HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Journalistic impartiality...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 12:39 PM

Journalistic impartiality tested in NSA leak story

I searched for this story and the other one I posted awhile ago and the advanced search is moving VERY slowly, so apologies if this had already been posted. The piece is about Glenn Greenwald, who, I must admit is one of my least favorite people.
------------------------------------
Some reporters who helped break the National Security Agency surveillance story reject the impartial journalistic stance that was a fundamental principle for a previous generation of reporters.

By James Rainey, Los Angeles Times
June 17, 2013, 8:28 p.m.

Edward Snowden may represent the archetypal leaker of the Internet age — a tech savant who justifies his civil disobedience as a righteous rebuttal to the big institutions he believes have intruded too far into ordinary people's lives.

But it's not just the mole in the National Security Agency surveillance story who is operating in new channels. The reporters who brought his account forward also represent something distinct in journalism. In some cases, their profiles loom larger, particularly on the subject of security and spying, than those of their publications. And a couple offer full-throated attacks on unchecked government surveillance, as they reject the impartial journalistic stance that was a fundamental principle for a previous generation of reporters.

That combination means significant parts of official Washington have attacked not just Snowden, but some of the reporters who brought forward accounts of the NSA's vast trove of telephone and Internet data. Rep. Peter T. King (R-N.Y.) has called for the criminal prosecution of Glenn Greenwald, the columnist, author and lawyer who first broke the story for the Guardian of London.

Some journalists had complaints about the stories as well, a few because of what they said was imprecise reporting but others because of details the stories did not disclose. They wanted to know more about the kind of individuals whom the security agency investigated and why.

------------------

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-nsa-media-20130618,0,1314321,full.story

55 replies, 3563 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 55 replies Author Time Post
Reply Journalistic impartiality tested in NSA leak story (Original post)
mimi85 Jun 2013 OP
OilemFirchen Jun 2013 #1
sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #7
magellan Jun 2013 #9
malaise Jun 2013 #10
Whisp Jun 2013 #11
OilemFirchen Jun 2013 #13
sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #14
OilemFirchen Jun 2013 #18
OilemFirchen Jun 2013 #19
OilemFirchen Jun 2013 #24
OilemFirchen Jun 2013 #25
grasswire Jun 2013 #27
OilemFirchen Jun 2013 #28
grasswire Jun 2013 #29
OilemFirchen Jun 2013 #30
JaneyVee Jun 2013 #31
sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #39
OilemFirchen Jun 2013 #44
OilemFirchen Jun 2013 #38
mimi85 Jun 2013 #2
Catherina Jun 2013 #3
randome Jun 2013 #4
sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #8
KoKo Jun 2013 #37
Monkie Jun 2013 #5
KoKo Jun 2013 #36
msanthrope Jun 2013 #6
sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #12
Luminous Animal Jun 2013 #15
sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #22
Luminous Animal Jun 2013 #26
msanthrope Jun 2013 #32
sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #16
Luminous Animal Jun 2013 #17
sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #23
msanthrope Jun 2013 #33
Luminous Animal Jun 2013 #34
msanthrope Jun 2013 #35
Luminous Animal Jun 2013 #42
msanthrope Jun 2013 #45
msanthrope Jun 2013 #40
Luminous Animal Jun 2013 #43
msanthrope Jun 2013 #46
Luminous Animal Jun 2013 #47
msanthrope Jun 2013 #48
Luminous Animal Jun 2013 #49
msanthrope Jun 2013 #50
Luminous Animal Jun 2013 #51
msanthrope Jun 2013 #52
Luminous Animal Jun 2013 #53
msanthrope Jun 2013 #54
Rex Jun 2013 #20
treestar Jun 2013 #21
Tierra_y_Libertad Jun 2013 #41
flamingdem Jul 2013 #55

Response to mimi85 (Original post)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 01:03 PM

1. That's been my only agenda from the start.

I rarely post here (or anywhere), but this latest kerfuffle was the limit, when I saw that its origin was Glenn Greenwald. Steve Clemons (of the now neo-liberal Atlantic) jumped on board with his breathless, utterly irresponsible tweets, then Declan McCullagh iced the cake, creating quotes out of whole cloth.

