Glenn Greenwald lays a smackdown on Fran Townsend during Wikileaks debate on CNN

Re: Glenn Greenwald lays a smackdown on Fran Townsend during Wikileaks debate on CNN

What do you mean ? It IS the subject at hand, did you see the 60+ second lead in to the piece ? The reason CNN aired that segment, was to give Greenwald a soapbox to talk about the book, and the reasons for it being published,he chose to take it in another direction. It was not a "spin" it was a question the host was asking. If you had read the entire thread you would see it could have been answered instead of avoided. Greenwald tried to grandstand and control the segment by talking over the other two, about 8min in he ran out of steam and looked like an idiot. (imo)

I did not try to "spin" her question, I gave my interpretation of what I think most sane people who do not masturbate to leaked diplomatic cables, and who only follow this story casually (her audience) would interpret it as being. I can sympathize with you chomping at the bit to be enraged, but I think you are a little trigger happy on this topic.

Don't get me wrong I don't believe the press is on JA's side, it looks to me they are just giving him the attention he is whoring so they can report his unlikely success or much more likely epic failure. The press wins both ways, and they don't care which way it goes. My money however, is on Assange coming out of this looking like a joke after whoring too much attention, but I could be wrong.

Re: Glenn Greenwald lays a smackdown on Fran Townsend during Wikileaks debate on CNN

Mr Greenwald has hit 4 home runs this week, the heads of Townsend, Yellen,
Hansen, and Poulsen are in the upper deck.

<begin semi thread derail response

While I agree MSNBC has been much better than FOX or CNN with their coverage of wikileaks, I would direct you to the R Maddow show (M. Moore) to see some biased commentary.

Perhaps I expect too much but ALL the reporting should be of the quality of Cenk Uygur. (I don't really consider him MSNBC anyway. He is TYT to me )

end >

Re: Glenn Greenwald lays a smackdown on Fran Townsend during Wikileaks debate on CNN

I don't think that's how most casual viewers would interpret what she said.
Most people who watch this would think that she meant he was writing a book about the cables and making a profit from them, because she didn't say what the book was about and only claimed he would make profit from classified information.

Re: Glenn Greenwald lays a smackdown on Fran Townsend during Wikileaks debate on CNN

She wasn't given a chance, Greenwald not only changed the subject he wouldn't stfu. His intention was clearly to take over the conversation and talk over both of the other people there to contribute to the conversation. Not only does that make for poor television journalism, it makes it look like his agenda doesn't stand up to scrutiny. "The gentleman doth protest too much" was the feeling I believe he gave most viewers.

Re: Glenn Greenwald lays a smackdown on Fran Townsend during Wikileaks debate on CNN

As the host of the show it is her own responsibility to shut Greenwald up if he talks too much.
Furthermore she clearly had enough time to say that the book will be a biography and not about classified information.

Re: Glenn Greenwald lays a smackdown on Fran Townsend during Wikileaks debate on CNN

FFS ! As a guest on the show Greenwald has the responsibility to follow a few manners of common courtesy. As a lawyer he understands that both sides should be allowed to speak so the judge (audience) can make a fair decision, his grandstanding would not be allowed in a courtroom, and for the same reasons do not cut mustard and are not desired in journalism.

The host of a show does not have a gavel or bailiff. The only way she could have done what you suggest is if she cut off his skype feed, and then you would still be here crying foul because your viewpoint had no voice.

Re: Glenn Greenwald lays a smackdown on Fran Townsend during Wikileaks debate on CNN

That's an amazing amount of personal domination that you're crediting to a guy thousands of miles away on the other end of a Skype webcam connection with a second of two of lag.

Re: Glenn Greenwald lays a smackdown on Fran Townsend during Wikileaks debate on CNN

He did both allow to speak. You are exaggerating a bit.
But anyway, i don't want to defend Greenwald, because i also think that his answers were suboptimal and that he is a bit annoying.
The point is that the whole show was based almost entirely on false premises, which gave it automatically a spin.
It's not only that the host claimed that Assange would be publishing a book with confidential information, but also false assumptions about his world view and the false assumption that he did commit a crime, which dominated almost the whole debate.

