The very definition of snark.

      • earlofhuntingdon says:

        This discussion of the deep state is elementary and, therefore, superficial. It’s taken from work by sociologists of power, such as C. Wright Mills and G. William Domhoff of UC Santa Cruz.

        Like an onion, it has many layers, some deeper, darker, and dirtier than others. Examples can be found in the work of Alfred McCoy, and in research into the CIA’s Family Jewels. But Trump has shown no evidence it is arrayed against him; rather, he is more likely to be wielding it.

  7. earlofhuntingdon says:

    Also note: when Lula — declared by Obama to be the world’s most successful leader — want to praise Assange & denounce his prosecution, he spoke with RT, because the pathological McCarthyite obsession with Russia doesn’t exist in rational countries: []

    — Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) September 11, 2020

    [Link bracketed.] I attach this quote from today’s Nakedcapitalism as a reminder that many disagree with bmaz about Assange, and that (inexplicably to me) lots of otherwise rational people think that GG – like Matt Taibbi and Aaron Mate – are brilliant.

    A Taibbi article that concluded the MSM was typically and madly over-reacting to the damage Louis DeJoy was causing at the USPS led more than one NC reader to exclaim that Taibbi was “a gift” to journalism, and that his coverage was “unique.” Ditto for much of GG and Mate’s work. It leaves me speechless.

    • soothsayer says:

      I understand your speechlessness, but for me, I just watch.

      Because, once you see and understand the intertwining of all of the below the line actors, decoys, setups, and dark long game plans of the right, you see these dupes for what they are. Actors in an oedipean play, metaphorically gauging out the eyes of their fellow citizens, so as to incestuously couple with machiavellian underworld figures and adversaries, all in a freudian dance to win at all cost. They are all a bit demented, to be honest with you. I feel no pity for them, just disgust at their inept attempts to hide their pathetic selfish greed.

    • soothsayer says:

      I may have exaggerated a wee bit with my last posts thoughts, obviously there are good people on the right. I think I have been a bit moody due to all the latest pungency in the news, so I apologize. I just wish the good people of conscience on the right would be less extinct than the dodo bird. If only they would stand up more when needed, and were not so afraid of mean tweets and could respond with “Tis but a flesh wound!”.

      p.s. Yes Prime Minister is the greatest political comedy ever, bar none.


      “Head of MI5: There was a lot of ridiculous press speculation at the time, suggesting Halstead was a spy. Totally unfounded of course.
      Jim Hacker: But he was a spy.
      Head of MI5: But they didn’t know that!”


      “Head of MI5: We can’t have unfounded, arrogant press speculation. That’s the last thing we want.
      Jim Hacker: Even if it’s accurate?
      Head of MI5: Oh, especially if it’s accurate.”


      “Bernard: You only need to know things on a need to know basis.
      Humphrey: I need to know everything. How else can I judge whether or not I need to know it?
      Bernard: So you need to know things, even when you don’t need to know them. You need to know them not because you need to know them, but because you need to know whether or not you need to know. And if you don’t need to know you still need to know so that you know that there was no need to know.”


      “Humphrey: Nuclear weapons are there to make people believe that Britain is defended.
      Bernard: The Russians?
      Humphrey: No, not the Russians, the British. The Russians know it’s not.”


      “Jim Hacker: May I clarify something? Who knows the Foreign Office secrets, apart from the Foreign Office?
      Bernard: That’s easy – only the Kremlin.”

      • soothsayer says:

        Ooh, I missed the “yes” response on the third dialogue, not as funny without it.

        Here is the whole thing:


        Bernard: You only need to know things on a need to know basis.

        Humphrey: I need to know everything. How else can I judge whether or not I need to know it?

        Bernard: So you need to know things, even when you don’t need to know them. You need to know them not because you need to know them, but because you need to know whether or not you need to know. And if you don’t need to know you still need to know so that you know that there was no need to know.

        Humphrey: Yes!

  8. ButteredToast says:

    Spot-on analysis. Of course Greenwald, in hitting all the key names on the “Deep State” bingo card, also mentioned Hillary Clinton. Only surprised that he didn’t find a way to work Biden into it.

  9. GKJames says:

    For Greenwald, aren’t Clinton and the DNC his perpetual targets? Since 2016, he’s pushed the leak-not-a-hack theory, the “Russia hoax,” and the idea that, among the technocrats in the bowels of the ship, there is no difference between Dems and Republicans (but that Democrats’ hypocrisy is worse). Four years on, “Deep State” is merely the new label, likely because the market has moved on.

  10. Manuel Gonzalez says:

    Thank you, Marcy. I no longer will visit/read/donate to The Intercept until Mr. Pierre Omidyar does something that helps his co-founding editor to discern between his epistemology as a journalist and his lobbying interests. I AM thankful to the younger version of Glenn who shared, early on, how his path from legal work to investigative journalism was inspired by you.

    • bmaz says:

      Hi there. There are a lot of very good journalists at The Intercept. Who is your “younger version of Glenn” you speak of?

      Are you familiar with Ryan Devereaux? Liliana Segura? Ali Ghraib? Aida Chavez? Murtaza Hussain? Andrea Jones? Jordan Smith? John Schwartz?

      How about Jim Risen? Seriously, you just summarily dismiss The Intercept like it is Breitbart or the Daily Caller or something? Is that your posit Manuel?

      • whackedupside says:

        My “younger” version of Glenn was when he was at Salon and covered the targeted execution of Anwar al-Awlaki and seemed to be driven by the need to challenge abuses by authoritarian governments instead of being an apologist for them.

        Perhaps I was naive.