Journalism has changed, and not for the better. If there's any takeaway here it's that readers should be very careful. Internet reportage has no standards and it shows.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OilemFirchen (Reply #1)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 01:20 PM

7. You have provided a perfect example of what the article is saying. Both Clemons and Greenwald

are well respected bloggers, but on the Left throughout the Bush era. Not on the Right. But even if they were on the Right, IF they were reporting facts, it should not matter.

Apparently, according to the article, our 'news' media has now reached a point where the 'messenger' is attacked by those who do not like the facts.

The fact is that Democrats like Ron Wyden and Jerry Adler and Scott and Grayson and most of our best most Progressive Dems have been warning about this for a long time. Do you look at them too and dismiss the whole story?

If you can't take what is on a Liberal forum, I can't help you with that. We are liberal democrats and care more the truth than about individuals. I used to be a blind partisan Dem certain that MY party could do no wrong and was willing and did take on any Republican who said otherwise. It was a painful process to realize that the world isn't that conveniently black and white and for a while I stopped commenting on political forums.

Now I want MY party to be on the right side of the issues. I don't care who the messenger is so long as they are telling the truth.

Greenwald has a long history throughout the Bush years of being one of the few independent writers who took on the Bush gang. He was supported by the left or so they said. Some on the left it appears were not that interested in facts, only in politics. They are marginal in the real world. Most Americans care about the truth regarding what is happening to this country. Greenwald HAS been targeted before, by one of those Government Contractors.

Apparently we've reached the point where writers are a threat. I didn't have to listen to morons like Peter King, who agrees with you btw. I have seen calls for the prosecutions of writers right here on DU.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #7)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 01:27 PM

9. +1 Thanks, Sabrina

I remember we were very careful about our sources during the Bush** years. It was the Repubs who rejected any writer who dared question their Dear Leader and it became a source of hilarity as they began eating and spitting out many of their own.

And all it came down to was their rejection of any fact and reasoned discussion that ran counter to their party's messaging.

So sad to see the same happening here now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #7)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 01:30 PM

10. Excellent response

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #7)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 01:32 PM

11. No, they are not well respected just on your say so (Greenwald.Clemons).

 

What they do is not objective, it appears personal to Greenwald as his dislike of Obama has shown over the years and it is not investigative but is agenda driven.

We can't believe anyone who happens to have a keyboard, and agenda and some gullible people that Want lies to be truths. Main stream media is corrupt enough, now we have typists making headlines.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #7)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 05:39 PM

13. Good god. Could you not get ANYTHING right?

I'm not attacking the "messenger", I'm attacking their journalistic chops. All of the aforementioned are hacks. Greenwald, specifically, became a "journalist" through his haphazard blogging "career" and shows no knowledge of journalistic practices, standards, and ethics. Shit, he proudly dismisses them. As a result, his work product is shoddy and ought to be an embarrassment to the Guardian, an otherwise exemplary publication. I'm hoping that, after this latest round of bizarre Greenwald antics, they show him the door. I'll certainly regain my respect for them and I suspect many others, who've been scratching their heads since his hire, will do the same.

I do not give one runny shit who lines up on what side of this story. As I stated, I merely bemoan the journalistic malpractice that led to it in the first place.

I can "take" what's on a liberal forum, though I have a hard time taking seriously any of the Anarcho/Paulite/Self Righteous/Purity Club "left" that dominates parts of it. Feel free if you must to exclude me from your "liberal Democrats" club, but I'll stack my bona fides against yours any time. You don't agree with me? Fine. But how the fuck dare you question my political philosophy?

We have not reached a point where writers are a "threat". We have reached a point where hacks are driving the narrative, and far too many readers are not discerning. That's "threatening" because it fosters a growing class of news consumers who are driven by nothing but confirmation bias - facts be damned.

