Daniel Ellsberg's Downfall: A Trifecta of Shilling, Conspiracy Theories, and Lies - People's View

[flamingdem]

Spanden C. of thepeoplesview.net

Last week, I highlighted the connections between Glenn Greenwald, Edward Snowden, Wikileaks and the Freedom of the Press Foundation, a front-group that was conveniently set up by Greenwald and his cohort Laura Poitras (who interviewed Edward Snowden on camera) just a month before Snowden began contacting Poitras and Snowden. Greenwald and Poitras are both board members of this front group, as is Daniel Ellsberg of the Pentagon Papers fame.

Ellsberg penned an op-ed in the Washington Post yesterday defending Snowden's flight from justice, canonizing Snowden and dutifully serving up accolades to Greenwald and his employer (The Guardian), without once mentioning that he has at least a professional connection to Glenn Greenwald that could serve as a potential conflict of interest: Ellsberg sits on the Board of this front group with Glenn Greenwald. So much for transparency, I guess.

Regardless of how Ellsberg himself would like to paper over them - now that he has chosen to shill for an extreme front group - the differences between the leaking of the Pentagon Papers and the NSA documents are real, palpable, and important to the national debate. The Pentagon Papers were released to expose the lies the government had been telling the American people in prosecuting a war. Snowden's "revelations" have exposed nothing of the sort, because there isn't currently a war the government is fighting based on lies.

Be that as it may, the substance of Ellsberg's defense of Snowden's flight centers around something that is pure conjecture: when he leaked the Pentagon Papers, Ellsberg was allowed out on bail after surrendering to arrest, and then when the government's illegalities came to light, the case against him was dropped. In that time, he was allowed to freely speak out against the Vietnam war. Ellsberg claims that there is no chance that Snowden would be allowed out on bail. Based on what? Based on the pure power of Daniel Ellsberg's words? I mean, I am certain that Snowden may not be allowed out on bail now that he has proven himself to be a flight risk, but just what makes Ellsberg a sudden expert on bail hearings?

http://www.thepeoplesview.net/2013/07/daniel-ellsbergs-stunning-fall-trifecta.html

Previous:
http://www.thepeoplesview.net/2013/07/a-direct-timeline-of-glenn-greenwald.html

A Direct Timeline of Glenn Greenwald, His Front Group and the Fugitive Edward Snowden

[flamingdem]

1. Truth Out on Wapo article: Ellsberg: Snowden Was Right to Flee the US

http://truth-out.org/news/item/17474-ellsberg-snowden-was-right-to-flee-the-us

"Pentagon Papers" whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg wrote an op-ed in Sunday's Washington Post explaining why he believes that NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden made the right decision in fleeing the country, rather than staying here and facing charges for leaking classified NSA documents about massive government surveillance programs that he believes to be illegal and/or unconstitutional.

"The country I stayed in was a different America, a long time ago," writes Ellsberg, alluding to his own decision to stay in the country to face charges of espionage (which were eventually tossed out) in 1971 after he leaked thousands of pages of classified Defense Department documents to the New York Times and other media outlets about the purposely deceptive origins of the Vietnam War and lies told by American Presidents to support those deceptions.

"When I surrendered to arrest in Boston," he writes, "having given out my last copies of the papers the night before, I was released on personal recognizance bond the same day."
"For the whole two years I was under indictment, I was free to speak to the media and at rallies and public lectures. I was, after all, part of a movement against an ongoing war. Helping to end that war was my preeminent concern. I couldn't have done that abroad, and leaving the country never entered my mind," he explains.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

2. Hilariously, the guy who wrote this tripe sports an ACLU t-shirt.

https://www.aclu.org/secure/president-obama-guarantee-due-process-edward-snowden


To President Obama:

We stand opposed to any attempt to treat Edward Snowden as a traitor. Our government must also not pursue the case against him outside the ordinary course of American justice. He is entitled to the rule of law and constitutional protections that so many before us died to defend.

Snowden is innocent until proven guilty before a court of law and he must be afforded all of his rights as an American citizen. If he is brought to an American court, he must be afforded every opportunity to defend himself and convince a judge that what he did was justifiable and patriotic, even if he is charged with violating laws that themselves pose a threat to our democracy.

Finally, we say as Americans that we are tired of seeing liberty sacrificed on the altar of security and having a handful of lawmakers decide what we should and should not know. We are tired of living in a nation governed by fear instead of the principles of freedom and liberty that made this nation great.

Edward Snowden risked everything to expose the secret NSA spying program of our calls and emails. On Friday night we learned what shape those risks would take—in a late news release the Obama Administration hoped we wouldn’t notice.

Now he’s been formally charged with violating the Espionage Act—the same law used to charge Bradley Manning, who provided information to WikiLeaks.

By bringing to light information that the powers-that-be would rather keep secret, whistleblowers like Snowden play a fundamental role in our democracy. We can’t just let them be thrown into darkness.

As the Department of Justice moves in on Snowden, we need to raise our voices to ensure that Snowden is treated fairly and legally, and that the massive abuse of government power, that he risked his safety to expose, finally comes to an end.

[Luminous Animal]

3. An extreme front group for what or whom?

I don't think the writer knows the definition of "front group", nor the definition of "accolade".

This person seems to use the loony rights template re: the demonization of Soros and Media Matters.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Front_groups#Characteristics

A front group is an organization that purports to represent one agenda while in reality it serves some other party or interest whose sponsorship is hidden or rarely mentioned. The front group is perhaps the most easily recognized use of the third party technique. For example, Rick Berman's Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF) claims that its mission is to defend the rights of consumers to choose to eat, drink and smoke as they please. In reality, CCF is a front group for the tobacco, restaurant and alcoholic beverage industries, which provide all or most of its funding.

[phleshdef]

7. Its a front group for Glen Greenwald's self-fellating, libertarian agenda.

[Luminous Animal]

8. Hahaha! Like I said. No clue as to what a front group is.

[joeybee12]

12. They're calling it a "front group" because it sounds ominous...

and gotta make the story about Greenwald and Snowden, not the lies from our government.

