Here's Glenn Greenwald article in response to Rachel Maddow's claims about the forged document

[oberliner]

In case anyone is interested:

https://theintercept.com/2017/07/07/rachel-maddows-exclusive-scoop-about-a-fake-nsa-document-raises-several-key-questions/

The gist is that the document got to Maddow after Greenwald published it, not before.

Quick excerpt:

All this accusatory innuendo when – as the evidence proves – the overwhelmingly likely reality is quite mundane: that someone simply took the document from our site after we published it and used it to create a potentially forged document that was sent to Maddow.

[greyl]

1. Rachel did mention that the metadata could have been forged as well.

Fuck Glenn Greenwald.

[oberliner]

4. Yeah

He's really snarky and obnoxious about the whole thing - as expected.

[Eliot Rosewater]

31. And the horse he rode in on, the dirt on his floor, and EVERYBODY who

thinks he is an honest broker.

[SHRED]

2. "Could have been anybody"

Hummm....now where have I heard that line before?

[rzemanfl]

3. From the 400 pound basement guy perhaps?

[Fozzledick]

8. The one in New Jersey? Chris Christie?

[rzemanfl]

9. Basement guy not beach guy. n/t

[Joediss]

5. Greenwald is not reliable

That's one sob that I would never trust again , I use to read his stuff , not no more , I believe he is one reason free speech TV or most of free speech TV were saying that the Russia - Trump story was a phony... I called him out on it and he told me to " Just follow my beloved president Obama".... So Gleen Greenwald has been on my shit list for a while.... He was going on fox news spouting this stuff about there is no collusion between trump and Russia

[WhiteTara]

10. I don't trust him either.

Welcome to DU!

[struggle4progress]

6. Glenn Greenwald ... I can't quite place him ... Wait ... It'll come to me ...

Is he that guy that died going over Niagara Falls in a barrel with a python?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

7. Greenwald got the timeline wrong.

On Saturday, June 3, the NSA contractor, Reality Winner, is arrested by the FBI after The Intercept showed the documents to the NSA for verification. On Monday, June 5, The Intercept ran the story and published the documents. According the RM he "fake" documents were sent to her *between* those two events - that is, *before* The Intercept published the real ones. That means someone got ahold of the real NSA documents that had not yet been made public and used them as a template to create a forgery with sensational details, evidently hoping she'd publish them. When the documents were then shown to be forged she'd be in the same spot as Dan Rather was back in '04.

So why did Greenwald claim somebody just took the documents off The Intercept's web site *after they'd published them* and use them to create the fake, when Rachel got the forged documents before the Intercept published the real ones?

[oberliner]

14. I think you've made an error

Maddow said she got the document after The Intercept published it.

To wit:

As for the issues of the timeline, Maddow stressed that “we explicitly *didn’t* say it was sent to us prior to your publication. I said — and we even showed a calendar graphic to illustrate — that it was sent to us *after* you published. No one falsely made it appear that it was sent to us prior to your publication. It came to us afterwards — which is what I said on the air.”

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

16. OK, I got the timeline off The Daily Kos:

https://www.dailykos.com/story/2017/7/7/1678612/-Who-tried-to-set-a-fake-news-trap-for-Rachel-Maddow-with-carefully-forged-top-secret-documents

I couldn't remember it from the show itself. Guess they got it wrong too.

[OilemFirchen]

24. Maddow is quoted in post 21.

Greenwald excretes falsehoods for a living.

[oberliner]

26. Maddow's quote is "appears to have been created" based on the metadata

She acknowledges that she got the document after The Intercept published.

[boston bean]

27. That is exactly the opposite way I recall what she said on the show.

Where are you getting that quote from?

[oberliner]

28. She said the metadata suggests that the document she got was created earlier

But not that she received the document earlier.

The quote is from the article in the OP, per the questions sent to Maddow by The Intercept and her responses.

[boston bean]

32. No, she states she received it three hours prior to publication. You are relying on what Greenwald

is saying, not what Maddow said.

[oberliner]

35. No, she didn't

Did you not watch the show?

She said she got it two days after The Intercept published it.

Here's the video:

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/maddow-to-news-orgs-heads-up-for-hoaxes-985491523709

Go to the 15:10 minute mark.

[DURHAM D]

39. Agree. I was paying close attention to her timeline. nt

[oberliner]

41. Not close enough

Watch the video. Go to the 15:10 mark. She says they got it two days after The Intercept published.

[WhiteTara]

17. I saw that deflection too. I wondered if that

was a purposeful error or genuine confusion...although he is the one who published and should know what day the story dropped.

[DeminPennswoods]

70. Seems more likely that the forgery

might have come from someone who had it at The Intercept and before they published it. Greenwald's site has been pretty consistently dismissive, as I understand it, of the Russia hacking from the start. Maybe a staffer there decided to make the forgery and shop it around to discredit everyone else's reporting.

I think the key to solving whodunit is the telltale coding that was left on the forgery. I'd think that wouldn't show up on a forgery cut and pasted from the website.

[Blue_Tires]

11. Greenwald is a piece of shit and his word is worthless...

Last edited Fri Jul 7, 2017, 05:48 PM - Edit history (1)

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[Gothmog]

12. I have trouble caring about what that idiot Greenwald thinks

[oberliner]

13. Rachel talked about The Intercept in her story

So I thought it would at least be interesting to see what The Intercept had to say.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

18. While noting that they have been "skeptical" about the Russia story,

she was generally complimentary toward the Intercept and commented that they had some good reporters. But Glenn Greenwald is still a douche.

[oberliner]

22. Agreed

On all points.

[Gothmog]

56. I saw Rachel's report last night

I just do not believe anything that Greenwald has to say.

[MiddleClass]

19. Wasn't he the guy, who got mad at Obama for not letting his Brazilian boyfriend

Get fast tracked for citizenship?

And then moved to Brazil, and then London when Snowden fled to Russia?

Or was London first

I don't know, but it sounds like not a fair arbiter of the facts in anything.

More of an interested party, other than a witness to what's going on

[dsc]

25. It was his Brazilian husband

not boyfriend.

[MiddleClass]

49. The problem I believe was that he wanted it fast tracked

Did he ever get a green card I wonder?

As a husband, it was already on a faster than normal track. I assume?

[dsc]

55. No he wasn't because gay people were 2nd class citizens in that regard

they were married but couldn't use that for immigration.

[MiddleClass]

57. That's right, now he has a point on that.

I thought all that changed, but I thought Social Security or the military change their beneficiary rules.

I'd just assumed there was some sort of legal civil union type exception.

He had a point of being mad, thanks for enlightening me of that.

[dsc]

62. It has changed since Windsor

but he was complaining about this state of affairs long before Windsor was handed down.

[pnwmom]

20. The timing proves nothing, and it certainly doesn't exclude Greenwald. n/t

[OilemFirchen]

21. Greenwald is lying.

"The forged document that we got sent to us appears to have been created in that narrow window of time between those two events - after Reality Winner got arrested and before the Intercept published the document."

At 14:21 here: http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/maddow-to-news-orgs-heads-up-for-hoaxes-985491523709

I didn't assume from Maddow's report that the Intercept was the guilty party, but, since they're acting like it, I do now.

[oberliner]

23. That quote does not show that

The "appears to have been created" claim is based on their understanding of the metadata, which may or may not have also been forged.

The language Maddow is using there is carefully chosen for that reason.

[OilemFirchen]

29. Feh.

It clearly doesn't say "that it was sent to us 'after' you published", as your prior post suggests. That is a lie.

[oberliner]

30. She explicitly said that it was sent to her show after The Intercept published it

"I said — and we even showed a calendar graphic to illustrate — that it was sent to us *after* you published. No one falsely made it appear that it was sent to us prior to your publication. It came to us afterwards — which is what I said on the air."

That's a direct quote from Maddow herself.

[boston bean]

33. That is bull. She did not say that.

[oberliner]

36. Yes, she did

She said, on the show, that they got the document two days after The Intercept published.

[boston bean]

38. No she said she got it two days after Reality Winner was arrested and before the intercept published

the classified letter.

[oberliner]

40. No, she didn't

Watch the show.

She even has a calendar graphic up showing that she received it two days after The Intercept published.

[boston bean]

42. The graphic doesn't show that even in the greenwald article.

[oberliner]

43. Yes, it does

Watch the Maddow video. Go to 15:12. Take a screen shot.

[boston bean]

44. You are reading it wrong.

[oberliner]

45. She literally says the words: "then sent it to us two days later"

And then an arrow comes on the screen pointing to June 7 with the words "TRMS RECEIVES ANONYMOUS DOCUMENT".

Are you not able to watch the video?

[boston bean]

58. Two days after Reality winner was arrested. Not two days after the intercept printed the memo.

[oberliner]

60. Please watch the video

They show a graphic showing Reality Winner arrested on June 3, Intercept publishes document on June 5, and TRMS receives document on June 7.

Go to the 15:10 - 15:20 section.

Just watch those ten seconds.

[boston bean]

61. Yes. But the document metadata show it to be created prior to publishing.

I see my error, thank you, but assumptions of it being greenwald or his outfit sending to rachel is still very probable.

[oberliner]

66. Agreed

No argument from me on that. Definitely a possibility (if not a probability) that it came from Greenwald and company.

[OilemFirchen]

34. I presume you're quoting the Intercept article.

I'll never give Omidyar's get-richer-quick scheme a click, so I'll defer to you that the quote is there. So what? It's from Greenwald - Omidyar's pet prevaricator - and it's directly contrary to what she said last night.

Sorry, I'll wait to hear it from Maddow.

[oberliner]

37. She said on her show that she got the document two days after The Intercept published

Here is the video:

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/maddow-to-news-orgs-heads-up-for-hoaxes-985491523709

Go to 15:10 - you will hear her say it.

[OilemFirchen]

46. I alreadly cited the video.

Remember? The quote in which she says it "appears" to have been CREATED between the two events?

Patiently awaiting her explanation, thank you.

[oberliner]

47. Right

But in the video, she says that she received it two days after The Intercept published.

Are we in agreement on that?

[OilemFirchen]

48. Right.

But your OP cites Greenwald:

&quot t)he overwhelmingly likely reality is quite mundane: that someone simply took the document from our site after we published it and used it to CREATE a potentially forged document that was sent to Maddow" (my emphasis).

How did TRMS receive a document apparently created from a document prior to its publication (according to her), which is also a document created from a document which had already been published (according to him)?

[oberliner]

51. I guess it depends on the metadata

And whether it too is/can be forged or if it was properly understood.

I would certainly believe any of a range of different possibilities with respect to what happened.

I just want to confirm that we are all operating with the same basic facts (which you and I seem to be).

[OilemFirchen]

54. Here's the difference:

Maddow made no assumptions as to the validity of the metadata, leaving its origin an open question. Greenwald, OTOH, is pretty demonstrative about it, jumping to the conclusion that it HAD to have been created from the document on their website. Why? How does Greenwald know its origin?

I believe that the fake document could have been created by the NSA when the Intercept foolishly took it to them for verification. But I don't know that - nor does Maddow. Greenwald seems to have some inside info, or is at least pretending so. Isn't that a bit curious to you?

[oberliner]

59. Agreed

I think Greenwald's version is very fishy, though conceivably plausible.

[GreatCaesarsGhost]

50. "overwhelmingly likely"

[NCTraveler]

52. The media generating their own news.

Expected from Greenwald. Sad to see from Maddow.

[juxtaposed]

53. Could david brock be part of this bullshit, or just his style? I'd say style more than anything.

I don't know if greenwald pushed it, or is a legit doc. Only time and maddow will tell.

[emulatorloo]

63. No. Delete your account n/t

[oberliner]

65. Huh?

I'm a big fan of Maddow. Her show is great.

[emulatorloo]

67. Oh, I'm so sorry. I confused you with someone else.

I really apologize.

Don't know if you've noticed it or not, but there are a handlful of posters who appear to really want to discredit Maddow. I don't know what the purpose of that.

But I am afraid i'm starting to get sensitive about.

So sorry again for my confusion. You and I have had so many good interactions. Won't make that mistake again.

[oberliner]

68. No problem

That happens to me sometimes, too (confusing posters).

[annabanana]

69. the handful should be examined

Rachel is the most fact-filled, aggressive reporter on the Trump/Putin beat.