Glenn Greenwald responds to false claim that he worked from Goldman Sachs

I emailed Mr. Glenn Greenwald, over a claim made here to the effect that Mr. Greenwald worked for Goldmann Sachs, and that he wasn't slamming Goldman Sachs when he worked for them.

I emailed Mr. Greenwald who promptly replied:



There's more:




It's worth nothing Greenwald began blogging in 2005, so even if it were true (which it isn't) that working for a law firm (straight out of college) that happens to have Goldman Sachs as one of its clients is the equivalent of "working for Goldman Sachs" Greenwald couldn't have "slammed" them because he didn't have a blog back then.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

:rofl:

Thanks for clearing that up for us. It's no wonder that he supports the wing nut conservative Republican position on the Citizen's United case.

Or do you ignore them on purpose?

... their "personhood". His past "anti- Goldman Sachs" talk is cheap because his true colors show on his support for the Citizen's United ruling.

In fact, he was sympathetic to that argument.

"GREENWALD: "As for the question of whether corporations possess "personhood," that's an interesting issue and, as I said, I'm very sympathetic to the argument that they do not, but the majority's ruling here did not really turn on that question. That's because the First Amendment does not only vest rights in "persons." It says nothing about "persons." It simply bans Congress from making any laws abridging freedom of speech."

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/01/22/citizens_united

... "sympathetic" to the political interests of Big Corporations. If you can't see that, then your loyalty to Greenwald is greater than to liberal Democratic principles.

You can't have liberal principles and agree 100% of the time with our President. I know some people who claim to have liberal principles but do not. They have absolute partisan loyalty.

Did Greenwald side with Boeing or did the current administration side with that huge corporation?

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/radio/2009/04/07/smith

If I were a Wall Street Shill, I wouldn't go around making the powerfula arguments he makes against huge corporations such as Boeing and Goldman Sachs?

Are you Greenwald?

You remind me of the posters who show up everytime Greenwald is criticized.

I didn't imply that you attacked me instead of Greenwald. I said "If I were a WS shill" in order to show that wall street shills do not attack Wall Street; therefore, Greenwald is not one of them.

That's a lot of detail.

Also, you e-mailed him about a claim and he e-mailed you back in less than a couple of hours?

Very interesting.

:think:

REALLY???

Besides, the poster reminds me of someone.

And who am I? One of Greenwald's minions, or vast army?

It's hardly a secret database with classified information about Greenwald.
The fist non-Salon result that google gives you is wikipedia, when you search his name.

When a person told what appeared to be a lie (and turned out to be a lie) about Greenwa.d, I emailed him and did a simple search about his career. You could have easily done it too, if you had wanted to find out the truth.

Say it isn't so.

Or did you not read the articles?

Nuff said.

Citizens United= Not enough said.

And can you explain the ties?

If being obvious were water, you would be the Pacific Ocean. One need only to review a few of your posts to understand your game here! Cheers!

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I'm sick of these Wall Street shills.

?

Citizens United.

Seriously, anyone who supports this decision is either suspect or clueless.

that was a change of subject.

Let me also ask you about why Greenwald supported a lawsuit by Binyam Mohammed against the huge Boeing corportation while our Presidency tried to block that lawsuit. Let me guess. Citizens United?

Your own words: "I'm sick of these Wall Street shills."

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Glenn Greenwald criticizes Obama's potential SC nominee, and is accused of working for Sachs and hating America.

Bill Halter (a 2008 Obama supporter whose crime is to run against Blanche Lincoln) is a homophobe and hates America.

Joe Sestak (a Dem congressman and admiral until 2005 who is running against 45-year Republican Alan Specter) is a fake Democrat (because he only declared his party after leaving the Navy) and hates America.

It is as predictable as the sunrise, but a lot less welcome.

Kagan doesn't.

I disagree with him on that decision, but understand the constitutional basis for his agreement with it.

Next.

Yeah, Roberts and Alito had a point, right?

What utter hogwash. His position is despicable.

Or into disagreement with anything else he might ever say.

This was not a decision comparable to the race-based ones that have mentioned, for example.