[phleshdef]

19. Read your own posted definition.

"A front group is an organization that purports to represent one agenda while in reality it serves some other party or interest whose sponsorship is hidden or rarely mentioned"

The group claims to be about "freedom of the press", but it seems to be solely dedicated to pushing Greenwald and his pet projects, whatever they might be at the time. Its the Glen Greenwald fan club, nothing more.

[Luminous Animal]

21. And what pet projects of Glen[sic]'s would those be?

And what other party or interest is being hidden?

[phleshdef]

31. The usual, NSA, Bradley Manning, Big brother is coming to get you, etc.

On its face, its suppose to be about government transparency, but its really just a group supporting a Rand Paul like ideological agenda and to gin up paranoia. And that in and of itself is the interest they are not forthcoming about.

[Luminous Animal]

45. Any proof of your accusations?

Any proof that Ellsberg and the EFF (founders of the Press Freedom Foundation) have any ties to Rand Paul and they support a Rand Paul ideological agenda?

And what specifically is a Rand Paul like ideological agenda? Specifics, please. And what on the Press Freedom Foundation website supports that that agenda?

[phleshdef]

59. I never said they had ties to Rand Paul.

But I look at their blog and its the typical anti-government kind of stuff. Some of it I agree with, a lot of it I don't. But its all the "big brother", Alex Jones, Rand Paul kind of material.

The most curious thing about this group is how they formed in December, met with Snowden in January and then again in February, Snowden went to work for Booz Allen the next month then he and members of this group come forward to drop classified documents onto the laps of foreign press. Laura Poitras and Greenwald and Ellsburg all sit on the board for this organization and they are all 3 right in the middle of running PR for Snowden.

[Luminous Animal]

61. Could you link to an example of Alex Jones, Rand Paul type of material?

Neither met with Snowden until the beginning of June when both found out his name and where he worked. You just can't stop false rumor-mongering, can you?

The most curious thing about your conspiracy theory is that you would assume that Snowden wouldn't know about film-maker Laura Poitras who, you know, supports whistle-blowers, and that Laura Poitras wouldn't contact Greenwald after Snowden contacted her because, you know, Greenwald wrote and excellent column defending her from government harassment. And curious that you would be suspicious of the fact whistle-blower Ellsberg invited Greenwald and Poitras, both eloquent supporter whistle-blowers, to sit on the board of his organization.

And, for what organization is the Press Freedom Foundation supposed to be a front group?

[phleshdef]

65. They met using remote means in January, its not a false rumor.

Greenwald himself even admitted this much.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/11/us/how-edward-j-snowden-orchestrated-a-blockbuster-story.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Mr. Snowden, Mr. Greenwald said, had first reached out to Ms. Poitras in January. Her work has focused on national-security issues like surveillance, including a short documentary she made for The New York Times Op-Ed page in August. She and Mr. Greenwald, along with Mr. Ellsberg, are also helping with a new organization devoted to whistle-blowers and transparency, the Freedom of the Press Foundation.

The next month, Mr. Greenwald said, Mr. Snowden contacted him with an enigmatic e-mail identifying himself as a reader and saying he wanted to communicate about a potential story using encryption. Mr. Greenwald wrote back that he did not have such software. Mr. Snowden later sent him a homemade video with step-by-step instructions for installing it, which Mr. Greenwald watched but never completed.

Frustrated, Mr. Snowden is said to have told Ms. Poitras that he had a major story about the National Security Agency that required both technical and legal expertise, proposing that they work together with Mr. Greenwald. Ms. Poitras, who did not respond to an interview request, told Salon on Monday that she had contacted Barton Gellman, a former Washington Post reporter, around that time for his opinion of the whether the purported source seemed legitimate.

In early March, Mr. Greenwald said, Ms. Poitras called and said she needed to meet in person. At a New York hotel, she shared e-mails from Mr. Snowden recounting, in Mr. Greenwald’s words, that “he had come to see the surveillance state as out of control and an abuse, and that he felt ready to risk his own life and liberty to expose it.” At that point, neither knew his name yet.

In late April or early May, he and Mr. Snowden began to talk over an encrypted chat program.

As for links... as I said, just look at the blog.
https://pressfreedomfoundation.org/blog

Its all NSA/Bradley Manning/Big brother is coming to get you shit.

You don't have to be a front group for a separate organization. A front group can simply be a group that portrays itself as representing one agenda while actually working on a different agenda. I perceive this group as meeting that criteria. They seem less about freedom of the press and more about exposing classified information and propping up stuff that Greenwald cares about.

[randome]

67. In other words, Wikileaks Lite.

It's so much easier to simply publish stuff that others steal for you. Not so easy to do actual investigative journalism.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Birds are territorial creatures.
The lyrics to the songbird's melodious trill go something like this:
"Stay out of my territory or I'll PECK YOUR GODDAMNED EYES OUT!"[/center][/font]
[hr]

[phleshdef]

70. Yes. Exactly. Couldn't have said it better.

[Luminous Animal]

135. I am communicating with you but I have never met you.

[Bluenorthwest]

23. Hilarious.

nt

[HardTimes99]

63. "Front group" harkens back to the 50s and red-baiting days of Joe

McCarthy, Tricky Dick and Pat McCarran.

Not that this writer probably gets what illustrious company his word choice has placed him in. What a tool!

[Bluenorthwest]

10. Your hyper sexual auto erotic themes today are not really the best.

It's like every post I read of yours uses the same imagery. Has to do with not having any valid content to offer I think.

[phleshdef]

13. Says the guy that spends 99% of his posts trying to hijack the topic and make it about gay marriage.

[SidDithers]

16. +1...nt

Sid

[Bluenorthwest]

18. Oh, so advocacy for equality bothers you, and semi pornographic comments about auto erotic

fellatio are what you claim is an improvement? Good for you. Do you run a desk where minority members should check in for prior comment approval?
Your post is crude and it is also nonsense. A front group? Are you Tail Gunner Joe all day, or just on Halloween?

[phleshdef]

24. No. Hijacking topics that have nothing to do with the topic of equality bothers me.

I'm vehemently pro-gay marriage. I'm also vehemently pro-single payer. But you don't see me going into threads about national security issues or some other completely unrelated issue to try and hijack and sidetrack the discussion about single payer healthcare.

