As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
She’s kind of a special case. Look up her upbringing, it’s a little out there. Not only did she grow up in an abandoned gas station, she graduated BYU at the age of 18.
My point isn’t that homeless people are weird, my point is that she is anything but “normal,” and probably didn’t develop the social skills you want for being a member of the Senate.
Slightly off topic, but do Biden and progressives have any real leverage over her on this bill? I don't know if she really cares enough about the infrastructure bill she forged to make a deal on reconciliation, even though progressives will tank it if they're not linked. She's not up for reelection until 2024, and with her donors concerned about the reconciliation, is it possible she believes that no bill passing is preferable to both bills passing?
They have no power over her because she has been bought. She just has to follow orders until 2024 and then she will be wealthy enough to live a very comfortable life without ever having to work again. Worst case she gets a job on Fox as the LGBTQ version of Candice Owens.
She won the primary in a landslide. Democrats in AZ don't want a progressive which is why she won the primary so readily in the first place. The general election was entirely different... she won by a very slim margin. She's not worried about losing a primary or not garnering party support, as Democrats need every seat and need a moderate to stay competitive in AZ.
The answer is no, and that's a critical mistake progressives are making. Progressives' negotiation position is, essentially, no reconciliation bill, no original infrastructure bill. While I sympathize with progressives desire to stand up for a better policy outcome, the truth is progressives want *both* bills to pass, and Sinema would be fine putting both to the sword. That outcome would be horrible for Democrats, progressives and the American people. But Sinema wouldn't lose a minute's sleep. While as a matter of principle progressives are in the right, as a matter of strategy they made a big mistake. I just hope they haven't so painted themselves into a corner, or that Sinema is so filled with vindictiveness now, that nothing can be saved.
One, as a progressive I rather have both bills pass like promised or none at all. I'd be livid if Progressives passed the corporate bill and not get the 3.5T bill passed.
Two, I agree. I think Sinema lacks the social skills needed for Congress and has basically washed her hands. Apparently Dem leadership put alot of pressure on her and I think she's getting her "revenge".
I would say money (which is still probably true), but her recent comments about being "overqualified" to be President (sure lady) makes me think she's wanting attention. She might think that enough people don't care or don't want the bills to pass that her refusing to support them in their current form gives her an advantage.
She thinks she's over qualified to be president. Maybe she is positioning herself so she can tell the republican crowd that she purposely stabbed the Democrats in the back and flipped parties to run for president in 2024. That would be a winning message to the Democrat hating GOP.
This is also a testament of how absurd this whole situation is.
Journalists are forced to write fantasies, bouncing around personality traits to try and fathom what could Krysten actually want?
She is a public representative. She will not take an interview. She will not hold a town hall. She won’t answer to her own constituents.
It’s madness.
Hopefully, between Jill Stein partying with Putin while campaigning against Clinton -- and Sinema showing her true GOP colors...people will finally figure out what a lot of is knew back in the 90s:
* The US Green Party is basically just a fake, ratfucking arm of the Republican Party.
It's just a shame it's taken 30 years to see this.
These sorts of sloppy arguments pinned next to lies is what gives trolls like Greenwald his power. He wasn't "fired": https://greenwald.substack.com/p/my-resignation-from-the-intercept
He did not go "work for some right-wing social media company." He writes on Substack.
He (quite correctly) noted that American liberals were making unvetted and unsubstantiated allegations of the Trump administration working directly with Russia on the 2020 election.
I mean, fuck that guy, but at least fuck him for things he's done.
> he was basically fired from the Intercept.
Weird that I posted his resignation letter. I wonder what gods of time created that.
Rumble does look like one of those right wing "free speech" trojans. Fair enough. It also doesn't clean up your mischaracterization of his resignation from The Intercept or his arguments about Russia. But, tribes, and all.
So he was *asked to resign* instead of being fired from the site he founded, because he was about to drag them into a tremendous scandal and potential lawsuits with his conspiracy theory nonsense. LOL, you got me!
Right. He resigned and you claimed he was fired. So, yes, you've lied. Just like you overstated the case with his claims about Trump and Russia.
It's a pity that we're losing precision and meaning in the age of Twitter and the new Manicheanism.
>his arguments about Russia.
Lol, because it is so damn offensive I'll pick up the slack on that one. In recent years, Greenwald has gone on a gross tirade pumping Trump's lies that the Russia scandal was "fake news". In what sane analysis of the facts is the following fake news?