      • Manuel Gonzalez says:

        Thanks bmaz, I have ordered the one publication available online written by any of the 9ea. journalists you recommended and requested a cue pre-order alert for any publication release by the other 8ea. Yes,it is a cynical* decision but one taken after studying Emptywheel’s analysis of NYT’s immoral version of “editorial wisdom” during the days of the Mueller investigation and wishing Mr. Omidyar had done more to keep Marcy’s compass defining this First Look Media project. I simply redirected my attention trying to make sense of the imperceptible way in which those with power over me are filtering. Today, more than ever I am convinced that “the medium IS the message”.*
        “Not known, because not looked for
        But heard, half-heard, in the stillness
        Between two waves of the sea.”
        Ts. Elliot

  11. harpie says:

    […] Greenwald joined Tucker Carlson to renew the [Roger Stone pardon for Assange] effort explicitly, claiming to defend press freedoms but instead pitching it as an opportunity to stick to to a Deep State™ that both Glenn and Trump have inflated so ridiculously […]

    1] Ric Hasan retweeted this, today:
    Roger Stone calls for Trump to seize total power if he loses the election
    Stone also said federal authorities should seize all Nevada ballots, federal agents and GOP state officials should “physically” block voting, that Trump should nationalize police forces, and that Trump should order widespread arrests 09/11/20

    […] Stone also urged Trump to consider declaring “martial law” or invoking the Insurrection Act and then using his powers to arrest Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Apple CEO Tim Cook, “the Clintons” and “anybody else who can be proven to be involved in illegal activity.” […]

    1:38 PM · Sep 10, 2020

    The Oathkeepers, a far-right militia group, has been banned by Twitter.

    They recently tweeted there’ll be “open warfare against the Marxist insurrectionists by election night, no matter what you do” and “Civil War is here, right now.” Its founder Stewart Rhodes is also banned.

    3] https:// [Aaron Rupar link broken here]
    4:08 PM · Sep 12, 2020

    Trump on what he’ll do if there are threats of riots on election night: “We’ll put them down very quickly … it’s called insurrection.” [VIDEO]

    • harpie says:

      […] QAnon purveys the fantasy that a secret Satan-worshiping cabal is taking over the world. Its members kidnap white children, keep them in secret prisons run by pedophiles, slaughter, and eat them to gain power from the essence in their blood. The cabal held the American Presidency under the Clintons and Obama, nearly took power again in 2016, and lurks in a “Deep State” financed by Jews, including George Soros, and in Jews who control the media. They want to disarm citizens and defund the police. They promote abortion, transgender rights, and homosexuality. They want open borders so brown illegal aliens can invade America and mongrelize the white race.

      QAnon true believers think Donald Trump will rescue America from this Satanic cabal. At the time of “The Storm,” supporters of the cabal will be rounded up and executed. […]

      That’s from:
      QAnon is a Nazi Cult, Rebranded
      Gregory Stanton September 9, 2020

      • P J Evans says:

        Some of that goes back to the Middle Ages, and maybe long before. That’s the “blood libel”, right there: killing young children and drinking their blood.

  12. Chris.EL says:

    Northern California, September 12, 2020, 18:30.

    lacking the background, intellect, and fundamental juice to engage in all that has preceded this, I still have to say: there seems to be a need to figure this out.

    For many years Russia has had its sovereign eye on the western coast of north America, true?

    Now that coast has been hit with a myriad of assaults: black lives matter protests, put down by counter protests of more than one opposition (right wing, USGovt., Home Land security, etc.)

    So, that kinda fizzled, then just about the entire west coast of North America IS NOW ON FIRE!!!!!!!!!




    Isn’t this peculiar???

    It also strikes me that our military can’t hold any respect for this “president” yet they are honor bound to go out and fight, defend the *United States of America*, with him as commander in chief.

    Just can’t understand how this can be a concurrent goal.
    From NYMag
    “Trump’s Lawyer Working With Active Russian Agent to Smear Biden”
    By Jonathan Chait
    …”So Trump’s lawyer is working directly with a Russian agent. But apparently it’s okay because Derkach didn’t introduce himself as a Russian agent?” …

    • PhoneInducedPinkEye says:

      Climate change is responsible for the increase in severe fires, and I think Ukraine and former east block countries have more reason to be concerned about Russian invasions than the west coast.

  13. earlofhuntingdon says:

    Donald Trump claims that Joe Biden is taking drugs. Presumably, he means performance enhancers, not aspirin or seaweed supplements.

    That means Trump is afraid some reporter has slipped the veal pen and had a virtual peak inside his medicine cabinet. It’s probably as full – and the same size – as a Maytag refrigerator on Superbowl Sunday.

  14. soothsayer says:

    This is well reviewed Marcy, as usual.

    I also think spot on and close to on the nose to impugn his actual intentions.

  15. Max404 says:

    protagonismo m (plural protagonismi)

    self-advertisement, desire to be the centre of attention

    (The Italian protagonismo, not the Spanish.)

    Perhaps Glen, having tasted mega-stardom thanks to the Snowden nod, is just not satisfied with his life back in the somewhat lower tiers of reporting/commenting. And then Woodward is back again, big time. Ouch.

  16. Matthew Harris says:

    It just occurred to me that the entire history of the Trump Administration isn’t waiting for its Woodward and Bernstein, a journalist to blow open the story.

    It is waiting for its Hannah Arendt, to explain on a deep level what is wrong with these people.

    With Glenn Greenwald, I think that he started out being smarter than many people around him, and he took that position for granted. When things started happening outside of his worldview, he couldn’t adjust. People who know things that he doesn’t (which includes just about everyone at this point) are full of McCarthyite hysteria, and he keeps on repeating lines like that, thinking they mean he has some special insight.

    At this point, I don’t think Glenn Greenwald knows the difference between a truth and a lie. Well, he knows them just well enough to know that defending lies is a better way to prove himself clever.

Comments are closed.