The New McCarthyism: Greenwald Exposed w/Address And Contact Information

While it's increasing difficult for center-right and conservative bloggers to take Glenn Greenwald seriously due to his consistent irresponsible posting behavior, make no mistake - Glenn Greenwald is injecting a new form of McCarthyism into political discourse within the blogosphere.

McCarthyism: unscrupulously accusing people of disloyalty

McCarthyism does not require charges of being a Communist to indicate its presence. At its core, what McCarthyism represents is using lies to wield a malicious brush which tars political opponents in such a manner so as to undermine their political ideas and arguments. It does that by suggesting they are disloyal to, or incapable of honest political discourse. And that is precisely what Glenn Greenwald is engaged in on his blog.

An individual who couldn't figure out a patriot doesn't need to read a book to know how to act ... they already know, Glenn Greenwald is continuing his clueless attack on Libertarian, moderate and conservative bloggers.

To know Greenwald's motivation is dishonest - a complete sham, one need only look at Greenwald's proud defense of the on line rhetoric of White Supremacist and hate-monger Matthew Hale. Hale declared war on a judge who was later murdered and Greenwald defended it; yet, he would now condemn, if not slander, bloggers like Charles Johnson of lgf, Michelle Malkin, Jeff Goldstein at Protein Wisdom, Powerline, me - and a host of others for their rhetoric, links and blog comments allowed, or over looked.

Dean Esmay, Misha, Megan McCardle (a/k/a Jane Galt), and Glenn "Instapundit" Reynolds, along with the pundits and bloggers, led by David Horowitz

His main argument with me seems to be this post, in which I simply linked and re-posted publicly available information. To inject a little honesty into the conversation, I'll point out that that is precisely what he has done repeatedly. He, according to Technorati, has linked that post several times - perhaps three times more often than anyone else. And one of Greenwald's main targets, Glenn at Instapundit, has never linked it at all. Well, Doh!

I resent that he is using it to attack Instapundit. Every intelligent blog reader knows Instapundit is a genuinely Libertarian blog; yet, Greenwald incessantly and dishonestly casts it as Far Right Wing. Reynolds supports the ACLU, believes in Gay marriage and, aside from the war, holds many positions which are mainstream moderate or clearly Libertarian. Greenwald's repeated lying about Reynolds represents the epitome of the contemporary McCarthyism cited above. It reveals Greenwald to be, just as McCarthy was accused of being, either a simple-minded demagogue, or a dangerous liar: perhaps Greenwald is actually both.

It appears Glenn Reynolds believes in the Constitution. From what I can ascertain, Glenn Greenwald does not - at least not unless it suits his particular political argument of the moment.

As it seems I'll be attacked no matter what and I'm not one to shy away from going for the full Monty, I've decided to post Glenn Greenwald's home address and contact information below. He's dangerous and warrants exposure, come what may.

The disingenuous Greenwald resides in the rarefied too thin to hold oxygen overly-hot air of a house of cards known as 0 - 20 Fantasy Lane in Moonbat Estates inside the hamlet of Cluelessness, USA 00000.

He's aligned himself with the mostly too liberal, far flung Lefties of the Liberal blogs who have yet to produce a single victory for all their donations and rants.

Greenwald blatantly lies by linking this and suggesting Glenn Reynolds is guilty of engaging in some imagined form of dangerous rhetoric. All Reynolds does is point out an obvious error in the New York Times regarding the US position in Nicaragua circa 1985. Any inflammatory rhetoric appears to exist only in Greenwald's befuddled and / or deliberately manipulative mind.

He attacks Charles Johnson, not for his statements, but the free ranging discussions on his blog. One is left to wonder if there isn't more than a bit of the fascist in Greenwald when it comes to political free speech with which he disagrees. And given his opposite position on Hale, some may be justified in calling him a self-hating Jew.

He lashes out at posts by Michelle Malkin, Jeff Goldstein and Powerline with this:

Another day, another treason accusation, new traitors found in the American media and the Democratic Party, more calls for them to be killed or declarations that they deserve death. These are the sentiments fueling the pro-Bush right wing -- day after day after day.

Yet Greenwald doesn't provide a shred of real evidence that any of the above have voiced such outrageous sentiments. As I read most of them, I know he could not, assuming he even tried. Not only is Greenwald a liar, from a human perspective, the man is intellectually and morally bankrupt - an absolute disgrace.

Let's face it, perhaps Greenwald had high expectations when he graduated law school and joined a prestigious firm. But it at least appears he couldn't cut the mustard there, or out on his own. Maybe in the end Greenwald was left with hardly any clients, except for Two Queens. The poor boy, it seems not even his pillow talk was private. Perhaps that's ultimately what drove him so seemingly insane.

The cause of whatever discontent, or frustration that drives him doesn't matter as much as does his willingness to propagate untruths about individuals who are, by all accounts, both honorable and committed to having a positive political dialog across the blogosphere. I may be joking about the information, but the topic is as serious as it gets.

