No. No it is not. That's Just Wrong, Glenn.
It really wouldn't be to protect Democrats in any case, since the $40 million SBF gave them is all adequately reported without a need for a criminal trial, whereas the at least $40 million he gave to Republicans, as he helpfully explained https://time.com/6241262/sam-bankman-fried-political-donations/, was not: “All my Republican donations were dark,” he said, referring to political donations that are not publicly disclosed in FEC filings. “The reason was not for regulatory reasons, it’s because reporters freak the f—k out if you donate to Republicans.”
Wow, how shocking that the staggeringly racist account would be a fan of Greenwald.
I appreciate you linking the relevant documents, so we don’t have to hunt them down.
“blinding hatred of the Democratic establishment and U.S. Department of Justice.”
At the risk of acting as an amateur psychologist, I think this is the most plausible recognition. Greenwald has over the last several years gone through what appears to be a very public mental breakdown.
From a viewpoint based on pure speculation, I think he carries enormous guilt for having contributed to Snowden’s permanent exile. An outcome he presumed would be averted because Democrats would pardon Snowden.
I think it’s tremendously sad. His writing, while always pedantic, was powerful and well-reasoned.
These days Grima says whatever his FSB handler tells him to say.
This: "Now, though, he’s more like his braying followers, portraying the rule of law as some effeminate sigil of the decline of America."
Sigil is a fine word and will bear repeating. Not used nearly enough, in my humble opinion, and I rejoiced to encounter. Thanks muchly.
I hadn't checked his feed in a while and ... just wow. He has gone so far in with the nutter crowd it's unbelievable. And sad.
A common feature of conspiracy theories is that if you get 95% of the way to doing something, somehow it becomes more compelling evidence that you never, ever meant to do the thing than if you had done 0%. As Ken says, campaign finance violations are the very least of what SBF stands accused of, and if the Feds had ignored that aspect and simply indicted him on a bazillion charges of defrauding the public no one would have said boo. But since they tried to indict him on that, and only backed down at the last minute, it must have been a sham all along.
There are probably plenty of political issues the US would deem important enough to strongarm the Bahamas over. This one isn't in the top 1000 though. It's not the anthill anyone should die on.
Let's see … in the world according to Glenn Greenwald, the US has the imperialist power to bend the Bahamas to its will over some minor detail of SBF's indictment. But the US has no power to speed up the l*o*n*g extradition process of Julian Assange, even though it desperately wants to give Assange a one-way ticket to SuperMax.
Even when I generally agreed with Greenwald's conclusions back in the day, I could never stand him. His prosecutor's self-righteous tone was always grating, no matter which side of the debate you're on.
Ken, awesome article. A side issue. Had an hour-long friendly conversation with a Trump supporter. What I learned is that this nice guy’s views were formed by Fox News. And he was totally vague in what he heard and now thought. For example, “Everybody keeps US secret documents, they’re all the same, why is Biden exempt but not Trump”. My point is, Glenn is still successful at undermining Biden and all Democrats by his lame assertions and his use of the “Soros” word. This person taught me that all anyone on Fox has to do is assert anything, then mention Soros for a vague “bankman-fried-corrupt-Democrats-Hunterlaptop-JoeBiden” thought to take hold. Your essay is important for those not locked into Fox thought. For everyone else, we’ll, I am despondent.
Two Ken articles in a week? Must be Christmas! Appreciate the informative posts.
As usual, Popehat brings receipts. Love it!
Man, that's a herculean number of words when "This guy Glenn takes Joe Rogan seriously" would suffice.
It seems obvious that GG, absolute loon/fellow traveler of Bolsonaro that he is, isn't saying "The US was bullied by the Bahamas!" or "I think the US should break its extradition treaty with the Bahamas." It's "The US has never had a problem breaking international law, why didn't they here?"
I guess Glenn must be a fan of SBF, and doesn't think he should be prosecuted for any crime because he's a smart guy, right?
Wrong, Glenn. Our need to prosecute SBF is not outweighed by the fact that we have to abide by certain provisions of a treaty signed in good faith by both parties.
Or else we'd be going back to those days when rendition was legal and the CIA put people in prisons in foreign countries because we could.
Besides, there are plenty of other charges that he was extradited on that will more than likely (if he is convicted) put him in prison for more than a few years.
And that's without breaking any treaties at all.
I used to respect Greenwald but somewhere along the line he became a fan of Faux 'News' and drank all their kool aid. Too bad. He used to be a good journalist.
I don't care what the former President of the United States says (or the people who tell him things), but you, not he, have a better ability to "...know words, and have the best words."
Furthermore, your podcast with Josh proves you also better pronounce those best words, as well as others, better than the self-designated 'champeen of words.'
Lawyer Ken, you've also proven to have greater alacrity with longer words compared to the former President's championship level of monosylabic "best" ones.
BTW - if you have not yet done so, view the short-lived 2017 legal mockumentary series, "Trial & Error," with John Lithgow.
It gives great insight to your continual admonition for we in need of a Defense Atty to shut the fuque up once charged with a crime.
Mr. Lithgow's character, Larry Henderson, continually offers incriminating "words" for the best reasons about his involvement with the crime.