Just the other day, you were posting about how gleeful you were that Schumer was getting mad at Putin over the Snowden affair because Schumer has expressed some wacked out views on gay marriage. Nevermind the irony there, with Putin basically outlawing talking about homosexuality in public forums. You didn't care about that, you just wanted to put your one and only issue in the spotlight and offer nothing to the discussion that had anything to do with the actual discussion.

I don't like discussion hijacking and that's what you spent the vast majority of your time doing around here. I'm not the only one that notices.

[Bluenorthwest]

29. So stop Hijacking this thread. You should link when you accuse you are utterly mischaracterizing

what I said, as usual, and of course, I am not the topic of this thread, you want to make it about me for some reason.
I don't need your approval for anything I say. Deal with it. Attacking me when your OP pal can't respond is cute, but not really responsive and I don't give a shit what you of all posters has to say.
Characterizations, personal attacks. Blah, blah, a man without an actual point.

[phleshdef]

33. You are a piece of work.

You started in on me, not the other way around.

Just in case you have a short term memory problem, just minutes ago, you said to me:

"Your hyper sexual auto erotic themes today are not really the best.
It's like every post I read of yours uses the same imagery. Has to do with not having any valid content to offer I think. "

...which is what triggered this little discussion. So don't lecture me about "making it about you". You have no right to when you initiated the discussion attempting to make it about me.

I never said you needed my approval. But at the same time, I can and will call you out on your bullshit anytime I feel like doing so. Deal with it.

[Bluenorthwest]

46. Well you hijacked this thread with 'auto fellatio' comments, and that was not the first such post of

yours today. I commented on that fact.
phleshdef This message was hidden by Jury decision.

25. Actually, the OP was so good, I masturbated while reading it.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3208063

When you are going to delve into such modes and images, you should expect others to notice and perhaps to comment upon it. Apparently others did as well.

[phleshdef]

51. That wasn't a hijack. I was speaking directly to a subject in the OP.

The OP article claims that said group is a front group. I gave my 2 cents as to what its a front group for, which is the glory of Greenwald's pet issues. "Self fellating" is just a more colorful way of saying its for Greenwald to pat himself on the back. I like using sexual imagery to make a point. It entertains me. Get over it. Sex isn't immoral.

As for the post you are referring to. Why don't you go read what I was responding to when I posted that. Another poster told me that instead of reading that OP, I should have spent that time masturbating, bashing myself in the face etc. I responded in a way that I found to be humorous and in a way that totally no-sold the garbage I was responding to.

If anyone has a problem with sexual imagery being used in posts, they can go fuck themselves. I'll do what I wanna do.

[ohheckyeah]

144. "I'll do what I wanna do."

How very libertarian of you.

[Luminous Animal]

26. Yep. That was a dispicable post.

[Bluenorthwest]

36. What I notice is that the OP does not respond at all, instead a tight group of others come

to post off topic, sexual imagery and try to get away from the subject at hand, the low quality and dubious agenda of the piece quoted in the OP.
The OP poster says one thing, then a 'Front Group' of sorts comes to insult those who laugh at the precious OP, who hides behind those doing personal attacks about minority members.
Ironic. A group of people other than the OP speak for the OP about Front Groups. Hilarious.

[phleshdef]

43. Did it ever occur to you that maybe the OP hasn't been back to his/her computer in the past few hrs?

You expect people to respond right away as if everyone is glued to a computer all the time.

[Bluenorthwest]

48. Of course. Did it ever occur to you that the OP might be the author of the blog posted?

I think making OPs and then walking away from them is craven either way.

[phleshdef]

52. No, the OP is female, the author of the blog is male.

[flamingdem]

57. I think people are confusing me with

Big Bird lol

[Bluenorthwest]

32. Hyperboblic mendacity. Prove your assertion if you can. You can't, so you won't.

Sorry it bugs you. All you see it 'the gay'. Whatever.

[hootinholler]

79. I have tremendous respect for anyone who can self-fellate and still accomplish anything. n/t

[think]

101. +1. Americans for Prosperity pushing Koch industries' agenda

Now that's a front group...

Source Watch: Americans for Prosperity

Americans for Prosperity (AFP) is a group fronting special interests founded in 2004 by oil billionaire David Koch and Richard Fink (a member of the board of directors of Koch Industries). AFP has been accused of funding astroturf operations but also has been fueling the "Tea Party" efforts. [1]

AFP's messages are in sync with those of other groups funded by the Koch Family Foundations and the Kochs' other special interest groups that work against progressive or Democratic initiatives and protections for workers and the environment. Accordingly,

AFP opposes labor unions, health care reform, stimulus spending, and cap-and-trade legislation, which is aimed at making industries pay for the air pollution that they create.

AFP was also involved in the attacks on Obama’s "green jobs" czar, Van Jones, and has crusaded against international climate talks. According to an article in the August 30, 2010 issue of The New Yorker, the Kochs are known for "creating slippery organizations with generic-sounding names," that "make it difficult to ascertain the extent of their influence in Washington."

AFP's budget surged from $7 million in 2007 to $40 million in 2010, an election year. [2][3]. As of August 13th, Americans for Prosperity spent an estimated $45 million on ads to influence the 2012 presidential election, their total budget for 2012 will top $100 million.[4] For a more detailed summary of AFP's 2012 election activities, see: Americans for Prosperity in the 2012 Election.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Americans_for_Prosperity

[WorseBeforeBetter]

4. Christ, not Spandan again.

UNREC.

[cali]

5. lol. You post the source in your op title like it's supposed to mean something

like we're all supposed to recognize it as some estimable source.]

Excuse me but who the fuck is the peoples view and why one earth should it mean diddly squat to anyone or legitimize the foul garbage it spews? And this really is a stinking pile of shit, even if you don't agree with Ellsberg. Progressive? Yeah, about as progressive as Spiro Agnew

[Kolesar]

11. ^obsessive...eom

[cali]

14. what or who is obsessive?

[Kolesar]

17. I wasn't aware that there was an established standard for DU subject lines

I guess this is what stimulates you. Sad

[cali]

37. lol and I never said there was.

I simply found it curious that the op placed an obscure blog in his/her op title.

What's sad is your attempt to characterize that as obsessive. and your mind reading skills, dear? Lame as hell.