Re: Glenn Greenwald lays a smackdown on Fran Townsend during Wikileaks debate on CNN

The skype delay has been discussed, I reviewed the video a few days ago looking for evidence of the delay, I couldn't find any. When two people are being a polite and a third is blathering on about some other subject hanging himself in a debate, it is not nearly as difficult as you make it sound.

Both did get a chance to speak, the host had to break in and when the other guest finally got a word in I think he realized the corner he had painted himself into because as I mentioned in my first post itt he started stammering.

IF there was a false premise he should have pointed it out (that has been discussed to death itt) and not created his own false premise- do we agreeb?

Re: Glenn Greenwald lays a smackdown on Fran Townsend during Wikileaks debate on CNN

Yes, we agree.

Re: Glenn Greenwald lays a smackdown on Fran Townsend during Wikileaks debate on CNN

What this Wikileaks debacle has shown more than anything else is the media's collaboration at promoting certain "ideologies" (and I'm being very kind here) that a certain few want to convey. The rapidity and breadth with which effective terms at sidetracking an issue such as "terrorist", calls for assassination or imprisonment while no criminal charges have been laid were used and discussed ad nauseam while ignoring the substance should be disconcerting to us all

The self-introspection called for by journalists who were and are soundly one-upped by a former hacker at lifting the shroud of secrecy and goings on behind closed doors are shamefully few and far between.

Re: Glenn Greenwald lays a smackdown on Fran Townsend during Wikileaks debate on CNN

Surely you understand the problem here when the disparity in time needed to refute a premise, as opposed to simply state one, is noted?

Example: “Wikileaks indiscriminately dumped 250,000 cables.”
“That is not true. Wikileaks gave the cables to internationally respected media organisations, and have worked closely with them in order to properly redact any information that puts people’s lives at risk. To date only 2,000 or so cables have been published due to the careful redactions being done by Wikileaks and their media partners.”

To state the falsehood takes 3 seconds. To correct it takes considerably more. To adequately address every false premise in the debate would have taken Glenn more time that was possible, so he took pretty much the only option available to him and thoroughly addressed a few key premises. The reason for outrage towards the host was because of the sheer number of false premises they introduced, many of which were easily disprovable had the host done any research.

And I second the other anon’s comments regarding her questions involving corporations. It looked clear to me that she was trying to pegg Assange with her anti-corporation strawman. This was such an obvious falsehood, but trying to correct it would have wasted even more of Glenn’s limited air-time.

I don’t see how that was biased, particularly given that the guest was allowed ample time to respond to any questions (and I thought the questions were reasonable). Can you spell out the bias here for me because I don’t see it?

Re: Glenn Greenwald lays a smackdown on Fran Townsend during Wikileaks debate on CNN

Let me analyse the interviewer to highlight the massive bias she displayed.

First, here is the corporation strawman:

“Any qualms that he is essentially profiting from classified information, and do you see any irony in the fact that he is making money off a corporate publisher?”

Followed by another strawman on the same theme, this time focusing on lying about his motives:

“Well certainly he [Assange] doesn’t want to follow in the model of the very people he derides and is trying to bring down, so there is a contradiction there.”

Questions and comments dripping with false premises:

“What is his ultimate goal beyond embarrassing and disrupting the US government, what good do his supporters hope will come from everything he is doing?”

“We would draw a distinction between publishing information that comes to you and then publishing information that’s stolen by some…ostensibly stolen.”

Here are the jail-related questions. Note how the final question doesn’t logically follow from the introductions, and how those questions are implying Assange is a criminal (as well as implying what Wikileaks does is a crime):

“Julian Assange once wrote a blog post saying quote ‘The more secretive or unjust an organisation is, the more leaks induce fear or paranoia’. So, in other words, he should expect exactly the reaction he’s seeing, he should expect the government to come after him right? And he should also be prepared to go to jail for what he has done as other revolutionaries have, no?”

