OK, I can’t let this go unanswered. Glenn has too big of an audience to allow him to mislead his followers with this garbage, so let me walk you all through this.
Fact: most of the relevant statutes do not clearly contemplate prosecution for inadvertent or accidental
mishandling of classified information. Even the statutes that do arguably do not apply to constitutional officers, which is what Trump was as POTUS and Biden was as VPOTUS and a Senator.
Fact: there has never been, to my knowledge, a prosecution for accidental mishandling.
It’s not because it couldn’t be done. DOJ declines to do it. Why? Because for most instances it involves a non-constitutional officer who has a security clearance that can be revoked, so DOJ is happy to just let the relevant agency move to administratively revoke. Why?
There is a certain brilliance to the work of @ggreenwald - you don’t have to build anything. You’re never accountable to anyone. You don’t govern anything.
You just spend your time critiquing. That’s it. And that’s fine. That’s what a free press does.
But when Glenn expresses
shock that others might not go along with his holier-than-thou approach to things, it’s because some of us have been on the other side. We have been accountable. We have had to make tough decisions. We have had obligations to clients who don’t simply want to be martyrs.
So yes, Glenn is within his rights to say dissent against Ukraine is lawful. No one is saying it’s not. But he is also a self-absorbed narcissist smearing anyone who questions his approach as a tool of western media who should be fighting against more aid to Ukraine.
So there is one interesting nugget. Employment was offered to induce a witness to conceal information from the Committee.
Moment in history: criminal referral against a former President. Mind you, this is largely for historical relevance only. DOJ is already deep in the weeds of a grand jury probe on Trump and J6. They don’t need this referral.
So I’ve read the whole piece. Let’s address a few things.
One, yes, DHS is expanding its reach in a way that is concerning. Policing information in the public sphere is a tricky thing to do without running roughshod over the First Amendment, and the government is not who I want
At the same time, the government does have a legitimate and compelling interest in combatting misinformation designed to deprive others of their rights and obstruct the administration of government. So it’s not like there are no reasons
for them to be involved here.
Two, what this article shows at its core is that major social media and technology platforms - GASP - talk a lot with government officials. Did you all think that didn’t happen? Every major platform like this has constant contact with local, state,
So let’s get a few things straight: the attack on Rubio’s canvasser was immediately denounced by democrats. You didn’t see Democrats - particularly major party leaders - stoking fury among its base about the actions of canvassers.
against local organizers and major Democratic party leaders, saying they’re mules, they’re scum, they’re pushing a massive illegal scam to steal the election, etc. Conservative media figures are playing footsie with Qanon and Oath Keeper freaks. You don’t see Democratic
party leaders hosting documentaries by Antifa leaders as a means to prove to activists there is a conspiratorial scheme to steal the election. Trump and his ilk have been doing that kind of thing. And he still is the party leader. Sorry, but he is.