After the past few years, I do not share that assessment of Greenwald in the least. Following him on Twitter for a while caused the scales to fall from my eyes. I think he's done some good things in the past, but currently he seems off his rocker, honesty. People can change as they age, and I think he clearly has.
Not really. The adult behavior of Democrat politicians bother me far more than the behavior of a 12 year old. I was a bad kid when I was 12. What matters is who we become as adults and what ideals we champion then.
He has stuck by his claim -- despite the findings of numerous national and international intelligence community investigations and even a Republican senate investigations -- that Russia did not interfere in the 2016 election.
And despite his founding of the Intercept in part to investigate abuses by people in power (and his constant criticism that the press never publishes negative articles about people on their side) he has never written a single article critical of any of the abuses of power by the Trump administration. Not a single article critical of anything Trump has done in the past four years. [1]
It's just good foreign policy to meddle in the internal affairs of your biggest international rivals. Do you think the paranoid and allknowing American government doesn't do the exact same thing? Greenwald's position has ALWAYS been Russiagate was overblown nonsense. And I agree.
> He has stuck by his claim -- despite the findings of numerous national and international intelligence community investigations and even a Republican senate investigations -- that Russia did not interfere in the 2016 election.
I think you're grossly misrepresenting his opinion on the matter. No one denies that Russia made some half-assed attempts to influence the election. Every country tries to interfere in every election. Hell, we even bragged about it at times: http://content.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19960715,00.html
But did Russia conspire with the Trump campaign to rig the election or provide dirt on Hillary Clinton? No, and he's right for standing by that claim despite the immense pressure from partisan hacks who have effectively smeared him as some kind of Russian puppet. Your post is evidence of how effective that smear campaign has been.
I followed him on Twitter due to my respect of his earlier journalism work, and I agree completely. I'm not sure he's changed though, and I think that's kind of the problem--all of his tweets stem from holding a grudge the old neoliberal guard of the 2000s onward, while getting some kind of high off of the chaos that the Trump administration introduced into the political establishment (not just to Democrats).
I think you may be right. People are always a mix, and can produce really great things even if they don't always have the best judgement. Just got to get it right some of the time to make a good contribution.