“I want to press you on this Glenn because you said what he [Assange] was doing is what any responsible journalist would do. Journalist will go to jail to protect their sources, for example, and there are things journalists will do in line with their craft. Shouldn’t he, again, be prepared to go to jail in defence of his beliefs here?”

And after Glenn completely and utterly nailed the other guest on a flat-out lie and had reduced her to a quivering wreck, the host interjects with:

“Let me ask you about the rape charges.”

The above are so filled with falsehoods and false premises that it would have taken far longer than the 11 minutes available in order to adequately address them all. What makes the above falsehoods even more egregious is that, during the introduction to the piece, material is referenced which cast doubt on these falsehoods. There is a disconnect between the material quoted by the host and the premises of the questions she eventually asked, and I can see no legitimate reason for that disconnect.

Given the sheer myriad of false premises, it simply would not have been possible to address them all in the time available for the ‘debate’. Despite this, I think Glenn nailed enough key points to make both the host and other guest look extremely foolish and misinformed.

All of this has to be compared with the challenging and probing questions the host directed at the other guest:

“Fran, you got the gist of what he [Biden] was saying. Is it fair to call him a terrorist?”

“Fran, is there any good that can come of what Julian Assange is doing? Transparency motive here that is admirable in your opinion?”

Given all of this against him, it is a real credit to Glenn that he so convincingly wiped the floor with these two using nothing by articulate and sound argumentation.

Re: Glenn Greenwald lays a smackdown on Fran Townsend during Wikileaks debate on CNN

Yeah, Rachael is pretty hit-or-miss. She drives a bit of sensationalism into her delivery (or maybe it's just the way she speaks). I wouldn't exactly call her my favorite MSNBC staff member.

Re: Glenn Greenwald lays a smackdown on Fran Townsend during Wikileaks debate on CNN

That's just your opinion to me it looked as though he wanted to get his points out before the harpies took over.

Re: Glenn Greenwald lays a smackdown on Fran Townsend during Wikileaks debate on CNN

Agreeance. Greenwald was fast enough on his feet to sort out what dignified a response.

To Yellin's credit, I loved her reaction to Greenwald's comment (paraphrasing) about what journalists do at CNN. The shrills at ox have a cow with their guests over less.

Re: Glenn Greenwald lays a smackdown on Fran Townsend during Wikileaks debate on CNN

The section about sicko being banned showed no falsehood on the part of wikileaks. She implied that wikileaks released false information when the information they leaked was factual.
The statement by the diplomat was not factual, but, that only serves to give insight into the workings of our government.

Maddow also brings up that JA is being accused of date rape. Date rape is the same thing as rape, and she allows the viewer to think the details of the charges are in essence a rape charge, which they are not. Reasonable people could argue as to the nature of misconduct/crime JA committed (assuming the accusers are 100% accurate in their claims.) , but rape of any type (US definition) is not supported by the statements of the accusers.

She was trying very hard to make as strong of an argument that can be made -- to an audience of above average intellect -- against wikileaks. This was not balanced imho.
It seemed to be a clever and sinister attempt to place doubt into the minds of smart people as to the veracity of wikileaks and the probable noble intentions of the people running wikileaks.

The fact that she is urging the audience to consider the extremely weak claims of rape and molestation instead of dismembering the claims is a reflection of her moral and ethical standards. That's the way I see it.

Once M. Moore was on stage the interview did seem fair.

Re: Glenn Greenwald lays a smackdown on Fran Townsend during Wikileaks debate on CNN

IME there is no earthly way of definitively establishing what any individual's intentions or motivations are, but twisting the public debate up around questions of Assange's character or the nobility or lack thereof of Wikileaks as an org looks like an excellent way to distract attention from the content they are releasing.