I'm pretty much done with you. Not "iggie" done, which seems to be a common, albeit craven tactic among some of DU's Very Important Posters when they hear something which offends their delicate sensitivities. But done, as in you're intractable and useless in conversation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OilemFirchen (Reply #13)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 05:49 PM

14. I don't have anyone on ignore, I love debate, even more with those who 'can't get anything left'.

And I'm never 'done' with anyone either. To be done would mean I have run out of the means to defend my positions. I can't recall that ever happening, on matters of politics.

And this one is hilarious, I guess it would, in your opinion for what's it worth, mean ME: Anarcho/Paulite/Self Righteous/Purity Club.

After which, you go on to demand to know with righteous outrage:

You don't agree with me? Fine. But how the fuck dare you question my political philosophy?

Maybe because all you have contributed to this 'debate' are declarations about other people's political philosophies, simply because they disagree with you?

Do you see the irony?

But back to Greenwald and Clemon whose journalistic standards you so abhor. Could you list someone in our MSM whose journalistic standards you approve of?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #14)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 05:57 PM

18. Cite one instance where I've declared anyone's political philosophies.

Including you.

Good luck with that.

Don't know what the "MSM" consists of to you, but, off the top of my head: Barbara Ehrenreich.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OilemFirchen (Reply #18)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 06:05 PM

19. Matt Rothschild and Ruth Conniff

Thomas Frank
Eugene Robinson
Jonathan Alter
Paul Krugman
David Corn

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OilemFirchen (Reply #19)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 06:16 PM

24. May they rest in peace

Art Buchwald
William Raspberry

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OilemFirchen (Reply #24)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 06:17 PM

25. Lewis Lapham

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OilemFirchen (Reply #25)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 07:38 PM

27. Lewis Lapham MSM??

I don't THINK so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Reply #27)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 08:33 PM

28. As I said above..

Oh, never mind.

His writing has appeared in The American Conservative Life, Commentary, Vanity Fair, National Review, Yale Literary Magazine, ELLE, Fortune, Forbes, American Spectator, The New York Times, The Walrus, Maclean's, The Observer (London), and the Wall Street Journal.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_H._Lapham

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OilemFirchen (Reply #28)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 08:40 PM

29. How odd that you omit his largest accomplishment.

Harper's Magazine, where he schooled Americans on liberal thought in the most delicious (albeit elitist) voice. I am a liberal today because of Lewis Lapham's brilliance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Reply #29)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 08:54 PM

30. I didn't omit shit.

Lapham is a journalist. I respect him. He is more mainstream than Glenn Greenwald, who was the subject of the discussion.

Here's another: Ernest Hemingway.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OilemFirchen (Reply #30)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 08:57 PM

31. Not to mention Greenwald character assassinates anyone who disagrees with him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OilemFirchen (Reply #30)

Wed Jun 19, 2013, 12:53 PM

39. Most of those you mentioned are either dead or they are not who the general public get their

news from.

Neither is Greenwald, he is a blogger who gained prominence because of his thoughtful, well informed assaults on Bush's illegal policies.

He is doing nothing different today, continuing to expose the illegal policies that were initiated by Bush. Which is why he continues to gain readers and unlike most bloggers, has moved into the mainstream news arena.

Our 'news' reporters consist of people reading from memos handed to them by their Corporate bosses. There are NO investigative journalists on the MSM where most Americans get their news.

Which is why young people turn to the internet and as a result are far more informed than their parents.

Fox, CNN which used to be a worthwhile news organization, MSNBC, who has fired people, like Ashley Banfield for speaking the truth, once, at a private event, THIS is where the average American go for news. And this is why they are so removed from the rest of the world.

Greenwald needs to be careful. The hatred towards him is similar to what we saw towards other reporters who dared to tell the truth.

Not to mention that we know he has targeted for a 'smear campaign' to 'shut him up' by Government Contractor, HB Gary. That alone increased his status even among those who don't care for his views, but do respect the 1st Amendment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #39)

Wed Jun 19, 2013, 05:49 PM

44. "Greenwald needs to be careful."

That would be a start. Then he could work on critical thinking. He could take a journalism class or two. Meet some people outside of his Randian bubble. Learn to listen a bit, and shut up a bit more. Grow a thicker skin.