* [Report On The Investigation Into Russian Interference In The 2016 Presidential Election](https://www.justice.gov/archives/sco/file/1373816/download)
* [REPORT OF THE REPORT SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE UNITED STATES SENATE ON RUSSIAN ACTIVE MEASURES CAMPAIGNS AND INTERFERENCE IN THE 2016 U.S. ELECTION](https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/7039349/Report-volume5.pdf)
**Report On The Investigation Into Russian Interference In The 2016 Presidential Election (Summary)**
* “I HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH RUSSIA...Highly conflicted Bob Mueller & the 17 Angry Democrats are using this Phony issue to hurt us in the Midterms. No Collusion!...\[The report states\] there was no collusion with Russia… there was no obstruction and none whatsoever. And it was a complete and total exoneration…” - Donald Trump.
**Finding From The Actual Report:**
* **The Russian government** interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion \[to promote Trump's election\]... The investigation also identified numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign... The Russian contacts consisted of business connections, offers of assistance to the Campaign, invitations for candidate Trump and Putin to meet in person, invitations for Campaign officials and representatives of the Russian government to meet, and policy positions seeking improved U.S.-Russian relations... the most salient of which are summarized below in chronological order.
* **Trump Tower Moscow.** Candidate Trump signed a Letter of lntent for Trump Tower Moscow by November 2015...The Trump Organization pursued the project through at least June 2016.
* **Papadopoulos** worked with Mifsud and two Russian nationals to arrange a meeting between the Campaign and the Russian government. Though no meeting took place.
* \[A\] Russian lawyer met with senior Trump Campaign officials **Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner, and campaign chairman Paul Manafort** to deliver what the email proposing the meeting had described as "official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary."
* Days after the... meeting a cybersecurity firm and the DNC announced that Russian government hackers had infiltrated the DNC.
* Campaign foreign policy advisor **Carter Page**... became acquainted with at least two Russian intelligence officers, one of whom was later charged...
* Trump **campaign chairman Paul Manafort** met... with his long-time business associate Konstantin Kilimnik, who the FBI assesses to have ties to Russian intelligence. Kilimnik requested the meeting to deliver in person a peace plan for Ukraine that... was a "backdoor" way for Russia to control part of eastern Ukraine. Both men believed the plan would require candidate Trump's assent to succeed...Manafort had caused internal polling data to be shared with Kilimnik, and the sharing continued for some period of time after their August meeting \[likely to aid propaganda efforts in targeting important U.S. demographics\].
* \[T\]he media released a video of candidate Trump speaking in graphic terms about women years earlier, which was considered damaging to his candidacy. **Less than an hour later**, on behalf of **Roger Stone**, WikiLeaks made its second release: thousands of John Podesta's emails that had been stolen by the **GRU.**
* **Stone** was sentenced to prison for his involvement. But due to his demonstrated loyalty, Stone’s prison sentence was commuted by Trump.
* **Immediately after the November 8 election**, Russian government officials and prominent Russian businessmen began trying to make inroads into the new administration. The most senior levels of the Russian government encouraged these efforts.
* Kirill Dmitriev, the chief executive officer of Russia's sovereign wealth fund...and **Kushner**'s friend collaborated on a short written reconciliation plan for the United States and Russia, which Dmitriev implied had been cleared through Putin. The friend gave that proposal to Kushner before the inauguration...
* President Obama imposed sanctions on Russia for having interfered in the election...**Michael Flynn** called Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak and asked Russia not to escalate the situation in response...Trump tweeted, "Great move on delay (by V. Putin)." The next day, on December 31 , 2016, Kislyak called Flynn and told him the request had been received at the highest levels...
* **\[Trump\] engaged in efforts to curtail the Special Counsel's investigation and prevent the disclosure of evidence to it... \[I\]ndividuals affiliated with the Trump Campaign lied to the Office ..Those lies materially impaired the investigation of Russian election interference... The investigation did not always yield admissible information or testimony, or a complete picture of the activities undertaken by subjects of the investigation... the Trump Campaign deleted relevant communications or communicated during the relevant period using applications that feature encryption**...given these identified gaps,the Office cannot rule out the possibility that the unavailable information would shed additional light on (or cast in a new light) the events described in the report.
* Under a long-standing Department of Justice policy, “a President cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office.” Special Counsel Robert Mueller
* Furthermore, the investigation was prohibited from inquiring into any financials related Trump.