Re: Glenn Greenwald lays a smackdown on Fran Townsend during Wikileaks debate on CNN

Agreed. Her question about it being "ironic" that he was profiting from a corporation had a false premise. He's not anti-corporations or anti-government. He IS anti-crime and corruption where practised by corporations or governments.

Re: Glenn Greenwald lays a smackdown on Fran Townsend during Wikileaks debate on CNN

Yes that was my opinion on how his comments on that one point were perceived. thank you for stating the obvious that I had already stated was my opinion with the words "the feeling I believe he gave most viewers". I guess that you don't see any point in preaching past the back row of the choir.

I don't recall the movie "sicko" being mentioned in this interview. But it has been a while since I saw it.

I do think it is very strange that the diplomatic cables would make up something like that when they were intended to be kept private. Do we have docs on it actually being shown in Cuba ? this isn't a docs or gtfo request just wondering if docs are available. Frankly it wouldn't surprise me if Michael Moore made it up and then slipped Assange bail money for keeping quiet. (Okay that was far fetched but it has about the same degree of evidence that Assange has when suggesting the US is using Sweden's 9th degree rape case to get to him.)

----- To who ever watched and typed several questions (with out context of Greenwald's comments---

Wow you have a lot of free time on your hands.

I am not particularly trying to defend the host. I don't think she is a good journalist, she is a news reader. I don't think she was completely impartial. But I don't think she was trying to be one sided either. I think (Yes, Local SP- this is also opinion) she was expecting to get Greenwalds opinion on the topic and then ask the other guest her opinion and stay out of the topic of discussion, and was thrown by the sudden attacks coming from Greenwald and I think she got a little pissed off at him, and tried to make things a little bit difficult for him, and she failed miserably. But that is just my opinion and it doesn't change that Greenwald grandstanded, or tried to control the conversation for the first half of the interview.

Re: Glenn Greenwald lays a smackdown on Fran Townsend during Wikileaks debate on CNN

We know CNN has handed their producers and talking heads a specific viewpoint for the wikileaks story. Honestly I would have more respect for Yellin if she didn't try to defend her obviously somewhat biased performance and just embraced the fact that the corporate hand up her ass is running the show.

Re: Glenn Greenwald lays a smackdown on Fran Townsend during Wikileaks debate on CNN

yes, we have dox.
See
¡Viva WikiLeaks! SiCKO Was Not Banned in Cuba | MichaelMoore.com

Re: Glenn Greenwald lays a smackdown on Fran Townsend during Wikileaks debate on CNN

It is unfortunately due to asshats like yourself that such was necessary.

Then STFU already, because that appears to all you are doing.

This is the type of crap that warranted typing out the questions. You can interject ‘I think’ all like for whatever spurious crap you want to push, but now that the questions are freely available in this thread the vacuous of your crap is easily seen. The questions make it crystal clear that there was not even the pretence of impartiality.

Given the questions, which are now available in this thread, this comment can be seen for the horseshit it is. If a journalist is so fucking ignorant on the basics of the first amendment when it comes to what can be published then I think they need to be called out for that ignorance. Pointing out the bloody obvious, as Greenwald did, in response to such questions is only an attack if you are determined to see it that way.

Pointing out facts and calling out falsehoods is grandstanding? Only in your bizarre world perhaps. It was worth the time to type up the questions if only to call you out on pushing this type of horseshit.

Re: Glenn Greenwald lays a smackdown on Fran Townsend during Wikileaks debate on CNN

Clearly Greenwald is the only one who understands the law. Well, he should, he's a lawyer. But, that being said, for the reporter/journalist/host/whatever to be uneducated in such a way is just plain sucking at your job. If I f****d up that bad at work, I would be fired instantly.

This is a HUGE problem. We have reporters/journalists/hosts/whatevers reporting on things they know NOTHING about! All that takes is a pretty (and sometimes not) face. But you can't have these kind of discussions with a pretty face.

Do you guys remember Sam Donaldson? To be honest I don't know what his political views were, but... wait... that's exactly the point.