[HiPointDem]

41. i've noticed that when people have no real argument, they turn to personal remarks & armchair

psychology.

sad.

[Quantess]

89. That particular one rarely (maybe never?) contributes more than empty snark. (no text)

[winter is coming]

77. It does mean something.

It means, "swallow before you click the thread so you don't ruin your keyboard."

[Bluenorthwest]

6. Who is this mediocre McCarthyite you are quoting? Front Group? Seriously? Does he know what

the term means and if he does, where the fuck is his evidence to back up his accusations?

[cali]

15. It just struck me: Maybe the op is quoting the op.

[Bluenorthwest]

20. I do believe that to be the case.

Just my guess. But the lack of responses to specific comments is a bit glaring.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

22. I think you might be on to something there, Cali.

[Bluenorthwest]

25. This OP poster never responds but the same set of 'volunteers' responds for him.

Is that a 'Front Group'? When an OP makes wild claims and those who challenge it are answered not by the OP poster but by a group of roving off topic random posters fixated on masturbation and pointing out who is gay and gnashing their teeth about it? Seems to me that is a very classic Front Group.

[HiPointDem]

42. i think the bog is a front group.

[msanthrope]

54. This might be the funniest thing you ever wrote on DU2 or DU3!!!!!! nt

[flamingdem]

55. +1

[msanthrope]

27. Your speculation on someone's privacy--i.e., the OP's identity, is quite ironic in a Snowden thread.

I find it amusing.

[cali]

30. why? do explain why you think it's ironic cuz I'm missing that entirely.

[msanthrope]

35. I am sure. nt

[cali]

40. so why won't you explain it to poor stupid ol' me?

unless, of course, you can't.

[Luminous Animal]

123. After a day of researching irony, it looks like she or he has come up empty.

[Rex]

157. You BBI!

[CakeGrrl]

95. "Where the fuck is his evidence to back up his accusations?"

Popular question these days...

[Union Scribe]

9. Mmmm, Spamden. nt

[sabrina 1]

28. Again with this extremist website, which is often the source of anti-left propaganda. The author

of this latest piece of trash is pretty infamous on most liberal sites, banned from most airc, for his extreme anti progressive views.

We've sunk to a new low by dragging his propaganda over here for any purpose other than to demonstrate where the anti-left propaganda emanates from.

Watch out for anything you read on that site, it is a pure hate site, worse than any right wing anti progressive site.

They are often the ones to start smear campaigns against well respected reporters and people like Ellsberg, because this tripe would be totally rejected on a Democratic Site, but they get their stuff spread around, sometimes without attribution considering the known lack of credibility they have earned.

I could their stuff without reading it.

Ellsberg has to smeared now as people respect his opinion. No better paid operatives to do the dirty work than old Spandan.

Trash, but good to see where it emanates from.

[Mojorabbit]

60. +100 nt

[Dragonfli]

139. The other day I had one of these conservative "dems" answer me with a link to heritage.org

Nothing this DU groupe links to to smear liberals or promote conservative third way policies surprises me anymore.
I'm not sure if their mask is slipping, or their slip is showing, but the have been more prone to revealing themselves of late.

[Sanity Claws]

34. More character assassination

I am so sick of the same old predictable attacks.

[kenny blankenship]

39. It's all they have.

Pick any subject - it's all they ever seem to have anymore.

[markpkessinger]

50. It's the tried and true tactic of a McCarthyite! n/t

[SidDithers]

38. DU rec...nt

Sid

[Bonobo]

146. Predictable.

Must be scary where you're sitting.

[randome]

44. Whoa. This thread.

Pacific Rim should be good.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Birds are territorial creatures.
The lyrics to the songbird's melodious trill go something like this:
"Stay out of my territory or I'll PECK YOUR GODDAMNED EYES OUT!"[/center][/font]
[hr]

[flamingdem]

56. Figaro!

This is a placeholder while I look for that critter you posted yesterday

[markpkessinger]

47. Desperate much? n/t

[olddots]

49. I am more confused everyday by this whole thing

Only a fool wouldn't know about data mining in the 21st. century but now it seems to support a cottage industry of questionable data in cyber space that seems to regenerate itself .

[mike_c]

53. so the character assassination has moved on to Ellsberg....

Wow.

[Blue Bike]

58. Snowden/Greenwald opponents had been trying not to smear Ellsberg, an American hero

but desperate times call for desperate measures.

[kenny blankenship]

64. I think they literally can't stop themselves.

Trying to get their slime all over Daniel Ellsberg is "rock bottom", as they say in the 12 step world. It's a low point where all dignity has been shed and shame abandoned. This is where a survivor gets clean and pulls out of their descent. But watch this lot go spiraling right down the drain anyway. Just. One. More. Hit. Just gotta have it.

[marmar]

62. This OP has reached stratospheric levels of pitiful.

This is just downright embarrassing.

[Aerows]

69. Just pitiful

This situation has brought out the worst in the apologists. My word, when the indefensible becomes law, it is necessary to rebuke it, not stand up for it, no matter who enacts or enforces those laws. I feel like I've fallen through the looking glass when I read some of these posts. Deny, attempt to create doubt when there are clear facts, deny some more. It's nuts.

[markpkessinger]

72. At this point they're beyond being labeled 'apologists' . . .

. . . and have crossed the line into being neo-McCarthyites.

[Katashi_itto]

80. Results of DU jury

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

Over-the-top incivility from a poster who has nothing to say. Calling DU members "neo-McCarthyites" for supporting a Democratic president is a rude and inappropriate personal attack that contributes nothing but bad feelings. Please hide, thank you.



ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

Over-the-top incivility from a poster who has nothing to say. Calling DU members "neo-McCarthyites" for supporting a Democratic president is a rude and inappropriate personal attack that contributes nothing but bad feelings. Please hide, thank you.


Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: It's accurate.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Assholery is not against the rules.
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT and said: Let's keep DU civil.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Nothing wrong with the truth. Nothing uncivil about the post in question. markpkessinger is correct, although the guilty can't seem to see it.
I think the alerter is reaching here with his own rude and inappropriate personal attack, with an alert that contributes nothing but bad feelings.
Leave it alone.
Carry on!
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given

[markpkessinger]

81. Thanks for posting this . . .

. . . And to the alerter, I never called anyone neo-McCarthyite for supporting the President. I applied that term to those engaged in the ceaseless attempts at character assassination of anyone and everyone who dares to criticize the administration. Further, the attempt to conflate 'support for the President' with blind loyalty to anything and everything the administration says itself partakes of the same McCarthy-like tactics.