I'm unwilling to post a phone number, as that's something I simply wouldn't do. But I have it on good authority, Greenwald regularly checks in for messages through his tin foil hat. Given that 411 is a call for honest information, 911 signifies distress - and 420 is aligned with drug addled brains, seems a fitting frequency for Greenwald, wouldn't you say?

All kidding aside, either from some mis-interpretation of what good and serious blogging really is; or an emotionally driven lack of self-control; or maybe a willful disregard for what is honest and truthful - Greenwald appears to have thrown off any rules for honest political discourse. He also seems to be going way too far down the road of sensationalism to be taken seriously by people who genuinely care about the future of our democracy.

In the end, there is no way to describe his unscrupulous behavior as anything other than the new form of McCarthyism he, more than anyone, appears to be championing on line.

If the Left wishes to continue to prop up such a sad and misguided demagogue, it's certainly their choice. But it is a choice I suspect they will come to regret in the end.

minor grammatical correction, first line, 3rd graph

Comments

[[*names.txt*]]

Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity. Thanks good site.
http://udfskj.bestfreewebspace.net/3d6977/map.html

[Emperor of Icecream]

Testing the date stamp . . .

http://hotair.com/archives/the-blog/2006/07/21/greenwalds-defense-musical-chairs/

It's EST ; )

[slim]

(Continuing my last post): To be more precise, the murderer wasn't exactly caught; he committed suicide when police stopped him for a traffic violation and was then conclusively found to have been the murderer. He was mentally unbalanced and aggrieved towards the judge because she had dismissed a medical malpractice suit that he brought.

[slim]

You wrote: "Hale declared war on a judge who was later murdered"

This is partly incorrect and partly disingenuous:

(a) The judge was not murdered; two members of her family were.

(b) You seem to be suggesting that there was some connection between Hale's statements and the murders, but the murderer was caught fairly soon after the murders and turned out to have no connection at all to Hale or his organization.

[BumperStickerist]

In any event, I {Greenwald} can't imagine what point anyone thinks they're making

fwiw, after clicking on the examples Glenn cites and, you know, reading them, I can't imagine what 'point' of Glenn's he thinks is supported.
So we have that whole 'can't imagine' thing in common.

Which is common ground, as it were.

Again, I don't begrudge Glenn the success of his book, his blog, or what passes for celebrity these days.

Really.

No irony.

Also there's nothing really to 'fear' regarding Greenwald's writings. 'Reality conspires against the Reality-based'. So please let's not go down that path.

Really.

No irony.

.

[BumperStickerist]

Ryan,

Thanks for clearing that up.

Now go back and reread my comments, note the caveats, my recognition of the achievement made by Greenwald in being selected in the first place by Wachtell, the fact that I was accurate in my characterization of Greenwald's there (What? Did you think Greenwald worked there as a lawyer for two years? Now you know. As do I.) and then go find a nice corner in which to go fuck yourself.

Morons?

Dude.

[Ryan]

I e-mailed Greenwald yesterday about this, pasted BumperStickerist's accusations, and asked Greenwald if it was true. This is what I just received in response:

"Thanks for sending that.

I worked at Wachtell, Lipton as a Summer Associate after my second year at NYU, as a pre-Bar Associate during my entire third year at NYU and once I graduated, and then as a practicing Litigation Associate once I was admitted to the New York Bar.

Anyone who says that I did not practice law there after I passed the bar is lying -- and deliberately so, I would think, since nobody who says such a thing could possibly have any basis for knowing that.

In any event, I can't imagine what point anyone thinks they're making. Wachtell is known to be the most selective law firm in the country. What point do they think they're making, exactly?"

You people are morons, seriously. You run around claiming things without having any idea if there true. And then when you get exposed as liars, you slink away and repeat the next lie.

[BumperStickerist]

Based on the use of the 'prestigious law firm' bit among the Leftosphere, Jeff G. could include anyplace where he provided instruction to students, whether as a professor, a TA, or grad student and be free from Lefty non-astrological due diligence critique.

Right?

Of course not, that was irony.

Anyway, Richard, you managed to not only miss my point, but make a whole 'nother one up yourself and then ascribe it to me. Thanks, but no thanks. My points tend to hold up better over the long haul.

You gave yourself the 'nice guy' pass with regard to your reaction to the Big Blogstorm items of the day but, gee, you ignored your track record. You were a cheerleader for the Gannon thing, which the Left took beyond Googling a bit to include using private investigators, and for what reason? Jeff asked a question that the Left didn't like at a Press Conference, which begat a search, which begat more searches, which eventually lead to the Left's version of Nirvana, the ability to fantasize about "Gay Porn" and "Karl Rove" in the same sentence. I'm reminded of my time in the Air Force - Aim High!

You're now in that state of Lefty 'dismissive-anger' wherein I'm supposed to be the bad guy for pointing out that you're a lying pig-eyed sack of shit. Your protestations that looking into a person's claims on their blog is mean-spirited rings hollow. Especially when it was done using fucking Google for no other purpose than verifying a claim.