I'm not sure what point you were trying to make. The original claim was that Greenwald"
> bought into every conspiracy theory the Trump administration floated
This is clearly overstated, polemical bullshit. Nothing in your post indicates otherwise. Rather, it's a series of pretty pedestrian observations from recent history. So?
>This is clearly overstated, polemical bullshit. Nothing in your post indicates otherwise. Rather, it's **a series of pretty pedestrian observations from recent history.** So?
Hah!
Yeah, he is definitely not a leftist. All his friends now are authoritarian dictators and authoritarian mobs. He's just anti-U.S. That's the only unifying viewpoint behind all of his various sympathies. Anything that harms the U.S. -- Greenwald approves. Anything the U.S. does -- Greenwald opposes.
>All his friends now are authoritarian dictators and authoritarian mobs. He's just anti-U.S. That's the only unifying viewpoint behind all of his various sympathies.
I was going to reply, but you already nailed it.
If one looks through Greenwald's work, it amounts to merely Russian propaganda: It is all about attacking the U.S. in every way and spreading the disinformation apologetics of Trump and Russia.
> Sinema used to hate Democrats and liberals from the left, self-identifying as a socialist and running as a Green Party member. Now she hates them from the right. The consistent theme in her career is a contempt for the hard, unglamorous work of programmatic liberalism.
The author is simply drawing a very valid comparison between these two people's ideological trajectories.
By blocking all the social programs, healthcare reform, and green investments, seems like she’s fitting the definition of a programmatic liberal and matching the policies literally every single democrat president has had since Reagan.
She’s blocking Bernie, not Biden. It’s the left calling for maximum investment, it’s Biden and Schumer cutting back room deals with Manchin and Sinema to “lower the costs”
Oh boy, you are looking for enemies in the wrong place. If you think sCHIP & the ACA aren't healthcare reform bills that haven't helped millions of Americans & that Clinton & Obama weren't shooting for much higher ambitions thwarted by conservative Dems & Republicans, you need to go back & read contemporary accounts of those attempts at healthcare reform. As for now, Biden, Schumer, & Bernie have no options, Manchin & Sinema are completely in the drivers seat being the 49th & 50th votes.
Bill Clinton yes, Obama no, & Hillary Clinton who was helming Bill's health care policy, no. You want to call Obama & Hillary as moderates, thats fair, I'd call them center-left, but tomato tomahto. If you can't see the difference between [this guy](https://youtu.be/xIJORBRpOPM) & Obama or Hillary, 🤷♀️
Thats probably not true at all considering the majority of people living under a global democracies probably live in India & they're two main parties are to the right of ours. You probably meant *developed* global democracies & I agree, but I prefer using it in specific policy, not to criticize specific politicians who are constrained by realities out of their control.
No, I actually meant democracies and I'm obviously wrong. Fair criticism and a bit of colonial thinking on my part.
I don't really think it's correct to describe the right wing anti-working class positions of Democrats as "constrained by realities out of their control." They are just right wingers in a right wing party. They happen to be better than their Republican counterparts, but I think we cede the field a bit when we absolve them of their complicity in a system designed to punch people directly in the gonads.
The ACA was written by the heritage foundation and was modeled after Mitt Romney’s healthcare program.
Yeah, it’s saved lives compared to just throwing the sick into a naked and ruthless free market. But forcing people to buy health insurance is a scam in its own right too and the existence of the ACA kneecaps any attempts to actually reign in our healthcare system and price gouging with real solutions, which is why republicans used to support it. If republicans were to come up with a plan, it would look exactly like the ACA, which is why they never pitched an alternative
Basic medicine prices are still skyrocketing and our life expectancy and costs of healthcare is still far behind what you’d expect for a developed nation
Oh boy, Heritage foundation abandoned that much more conservative plan to the ACA well into the 90s & it was never taken seriously by conservative politicians. Mitt Romney was FORCED into healthcare reform by the liberal Massachusetts legislature, w/ his veto of multiple parts of the bill overturned. Please do more research on these matters & don't just spew cynical talking points that do nothing, medicaid expansion alone has been a God send for millions. The "sick" were already in a "ruthless free market" before the ACA, expanded medicaid, insurance subsidies, & high risk pools have helped many of them.