Re: Glenn Greenwald lays a smackdown on Fran Townsend during Wikileaks debate on CNN

We all want to believe that most people would agree with us. Unless we have poll data to back that up, we should consider the possibility that we're in the minority.

Re: Glenn Greenwald lays a smackdown on Fran Townsend during Wikileaks debate on CNN

Thanks for the transcript. I agree with you that there were so many false premises that it wasn't feasible for him to answer them all. Just dealing with the first question, there were three false premises:

1. "he is essentially profiting";
2. "he is essentially profiting from classified information"; and
3. it is ironic that "he is making money off a corporate publisher?" (because he must be anti-corporations.

The interview went on in the same vein.

eg. Just because a journalist MIGHT go to jail for publishing material provided by a source does not mean that a journalist should ACCEPT that going to jail over it is acceptable or right. ANY journalist jailed for protecting a source would argue they are doing the right thing and shouldn't be jailed. But Assange wasn't jailed and isn't threatened with jail for protecting a source, but for publishing the story.

Her logic was all over the place.

Re: Glenn Greenwald lays a smackdown on Fran Townsend during Wikileaks debate on CNN

The host asked a few questions to greewald at the same time and then gave him a chance to respond. She asked for his reaction to the book deal, and if he has any quams. I agree it was an extremely clumsy question(s).

Greenwald does say that he is not profiting. Goes into his legal fees, and then says his fees are sure to skyrocket implying they are over the leaked cables. But JA has not been charged with anything by the US his legal fees AFAIK are all to fight that situation in Sweden. Profit is still profit even when the world knows where it is going.

Greenwald then goes on to say that JA is the" leading target of governments around the world". And that the pentagon has been actively trying to destroy him and wikileaks since 2008. Then ad homs his way into Clinton and Obama and ever other politician who wrote a book, then exaggerates saying that the US hides the "vast majority of what it does from the American citizenry." I don't know if the pentagon has been trying to destroy JA since 2008, maybe they have been, but if so they are doing a piss poor job of it. The rest of it sounds self-righteous and paranoid.

The topic of the segment was about the book, and if JA is profiting from the crime of stealing information. He would not have gotten a book deal worth a million dollars had it not been for the crime of leaking the information. (to wikileaks) What greenwald says about JA not committing a crime and the NY Times and other media outlets seems to be true, the host does not say it is a crime to publish only that the information was passed on illegally.

Long story short Greenwald says that Assange is not profiting because he paying legal fees (implying they are for the wikileaks issue) and then later says he has not been charged with a crime. Seemingly to distract from the lack of a connection between the rape charges and the lack of charges by the US with bold and irrelevant accusations about everyone from Sarah Palin to Obama and personal attacks on the other two women in the debate.

I don't really dispute that the host's logic was all over the place, but that seemed to be the case with the other two in the interview as well.

Re: Glenn Greenwald lays a smackdown on Fran Townsend during Wikileaks debate on CNN

Really? Look when he's asked a question and then the lag before he even reacts to it. It seem perfectly obvious to me.

I admit that I've never tried a Skype with video connection, but unless it was a really fat connection, it was trying to stream audio/video to him and the same back from him with a lot of trade-offs.

Re: Glenn Greenwald lays a smackdown on Fran Townsend during Wikileaks debate on CNN

I have watched this awful video at least 5 times just closed it for the last time I am not going to watch it again. There was one point in the second half where it seemed it could be possible that there was a delay but I think greewald was just taken back by Frans accusation of illegality. But I did not notice anything that seemed like it was definitely a delay.

Re: Glenn Greenwald lays a smackdown on Fran Townsend during Wikileaks debate on CNN

There must be some anon who has tried video conferencing over Skype. What was your experience?

Were lags common or was Glenn checking in from Moonbase Alpha?

Re: Glenn Greenwald lays a smackdown on Fran Townsend during Wikileaks debate on CNN

I've used Skype quite a bit and I have found that for no or very little lag your machine better have a good connection and better than 2 gigs of RAM.