It turns out you've used that schtick before with Maguire/Kerry and you're using the same pattern now that you used then. So I didn't sift through your posts, I noticed what seems to be a trend.

Actually, no, that's not quite right. I read it on your blog in your words. Really, go back. Read the Maguire thread.

You are, in my parlance, a Larger Truthist. because you tell us you are. You've told us here. Again, that's not sifting, that's reading your summation of who you are. Are you lying?

You defend your guy (how that person becomes 'your guy' in the first place is open to discussion) by protesting that the rightwing rethuglican found a small piece of contradictory evidence in Your Guy's story. The Rightwing Rethuglican then tries to extrapolate that bit of falsity into some meme-busting point.

Such is the way of the Larger Truthist.

Btw, I'm not casting aspersions on Greenwald or trying to knock him off his pins. He should be judged on his writings, but his writings reference his CV, which does not, apparently, support his claims in any substantive way.

If he just wrote what he wrote and didn't appeal to his Greenwaldian authority there'd not be any reason to know that he, apparently, didn't practice law while an associate with the prestigious law firm,

that his work as a three partner law firm, eventually two, doesn't necessarily set him up as the ne plus ultra authority on ConLaw,

that his work on behalf of Matthew Hale raised some questions about Greenwald's judgement and his work as an attorney.

That his involvement with Townhall is, well, you tell us.

There were very specific ethical allegations about Greenwald's conduct as an attorney made, which you could investigate on your own, if you were inclined to, but you're not. And, as a result of his work for Hale, Greenwald got put through the wringer.

Personally, my guess is that Greenwald's 'analysis' of the Rightwing Blogosphere is most explicable if it's played through the lens of what Greenwald went through irl with Hale, Hale's detractors, and Hale's supporters. Factor in the reaction he got from groups like the JDO and I think I understand where Greenwald is coming from. I don't agree with him and find his examples a bit ... dumbass, but I understand why Greenwald's got this Larger Truth thing going with the Rightwing Blogosphere.

But you'd have to know that stuff to consider it.

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

btw - I appreciate your response, even though I fear you're misguided.

As nobody is reading this far down a comment thread on an older post in a lightly trafficked blog, we'll just go our separate ways.

Good luck with that 'return to electoral relevance' thing.

.

[Patterico]

Here's what typifies Peking Duck:

"If you see the article Maglalangadingding reprints . . ."

http://www.pekingduck.org/archives/003906.php

To put it in the "shorter _____" language the left understands:

Shorter Peking Duck: "I am a racist asshole."

[Jeff G]

Jesus. Why don't you allow blockquotes, Riehl?

Let's try that again. Richard writes:

"You love to find something you can use to destroy the person you're arguing with. Good. Again, if you look at my blog and feel the two posts you pulled out of 4,000 posts typifies me, then...well, there's really no room for discussion. You can always find what you're looking for, youcal always find something to point to to prove your thesis, but it's intellectually dishonest."

Hmmm. Well I've posted over 20000 entries, and your heroes at Sadly, No! had to pore through my comments for their attempt at a character assassination.

So stop your bitching.

Oh. And for the record, I don't know where U Denver ranks now (I don't keep up any more), but I'd be shocked were it not in the top 100 universities in the nation.

And it didn't use TAs.

[Jeff G]

You love to find something you can use to destroy the person you're arguing with. Good. Again, if you look at my blog and feel the two posts you pulled out of 4,000 posts typifies me, then...well, there's really no room for discussion. You can always find what you're looking for, youcal always find something to point to to prove your thesis, but it's intellectually dishonest.Hmmm. Well I've posted over 20000 entries, and your heroes at Sadly, No! had to pore through my comments for their attempt at a character assassination.

So stop your bitching.

Oh. And for the record, I don't know where U Denver ranks now (I don't keep up any more), but I'd be shocked were it not in the top 100 universities in the nation.

And it didn't use TAs.

[Patterico]

Interesting. Sadly, No! (a website Greeny has linked to twice in recent days to make his points) sells products that say: "Rope, Tree, Conservative. Some Assembly Required."

http://www.cafepress.com/sadcafe.64931095

Satire? Or scandalously dangerous rhetoric?!

The answer is easy: if it's my guy, his violent rhetoric is satire. Your guy? Symptomatic of the extremism of your side.

That's what Greeny would say, anyway.

[HAHA]

Jeff can accurately bill himself as a person who has taught at top universities.

Yeah, the fucking University of Denver. Fucking idiot.

[richard]

You love to find something you can use to destroy the person you're arguing with. Good. Again, if you look at my blog and feel the two posts you pulled out of 4,000 posts typifies me, then...well, there's really no room for discussion. You can always find what you're looking for, youcal always find something to point to to prove your thesis, but it's intellectually dishonest. How about pointing you readers to some other things that are fa more typical on my site:
http://pekingduck.org/archives/000123.php
http://pekingduck.org/archives/000162.php
http://www.pekingduck.org/archives/000282.php

Yuo managed to sift and find stuff that would prove your thesis. Anyone can do that. But to put it forward as though it's representative, as though THIS is what Greenwald or I stand for - it's a form of character assassination and it's childish. You went to my site with the express purpose of digging up something to embarrass me. And we all know it. I hipe it makes you feel good.