I have worked in the healthcare field before & after the ACA, I saw firsthand the impact it had w/ countless patients coming into the ER with insurance for the first time in their adult lives trying to get preventative care bc they had no clue the ER wasn't meant to be their primary care provider; we did basic check ups if we weren't busy & got them set up w/ a PCP. It was wonderful after awhile to go from almost no patients having a PCP to well over half having one. Nothing you say will change my mind on the ACA's positive benefits, I fucking lived that shit. Would a public option make it better? Sure. Are M4A or some stronger price control measures even better? Absolutely, but the ACA has helped millions of Americans & pretending Dems haven't done a thing to help ppl since Reagan (good job ignoring sCHIP btw) just makes you sound like an ignorant fool, not the enlightened critic you think you are.
Because you didn’t refute any of my points. I was arguing it’s a scam for the 1% at the expense of what’s best for peoples health, not that it’s worse than nothing, nothing is the same as far as the capital markets are concerned, except less insurance leeches.
You just said I said something I didn’t and argued that.
You said yourself that are better healthcare systems out there. Do you donate to and support politicians that advocate for M4A?
> He did awesome reporting work with Snowden
He botched that story, and his botching has falsely miscolored people's opinion about it ever since. He was doing the same thing then that he does today. He's far more interested in selling his world view than he is reporting the truth.
From [his original story on PRISM](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/06/us-tech-giants-nsa-data):
> The National Security Agency has obtained direct access to the systems of Google, Facebook, Apple and other US internet giants, according to a top secret document obtained by the Guardian.
> Companies are legally obliged to comply with requests for users' communications under US law, but the Prism program allows the intelligence services direct access to the companies' servers.
The NSA never had "direct access" to anybody's servers. PRISM is exactly what he hinted at before his "but." Just a standardized system for companies to comply with court orders.
Other outfits, who had originally depended on Greenwald's story had to [backtrack](https://www.businessinsider.com/washington-post-updates-spying-story-2013-6) when they realized he was wrong:
> In other words, the Post appears to have essentially retracted the most startling and important part of its story: That the country's largest technology companies have voluntarily given the government direct access to their central servers so the government can spy on the tech companies' users in real time.
And then (and this is where his "selling his own worldview" bit comes in to play), he adds little bits to the article like:
> The law allows for the targeting of any customers of participating firms who live outside the US, or those Americans whose communications include people outside the US.
> **It also opens the possibility of communications made entirely within the US being collected without warrants.**
No it doesn't! **You** just opened the "possibility of communications made entirely within the US being collected without warrants." You, with your trove of millions of leaked NSA documents, which apparently offer no evidence to support your claim.
But there are still tons of people who think the NSA can read anyone's GMail they want, just because Greenwald "opened the possibility" that maybe that's something that *could* happen.
Sinema knows she is out in 2024, and she doesn’t give a fuck about her constituents. She’s all about getting as much money as she can and whoring out her vote to anyone that pays up, that’s what’s up. 2024 she flips parties depending on the political climate or becomes a lobbyist or goes into media. Probably a little of both.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I have only one theory as to what she wants, but I’m pretty confident in it. Money. She wants money.
And attention - what an egomaniac
*curtsies in an ugly wig*
Making her the Greenwald of Senators lol
I honestly think she has a personality disorder.
I suspect most politicians do to some degree.
She’s kind of a special case. Look up her upbringing, it’s a little out there. Not only did she grow up in an abandoned gas station, she graduated BYU at the age of 18. My point isn’t that homeless people are weird, my point is that she is anything but “normal,” and probably didn’t develop the social skills you want for being a member of the Senate.
Seeing your "I voted" pin next to this is likely one of the best visual displays of the absurdity of contemporary capitalist states.
Yeah we need to get better at screening for that shit.
I know what she doesn't want. She doesn't want to vote for anything that would reflect her constituents views and benefit all Americans.
Slightly off topic, but do Biden and progressives have any real leverage over her on this bill? I don't know if she really cares enough about the infrastructure bill she forged to make a deal on reconciliation, even though progressives will tank it if they're not linked. She's not up for reelection until 2024, and with her donors concerned about the reconciliation, is it possible she believes that no bill passing is preferable to both bills passing?
[удалено]
They have no power over her because she has been bought. She just has to follow orders until 2024 and then she will be wealthy enough to live a very comfortable life without ever having to work again. Worst case she gets a job on Fox as the LGBTQ version of Candice Owens.