Re: Glenn Greenwald lays a smackdown on Fran Townsend during Wikileaks debate on CNN

from some other forum, if you want dox copy paste them and search w/ google.

Answer:

Re: Glenn Greenwald lays a smackdown on Fran Townsend during Wikileaks debate on CNN

Given the myriad of comments from high ranking US officials, including attorney general Eric Holder, indicating intent to prosecute and given recent comments from the Swedish prosecutor concerning the possibility of US extradition from Sweden, I can only conclude that your first sentence is carefully worded bunkum. When this reality is acknowledged your second sentence simply falls apart since, as was clear from the piece itself, the intention was to smear Assange as a money-grabber.

This type of lazy logic is all too common of late from those in the media, and is no less pathetic when used on this forum.

This is true. As Greenwald noted, and you chose to ignore, a Pentagon report on Wikileaks, which included some means on how they could attempt to destroy it, was leaked.

I missed the ad hominem here. Can you point out where Greenwald did this? All I can see is him pointing out some politicians who profited by writing books. Where is the ad hominem in that?

How WikiLeaks Enlightened Us in 2010 - World Watch - CBS News

It is scary when you consider that this isn’t even a complete account of what the cables have so far revealed, and that the number of cables thus far released only about 1% of the total cables. I fail to see how this was an exaggeration.

Further, during the congressional hearing on Wikileaks one of the witnesses included reference to a study that estimated between 50% and 75% of material analysed should not have been classified. I couldn’t be bothered to look up the reference since I doubt you care enough about accuracy to research it.

So far it looks like you are simply misinformed or ignorant about what information is now available. Kindly correct that.

Evidence that he stole information? If you are going to simply repeat the debunked talking points from the interview be prepared to be called on it. If you are referring to publication, rather than stealing, that point has already been thoroughly addressed in this thread.

It is not a crime to leak information if you are not a government employee. This is basic first amendment journalism.

Do you dispute this point?

I missed the personal attacks. Maybe you are confused and think that stating simple facts constitute personal attacks?

You really are stretching here. Good luck with that.

A good example is when Greenwald called out CNN for not doing their job. Note the delay between his comment and the host’s reaction.

Re: Glenn Greenwald lays a smackdown on Fran Townsend during Wikileaks debate on CNN

What comments and what officials.

"U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder says the release of thousands of classified U.S. documents and cables by the WikiLeaks organization has put Americans at risk. But Holder would not say what steps he has taken to deal with the leaks."

As of an hour ago it again was reported that he is only investigating if there is a crime commited by Assange. I have pointed out several times that if any crime has been committed it has not been reported in the media even Fox News says they have no evidence that a crime was committed in the publishing of the documents.

I didn't ignore it I brought attention to it and excluded it from my comment. However there is no evidence that any US action has taken place against Assange - Casting blame for things that did not happen seems to becoming a habbit for you.

What does the number of cables have to do with anything in my post ? And what is scary about people sending messages back and forth to each other that is not particularly newsworthy.

And the point is ? That topic has nothing to do with this interview, and your above statement had nothing to do with the portion of my post you quoted to respond to. Should we demand that elected officials and their entire staff Twitter about what they had for lunch ?

If that is the case and I don't agree that it is, the post you are quoting only has to do with things said in the CNN interview. But you are the one misrepresenting the statements of the Attorney General. (see above) as of articles posted an hour ago, he still has not said that he plans to bring JA up on charges.

The only evidence I have that you even read what I wrote was you seem to have intentionally left out the part where I say that it was the leak to wikileaks that was illegal, I did not say publishing it was not legal.

See directly above.

Are you saying everyone was using well thought out logical statements in the interveiw ? Because I said the opposite.

That was one of the personal attacks you said you didn't see.

Re: Glenn Greenwald lays a smackdown on Fran Townsend during Wikileaks debate on CNN

micro pedantry ITT.

Re: Glenn Greenwald lays a smackdown on Fran Townsend during Wikileaks debate on CNN

Bravo Fran Townsend! I agree, the World needs more people like him.