[Katashi_itto]

87. Agree!

[Bluenorthwest]

140. I love this post.

nt

[Scurrilous]

66. K & R

[markpkessinger]

68. This has to be among the most shameless posts I've ever seen on DU . . .

. . . just . . . Wow.

But hey, somewhere, from his celestial alcohiolic stupor, Joseph McCarthy is smiling down on you -- so I guess you can take some comfort in that.

[Cha]

71. Wow, who knew Ellsberg sat on this Board with Greenwald even though he

sounded like he was in their pocket with all his fawning over Nothing?

What a downfall.. way to ruin your legacy over Greenwald and Snowden, Daniel Ellsberg.

[flamingdem]

76. Just read this comment about his priorities

Ellsberg does not seem to realize that Snowden and his 'friends' may not be as pure as he thinks. This may not work out all that well. Ellsberg may not care; because we have someone 'speaking the truth to power'.

[Major Hogwash]

94. It is kind of sad.

Because it didn't have to be "fixed" this way.
Ellsberg is an old man, he's 82 years old, for crying out loud.
His involvement in this fiasco is not going to help anyone.

[cali]

73. I need a shower and lots of soap. I just sifted through that pile of dog shit blog

man, if that blogger isn't paid by the admin, it should be. it positively prostrates itself at Obama's feet and presses slobbering kisses all over them.

Someone needs to be deprogrammed.

[markpkessinger]

74. Amen to that! n/t

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

75. You forgot the "Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of....?" part.

[markpkessinger]

78. Mustn't forget that! n/t

[ucrdem]

82. Two weeks before the Nov. 2012 election, Ellsberg called for Obama's IMPEACHMENT:

Ellsberg, Huffpost, Oct. 18, 2012:

It's not merely understandable, it's entirely appropriate to be enraged at Barack Obama. As I am.

He has often acted outrageously, not merely timidly or "disappointingly."

If impeachment were politically imaginable on constitutional grounds, he's earned it (like George W. Bush, and many of his predecessors!)

It is entirely human to want to punish him, not to "reward" him with another term or a vote that might be taken to express trust, hope or approval.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-ellsberg/obama-swing-states_b_1979321.html

Ellsberg is a hero alright -- to Libertarians.


p.s. and yes I read the part where Ellsberg reluctantly gives his permission to swing state voters to violate their principles and vote for Obama anyway and I don't believe him for a second. Ellsberg was using his "leftist" credentials -- questionable IMHO, but that's another thread -- to swiftboat Obama right before the November election and he's doing the same thing now.

[flamingdem]

83. Ouch. That's nasty.

No wonder he fell in with Greenwald

[ucrdem]

86. Brother CATO and brother RAND backing brother Booz-Allen, now there's a surprise

spooks of a-feather . . .

[flamingdem]

88. Throw in Walt..

[ucrdem]

92. yep

[Cha]

84. Aha! Full Freaking Disclosure.. Ellsberg has found his stupid

soulmates in Greenwald and Snowden.

Like I said.. too bad about his legacy..

Mahalo, ucrdem, for this.. fuck Ellsberg's cloudy thinking and his "enraged" yearning for Impeachment.

[ucrdem]

91. Yep. Ellsberg is a hero to the Infowars.com crowd it seems. . .

Also NaturalNews.com and Democracy Now!, gee what a surprise:

http://www.infowars.com/daniel-ellsberg-says-obama-should-be-impeached-over-ndaa/

http://www.democracynow.org/2013/2/5/daniel_ellsberg_ndaa_indefinite_detention_provision

http://www.naturalnews.com/034537_NDAA_Bill_of_Rights_Obama.html



Impeach baby, impeach!

..........

p.s. mahalo Cha!

[AllINeedIsCoffee]

93. The holy trinity of woo. nt

[flamingdem]

104. Who knew?

And just like Sara he can see Russia from his "house"

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

96. Yet, in the same article, he's urging people in swing states to vote for him.

[ucrdem]

105. He makes it crystal clear that "I don't support Obama" and he "does not intend to vote for" him. nt

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

114. So?

[burnodo]

98. you are an unbelieveable partisan

[Iggo]

85. So you're saying I should concentrate on the messenger.

Thanks for the guidance.

[AllINeedIsCoffee]

90. Career activist trying desperately to stay relevant. nt

[Scurrilous]

132. Will chain myself to Whitehouse fence for food rent-a-radical. n/t

[sibelian]

164. "Career activist trying desperately to stay relevant"

THANKS! UPDATING MY THREAD.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3177422

[burnodo]

97. Daniel Ellsberg has more credibility than you will ever have

or any of your dumb authoritarian-loving friends

[flamingdem]

99. See post #82

[burnodo]

106. let me try again

"Daniel Ellsberg has more credibility than you will ever have"

[Douglas Carpenter]

100. Everyone who criticizes the intelligence services turns out to be real creeps - every time!

I don't know why anyone should care about what the intelligences services are doing anyway. That's none of our business.

[Luminous Animal]

102. I just found out upthread tha Democracy Now! is woo! What the fuck!

[Douglas Carpenter]

103. Well Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzales have been right-wing shills for a long time

and as one of the posters above also pointed out in an earlier thread - Amnesty International are right-wing shills too and they should have their tax exempt status pulled

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3099892

[ucrdem]

108. You're catching on. nt

[marmar]

126. "Well Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzales have been right-wing shills for a long time"

I would call this intellectual dishonesty, but I don't think the word 'intellectual' should be used in any description of that load of bollocks.