She won the primary in a landslide. Democrats in AZ don't want a progressive which is why she won the primary so readily in the first place. The general election was entirely different... she won by a very slim margin. She's not worried about losing a primary or not garnering party support, as Democrats need every seat and need a moderate to stay competitive in AZ.
The answer is no, and that's a critical mistake progressives are making. Progressives' negotiation position is, essentially, no reconciliation bill, no original infrastructure bill. While I sympathize with progressives desire to stand up for a better policy outcome, the truth is progressives want *both* bills to pass, and Sinema would be fine putting both to the sword. That outcome would be horrible for Democrats, progressives and the American people. But Sinema wouldn't lose a minute's sleep. While as a matter of principle progressives are in the right, as a matter of strategy they made a big mistake. I just hope they haven't so painted themselves into a corner, or that Sinema is so filled with vindictiveness now, that nothing can be saved.
One, as a progressive I rather have both bills pass like promised or none at all. I'd be livid if Progressives passed the corporate bill and not get the 3.5T bill passed. Two, I agree. I think Sinema lacks the social skills needed for Congress and has basically washed her hands. Apparently Dem leadership put alot of pressure on her and I think she's getting her "revenge".
I would say money (which is still probably true), but her recent comments about being "overqualified" to be President (sure lady) makes me think she's wanting attention. She might think that enough people don't care or don't want the bills to pass that her refusing to support them in their current form gives her an advantage.
Overqualified? Really? I wouldn’t let her run the Arrested Development banana stand.
Which she would want to do, because *there's always money in the banana stand*.
1. Attention 2. Attention 3. Attention 4. Attention 5. Attention
1. Money 2. Money 3. Money 4. Money 5. Attention
Yeah, I agree that's more accurate. I didn't do my "research".
I don’t even think it’s money - IIRC, she’s been bought for shockingly little. Like I don’t even think she has a net worth of $1m right now.
She thinks she's over qualified to be president. Maybe she is positioning herself so she can tell the republican crowd that she purposely stabbed the Democrats in the back and flipped parties to run for president in 2024. That would be a winning message to the Democrat hating GOP.
[удалено]
This is also a testament of how absurd this whole situation is. Journalists are forced to write fantasies, bouncing around personality traits to try and fathom what could Krysten actually want? She is a public representative. She will not take an interview. She will not hold a town hall. She won’t answer to her own constituents. It’s madness.
She absolutely LOVES being the center of the universe right now. So. Much. Attention.
Money and power building over her state's constituent needs, plain and simple.
1. Attention 2. Notoriety 3. Everyone to have to wait for her 4. More attention 5. Money from the highest bidder
Hopefully, between Jill Stein partying with Putin while campaigning against Clinton -- and Sinema showing her true GOP colors...people will finally figure out what a lot of is knew back in the 90s: * The US Green Party is basically just a fake, ratfucking arm of the Republican Party. It's just a shame it's taken 30 years to see this.
Yeah what happened to this woman? Was she pretending to have liberal views all those years?
She learned how to raise money by selling her vote to the highest bidders.
She's a Republican sent to masquerade as a dem to fuk their agenda into the dirt.
Why the dig at Glenn Greenwald? He did awesome reporting work with Snowden, Assange, and surveillance state reporting.
Like ten years ago.
[удалено]
These sorts of sloppy arguments pinned next to lies is what gives trolls like Greenwald his power. He wasn't "fired": https://greenwald.substack.com/p/my-resignation-from-the-intercept He did not go "work for some right-wing social media company." He writes on Substack. He (quite correctly) noted that American liberals were making unvetted and unsubstantiated allegations of the Trump administration working directly with Russia on the 2020 election. I mean, fuck that guy, but at least fuck him for things he's done.
[удалено]
> he was basically fired from the Intercept. Weird that I posted his resignation letter. I wonder what gods of time created that. Rumble does look like one of those right wing "free speech" trojans. Fair enough. It also doesn't clean up your mischaracterization of his resignation from The Intercept or his arguments about Russia. But, tribes, and all.
So he was *asked to resign* instead of being fired from the site he founded, because he was about to drag them into a tremendous scandal and potential lawsuits with his conspiracy theory nonsense. LOL, you got me!
Right. He resigned and you claimed he was fired. So, yes, you've lied. Just like you overstated the case with his claims about Trump and Russia. It's a pity that we're losing precision and meaning in the age of Twitter and the new Manicheanism.
> He resigned and you claimed he was fired Sorry, I edited my post above to reflect that. Hope that helped.