I worry though about the effect of theWorld's biased news coverage against Wikileaks/Assange. I'd like to know what normal people think about Wikileaks, after being exposed to such a high level of BS.

I mean, what percentage of the people you talk to are for/againtst Wikileaks' actions?

Re: Glenn Greenwald lays a smackdown on Fran Townsend during Wikileaks debate on CNN

I can’t make you look at the news if you don’t want to. Holder has indicated that Assange may be prosecuted under the 1917 espionage act. US senators have called him to prosecute:
.: United States Senator Kit Bond :: Press Room :.

Pretend this doesn’t exist if you want to. You have that choice after all.

And by excluding it you lunched a comment that said report refuted. Way to go.

Mastercard, Amazon, Paypal. I suppose the huge PR war attempting to brand him a terrorist also didn’t happen.

It helped refute you claim that the US government is open about the majority of its dealings. The small fraction of the cables thus far released contradicts you.

When you accuse Greenwald of lying then evidence refuting your claim is relevant. Since you are intent on ignoring all relevant information it is not surprising that you thought Greenwald was lying.

Strawman alert.

The post I was quoting accused Greenwald of lying while ignoring freely available information showing him to be correct.

I don’t give people the benefit of the doubt when they have been wrong on multiple points in a single post. By asking the question in the manner you have done you are making the same implication and innuendo as the host did. Since it seems you acknowledge the lack of evidence for this I expect you not to use such misleading wording in future. This is unlikely to happen given your tract record so far though.

Your comment was implying a false equivalency between the three participants, and your means of trying to foist this false equivalency was to try manufacturing accusations against Greenwald.

The CNN host appeared not to know what journalism is, as evidenced by her apparently ignorance regarding the first amendment concerning the publication of classified materials. The role of investigative journalism was explained by Greenwald, and given the comments from the host it was most than reasonable for him to point out CNN’s fail here. This is only a personal attack if you ignore the factual accuracy behind the comment (something you appear determined to do).

Re: Glenn Greenwald lays a smackdown on Fran Townsend during Wikileaks debate on CNN

There is a big difference between someone being charged with rape in one country and someone being charged with espionage in another. When all of the spin is taken away that is what we have.

(I have to admit I don't know if he is charged in Sweden or if he is just sought for questioning.)

Re: Glenn Greenwald lays a smackdown on Fran Townsend during Wikileaks debate on CNN

WikiLeaks: Julian Assange facing US prosecution bid, says Joe Biden - Telegraph

"Mr Biden said that officials in the US Justice Department were actively exploring ways to prosecute Mr Assange in America over his website’s leaks.

It is the first admission from a senior member of the US administration that efforts are already underway in Washington to bring charges against Mr Assange, who is currently on bail in Britain facing extradition to Sweden on unrelated sexual assault charges."

Re: Glenn Greenwald lays a smackdown on Fran Townsend during Wikileaks debate on CNN

I asked about a "myraid" and what comments made by Holder you were addressing. Your myraid consists of one letter by two people. I don't dispute that the letter was sent, but I wanted to emphasize the point the fact remains there is no person with the ability to bring him up on charges stating that they intend to.

???

I was talking about the US government, I was not commenting the individuals, or institutions exercising their rights.

No, it really doesn't.

Where did I say he was lying ? I did say he let the audience assume the legal fees JA was accumulating were for the wiki leaks issue and not the rape issue.

It was a joke. Chil-lax.

So you think it is fine to misrepresent a person's comments by deleting portions of the comments so they appear to say something else, duly noted .

No I was simply saying the interview was a clusterfuck.

Using the same logic Greenwald doesn't know what profiting is. And I don't know what source he drew from to be all knowing of the duties required of an investigative journalist, although many things are protected under the first amendment, the host (rather poorly) suggested that ethics of some sort are established by individual news organizations.

NO, I am trying to tone down the hysterics and rhetoric that you seem eager to promote.