The same trends of repression, censorship and ideological homogeneity plaguing the national press generally have engulfed the media outlet I co-founded, culminating in censorship of my own articles.
Youre the one throwing out accusations without facts. The intercept published a shit ton about Tara Reade aiming to destroy Bidens credibility even after Bernie had dropped out, this just seems like Greenwald trying to go independent because you make more money on substack.
You misread me, I'm saying that the intercept covering this story in extreme depth when everyone else ignored it is evidence that they don't give a shit about protecting Bidens credibility.
Not anymore, obviously. This is shilling for Biden AND removing GG at the same time in a kind of internal power struggle. I stopped my Intercept donations today.
Yeah I think he's lying, he's been losing credibility because of his ties to the intercepts handling of the Reality Winner story. An angry sounding exit from the outlet would likely make whistleblowers more interested in working with him again.
Also he's going to make 2x as much money on substack, so being independent is a smart move regardless.
Did you miss his investigation of operation car wash and its ties to Jair Bolsonaro? And how it helped free Lula?
Even the most cynical of neolibs have to admit he did exemplary journalism on that, all while while being under attack by the Brazilian right wing and its current government.
Yeah and that wasn't in America, the intercept has been getting considerably less leaks than before reality winner. I don't think it's deserved, but it's the reality.
Its not credibility as a journalist, it's credibility as someone to trust with classified american documents.
Yeah agreed, but the intercept still shouldn't be claiming a quid pro quo without evidence. That only hurts their legitimacy given how often people try to play them off as a joke when they actually do find fully verifiable quid pro quos like what happened between the students at UMass and the MA dem party fucking over Alex Morse.
No one hires Hunter Biden from reading his resume, you only get a 80k+ a month no show job because daddy is the VP, requiring "evidence" for these kinds of obvious corrupt deals is a ludicrous argument on its face.
Except he was allowed to report on that, it was the implication of quid pro quo with Barisma that was questionable. There's obviously more context here than he revealed though.
Greenwald isn't saying a quid pro quo took place though. He's presenting a case that rings true with reality and stating what evidence there is and isn't. GG is clear that there is no evidence that Biden knew about Hunter's business dealings or that Hunter was profiting off his dad's power, and that there is no proof that "the big guy" that Hunter references is his dad. But c'mon, if you start from the assumption that Hunter has been rewarded with a job because of who his dad is, all of these other bits of evidence raise huge red flags that need to be investigated. If Biden didn't know his pressuring to replace a prosecutor in Ukraine would work in favor of his son's business dealings, it's a HELLUVA coincidence. Imagine Thanksgiving: "How are things, my boy?" "Gee dad you'll never believe it, but I made out like gangbusters on my Ukraine contract because they fired that guy you told them to fire for a completely unrelated matter." "Cum on Jack, I love you Beaunter."
Yeah this is bullshit, you just sound like the greyzone guys who are just trying to attract donors away towards them. The intercept isn't an op lol.
This comment doesn't preclude that there isn't real criticism of the intercept, but they're a very serious outlet.
deleted by creator
Youre the one throwing out accusations without facts. The intercept published a shit ton about Tara Reade aiming to destroy Bidens credibility even after Bernie had dropped out, this just seems like Greenwald trying to go independent because you make more money on substack.
deleted by creator
You misread me, I'm saying that the intercept covering this story in extreme depth when everyone else ignored it is evidence that they don't give a shit about protecting Bidens credibility.
Not anymore, obviously. This is shilling for Biden AND removing GG at the same time in a kind of internal power struggle. I stopped my Intercept donations today.
deleted by creator
Yeah I think he's lying, he's been losing credibility because of his ties to the intercepts handling of the Reality Winner story. An angry sounding exit from the outlet would likely make whistleblowers more interested in working with him again.
Also he's going to make 2x as much money on substack, so being independent is a smart move regardless.
Did you miss his investigation of operation car wash and its ties to Jair Bolsonaro? And how it helped free Lula?
Even the most cynical of neolibs have to admit he did exemplary journalism on that, all while while being under attack by the Brazilian right wing and its current government.
Yeah and that wasn't in America, the intercept has been getting considerably less leaks than before reality winner. I don't think it's deserved, but it's the reality.
Its not credibility as a journalist, it's credibility as someone to trust with classified american documents.
Biden benefits from silence, it's literally his winning strategy, keep him away from people and out of the media.
Yeah agreed, but the intercept still shouldn't be claiming a quid pro quo without evidence. That only hurts their legitimacy given how often people try to play them off as a joke when they actually do find fully verifiable quid pro quos like what happened between the students at UMass and the MA dem party fucking over Alex Morse.
No one hires Hunter Biden from reading his resume, you only get a 80k+ a month no show job because daddy is the VP, requiring "evidence" for these kinds of obvious corrupt deals is a ludicrous argument on its face.
Except he was allowed to report on that, it was the implication of quid pro quo with Barisma that was questionable. There's obviously more context here than he revealed though.
Greenwald isn't saying a quid pro quo took place though. He's presenting a case that rings true with reality and stating what evidence there is and isn't. GG is clear that there is no evidence that Biden knew about Hunter's business dealings or that Hunter was profiting off his dad's power, and that there is no proof that "the big guy" that Hunter references is his dad. But c'mon, if you start from the assumption that Hunter has been rewarded with a job because of who his dad is, all of these other bits of evidence raise huge red flags that need to be investigated. If Biden didn't know his pressuring to replace a prosecutor in Ukraine would work in favor of his son's business dealings, it's a HELLUVA coincidence. Imagine Thanksgiving: "How are things, my boy?" "Gee dad you'll never believe it, but I made out like gangbusters on my Ukraine contract because they fired that guy you told them to fire for a completely unrelated matter." "Cum on Jack, I love you Beaunter."