[snappyturtle]

138. Everyone.......every time....none of our business.

[ucrdem]

107. Well well well. The Pentagon Papers end at 1967. Nixon was elected in 1968.

So who got fingered by noble leaker Ellsberg's big self-sacrifice? That's right, the LBJ and Kennedy administrations. Also McNamara who apparently initiated the study as a warning to future presidents against similar debacles. Tricky Dick it seems got a free pass:

The Pentagon Papers, officially titled United States – Vietnam Relations, 1945–1967: A Study Prepared by the Department of Defense, is a United States Department of Defense history of the United States' political-military involvement in Vietnam from 1945 to 1967. The papers were first brought to the attention of the public on the front page of The New York Times in 1971.[1] A 1996 article in The New York Times said that the Pentagon Papers "demonstrated, among other things, that the Lyndon Baines Johnson Administration had systematically lied, not only to the public but also to Congress, about a subject of transcendent national interest and significance".[2] The report was declassified and publicly released in June 2011.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers

And now Ellsberg is swiftboating another Democratic president for all he's worth, which fortunately isn't much. Funny how that works, isn't it?

[Douglas Carpenter]

109. In Feb1971 Ellsberg discussed the study with NYT Excerpts started being published on Jun 13, 1971

I don't think that contributed to the election of Nixon in 1968. The Nixon Administration nonetheless went to extraordinary efforts to stop the publication and to discredit Daniel Elssberg - even burglarizing the offices of his psychiatrist.


In February 1971 Ellsberg discussed the study with New York Times reporter Neil Sheehan, and gave 43 of the volumes to him in March. The New York Times began publishing excerpts on June 13, 1971;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers

[ucrdem]

110. Nixon won reelection in 1972 with the fourth-largest margin of victory in history

and Danny played his part to perfection. Thank you, Mr Ellsberg!

[Douglas Carpenter]

111. I fail to see how Mr. Ellsberg's work helped Nixon win reelection

Considering the 1972 Democratic Presidential candidate completely repudiated LBJ's Vietnam policy. And Nixon had Daniel Ellsberg at the very top of his enemy's list.

[ucrdem]

112. Think about it. nt

[Douglas Carpenter]

113. of for crying out loud!! you are just pulling my leg, right?

[Luminous Animal]

119. C'mon, Douglas. Think really really really hard and you too can find bliss

in the land of Idiocracy.

[Douglas Carpenter]

120. actually Daniel Elllsberg campaigned night and day for McGovern in 1972

Daniel Ellsberg '52, who allegedly leaked the Pentagon Papers to the press, said yesterday he is "working night and day" to elect McGovern.

"It is crucially important that Richard Nixon be dethroned." Ellsberg said. "The war is the central issue in this campaign, and the American people have the best chance in years to end the war politically."

Ellsberg said he expected "four more years of bombing" would follow a Nixon victory. "Nixon can't keep the Saigon branch office of the U.S. government open without continued bombing," he added.

"The cynicism many people have about the electoral process is founded in reality." Ellsberg explained. "But this cynicism has blinded people to the precipitous choice in this election."

Ellsberg added that the size of a Nixon victory will be important to the Vietnamese. "Reducing the size of his landslide will save lives," he said.

http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1972/10/16/the-left-looks-at-the-mcgovern/

[Luminous Animal]

122. Aw well. Back to the drawing board!

[ucrdem]

124. Quoth Danny. Cool story. nt

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

116. LOL. The papers were released in '71. Nixon was president, not LBJ.

Are you saying the LBJ administration did NOT lie to the public and congress? Look up Tonkin Gulf Incident.

[ucrdem]

117. No kidding. He was also getting himself reelected. nt

[HardTimes99]

118. And you have the gall to accuse Democracy Now of woo?? I thought I had

died and gone to Irony Heaven.

[Luminous Animal]

121. You don't happen to write Texas textbooks, do you?

[marmar]

129. LOL.

[bvar22]

158. LOL

That sums it up well.

You know those rare individuals who take off all their clothes and run out on a football field at Half-Time?
For some strange reason, they only want to Show their Ass.
I guess its the only way they can Get Off.
They don't care that people are laughing AT them.
Sad and pathetic.

[Jack Rabbit]

141. How old are you, ucrdem?

Last edited Thu Jul 11, 2013, 03:04 AM - Edit history (1)

For the record, I'm 61. I was around when the Pentagon Papers were released. I was already an adult and I remember it very well. I was a political science major in college at the time. It was a matter of academic discipline to follow the news and read the reports of what was in those papers.

Your attempt to smear Dr. Ellsberg misses the mark by a country mile. First of all, are you going to tell me somebody other than Jack Kennedy was president when Ngo brothers, Diem and Nhu, were overthrown and killed in early November 1963? Are you going to tell me that somebody other than Lyndon Johnson was president when the war escalated following the Tonkin Gulf Resolution in 1964?

Or is that just something we're not supposed mention here? IOKIYAD, I suppose? Revisionist history doesn't work for me, fella, no matter who's doing the revising. I'm calling bullshit on you and hanging it around your neck.

The Johnson administration did, in fact, systematically lie about Vietnam. Over and over again. That's the truth. Can you handle it? Deal with it.

And you dare to compare Ellsberg to the Swiftboat Liars? That is outrageous. Ellsberg released the Pentagon Papers to get the facts out. That's right, guy, the facts. The Swiftboat Liars were about smearing the reputation and fabricating the war record of Senator Kerry, who dared to seek election as president against the usurper and serial liar who was then in the White House. If a stray fact found its way into anything they said about Kerry, then I am still unaware of it. Dr. Ellsberg and the Swiftboat Liars have absolutely nothing in common.

The secret history of the Vietnam War were written in 1967, as you point out, and that is why they only cover government duplicity about the war up to that time. If Dr. Ellsberg had documents concerning specific acts of duplicity by the Nixon administration, he no doubt would have released those, too.

Nixon was president when the report was released, and Nixon, who was telling the same lies about the war, attempted to prosecute Dr. Ellsberg. Nixon recognized that exposure of duplicity from the Johnson administration was also exposure of duplicity from his administration. The Pentagon Papers contradicted both the Johnson and Nixon administrations and no one at that time saw it any other way. Until I saw this thread, I didn't think that there was any one since then was either so misinformed or just such a cynical liar that he would try to present Dr. Ellsberg as a servant of Richard Nixon or partisan Republicans.

I don't often get so upset at a post on DU that I say this, but you, sir, crossed the line. Ucrdem, you should be ashamed of yourself.

[Bonobo]

145. You go!

You lived through it. You remember it. You TELL it, sir!!!