Who knows? Anything is better than what he currently offers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #14)

Wed Jun 19, 2013, 10:49 AM

38. Found anything yet?

I'm pretty good with the Google. Do you need any help?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mimi85 (Original post)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 01:07 PM

2. My feelings exactly

only you put it much better than I could.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mimi85 (Original post)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 01:11 PM

3. Thank you Mimi, that was an interesting read. Rec'd n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mimi85 (Original post)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 01:14 PM

4. There are agendas here, and it's going to bite someone in the ass.

My guess is Greenwald will come to regret this. Maybe even the Guardian.

Snowden will either live his life in Hong Kong or be extradited home.

It's obvious Greenwald wants to be 'right' when an objective journalist wants only to be 'correct'.

There is a big difference between those two stances but too many journalists can't see that.



Stop looking for heroes. BE one.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #4)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 01:27 PM

8. Imagine finding you here slamming Greenwald? Who would have thought? Lol!

'It's obvious Greenwald wants to be right'. That has always been obvious about Greenwald which is why has risen from being just a blogger to a major force in journalism. Do you realize what you just said? That a journalist should not care about being right? They don't, see the attacks on the messengers, so you don't have to worry at all. Our media is among the least credible in the free world.

Thank the Gods someone in journalism cares about being right before writing material for public consumption. Now if only we could get a few more who care about the facts they put out there.

And, for the record, Greenwald has been wrong at times. What gained him so much credibility is that he always corrected mistakes in his reporting. Fine with me that a journalist wants to be right. Wish we had more of them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #4)

Wed Jun 19, 2013, 10:30 AM

37. Advocacy Journalism and Muckrakers...


From the LA TIMES article in the OP

"What I think I am writing about is all connected to one bigger story," Greenwald said. "That story is about exposing the overall unaccountability of this massive spying apparatus and the way it is done in total secrecy."

In his zest for advocacy journalism, Greenwald looks more like the activist reporters of the early 20th century, said Josh Meyer, a security correspondent for the website Quartz. The biggest revelation of the 2012 presidential campaign — the video showing candidate Mitt Romney belittling the 47% of Americans he called dependent — was made public by another advocacy publication, Mother Jones magazine, he noted.

"The muckrakers all were very opinionated and had attitude, and I think with the way journalism is changing, we're headed more and more in that direction," said Meyer, who is also director of education and outreach for the Medill National Security Journalism Initiative.


Said Greenwald: "Being up front about your opinions makes one, in some sense, more credible than someone who pretends they don't have opinions."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mimi85 (Original post)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 01:16 PM

5. indeed, all those agents pretending to be journalists, its nothing new.

 

the use of journalists to do the work of agents is nothing new, its the american way!
who needs news when we have agents to tell us what we should think

http://carlbernstein.com/magazine_cia_and_media.php

Alsop is one of more than 400 American journalists who in the past twenty‑five years have secretly carried out assignments for the Central Intelligence Agency, according to documents on file at CIA headquarters. Some of these journalists’ relationships with the Agency were tacit; some were explicit. There was cooperation, accommodation and overlap. Journalists provided a full range of clandestine services—from simple intelligence gathering to serving as go‑betweens with spies in Communist countries. Reporters shared their notebooks with the CIA. Editors shared their staffs. Some of the journalists were Pulitzer Prize winners, distinguished reporters who considered themselves ambassadors without‑portfolio for their country. Most were less exalted: foreign correspondents who found that their association with the Agency helped their work; stringers and freelancers who were as interested in the derring‑do of the spy business as in filing articles; and, the smallest category, full‑time CIA employees masquerading as journalists abroad. In many instances, CIA documents show, journalists were engaged to perform tasks for the CIA with the consent of the managements of America’s leading news organizations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Monkie (Reply #5)

Wed Jun 19, 2013, 10:01 AM

36. Carl Bernstein's article is a reminder of what many our "free press journalists"

have been about for a long while.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mimi85 (Original post)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 01:17 PM

6. He wasn't impartial or ethical as a lawyer...why would Greenwald be either

as a journalist?