[BumperStickerist]

Gannon?

One post?

Richard, Richard, Richard ... check your archives if not your conscience. You had quite a bit o' fun there, chap. I think the laziness here, Richard, is on your part. You say in your comment above that you don't think Greenwald should be thought of as a douche on the basis of one slip up regarding Patterico.

Ummm, had you read the XRLQ post the way you desire other people to read, well, every post written by people you like, you'd've noticed the breadth of Greenwald's douchebagedness on display.

Instead of considering that, you took the intellectually lazy way out and narrowed it down to a technicality.

Bravo.

Judging from your reply above and your use of 'Achilles Heel' gambit I guess I'll be guest starring in the Tom Maguire role if this one continues. Witness:

http://www.pekingduck.org/archives/002264.php
I'd say you're actually something of a hybrid, half roach, half asshole. Or some combination thereof. Nice.

(btw - taking down the post, but leaving those comments which make use of the post was brilliant.)

But how very very lazy of me to read your post on your blog.

As much as you might like to believe that I get marching orders from Rove, the comments here were initiated on my own - I don't begrudge Greenwald a thing.

I think Jennifer Nix had a good idea from a business sense, Greenwald - by his own admission - used free researchers via his blog's comments and churned out a book that, in about four months, will be meaningless. Nix got a book out cheaply, Greenwald quickly, sales were good and events will do what they do and invalidate Greenwald's work.

It's a win-win-win.

As far as intellectual laziness, you - apparently - bought Greenwald's CV at face value. As you apparently did with Kerry. Sorry if that touches a nerve in you, but the point is somewhat the same - people can only be 'swiftboated' if they gild their own lily.

Kerry, who happens to be an actual war hero, decided he needed to be an extra-super duper war hero during his one semester on a Swift Boat in Vietnam (Christmas in Cambodia, et cetera). I, as a vet, can certainly honor Kerry's actual war service, but it's a bit insulting for you to ask me to honor crap that he, demonstratively, made up.

If you need an exercise, reconcile Kerry's own statements about his own service in Vietnam. Leave Maguire, Kaus, O'Neill, Freepers, LGFers and everybody else out for a moment - just reconcile Kerry's own words.

But I digress.

Based on your post from last year and the repetition here, you're a big fan of 'larger truths' and think that 'facts' represent chinks in armor. That has a certain intellectual laziness to it as well, but, no matter, you'll interpret that as ad hominem rather than as accurate analysis.

The stuff I've posted above are actual, you know, facts. Greenwald was with that law firm before he passed the bar ... there's nothing wrong with that, and it may have been a very desirable gig only made available to the top students in top law schools, but apparently he did not practice law there.

fwiw, Greenwald managed to face some pretty serious crazy people during his time with Matt Hale. A lot of that is still up from a couple of years back in case you're interested, which you're not, possibly because you're lazy and just inclined to read along with Glenn and nod your head.

That's okay. It doesn't really matter.

Reality tends to contradict Greenwald.

The reality-based as well.

Cheers.

fwiw - the analog for the Left is Goldstein. Jeff can accurately bill himself as a person who has taught at top universities.

He has.

But, in short order, the Left will point out that Jeff was not a professor, was only a teaching assistant, or some sort of adjunct, and he's .... et cetera. Which is okay. It doesn't mean they hate him ... right?

[richard]

Wow, so much animosity against anyone who sees a situation differently from you. As though a post on Jeff Gannon on my blog defines me and makes me bad. This is just what you did to Greenwald. We can always find an Achilles heel (real or perceived) on anyone, something to attack and make them look bad. But smarter people know there's more than one side to any issue and to any person. You (BumperSticker) know how to play this game and tar people with one brush-stroke. Congratulations, it's a real skill. Of course, there's more to my blog than that and your attempt to slot me with one post you find objectionable is all too typical. It's also real easy to do, and it's intellecually lazy.

Okay, carry on with the drawing-and-quartering of Greenwald. I hope it feels good.

[BumperStickerist]

But Sam sort of illustrates the point.

Based on the chronology, it's apparent that Greenwald had not passed the bar during some, most, or all of the time he worked at the prestigious law firm. As such, apparently Greenwald never practiced law while an Associate of said firm.

So there's that.

The NYT Best Seller list is a double edged sword, Coulter's been on the list longer than Greenwald and Kos combined. Are they jealous? Rush has been on the NYT list longer than the three of them. And so forth.

Which, sort of you know, takes care of that.

As to the blog rankings and envy - it depends on whose rating system you like. Greenwald's only got Riehl by 150 spots on the TTLB system, which isn't much when going from the upper 300s to the mid 200s. Of course, Protein Wisdom's (44) beat SadlyNo!{243)in the same system.