[Waiting For Everyman]

147. Thank you, for straightening that mess out.

I'm roughly your age, slightly older, and I too get fed up with people who weren't around, but think they know all about a time we lived, better than we do. Arrogance like that, I don't have the patience to bother with most of the time.

[ucrdem]

148. Understandable. But:

No I don't remember many details of the 1971 episode, but I do remember the Watergate hearings of 1973, as I happened to be laid up for a couple of weeks that summer as a result of a bike accident and watched part of the hearings on TV. Ellsberg's role in that drama was rather minimal. Basically he was a victim of having his psychiatrist's office broken into. Apparently they didn't find his file, however.

As for the Pentagon Papers, I wound up answering you in another thread, but the long and short of it is, we know more now than we did in 1971, and according to Wikipedia the Pentagon Papers were only declassified and released two years ago, in 2011. Before that we more or less depended on the NYT and other media to tell us what was in them.

Now let me ask you a question: have you read James Douglass' The Unspeakable? Because his view of Kennedy's role in Vietnam generally and the the Diem assassination particularly is entirely different than yours, which is essentially the standard GOP narrative Ellsberg helped to establish.

[Jack Rabbit]

159. I've never heard of James Douglass or his book

But would you say this is a fair review? Is there anything you would like to add to it or criticize about it?

Also, how does Mr. Douglass' narrative fit into the NSA spying capers we've been reading about in recent weeks? Please take your time and as much bandwidth as you deem necessary.

[ucrdem]

162. Yes, that's an excellent review and a commendable summary.

I couldn't have chosen a better one. I highly recommend both review and book. Quoting for the journal:

JFK and the Unspeakable, by James W. Douglass
Reviewed by James DiEugenio | http://www.ctka.net/2008/jfk_unspeakable.html

Since DiEugenio has nicely captured Douglass' thesis -- basically that JFK was eliminated by the CIA and Joint Chiefs for what they perceived as his traitorous reluctance to engage in military operations, particularly against Castro and Khrushchev -- and also his account of JFK's role in the Ngo brothers' assassinations, I won't rehearse either here. I'll simply add that Douglass supports his account with meticulous documentation that sets his book apart from even the best JFK bios including my other two favorites, Brothers by David Talbot and Profile of Power by Richard Reeves. I strongly recommend all three.

As to your question about Douglass' connection to Snowden's tale of NSA spying: since the thread is about Ellsberg let me start with him, simplifying a bit to save space. Douglass makes extensive use of the Pentagon Papers and Ellsberg's later work including Secrets, a 2002 memoir, as sources, and does not to my knowledge openly question Ellsberg's bona fides. However he does mention some interesting information, including that as a Pentagon analyst working on the PP in 1967, Ellsberg was greatly perplexed by JFK's steadfast refusal to commit troops to Vietnam when urgently requested by the Joint Chiefs, so much so that he sought out Bobby Kennedy for an interview and confronted him with this question:

Why, Ellsberg asked him, had President Kennedy rejected both ground troops and a formal commitment to victory in Vietnam, thereby "rejecting the urgent advice of every one of his top military and civilian officials"? Robert Kennedy answered that his brother was absolutely determined never to send ground combat units to Vietnam, because if he did, the U. S. would be in the same spot as the French -- whites against Asians, in a war against nationalism and self-determination. (Douglass p. 108, quotation from Ellsberg's Secrets)

That was in 1967. Nixon won in 1968, covertly bombed Cambodia after secretly subverting Paris peace talks, and the Vietnam war roared on. Then in 1971, it as time for reelection, and along came RAND-Pentagon alumnus Ellsberg peddling his Pentagon Papers, parts of which he himself had written, exposing and humiliating not Nixon but LBJ and to a lesser extent Kennedy. Nixon won reelection 1972, and the war rolled on until Nixon tried to end it, at which point Watergate, also featuring Ellsberg in a symbolic but non-speaking role, took care of Nixon.

So the long and the short of my analysis is that Ellsberg is a very dubious character who may or may not be the peacenik he claims to be. He wasn't in 1967, by his own account -- the RFK interview goes on in that vein, with Ellsberg determined to find out what had made JFK tick -- and his glorious deed in 1971 seems to have helped assure Nixon's reelection. Cut to Oct. 2012, and as I've already posted in this thread, Ellsberg was very vocally telling potential Obama voters that he himself did not support Obama, had no intention of voting for him, and furthermore that Obama has earned impeachment:

It's not merely understandable, it's entirely appropriate to be enraged at Barack Obama. As I am.

He has often acted outrageously, not merely timidly or "disappointingly."

If impeachment were politically imaginable on constitutional grounds, he's earned it (like George W. Bush, and many of his predecessors!)

It is entirely human to want to punish him, not to "reward" him with another term or a vote that might be taken to express trust, hope or approval.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-ellsberg/obama-swing-states_b_1979321.html

Since Obama is in my view the most reluctant dispatcher of US military forces since JFK -- or better put, the most successful pursuer of what JFK had called the strategy of peace -- I have to say that in this most recent instance, again, Ellsberg's weirdly wire-crossed pronouncements do not strike me as sincerely motivated.

[FourScore]

153. Thank you, Jack Rabbit!! Thank you so much! n/t

[HardTimes99]

115. Have you no sense of decency, madam? At long last,

have you left no sense of decency?

Shameful, simply shameful.

On a (nominally) Democratic site, no less.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army%E2%80%93McCarthy_hearings

[markpkessinger]

127. +1000 n/t

[FourScore]

125. Have you read the comments? They even mock Meteor Blades from DKos. This is full-on right wing BS!

What the hell's it doing on DU?

[Luminous Animal]

133. There was a good reason why Spanden C (author of the linked article) was banned from Kos.

He disrupted not so well.

[Autumn]

155. Perhaps it's written right wing BS by banned from kos

and later banned from DU.

[last1standing]

128. This is wrong, Flamingdem. You should delete it.

Smearing Ellsberg for political gain is not worthy of your or this site. Please take it down.

[ucrdem]

130. Click the tiny x in the tiny box

and voila, it's deleted. It looks like this:

p.s. welcome to DU!