Here's how impartial and unethical he was on behalf of a white supremacist...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002101211

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #6)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 01:33 PM

12. Dragging up an old legal case again? I haven't clicked, but is that the one where the judge

commended him even after admonishing him, something that happens frequently in courts all over the country.

How do you feel about the ACLU's lawyers defending Nazis btw? As I understand it, lawyers in a democracy are required to defend their clients, even if they totally disagree with their politics.

Anything to say about the actual topic? Although you did, I suppose, you perfectly made the point raised in the article by the author. Attack the messenger. Don't discuss the message. This got old so long ago I don't believe people still try it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #12)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 05:50 PM

15. Hree is part of the opinion...

Given the rhetoric in the papers filed with respect to this difficult ethical question, we wish to clarify one last matter. We are applying rules here, not judging character. As the magistrate judge noted, although ultimately unsuccessful, defendants' arguments were reasonable. Defense counsel could have reasonably believed that his conduct was permissible. Although we find that his conduct did violate the rules, our rejection of his position does not equate to an indictment as an unethical person.


And Greenwald:

The only specific example I've ever seen raised in support of this innuendo was a 2001 ruling on the propriety of my tape recording of a witness which arose in a First Amendment free speech case I litigated in defense of a white supremacist church. When I was in my office in New York (where tape recording witnesses was permitted), I interviewed a witness by telephone who was in Illinois (where tape recording witnesses was not permitted). There was a split in legal authority on which rule applied: the rule of the jurisdiction where the recorder was physically located, or where the witness was physically located. The American Bar Association had expressly ruled that surreptitious tape recordings of witnesses by lawyers was permitted.

I took the position that New York rules should apply and the other side took the position that the Illinois rules should apply. The district court judge - 12 years ago - ultimately ruled that Illinois rules applied, but made expressly clear in his written opinion that this was a mere standard legal dispute with reasonable views on both sides, not a question of whether anything unethical had been done:


http://ggsidedocs.blogspot.com/2013/01/frequently-told-lies-ftls.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Luminous Animal (Reply #15)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 06:14 PM

22. Yes, I thought it was that same old case. What a stellar record Greenwald

has as an attorney if this minor disagreement on RULES in NY V rules in other states is all they can come up. I know lawyers who would die to have only this one minor disagreement with a judge on their record.

As a student for Court Stenography, I saw attorneys, good ones, run out of courtrooms by judges on a regular basis.

This is pathetic, really. A total deception which has been debunked each time s/he reposts it hoping for a different result.

The case was simple. Greenwald was in NY where taping of witnesses was legal. Those rules are different in different states which was aknowledged by the court to MAKE SURE THAT NO ONE would misinterpret what is a standard misunderstanding in court, as anything other than that. And to see someone right here on DU, despite being told over and over again that they are misrepresentating what happened, repeatedly attempt to do exactly what the court did not want, slime Greenwald.

Here is what the court said. They being in a different state decided to apply the rules of THAT state, so Greenwald lost his argument, despite being within the rules in NY:


As the magistrate judge noted, although ultimately unsuccessful, defendants' arguments were reasonable. Defense counsel could have reasonably believed that his conduct was permissible. Although we find that his conduct did violate the rules, our rejection of his position does not equate to an indictment as an unethical person.


Weak and despicable attempt to attack the messenger when unable to attack the message. And so very old now. Debunked, filed away by anyone who does not wish to continue to embarrass themselves.

So sick of it.

Thank you for the links Luminous Animal. We probably should keep them handy as this will be produced again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #22)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 06:57 PM

26. You are welcome Sabrina.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Luminous Animal (Reply #15)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 09:55 PM

32. "The magistrate judge granted both motions, finding defense counsel's conduct unethical under two"

The magistrate judge granted both motions, finding defense counsel's conduct unethical under two separate rules: Local Rule 83.58.4(a)(4), prohibiting "dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation;" and Local Rule 83.54.4, stating "a lawyer shall not ... use methods of obtaining evidence that violate the legal rights of person.""ANDERSON v. HALE 159 F.Supp.2d 1116 (2001)

http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=20011275159FSupp2d1116_11178.xml