It's an interpretation of the scope of the first amendment.

Yeah, if the tables were turned and President Obama had agreed with that decision, he'd be called a corporatist or a fascist.

Greenwald's position makes him a corporatist. Period.

Not joining the burning party today.

<<Yeah, if the tables were turned and President Obama had agreed with that decision, he'd be called a corporatist or a fascist.>>

Definitely.

Kagan has no paper trail to speak of.

Greenwald has presented some criticisms regarding a potential Obama nominee, and that makes him a demon-possessed minion of Hell.

Obviously he can never be right about anything, and must be described in the most hyperbolic terms as an enemy of freedom and killer of kittens.

Why do you defend this despicable monster's right to have an opinion?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

If It is, it is not working very well, is it?

Burn the witch! Burn ! Burn!

How Orwellian.

would be enough for Greenwald and others to vilify them.

The whole guilt-by-assocation meme in the blogsphere is ridiculous.

other than your own righteous indignation? Can you cite ONE column by Greenwald where he vilifies someone solely because of who was represented by the law firm they worked for?

...it does clarify what Mr. Greenwald's real connection to GS is: i.e., not much. He worked for a law firm that had GS as a client. And, he worked there fresh out of college, making it doubtful that he had any say in the matter. Basically, if we are to believe that he is in the pocket of GS -- and to do so we must ignore the articles cited in the OP -- then we are requiring a level of "purity" that is in effect unattainable in the real world.

Interestingly, although most here on DU disagree with Greenwald's opinion in this piece, it is only a small contingent who are using it to try and smear Greenwald overall. I wonder why?

FYI:

Not so much. Didn't go alone with the false image of hope and change.

Candidate Obama accepted no PAC money from GS or any other Wall Street firm.

It's interested that when someone notes the money Obama receives froma big corp., you remind us that he also received money from not-so-powerful institutions.

But you do not apply the same standard with Greenwald, who has defended people in indefinite detention, people who die as a result of drone attacks, Sonia Sotomaryor, etc. But you seem to only highlight his "ties" to Goldman Sachs and Citizens United. You like to look at the big picture regarding Obama, but not Greenwald. Interesting double standard.

It would be fun to watch him take on the ones here who are so obsessed with him.

It would be fun watching him explain why the decision was the right one.

Especially since he still is a corporate tool, given his support for the Citizens United decision.

mildly amusing attempts at smearing Greenwald. Your arguments are weak and you seem to think that merely repeating yoru smears makes them true. No, I think fair minded readers can clearly see your offerings are merely smear and slime.

One is the, to be charitable, boarderline lie being told about Greenwald's "support" for Citizens United. By pretty much any reasonable reading of the minority (aka dissent) in Citizens United agreed with Mr. Greenwald's notion that groups of citizens also have first amendment rights and that banning the showing of the anti Hillary movie violated those rights. What the disagreement was about in the case was if any limits upon corporations are legal. Greenwald's article certainly doesn't argue againt any and all limits.

The other thing that needs addressing is the notion that working for a firm that has Goldman Sacs as a client is equivalent to working for Goldman sacs itself. That is absurd. Unless Greenwald was a partner, which no one is saying he was, he had neither control over, or benefit from, the work that was done on behalf of Goldman Sacs.

The center's version of the salem witch trials was just picking up steam.

These two "attack" lines demonstrate two things rather clearly.

The first is that some people have zero understanding of the law (or the practice of it) beyond what they've seen on TV shows;

The second is that many of those same people have demonstrated the intellectual capability and emotional maturity of middle schoolers.

Indeed, I've known middle schoolers who'd see right through these sorts of shallow smears.

What this indicates to me is that most of them know that Greenwald's criticisms raise disturbing issues- valid public concerns that there really aren't good answers or responses to.

Not that facts are of any consequence to the fanatics.

But I appreciate your clarifying remarks here.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

The transparency of the critics on this thread is an awesome thing to behold. I hope all DU'ers note that it is the same "gang" of posters that routinely show up to work in tandem on threads like this. These folks are as subtle as earthquakes.