The fascinating thing - besides Kos's decades long quest to figure out how to get a whole bunch of progressives to meet someplace weekly other than at a house of worship, maybe Kos will get the progressives to form bowling leagues - is how the Left manages to support fulltime bloggers like Hamsher and Greenwald.

That's not 'envy' - it's just interesting that the Left has managed to establish a self-clusterfucking echo chamber in a relatively short period of time. Once the Left manages two things, there'll be cause for envy - first) some sort-of accurate predictions over things that matter and 2) some semblance of electoral success.

Absent those things, what about the Left is there to be envious about?

Greenwald's touch-typing ability?

[BumperStickerist]

Comedy interlude - from today's dKos.

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

Megachurches are the GOP's new and growing base. Next year, I {Markos Moulitsas} will be working offline to start building the progressive alternative to the megachurches. It may be a decades-long project, but it has to start sometime.

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

God works in mysterious - and humorous - ways.

[capt joe]

Bumperstickerist, you are on fire

Sammy, yeah sure, man, whatever you say. jealous, yeah that's the ticket, sure, Morgan Fairchild fts in there somewhere.

Blud, Reynolds has done more for new bloggers that that anyone else. Reynolds points to everyone, left and right. He evens points to douchebags like Greenwald who tell lies about him. Just check.

As for Greenwald's lying, Patterico caught him in delicto flagrante on Patterico's own blog lying about Patterico.

As to the pasty thing, well, I am sure Goldstein will get over it when you losers have a been argument than calling him cheesy names. But the left is like that, isn't it. You guys are pretty quick with the bigotted names (as I can see above with Insta-"cracker" crack)

I don't get Greenwald worship. Greenwald takes orders from the townhouse list and mindlessly spews them. And his writing style, barf! Does any other write in a more tedious, painful manner. Someone get him to a cont ed class on writing for God's sake.

[Sam Mathews]

By the way Dan, aren't you the one who said "Enough of Greenwald already?" Are you just fascinated with him or are you becoming obssessed?

[Blud]

Dan: As I said, he can't produce quotes to support his accusing other bloggers of advocating death, or assault for political reasons - everyone knows Reynolds is a Libertarian, not a Winger. Greenwald is simply a liar. And not one comment above has refuted that claim.

To recap: everyone knows (simply everyone!) that Glenn Reynolds is a libertarian. Forget the fact that he spends a great deal of his time and energy on his blog propping up sites that spend all their time accusing their political opponents of treason and being on the side of "the terrorists." That is of course in perfect harmony with libertarianism.

And Greenwald is obviously so full of it. You know, that whole "Rope. Tree. ___INSERT ENEMY OF THE DAY HERE___." thing is actually really funny if you're not the one who's supposed to be hanged, and anyway it's not to be taken as any kind of sick, intimidating threat.

So yeah, Glenn Greenwald, well, he's simply a liar. It's up to you to prove otherwise. Or just read the stuff he links through to in his oh so tedious multi-paragraph posts.

Or instead you could just go on pretending that his arguments are nothing more than name calling (when is poor Jeff going to get over the paste thing?)

Or find out that he was late with his payments to the NY bar association.

Or better yet, out him. Sort of. That's restoring honor and dignity to the blogosphere if I ever saw it. What a classy thing to do.

Anyway, whatever you do don't actually bother responding to anything he says.

[Sam Mathews]

Greenwald's book has been on the N.Y. Times Best Seller List for 6 weeks now or more. He is a graduate of a top 5 law school and worked at the most prestigious law firm in the country. In 9 months, he's managed to become one of the most cited and heavily-trafficked bloggers on the internets. His posts have led to front page news articles and are read by U.S. Senators during Senate hearings.

You-by your own account are a marketing and sales manager. And your favorite movie is Something About Mary.

Can't you just admit that you(and Patterico and Reynolds & Goldstein and the rest of your bitter insult-spewing irrelevant losers) are drowning in jealousy? It isn't pretty to watch. But it sure is obvious.

[Jeff G]

I don't read Greenwald's site. Did he really say I accused the NYT of treason? I said they chose neutrality over objectivity as a war reporting strategy. Is that the same? Is the un-nuancing of nuance really just a new form of Greenwaldian meta-nuance?

Man. This nuance thing is confusing. Which is why I just like to call people I don't agree with Pasty the homo hausfrau.

Oh, wait --

[Xrlq]

Richard: "I look for broader patterns, and won't make my judgment based on one or two or even three examples (unless I see brazen and intentional malice/slander). I think Greenwald was too hasty and screwed up [in naming Patterico among the bloggers he smeared], and he has to be called on it."