He also attempted to manipulate the witness statements, per the magistrate's findings of fact-

"A 52-page transcript of one conversation showed defendants' counsel steered the conversation by eliciting particular responses to detailed questions, leading to more detailed questions, to lure the witness into damning statements for later use." Anderson v. Hale, 202 F.R.D. 548 (N.D.Ill. 2001),

That's from the actual case---not Greenwald's explanation. His conduct was unethical.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #12)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 05:51 PM

16. Mmm ....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #6)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 05:51 PM

17. Funny that the judge ruled that his actions were not unethical but you claim that he was...

Oh, who to believe...

The only specific example I've ever seen raised in support of this innuendo was a 2001 ruling on the propriety of my tape recording of a witness which arose in a First Amendment free speech case I litigated in defense of a white supremacist church. When I was in my office in New York (where tape recording witnesses was permitted), I interviewed a witness by telephone who was in Illinois (where tape recording witnesses was not permitted). There was a split in legal authority on which rule applied: the rule of the jurisdiction where the recorder was physically located, or where the witness was physically located. The American Bar Association had expressly ruled that surreptitious tape recordings of witnesses by lawyers was permitted.

I took the position that New York rules should apply and the other side took the position that the Illinois rules should apply. The district court judge - 12 years ago - ultimately ruled that Illinois rules applied, but made expressly clear in his written opinion that this was a mere standard legal dispute with reasonable views on both sides, not a question of whether anything unethical had been done:

Given the rhetoric in the papers filed with respect to this difficult ethical question, we wish to clarify one last matter. We are applying rules here, not judging character. As the magistrate judge noted, although ultimately unsuccessful, defendants' arguments were reasonable. Defense counsel could have reasonably believed that his conduct was permissible. Although we find that his conduct did violate the rules, our rejection of his position does not equate to an indictment as an unethical person.


There was zero sanction, penalty, or any other form of disciplinary action proposed or taken as the result of that. As the district court judge said, it was a "difficult" question on which there was conflicting precedent and the arguments for the legality of the tape recording were "reasonable". Anyone claiming that this was a finding of unethical behavior or that I was sanctioned in any way is either lying or ignorant. I continued to practice law for six years after that.

http://ggsidedocs.blogspot.com/2013/01/frequently-told-lies-ftls.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Luminous Animal (Reply #17)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 06:16 PM

23. Thank you again. Disgusting attempt to smear a man because of a political disagreement.

They make it easy for him though. He has never backed away from them, and takes them head on every time they lie about him.

Note though that there is no discussion of the issues. That article by him is excellent. Everyone should read it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Luminous Animal (Reply #17)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 09:58 PM

33. "The magistrate judge granted both motions, finding defense counsel's conduct unethical under two"

The magistrate judge granted both motions, finding defense counsel's conduct unethical under two separate rules: Local Rule 83.58.4(a)(4), prohibiting "dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation;" and Local Rule 83.54.4, stating "a lawyer shall not ... use methods of obtaining evidence that violate the legal rights of person.""ANDERSON v. HALE 159 F.Supp.2d 1116 (2001)

http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=20011275159FSupp2d1116_11178.xml

He also attempted to manipulate the witness statements, per the magistrate's findings of fact-

"A 52-page transcript of one conversation showed defendants' counsel steered the conversation by eliciting particular responses to detailed questions, leading to more detailed questions, to lure the witness into damning statements for later use." Anderson v. Hale, 202 F.R.D. 548 (N.D.Ill. 2001),

That is from the actual case as opposed to Greenwald's tapdancing. His conduct was unethical.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #33)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 11:24 PM

34. You can weasel your way all around it but the judge's words are clear. As for your "A 52-page

transcript" quote, please provide the source document because Little Green Footballs does not make it clear that it was a finding of fact.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Luminous Animal (Reply #34)

Wed Jun 19, 2013, 09:22 AM

35. You seem pretty confused. Let me clear up a few things for you.

First..Unlike you, I am not quoting Mr. Greenwald. I am quoting the appellate opinion on his major fuck-up of rule 26(b)(3). I've now given you the cite multiple times. It would be sporting if you read the opinion you are opining on. The Center for Constitutional Rights smacked Greenwald's ass righteously...it's worth the read.

