Attention Federal Employees: If You See Something, Leak Something
theintercept.com
theintercept.com
Admittedly, they are seeking input from disaffected people at a time when Republicans hold the presidency and both houses of Congress, but it seems they are so completely biased they think their examples are "non-partisan."
On a personal level, Greenwald probably is somewhere between liberal and libertarian, but I'm quite sure he's neither Democrat nor Republican, and just as sure he favors neither "team" in his reporting.
They're (imo) a bit on the tinfoil hat side of reporting, but they're hardly partisan. The simple fact is that now the administration is Republican, so any comments on the current administration are going to be about a Republican administration.
"Becoming a whistleblower is not an easy decision, but sometimes it is the right thing to do."
https://www.democracynow.org/2016/9/14/obamas_war_on_whistle...
http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/10/09/mouths-wide-shut-obam...
Did the "nonprofit, nonpartisan" Intercept publish similar instructions over the last 8 years? For a "journalistic piece" it's odd there is no author of the article. They don't have any contact links beside an onion address and a PO Box.
Who funds the Intercept anyway?
I think Greenwald, a self described liberal, has been fair in calling out other liberals in their hypocrisy, especially the Obama admin.
http://www.alternet.org/glenn-greenwald-remember-when-obama-...
So the answer to your question is "No, but...".
Pierre Omidyar funded The Intercept. He got wealthy as the founder of eBay.
The intercpt, and glen greenwald, were a thorn in the obama administration's side with their reporting. Now they intend to be a thorn in Trump's side. That sounds non-partisan, at least in the sense of republican and democrat, to me.
It gave Breitbart a happy:
http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/01/02/greenwald-wapo-stor...
And debate schedules purposely designed by DWS to keep them off of prime time TV.
I don't like Trump, but I'm glad he won; the DNC and Clinton needed a lesson taught.
That's a bit like complaining that I only invite my friends to my birthday party.
You're doing a really, really good job of making my point for me. I suspect the Democrats aren't all that moved by the argument "Trump supporters should be allowed to help pick the Democratic nominee!"
I'm not a Trump supporter; I voted against Clinton, and my vote was first to Sanders. I'm happy with my vote; Trump winning has galvanized progressive coalitions in a way that wouldn't have happened if Clinton had won.
Establishment Democrats who aren't progressive enough need to die off faster. Then the Demoractic party might run candidates worth voting for.
Shouldn't the republicans be taught some lesson as well?
Actively fighting him provided them no purchase; the (republican) public still won.
(video of "democracy" at the NV caucus)
Was it "rigging"? That depends on your interpretation, but it obviously wasn't a functioning democracy.
My experience under the Reagan, Bush1, Clinton, Bush2, and Obama administrations leads me to believe that there is plenty of misconduct on both sides of the aisle that should be exposed. You don't have to look very hard to find examples - it just takes listening a little bit to the other side occasionally, and not automatically disregarding everything they say.
It looks to me like the party that abuses power more is the party that has more of it at the time.
And yes, the Republicans have a worrisome amount of power at this time, so there is a lot of discussion on those potential abuses. The apocalyptic rhetoric is very similar (but of opposite polarity) to that in 2009 and other times, back at least to 1993.
Misinformed statements like these are what somewhat dismissive of democracy. If you would have put in the slightest bit of effort and done some research instead of spouting off the first thing that came to your mind. If you don't want to do the research, you don't have to have a strong opinion on things that you have little domain knowledge in. He is especially dubious of Russia's involvement in election hacking and deems it a sideshow.
Read something, anything written by Glenn Greenwald in the past 4 years. There is probably no greater, substantive critic of Obama The Drone reports would be an excellent start.
> If President Trump tries to turn public institutions against the people they are intended to protect and serve, then leaking will be more important than ever.
This is a conflicted statement. Whistle blowing, or leaking if you must, is always important and should not be weighed on a single individual's threat to the people. It is always important to report a biased judgement against others, but the importance should not be indicated in the same breath as stating "if" someone does something it's "more" important.
This "twist" in conflicted logic in the statement makes it a blaming statement against Trump, which might indicate it's biased. That's not to say Trump isn't biased, but that's another problem entirely.
Is this going to be the "birther movement" equivalent against trump?
Stop extrapolating from singular data points to a preconceived conclusion.
Put forth a falsefiable hypothesis, and weigh all available evidence. Dont allow prejudice to select the sources of that data.
There is your evidence since it was to much to ask you to read the article.
Any two analogous subjects in the entire universe can be demonstrated to be similar, as well as demonstrated to be different. That is the inherent nature of similarity and analogy. If two analogous subjects were in fact identical in every way, they would cease to be two distinct entities, as they would be identical.
In which jurisdiction of The United States of America is it "clearly lawful" to grab women by their genitalia without their consent?
What evidence lead you to conclude that I did not read the article?
How have you arrived at the unequivocal primacy of your own ideas?
That is consent.
Please point out this binary nature in my post. It's not there. You are the one reading with your bias goggles on. I'm pointing out that the article made a strong case for the need of leaks in actual cases on government abuse. Then they undermine their case by including targeted "hit pieces" as useful leaks. If it was unbias then where was the Hillary email leaks? Oh that's right, it again was something targeted to undermine and not to show the value of whistle blowers.
f^&k journalists! they will sell you down the river, ignore your side of the story and lie lie lie
/posting from throwaway account
There is wikileaks and him, Glenn Greenwald, who at least to us seem to be fair (dare I say honest?) journalists.
That sounds to me as no better than if some reporter had uncovered the criminality of one single company and now assumes all companies are criminal.
I understand that you feel you've been wronged in this situation, and have very strong feelings about it, but can't you try to be a just a little more objective?
The entire site reads like an anti-trump ad : https://theintercept.com/
What is more important, the content of a private conversation between two people off-camera, or drone strikes? Or is the content of such private conversation more important than say, keeping a private server for government business and outside of official records?
Trump's admission of grabbing woman by their genitalia was a conversation he assumed would remain private. Podesta's emails were conversations he assumed would remain private. Yet, the naked partisans of our country somehow see the subject matter of one as the the important take away, while the method of acquisition as the distraction. Those same naked partisans, without any modicum of irony see the other matter in the complete opposite terms: the method of acquisition is paramount, and absolves the content discovered.
Por que no las dos?