He was called on it, repeatedly. Rather than apologizing and moving on, as any decent blogger would have done under the circumstances, he doubled down and compounded his original lie with another:

http://patterico.com/?p=4857/#comment-57731

Lest anyone mistake this one comment for a rare lapse of judgment, he spammed the same damned comment to four other comment threads on that blog alone - and God knows where else.

http://patterico.com/?p=4859/#comment-57730
http://patterico.com/?p=4860/#comment-57729
http://patterico.com/?p=4861/#comment-57728
http://patterico.com/?p=4863/#comment-57724

More importantly, this wasn't just an isolated screw-up. As I mentioned in the prior comment, nearly every single representation in the post was a half-truth or worse. There are far too many obviously false, easily debunked claims in Greenwald's post for all of this to have been an innocent mistake by an otherwise diligent blogger. Since you obviously didn't read the grand fisking, please do so now:

http://xrlq.com/?p=2949

And Ryan, either refute my argument on the merits, or with all due respect, bite me. Whether Glenn Greenwald is or isn't the mendacious s.o.b. that he is is an empirical question, and is in no way dependent on how much blog traffic I get on an average day, or how much you fantasize that you might receive if you had a blog at all. Yes, I did just link to my site, but only because my grand fisking of Greenwald is the only one I know of that picks apart a single entry so thoroughly as to remove any rational doubt that the guy is intentionally dishonest rather than merely a bit sloppy now and then. If you know of any other bloggers who have done so as well, feel free to provide links to their sites, as well.

[BumperStickerist]

in reading through some of the usegroup and internet reaction to the Matt Hale stuff, Glenn Greenwald had some rather dangerous characters gunning for him because of his work ... 'gunning' in the literal sense of the word.

Which may explain his frequent, overheated 'eliminationisht rhetoric' posts - he was the target of some pretty intense people, far worse than any standard blogfight pissing crap I've seen.

[BumperStickerist]

Not so much sleuthing as googling the name of the law firm and clicking over the course of three minutes - which, in Greenwald's terms is 1,934 keystrokes.

Glenn's law practice description:

---------------------------------------------
Greenwald Cristoph Law:

Statement of Practice:
General Litigation, Commercial Litigation, Intellectual Property Litigation, Civil Rights Litigation, Civil and Constitutional Litigation, Class Action Litigation, Labor, Employment and Discrimination Litigation, Corporate, Securities, and Commercial Law.

Firm Size: 3

Glenn Greenwald, (Member) born New York, N.Y., March 6, 1967; admitted to bar, 1995, New York, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York; 1996, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York; 1998, U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit; 2002, U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit. Education: George Washington University (B.A., 1990); New York University School of Law (J.D., 1994). Member, New York University Law Review, 1992-1993. Recipient, American Jurisprudence Awards, Civil Procedure, Contracts and Property. Associate, Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, 1994-1995. Languages: German. Practice Areas: General Litigation; Commercial Litigation; Intellectual Property; Civil Rights.

==============================================

Okay, lawyers help me out. If I'm reading that correctly Glenn worked at the prestigious NYC law firm before he passed the bar exam and no longer worked there during the year in which he passed the bar exam. Are there any inferences to be made from that?

Btw, this sort of thing tends to be called 'due diligence' (non-astrological version) rather than on of Greenwald's 'partisan attacks'.

People who think highly of Glenn seem to put some import on that Prestigious Law Firm bit on his resume. They don't bother, and Glenn - understandably - doesn't mention it. So it's appropriate to check to see what that means. It's information directly related to the credibility of an NYT best selling author and blogger who has readership in excess of many MSM publications and the newsletter 'Grit'.

If it turns out that Glenn was, basically, cheap help at a good firm before he passed the bar, then I'd say that changes the tone of the prestigious NYC lawfirm bit. Which isn't to say that Glenn didn't land a highly desireable gig, but it seems, at a minimum, Glenn Greenwald didn't give up a partnership to go into law practice. Also, Ann Coulter's bio shows far greater legal bona fides than Greenwald's:

Coulter clerked for the Honorable Pasco Bowman II of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and was an attorney in the Department of Justice Honors Program for outstanding law school graduates.

After practicing law in private practice in New York City, Coulter worked for the Senate Judiciary Committee, where she handled crime and immigration issues for Senator Spencer Abraham of Michigan. From there, she became a litigator with the Center For Individual Rights in Washington, DC, a public interest law firm dedicated to the defense of individual rights with particular emphasis on freedom of speech, civil rights, and the free exercise of religion.
-------------------------------------------------
Advantage - Coulter.

If the idea is to judge Greenwald's work on the basis of the points he eventually makes, then the advantage still goes to Coulter - she at least makes good points prior to her crazy train going off the rails.

Greenwald manages to start poorly and end badly.

.

[BumperStickerist]

Since Greenwald - and others - have brought comments sections into play, a quick search of Greenwald's site has everything from foul language to dehumanizing rhetoric used by Glenn Greenwald himself.

Glenn refers to Michelle Malkin, wife, mother and US Citizen as follows:

If you are someone still in need of dispositive proof that Michelle Malkin is one of the most un-American, liberty-hating, disturbing creatures around,

Glenn Greenwald, non-hyperbolist.