Second...Leagle.com is not Little Green Footballs.

Third...appellate opinions recite the findings of facts of the lower court. They do not find their own. Greenwald's ethical violations were not vacated by the appellate court...they remain on record. That the appellate court threw him a bone by noting that they judge not character, but conduct was nice of them...perhaps they thought him merely ignorant, as opposed to malicious. Which is an entirely possible conclusion, given his conduct....

Fourth...If you read the opinion you are opining on, you would realize that the 52-page transcript I am referring to is Greenwald's own work product. Not only was he stupid enough to wiretap a witness..he made a transcript of it.

Then, in a move I simply cannot explain....he brought that transcript to deposition, apparently hoping to impeach a witness. When CCR demanded all evidence of all the wiretaps, Greenwald claimed work product doctrine under 26(b)(3).

Well, because of the ethical violations, the court found that Greenwald couldn't claim the privilege. So his client lost that protection, and Greenwald had to hand over all the transcripts. The magistrate characterized one of those transcripts, the appellate court noted, in a manner that reflected very poorly on Greenwald.

With the privilege lost, Hale settled the case. The NY bar put out a clarifying opinion, referenced in my OP.

And this case is taught in law schools as how not to violate your client's privileges.

It would really help if you read the cases you opine on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #35)

Wed Jun 19, 2013, 05:11 PM

42. Mr. Greenwald and I are also quoting the ruling. And I asked for a link to the originial case the

appellate court was referring to. A link which you seem unable to provide so I am UNABLE TO READ THE OPINION.

I've read the entire text of the judges opinion that you linked to and it says absolutely nothing about a 52 page transcript. Nothing.

Apparently, your alleged "finding of fact" is from this case: Anderson v. Hale, 202 F.R.D. 548 (N.D.Ill. 2001). If you are going to quote from it, I expect a link.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Luminous Animal (Reply #42)

Wed Jun 19, 2013, 07:17 PM

45. I gave you the cite. Kindly read what you are opining on. Heck...I even gave you an online

resource and you mistook that for Little Green Footballs.

Why are you opining on cases you haven't read??? Are you able to look up cases? If you are not, then why would you comment on them???














Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Luminous Animal (Reply #34)

Wed Jun 19, 2013, 04:58 PM

40. Crickets..have you read the opinion yet?? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #40)

Wed Jun 19, 2013, 05:32 PM

43. Some of us work...

Here is what you linked to: please show me the "52-page transcript" reference:

http://www.leagle.com/decision-result/?xmldoc/20011275159FSupp2d1116_11178.xml/docbase/CSLWAR2-1986-2006

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Luminous Animal (Reply #43)

Wed Jun 19, 2013, 07:19 PM

46. I've given you the citation. I also gave you an online resource. Why haven't you read the case

you are opining on??

You have the case citation? Look it up. If you don't have the ability to look up legal cases..then why are you opining on them??!










Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #46)

Wed Jun 19, 2013, 07:27 PM

47. I have read the contents of your link. It has nothing about a 52-page transcript...

I am asking you for a link that citation. I am not "opining" on that portion of your post and I won't until you provide me with the link.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Luminous Animal (Reply #47)

Wed Jun 19, 2013, 07:52 PM

48. Again..the citation was given. Read the case. If you lack the ability

to access legal cases..then just say so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #48)

Wed Jun 19, 2013, 08:21 PM

49. You provide a cititation but can provide no link to assess the veracity. Nice racket

you've got going there. I understand my limitations to access the vast majority of legal cases. I also understand your motivation for not providing the judge's ruling in the original case in full.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Luminous Animal (Reply #49)

Wed Jun 19, 2013, 08:54 PM

50. Let me see if I have this correctly...you are unable to access the cases you opine on?

As I said...you have the case citations. I can't make you use google, nor can I make you read what is provided.

You thought a link from Leagle.com was from Little Green Footballs. Jeebus....