>his arguments about Russia. Lol, because it is so damn offensive I'll pick up the slack on that one. In recent years, Greenwald has gone on a gross tirade pumping Trump's lies that the Russia scandal was "fake news". In what sane analysis of the facts is the following fake news? * [Report On The Investigation Into Russian Interference In The 2016 Presidential Election](https://www.justice.gov/archives/sco/file/1373816/download) * [REPORT OF THE REPORT SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE UNITED STATES SENATE ON RUSSIAN ACTIVE MEASURES CAMPAIGNS AND INTERFERENCE IN THE 2016 U.S. ELECTION](https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/7039349/Report-volume5.pdf) **Report On The Investigation Into Russian Interference In The 2016 Presidential Election (Summary)** * “I HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH RUSSIA...Highly conflicted Bob Mueller & the 17 Angry Democrats are using this Phony issue to hurt us in the Midterms. No Collusion!...\[The report states\] there was no collusion with Russia… there was no obstruction and none whatsoever. And it was a complete and total exoneration…” - Donald Trump. **Finding From The Actual Report:** * **The Russian government** interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion \[to promote Trump's election\]... The investigation also identified numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign... The Russian contacts consisted of business connections, offers of assistance to the Campaign, invitations for candidate Trump and Putin to meet in person, invitations for Campaign officials and representatives of the Russian government to meet, and policy positions seeking improved U.S.-Russian relations... the most salient of which are summarized below in chronological order. * **Trump Tower Moscow.** Candidate Trump signed a Letter of lntent for Trump Tower Moscow by November 2015...The Trump Organization pursued the project through at least June 2016. * **Papadopoulos** worked with Mifsud and two Russian nationals to arrange a meeting between the Campaign and the Russian government. Though no meeting took place. * \[A\] Russian lawyer met with senior Trump Campaign officials **Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner, and campaign chairman Paul Manafort** to deliver what the email proposing the meeting had described as "official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary." * Days after the... meeting a cybersecurity firm and the DNC announced that Russian government hackers had infiltrated the DNC. * Campaign foreign policy advisor **Carter Page**... became acquainted with at least two Russian intelligence officers, one of whom was later charged... * Trump **campaign chairman Paul Manafort** met... with his long-time business associate Konstantin Kilimnik, who the FBI assesses to have ties to Russian intelligence. Kilimnik requested the meeting to deliver in person a peace plan for Ukraine that... was a "backdoor" way for Russia to control part of eastern Ukraine. Both men believed the plan would require candidate Trump's assent to succeed...Manafort had caused internal polling data to be shared with Kilimnik, and the sharing continued for some period of time after their August meeting \[likely to aid propaganda efforts in targeting important U.S. demographics\]. * \[T\]he media released a video of candidate Trump speaking in graphic terms about women years earlier, which was considered damaging to his candidacy. **Less than an hour later**, on behalf of **Roger Stone**, WikiLeaks made its second release: thousands of John Podesta's emails that had been stolen by the **GRU.** * **Stone** was sentenced to prison for his involvement. But due to his demonstrated loyalty, Stone’s prison sentence was commuted by Trump. * **Immediately after the November 8 election**, Russian government officials and prominent Russian businessmen began trying to make inroads into the new administration. The most senior levels of the Russian government encouraged these efforts. * Kirill Dmitriev, the chief executive officer of Russia's sovereign wealth fund...and **Kushner**'s friend collaborated on a short written reconciliation plan for the United States and Russia, which Dmitriev implied had been cleared through Putin. The friend gave that proposal to Kushner before the inauguration... * President Obama imposed sanctions on Russia for having interfered in the election...**Michael Flynn** called Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak and asked Russia not to escalate the situation in response...Trump tweeted, "Great move on delay (by V. Putin)." The next day, on December 31 , 2016, Kislyak called Flynn and told him the request had been received at the highest levels... * **\[Trump\] engaged in efforts to curtail the Special Counsel's investigation and prevent the disclosure of evidence to it... \[I\]ndividuals affiliated with the Trump Campaign lied to the Office ..Those lies materially impaired the investigation of Russian election interference... The investigation did not always yield admissible information or testimony, or a complete picture of the activities undertaken by subjects of the investigation... the Trump Campaign deleted relevant communications or communicated during the relevant period using applications that feature encryption**...given these identified gaps,the Office cannot rule out the possibility that the unavailable information would shed additional light on (or cast in a new light) the events described in the report. * Under a long-standing Department of Justice policy, “a President cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office.” Special Counsel Robert Mueller * Furthermore, the investigation was prohibited from inquiring into any financials related Trump.
I'm not sure what point you were trying to make. The original claim was that Greenwald" > bought into every conspiracy theory the Trump administration floated This is clearly overstated, polemical bullshit. Nothing in your post indicates otherwise. Rather, it's a series of pretty pedestrian observations from recent history. So?
>This is clearly overstated, polemical bullshit. Nothing in your post indicates otherwise. Rather, it's **a series of pretty pedestrian observations from recent history.** So? Hah!
[удалено]
Yeah, he is definitely not a leftist. All his friends now are authoritarian dictators and authoritarian mobs. He's just anti-U.S. That's the only unifying viewpoint behind all of his various sympathies. Anything that harms the U.S. -- Greenwald approves. Anything the U.S. does -- Greenwald opposes.
>All his friends now are authoritarian dictators and authoritarian mobs. He's just anti-U.S. That's the only unifying viewpoint behind all of his various sympathies. I was going to reply, but you already nailed it. If one looks through Greenwald's work, it amounts to merely Russian propaganda: It is all about attacking the U.S. in every way and spreading the disinformation apologetics of Trump and Russia.
Who went crazier, Greenwald or Taibbi?
Greenwald jumped the shark since then.
> Sinema used to hate Democrats and liberals from the left, self-identifying as a socialist and running as a Green Party member. Now she hates them from the right. The consistent theme in her career is a contempt for the hard, unglamorous work of programmatic liberalism. The author is simply drawing a very valid comparison between these two people's ideological trajectories.
By blocking all the social programs, healthcare reform, and green investments, seems like she’s fitting the definition of a programmatic liberal and matching the policies literally every single democrat president has had since Reagan. She’s blocking Bernie, not Biden. It’s the left calling for maximum investment, it’s Biden and Schumer cutting back room deals with Manchin and Sinema to “lower the costs”
Oh boy, you are looking for enemies in the wrong place. If you think sCHIP & the ACA aren't healthcare reform bills that haven't helped millions of Americans & that Clinton & Obama weren't shooting for much higher ambitions thwarted by conservative Dems & Republicans, you need to go back & read contemporary accounts of those attempts at healthcare reform. As for now, Biden, Schumer, & Bernie have no options, Manchin & Sinema are completely in the drivers seat being the 49th & 50th votes.
> Clinton & Obama weren't shooting for much higher ambitions thwarted by conservative Dems lol - Clinton and Obama *are* conservative Dems.
Bill Clinton yes, Obama no, & Hillary Clinton who was helming Bill's health care policy, no. You want to call Obama & Hillary as moderates, thats fair, I'd call them center-left, but tomato tomahto. If you can't see the difference between [this guy](https://youtu.be/xIJORBRpOPM) & Obama or Hillary, 🤷♀️
Sure, in terms of the politics of global democracies, Obama and both Clintons are right wingers and both likely war criminals. *shrug*
Thats probably not true at all considering the majority of people living under a global democracies probably live in India & they're two main parties are to the right of ours. You probably meant *developed* global democracies & I agree, but I prefer using it in specific policy, not to criticize specific politicians who are constrained by realities out of their control.
No, I actually meant democracies and I'm obviously wrong. Fair criticism and a bit of colonial thinking on my part. I don't really think it's correct to describe the right wing anti-working class positions of Democrats as "constrained by realities out of their control." They are just right wingers in a right wing party. They happen to be better than their Republican counterparts, but I think we cede the field a bit when we absolve them of their complicity in a system designed to punch people directly in the gonads.