[Dan]

Funny how the lefties are attacking the post, but can't offer a substantive defense for Greenwald's repeated lying. As I said, he can't produce quotes to support his accusing other bloggers of advocating death, or assault for political reasons - everyone knows Reynolds is a Libertarian, not a Winger. Greenwald is simply a liar. And not one comment above has refuted that claim. He evidently prepared for a law career he either can't hack, or won't pursue and has been reduced to spewing lies and gross hyperbole on a blog for a living. He wouldn't merit anything more than pity if his lies weren't so potentially dangerous, politically speaking.

[BumperStickerist]

Oh, and Richard from Pekingduck.org, you post that:

--- That Riehl delves so deep as to bring up Greenwald's sexuality --- as if that's a bad thing.

You expressed admiration previously on that very topic.

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

http://www.pekingduck.org/archives/002247.php

... And this is all a prelude before we get to the more lurid angle. I felt the liberal bloggers were jumping the gun, seizing on what last week seemed to be JimJeff's possible association with a gay male escort service. I steered clear because it was too tenuous, too weak, too unsubstantiated -- or so I thought.

Not any more. In a post of staggering importance, Americablog does the detective work and presents us with the hard evidence. It is shocking. It is unbelievable. It take blog sleuthing to a new level.

....

Well, if that famously liberal media won't investigate it, we bloggers will have to pick up the slack: Shout it from the tallest rooftops.

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

ummmmm, staggering importance? Blog sleuthing ... new level?

Your point, Rich, was what again?

By the way, the blog sleuthing in the case of Gannon included SusanG using a private detective. The "sleuthing" I did involved typing "Glenn Greenwald" lost case on a google search line

See:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=%22glenn+greenwald%22+lost+case

Third item - main screen - no scrolling required.

And, fwiw, the impetus for the search in the first place was to verify Glenn's claims regarding his legal skills.

Also, my comment on PW's site, linked to by the site that Riehl links to, left off the key bit - which was Greenwaldian if not Dowdish of that other site.

In my comment at PW I expressed non-ironic admiration that Greenwald sought to use the law in such a manner. It was almost republican of him. But, alas, Glenn's legal skills weren't up to snuff. He went 0-2 in applying the law to his own situation. Which is downright Democratic of him.

The biggest reason to dismiss Greenwald's opinions is Greenwald's archives. Go back and read the first two month's worth of archives and it's one Lefty hope dashed after another. In Greenwald's case, past performance is indicitive of future reliability.

.

[BumperStickerist]

Glenn Greenwald's First Ever Blog Post:

The way to attack Alito

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2005/10/way-to-attack-alito.html
------------------------------------------

Well.

[richard]

Yes, I 'll agree it was stupid of Greenwald to include Patterico in the group of bloggers he condemned. Definitely stupid. I can point to many things bloggers I admire have done that I feel were stupid. Some of them had moments of douchebaghood. "Screw them" is the classic example Charles Johnson never lets anyone forget. These asinine moments have to be seen in a broader context, especially when people are blogging at the volumes of both Glenns, Andrew Sullivan, Patterico, Kos, Michelle Malkin... I look for broader patterns, and won't make my judgment based on one or two or even three examples (unless I see brazen and intentional malice/slander). I think Greenwald was too hasty and screwed up, and he has to be called on it. But I see far more ominous signs of irresponsible blogging on Michelle's and Misha's and the like's blogs. I've seen some horrendous stupidities on Sullivan's blog, yet I still hold him in high regard because I know he's human and I know he tends to be intelligent and thoughtful and willing to reconsider his positions. Greenwald may have erred, but I have seen some of the best-quality posts on his site, and I'm not ready to consign him permanently to the netherworld of douchbaghood for screwing up in his reference to Patterico. There's more to him than that. Get over it - Glenn's here to stay, and he stands for more than this stupid screw-up.

[Ryan]

Or, better yet, head on over to Sadly No where they are mocking the utter idiocy of Xrlq's "frisking" -

http://sadlyno.com/archives/003294.html#comments

Xrlq is exactly one of those guys I was talking about. He has been whining away in obscurity, averaging 200 visits a day. 200 a day! That's basically his mom and her friends. But then he wrote about Greenwald, got links from everyone, and, like Riehl and others, is now trying to milk it for all it's worth. This tells you everything you need to know about xrlq:

http://www.sitemeter.com/a=stats&s=s15xrlqcounter&r=35

He should be thanking Greenwald, just like Rehil should. Let him try not to write about Greenwald anymore and see how many people go back to reading him.

[Xrlq]

Richard, this guy's lie about Patterico was not an aberration. The only reason that particular lie got singled out last week was because Patterico himself was the first to pounce on it, and lies about Patterico are the most obvious ones for those of us who happen to be Patterico. In fact, almost every cotton pickin' sentence of that post was a half-truth, a quarter truth, or an outright lie. This blog does not allow HTML in comments, so I can't link directly to the post that proves that. That's OK, just mosey on over to my blog and scroll down to the second entry, titled "Weekend Doucheblogging." RTWT, and then come back here and explain to us why you still think anyone in his right mind should believe a word that Glenn Greenwald says, on any topic. I'll wait.