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #50)

Wed Jun 19, 2013, 09:57 PM

51. You gave me the link to the appeal. Can you or can you not give me a link to the original case.

Your link to Leagle.com leads to the appellate case: ANDERSON v. HALE 159 F.Supp.2d 1116 (2001)

Your cited text says these words: "A 52-page transcript of one conversation showed defendants' counsel steered the conversation by eliciting particular responses to detailed questions, leading to more detailed questions, to lure the witness into damning statements for later use." Nowhere in ANDERSON v. HALE 159 F.Supp.2d 1116 (2001) do those words appear.

You claim that your text comes from ANDERSON v. HALE, 202 F.R.D. 548 (N.D.Ill. 2001), but a search of Leagle.com for that case turns up only the appellate case not the original case.

A google search of ANDERSON v. HALE, 202 F.R.D. 548 (N.D.Ill. 2001) also leads to the appellate case and not the original case.

A google search of these words: "A 52-page transcript of one conversation showed defendants' counsel steered the conversation by eliciting particular responses to detailed questions, leading to more detailed questions, to lure the witness into damning statements for later use.", brings up a comment on Little Green Footballs at the top of the page which remarkably you parrot verbatim.

From the Little Green Footballs site:

He also attempted to manipulate the witness statements, per the magistrate’s findings of fact-

“A 52-page transcript of one conversation showed defendants’ counsel steered the conversation by eliciting particular responses to detailed questions, leading to more detailed questions, to lure the witness into damning statements for later use.” Anderson v. Hale, 202 F.R.D. 548 (N.D.Ill. 2001),


And here you are: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023040270#post33

He also attempted to manipulate the witness statements, per the magistrate's findings of fact-

"A 52-page transcript of one conversation showed defendants' counsel steered the conversation by eliciting particular responses to detailed questions, leading to more detailed questions, to lure the witness into damning statements for later use." Anderson v. Hale, 202 F.R.D. 548 (N.D.Ill. 2001),

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Luminous Animal (Reply #51)

Thu Jun 20, 2013, 12:40 AM

52. If you have the cite, look it up! Don't know how to do that? Then perhaps you

might figure out how to look up legal cases before you opine on them. Am I mistaken...do I remember correctly that you are a teacher?

Or..you could always ask the transparent Mr. Greenwald to post the case, right?

Thank you, though...looks like the past DU thread I did on Mr. Greenwald made it all over the Internet. I'm betting this thread will, too.
















Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #52)

Thu Jun 20, 2013, 12:49 AM

53. Congratulations on parroting a Little Green Footballs comment TO THE LETTER.

If the "internet" remembers that, then good. And when I can, I will remind the "internet" that you parroted a Little Green Footballs comment, DOWN TO THE DASH, without providing a link to back yourself up.

You are welcome.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Luminous Animal (Reply #53)

Thu Jun 20, 2013, 10:26 AM

54. Look at the dates--LGF and Crooks and Liars copied me. LGF links to my OP on DU.

When you started the Litle Green Footballs crap upthread, I knew what you were up to.

I also knew you wouldn't bother to click the LGF link back to my DU OP. I also guessed right...you didn't bother to check the Crooks and Liars thread, where I am also quoted. So go ahead and claim I copied them....I'll be glad to show posters here how you tried to 'prove' something and failed....miserably.

Now...I asked this question..aren't you a teacher? Why didn't you answer me?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #6)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 06:08 PM

20. 'For me, Glenn Greenwald has always been an asshole.'

That explains a lot right there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #6)

Tue Jun 18, 2013, 06:12 PM

21. He's clearly not objective

That doesn't stir shit up. Today's journalists, more properly called pundits, want to stir shit up, not just report the facts.

Let other people make up their own minds - nah, we have to be an "influence."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mimi85 (Original post)

Wed Jun 19, 2013, 05:05 PM

41. News is what somebody somewhere wants to suppress; all the rest is advertising. Lord Northcliffe

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mimi85 (Original post)

Fri Jul 19, 2013, 12:44 AM

55. bump for relevance nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread