Glenn Greenwald says ‘the left is in bed with a CIA set on destroying Trump’

He resigned from website he co-founded claiming editors ‘censored’ an article he wrote criticizing Joe Biden!

Snowden journalist Glenn Greenwald tells Tucker Carlson ‘the left is in bed with a CIA set on destroying Trump’ after he resigned from website he co-founded claiming editors ‘censored’ an article he wrote criticizing Joe Biden

Glenn Greenwald on Thursday told Tucker Carlson the left supports a CIA set on destroying Donald Trump after earlier resigning from a website he co-founded, claiming editors ‘censored’ an article he wrote criticizing Joe Biden.

The journalist, part of a team that won a Pulitzer for reports about government surveillance programs based on leaks by Edward Snowden, told the Fox New host that the left’s ‘healthy skepticism of the CIA’ has ‘all disappeared’.

Greenwald, who announced his resignation from the The Intercept Thursday, added: ‘The reason it’s disappeared is because the CIA from the very first days of the Trump administration, even before he was inaugurated, devoted themselves to sabotaging the inauguration because Donald Trump questioned a few of their pieties and that can’t be done in Washington.

‘So the CIA and the deep state operative became heroes of the liberal left, the people who support the democratic party. They are now in a full union with the neocons and the Bush Cheney operatives, the CIA, silicon valley and Wall Street.

‘That is the union of power, along with along with mainstream media outlets, that are fully behind the democratic party which is likely to at least take over one branch of government, if not all of them, in the coming election and that’s a very alarming proposition because they are authoritarian, they believe in censorship and suppression of information that exposes them in any kind of a critical light.’

Greenwald then suggested members of the CIA, DoJ, FBI and NSA now ‘tell Americans what they ought to believe’. He added: ‘They have infiltrated the means of communication domestically. If they do it through leaks, clandestine operations and through lies.’

Greenwald had earlier resigned from The Intercept, which he co-founded penning a scathing essay published to Substack, in which he blasted a culture of ‘repression, censorship and ideological homogeneity’ at the website and in the mainstream media at large.

He told Carlson had founded the website after ‘seeing there were a lot of constraints imposed on journalism and our ability to report freely against all kinds of institutions’.

Describing the ‘final, precipitating cause’ of his departure, Greenwald wrote: ‘The Intercept’s editors, in violation of my contractual right of editorial freedom, censored an article I wrote this week, refusing to publish it unless I remove all sections critical of Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden, the candidate vehemently supported by all New-York-based Intercept editors involved in this effort at suppression.’

‘The censored article, based on recently revealed emails and witness testimony, raised critical questions about Biden’s conduct,’ he continued, adding that he will publish the article in full on his Substack soon.

The Intercept’s Editor-in-Chief Betsy Reed – whom Greenwald briefly praised in his post – responded by calling his claims ‘preposterous’ and accusing him of ‘throwing a tantrum’.

It is understood Greenwald’s article would focus on recent reports regarding Joe Biden and his son Hunter’s business dealings.

Joe Biden’s youngest son has spent months under intense scrutiny over his business dealings in foreign countries, and was plunged into yet another scandal last week when photos and emails from his laptop were leaked to the New York Post.

Greenwald told Fox: ‘Nobody including Joe Biden disputes that these emails and other text messages are completely real and authentic.’

He did not specifically name the editors he claimed censored him in the essay, but later published emails that identified one of them as Senior Editor Peter Maass.

In an email dated October 27, Maass wrote: ‘Glenn, I have carefully read your draft and there is some I agree with and some I disagree with but am comfortable publishing.

‘However, there is some material at the core of this draft that I think is very flawed. Overall I think this piece can work best if it is significantly narrowed down to what you first discussed with Betsy — media criticism about liberal journalists not asking Biden the questions he should be asked more forcefully, and why they are failing to do that.

‘Betsy agrees with me that the draft’s core problem is the connection it often asserts or assumes between the Hunter Biden emails and corruption by Joe Biden.

‘There are many places in which the explicit or implied position is a) the emails expose corruption by Joe Biden and b) news organizations are suppressing their reporting on it. Those positions strike me as foundations to this draft, and they also strike me as inaccurate, and that inaccuracy undercuts narrower points that are sound.’

The email continues for several more paragraphs as Maass suggests eliminating some sections of the article that rely heavily on vague or unverified information.

In his essay, Greenwald accused the editors of demanding that he refrain from publishing the article with any other outlet, even though he has a ‘contractual right’ to do so.

In an effort to keep the article alive, Greenwald said he proposed having the editors write their own pieces critiquing his perspective on what the Biden evidence showed and ‘letting readers decide who is right, the way any confident and healthy media outlet would’.

‘But modern media outlets do not air dissent; they quash it,’ he wrote. ‘So censorship of my article, rather than engagement with it, was the path these Biden-supporting editors chose.’

The incident was so jarring to Greenwald that he decided to go out on his own and continue his career independently via Substack, despite his trepidations about losing a guaranteed paycheck.

‘I could not sleep at night knowing that I allowed any institution to censor what I want to say and believe — least of all a media outlet I co-founded with the explicit goal of ensuring this never happens to other journalists, let alone to me, let alone because I have written an article critical of a powerful Democratic politician vehemently supported by the editors in the imminent national election,’ he wrote.

Related Posts:

Send this to a friend