[richard]

I seriously disagree, but I respect your opinion Rick, as you are one of the few reasonable bloggers on the right (which is why you should change the name of your blog). I wouldn't underestimate Greenwald's influence or his resiliency. I don't know about his changing the subject on Patterico, but again, it sounds like you're reaching for straws. Maybe he changed the subject, maybe he was shrill. But in terms of providing a consistently excellent blog with plenty of substance (as opposed to instaparrot-style sniffing) he's unsurpassed, and it'll take a lot more than this chorus to tear him down. Let's watch and see.

[Rick Moran]

Richard:

Greenwald is a serial exaggerator, a partisan hack, and a liar to boot. His dishonesty regarding Patterico's criticism was so profound that he simply abandoned any pretense that he could defend himself and simply changed the subject.

For a man who uses 5 words where one would suffice; a man whose attack dog mentality causes some of the wildest, most hysterical charges against other bloggers on the web, Greenwald should be excoriated by those who have any claim to decency.

I'd say hit 'em again, Dan but the question would be; "Is there anything left of him?"

[richard]

It's a real shame. Greenwald is an articulate, non-hysterical progressive thinker who backs up his claims with lots of facts and takes what can only be described as a moderate stance on most issues. But he posed a threat - he has been exposing the hypocrisy of Instacracker and Riehl and Malkin, and now there has to follow the complete and utter extermination of his character. That Riehl delves so deep as to bring up Greenwald's sexuality, not to mention the needless and sadistic attack on his career as a lawyer (hell, even if it were true that Greenwald wasn't a great attorney, what does that have to do with his points?)...well, it's just disgraceful. And how much time did you spend googling to find your "smoking gun," the fact that he defended a white supremacist? If that's the best wrecking ball you can find to shatter Greenwald's reputation, you're fighting an uphill battle.

For a fine analysis of this phenomenon, you'll all want to read this splendid post:
http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2006/07/projection-strategy.html

[Ryan]

What's happening here is obvious. Instapundit is so full of frustration and anger towards Greenwald's criticisms that he links to every loser and sicko who writes a single negative thing about Greenwald, no matter how extreme, deranged, bitter, etc.

So now they're all trained that if they want attention and traffic from their master, they need to be good little attack poodles and write about Greenwald - the more personal and inane, the better. Insty has linked to 10 posts like this, at least, in the last week.

Dan needs attention and traffic - he doesn't exactly have a lot of either - and this is the only way he can get it. Greenwald is his meal ticket.

[Tano]

"McCarthyism: unscrupulously accusing people of disloyalty"

Now Really Dan. Like we dont see this 100 times a day, every day, in the right-wing blogosphere? Do you really want to run with this?

And - can you really not make the distinction between defending free speech in a courtroom, and advocating the position oneself? Or the distinction between attacking a political opponent for what they say, in a blog, versus the government trying to suppress one's free speech?

Gotta agree with the commenter above - this is one of the dumbest posts I've seen in a long time. Greenwald looks like a genius compared to you!

[tbogg]

Jeez Dan, just when I thought your previous post on Greenwald was one of the stupidest things I'd ever read (tell us again about his blog template...that was such a snap moment) you turn around and break your personal record for inane references and contentless writing signifying nothing. "Honest political discourse". Coming from you, that's rich.

If you don't have anything to write about, don't post. We won't think any less of you...as if that were possible.

[richard]

So strange. The example of his endorsing a white supremacist is not in regard to his blogging, but from his work as the man's attorney in 2003 (something you don't go out of your way to make clear in the very clever layout of your post). Attorneys have an obligation to stand up for and to defend their client. If you can show us where Greenwald pro-actively endorses white supremacists in his personal writing, I'd be on your side in a heartbeat. Pointing to this old case, however, is highly misleading. And I think you know it.

[Dan]

I assume you use the term "McCarthyism" in the generally accepted usage form

Correct, which is why I worded the following passage as I did: emphasis "accused"

"It reveals Greenwald to be, just as McCarthy was accused of being,"

[For Enforcement]

I know it is a minor point to the greater point you are making, but I assume you use the term "McCarthyism" in the generally accepted usage form as you defined it "McCarthyism: unscrupulously accusing people of disloyalty" and not in the real world truthful way it should be used as in, Accurately accusing people of disloyalty. With you being well informed I know that you know that the people McCarthy accused of being Communists were in reality, Communists. With the fall of the Soviet Union, of course, all that info is readily available, as Ann Coulter has written in her book. Anyhow, on to your point.

[richard mcenroe]

"Greenwald appears to have thrown off any rules for honest political discourse. "

Please. The only constraints of honesty or dignity any lawyer recognizes are the ones imposed on him by judges at trial.

Glenn doesn't spend much time at trial anymore, so even that's no longer a concern.