[last1standing]

131. Thanks. I recently joined in 2001.

I've expressed my opinion of this thread and I hope you respect my opinion. If you don't, there's an 'ignore' feature that I might point out to you in return for your kindness of telling me about the 'X'.

[ucrdem]

134. Works wonders. I just hid your call-out thread for example.

Feels great!

[last1standing]

136. Glad I could help.

Not bad for a newbie, huh?

[ucrdem]

137. Any time. There's an equally useful feature called ignore.

Bye.

[Cleita]

142. The Ad hominems keep coming here, but so few

provable facts to back them up. I'm afraid the opinions expressed by this blogger aren't really concrete facts to back up the character assassination at foot. When someone has to attack a person's character, it's because they have few facts to back up their opinions.

Fail.

[xocet]

143. Why link to a blog post that uses racism to lay out its argument?

Suppose all of this post's allegations are true.

However, what does "...all-white..." contribute to proving the allegations to be true?

How would this sound if the argument were presented with "all-black", "all-Jewish", "all-Hispanic", "all-Asian" or some other such qualifier before the term "...Board of Directors..."?

This is purely an ad hominem attack that uses racism.

A Direct Timeline of Glenn Greenwald, His Front Group and the Fugitive Edward Snowden
Saturday, July 06, 2013
Posted by Spandan C

...

Greenwald and Poitras sit on the board of a group together - a fact they do not disclose during their on-camera interview of Snowden, or its write-up in the Guardian. This all-white Board of Directors head an organization, "Freedom of the Press Foundation," launched in December of 2012 that seem to be devoted entirely to Glenn Greenwald's pet causes and issues. In other words, it seems to be a front group from Greenwald and his radical libertarian agenda rather than having anything to do with any actual freedom of the press.

...

http://www.thepeoplesview.net/2013/07/a-direct-timeline-of-glenn-greenwald.html

Is this poster "Spandan C" a racist? Does he/she often use race in his/her arguments?

[Le Taz Hot]

149. This gets my vote for

Most Pathetic DU Post Ever.

I'm guessing you weren't even alive when Ellsburg released the Pentagon Papers. People called him a traitor back then too. But they were Republicans out to defend Nixon no matter what. Any of this sounding familiar? Anything? Hello:

[The Straight Story]

150. Wow, the author is an idiot and their wording shows their obvious bias/hatred. Just dumb.

Using words/phrases like front group, cohort, canonizing, dutifully serving, paper over, shill, extreme...jebus the author is not even trying at this point.

How about deceptions?? Here is one:

Ellsberg tells us that the UN Special Rapporteur found the conditions of Bradley Manning's detention to be "cruel, inhuman and degrading," and points to a Guardian article that claims the Special Rapporteur made that conclusion based on the Manning's year-long solitary confinement 23 hours a day.

Perhaps both Mr. Ellsberg and his Guardian source would be interested in finding out that the actual report from the UN Special Rapporteur makes no such conclusion, and doesn't even use the words 'cruel,' 'inhuman,' or 'degrading' with respect to the Bradley Manning case.

From the link the author provided:

L 15/06/2011 Case No. USA 8/2011 State reply: None to date Follow-up to a letter sent 13 May 2011 requesting a private unmonitored meeting with Private (Pfc.) Bradley Manning.

...Before the transfer of Pfc Manning to Fort Leavenworth, the Special Rapporteur requested an opportunity to interview him in order to ascertain the precise conditions of his detention. The US Government authorized the visit but ascertained that it could not ensure that the conversation would not be monitored. Since a non-private conversation with an inmate would violate the terms of reference applied universally in fact-finding by Special Procedures, the Special Rapporteur had to decline the invitation. In esponse to the Special Rapporteur being prevented. To the Special Rapporteur information on the authority to impose and the purpose of the isolation regime, the government responded that the prison rules authorized the brig commander to impose it on account of the seriousness of the offense for which he would eventually be charged. The Special Rapporteur concludes that imposing seriously punitive conditions of detention on someone who has not been found guilty of any crime is a violation of his right to physical and psychological integrity as well as of his presumption of innocence. The Special Rapporteur again renews his request for a private and unmonitored meeting with Mr. Manning to assess his conditions of detention.

171. The Special Rapporteur thanks the Government of the United States of America for its response to the communication dated 13 May 2011 requesting a private unmonitored meeting with Private Bradley Manning. Regrettably, to date the Government continues to refuse to allow the Special Rapporteur to conduct private, unmonitored, and privileged communications with Private Manning, in accordance with the working methods of his mandate (E/CN.4/2006/6 paras. 20-27).

Ellsberg claims that there is no chance that Snowden would be allowed out on bail. Based on what?

Judge denies bail to suspect in espionage case
http://www.staradvertiser.com/news/breaking/20130325_Judge_denies_bail_to_suspect_in_espionage_case.html?id=199972871

Bail Is Denied for Former C.I.A. Officer Accused of Being a Spy
http://www.nytimes.com/1998/04/17/us/bail-is-denied-for-former-cia-officer-accused-of-being-a-spy.html

Bail Denied for Navy Spy Suspect
http://newsok.com/bail-denied-for-navy-spy-suspect/article/2120163

A google search of denied bail espionage does not look promising for anyone charged with it.

[MannyGoldstein]

151. Dude, that is fucking AWESOME

EVERYONE got nailed with that. Everyone!



In Wikipedia, Poe's law should link right here.

[FourScore]

154. LOL n/t

[NorthCarolina]

152. So now we link to right wing rag sites here on DU and attempt to lend credibility to their BS?

This place really has made a hard right turn somewhere along the way. Whats next, posting the mental quips of Fox and Friends hosts?

[bvar22]

156. This kind of Right Wing Smear Attacks are what the UnRec was for.

How embarrassing for DU that Swift Boating Smear crap like THIS is on our
"Greatest Page".

BTW: You can click on the "Thread Info" button under the OP to see the names of the 22 DUers who support this kind of thing.

[Marr]

160. This is disgusting.

Look at the people backing you up in this thread and tell me you aren't a little embarrassed.

[ananda]

161. Hmm... Attacking the messengers tends to kill the messages.

Not good.

[Major Hogwash]

163. Freedom of the Press Foundation

We need to look a little more in to this group.
See what they've got under their fingernails.