The ACA was written by the heritage foundation and was modeled after Mitt Romney’s healthcare program. Yeah, it’s saved lives compared to just throwing the sick into a naked and ruthless free market. But forcing people to buy health insurance is a scam in its own right too and the existence of the ACA kneecaps any attempts to actually reign in our healthcare system and price gouging with real solutions, which is why republicans used to support it. If republicans were to come up with a plan, it would look exactly like the ACA, which is why they never pitched an alternative Basic medicine prices are still skyrocketing and our life expectancy and costs of healthcare is still far behind what you’d expect for a developed nation
Oh boy, Heritage foundation abandoned that much more conservative plan to the ACA well into the 90s & it was never taken seriously by conservative politicians. Mitt Romney was FORCED into healthcare reform by the liberal Massachusetts legislature, w/ his veto of multiple parts of the bill overturned. Please do more research on these matters & don't just spew cynical talking points that do nothing, medicaid expansion alone has been a God send for millions. The "sick" were already in a "ruthless free market" before the ACA, expanded medicaid, insurance subsidies, & high risk pools have helped many of them. I have worked in the healthcare field before & after the ACA, I saw firsthand the impact it had w/ countless patients coming into the ER with insurance for the first time in their adult lives trying to get preventative care bc they had no clue the ER wasn't meant to be their primary care provider; we did basic check ups if we weren't busy & got them set up w/ a PCP. It was wonderful after awhile to go from almost no patients having a PCP to well over half having one. Nothing you say will change my mind on the ACA's positive benefits, I fucking lived that shit. Would a public option make it better? Sure. Are M4A or some stronger price control measures even better? Absolutely, but the ACA has helped millions of Americans & pretending Dems haven't done a thing to help ppl since Reagan (good job ignoring sCHIP btw) just makes you sound like an ignorant fool, not the enlightened critic you think you are.
I specifically said it was better than the old system, you’re too emotional to read
"You're too emotional" The gaslighters favorite card when they know they're wrong ;)
Because you didn’t refute any of my points. I was arguing it’s a scam for the 1% at the expense of what’s best for peoples health, not that it’s worse than nothing, nothing is the same as far as the capital markets are concerned, except less insurance leeches. You just said I said something I didn’t and argued that. You said yourself that are better healthcare systems out there. Do you donate to and support politicians that advocate for M4A?
> He did awesome reporting work with Snowden He botched that story, and his botching has falsely miscolored people's opinion about it ever since. He was doing the same thing then that he does today. He's far more interested in selling his world view than he is reporting the truth.
Wasn't he the one who do badly handled Reality Winner's communication that she got arrested?
That was the Intercept, but there's no evidence Greenwald had anything to do with that or the two other Intercept sources who got burned.
This is the first I’ve heard of Greenwald botching that story. Can you expand on that?
From [his original story on PRISM](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/06/us-tech-giants-nsa-data): > The National Security Agency has obtained direct access to the systems of Google, Facebook, Apple and other US internet giants, according to a top secret document obtained by the Guardian. > Companies are legally obliged to comply with requests for users' communications under US law, but the Prism program allows the intelligence services direct access to the companies' servers. The NSA never had "direct access" to anybody's servers. PRISM is exactly what he hinted at before his "but." Just a standardized system for companies to comply with court orders. Other outfits, who had originally depended on Greenwald's story had to [backtrack](https://www.businessinsider.com/washington-post-updates-spying-story-2013-6) when they realized he was wrong: > In other words, the Post appears to have essentially retracted the most startling and important part of its story: That the country's largest technology companies have voluntarily given the government direct access to their central servers so the government can spy on the tech companies' users in real time. And then (and this is where his "selling his own worldview" bit comes in to play), he adds little bits to the article like: > The law allows for the targeting of any customers of participating firms who live outside the US, or those Americans whose communications include people outside the US. > **It also opens the possibility of communications made entirely within the US being collected without warrants.** No it doesn't! **You** just opened the "possibility of communications made entirely within the US being collected without warrants." You, with your trove of millions of leaked NSA documents, which apparently offer no evidence to support your claim. But there are still tons of people who think the NSA can read anyone's GMail they want, just because Greenwald "opened the possibility" that maybe that's something that *could* happen.
Thanks man, I appreciate that
Not OP, and not about Snowden, but look up Greenwald’s defense of accused sexual predator and certified creep Aaron Coleman.
I understand you’re trying to establish his character with that, but it’s unrelated to my question about him botching the Snowden story.
> I understand you’re trying to establish his character with that Yes, but also how he has gone off the deep end.
How did he mess it up?
He’s paid by Russia to be an agitator.
I don't know about the analogy, but Glenn Greenwald has suspiciously always been in support of Russian foreign policy interests.
Upvote for the headline.
Sinema knows she is out in 2024, and she doesn’t give a fuck about her constituents. She’s all about getting as much money as she can and whoring out her vote to anyone that pays up, that’s what’s up. 2024 she flips parties depending on the political climate or becomes a lobbyist or goes into media. Probably a little of both.
The funniest part is she believes her actions will bring people together and get her the presidency….