Dave Emory’s entire lifetime of work is available on a flash drive that can be obtained here.  (The flash drive includes the anti-fascist books available on this site.)
COMMENT: We’ve covered Eddie “The Friendly Spook” Snowden’s exploits in numerous previous posts: Part I , Part II , Part III , Part IV , Part V , Part VI , Part VII , Part VIII , Part IX , Part X , Part XI , Part XII .) Users of this website are emphatically encouraged to examine these posts in detail, as it is impossible to do justice to the arguments in those articles in the scope of this post.
Suffice it to say, for our purposes here, that Snowden’s activities are–quite obviously–an intelligence operation directed at Barack Obama’s administration at one level and the United States and U.K. at another.
We note that the individuals and institutions involved with Snowden, as well as Fast Eddie himself, track back to the far right, Nazi, white supremacists, Holocaust deniers and elements and individuals involved with the Underground Reich.  Again, PLEASE examine the previous posts on the subject, as there is no way to flesh out this line of inquiry in this post.
In past discussion of Eddie the Friendly Spook’s leaker of choice, Guardian journalist Glenn Greenwald, we noted that he has professionally networked with the Koch brothers funded Cato Institute . Greenwald’s professional associations include far more odious relationships.
Greenwald launched his own legal business, representing “unpopular clients,” including neo-Nazis. For five years, Greenwald defended Matthew Hale, head of the World Church of the Creator, currently serving a 40-year prison term  for plotting against the life of a judge. (See text excerpt below.)
We highlight a number of considerations in light of Greenwald’s efforts on behalf of Nazi bloodletters:
- As is the case with Snowden’s embrace of Nazi Ron Paul for President , this association negates any pretense on the part of Greenwald of being “for humanity.”
- In his defense of Matthew Hale (being sued by shooting victims, who were set upon by one of Hale’s foot soldiers) Greenwald violated legal ethics by taping witnesses . (See text excerpt below.) Apparently, Greenwald’s belief in the incorrectness of secret taping of private communications is highly selective.
- Greenwald labeled and insulted the plaintiffs in the case in very strong terms, calling them “odious.” (See text excerpt below.)
- We wonder about Greenwald’s lover of some 11 years–an Austrian-born lawyer named Werner Achatz. Might he have been Underground Reich ? Might Achatz have recruited/assisted Greenwald? Greenwald’s legal representation of Nazis was largely pro bono. How was he paying his bills? Did he have money saved up? Were other “unpopular clients” more fiscally forthcoming?
- It is quite clear that Greenwald is a “conservative/libertarian mole”  within the progressive movement, whose intent is to damage Obama.
- In past discussion of L’Affaire Snowden, we opined that part of the goal of this psy-op was to alienate younger and more idealistic voters from Obama, in order to permit the GOP to grab the White House and both houses of Congress.
- In an article about Greenwald by Out.com , Greenwald touted the necessity for a third party, lauding GOP governor Charles Johnson of New Mexico as a possible candidate in 2012. (See text excerpt below.)
- It will be interesting to see if another pied-piper in the Ralph Nader mode is fashioned in 2016 to siphon off votes from the Democrats.
“Vanfield” posted an interesting comment , noting that Stephen Walt, whose anti-Israel Lobby tome appears to be a manifestation of doctrinaire anti-Semitism and probable Muslim Brotherhood influence has lauded Snowden  as another “Edward R. Murrow” –as grotesque a misnomer as one could think of.
EXCERPT: . . . . Greenwald also spent roughly FIVE YEARS defending the First Amendment rights of neo-Nazis, including Matthew Hale, the “Pontifex Maximus” of the Illinois church formerly known as the World Church of the Creator , one of whose disciples went on a murderous spree in 1999 .
“I almost always did it pro bono,” Greenwald said. “I was interested in defending political principles that I believed in. I didn’t even care about making money anymore.” . . .
EXCERPT: . . . . By the third year of law school, he was working for a large law firm. But realizing that representing Goldman Sachs would have destroyed him psychologically, he set up his own firm, which represented several neo-Nazis and other unpopular clients.
When he and his former boyfriend, Werner Achatz, an Austrian-born lawyer, tried to lease an apartment, they were told they couldn’t aggregate their incomes. “They said they only do that for married couples,” Greenwald recalls. “We said we were a married couple.” When that didn’t fly, Greenwald became his own lawyer, suing the landlord for sexual orientation and marital status discrimination.
By 2004 he had tired of litigating, and was also at the end of an 11-year relationship with Achatz. He rented an apartment in Rio de Janeiro, expecting to remain there for two months. Emotionally drained, he says, “The last thing I was looking for was another relationship. Especially in Rio.” But on his first day on the beach, he met Miranda. . . .
. . . . One of his hopes for 2012 is that candidates will emerge to take on the red and the blue teams — he is keeping an eye on Gary Johnson, a two-term Republican governor of New Mexico, who is pro-gay and antiwar, and who could run with a Democrat like former Wisconsin senator Russ Feingold. He would also be happy to see a billionaire run without the help of either party, to disrupt the two-party stranglehold. . . .
EXCERPT: . . . .Case in point:
Glenn Greenwald made a choice to defend Matthew Hale in a series of civil lawsuits that Hale faced after he encouraged shooter Benjamin Smith to go on a two-state shooting rampage.
If you don’t know who Hale is, well, he’s a pretty famous white supremacist who is currently serving 40 years for soliciting the murder of a federal judge who ruled against him in a trademark case. Who put him away? Patrick Fitzgerald. (Yes. And Mr. Greenwald got an FBI visit regarding the passing of coded messages by Hale while under SAMS restrictions.)
Mr. Hale, for his role in the shootings, was sued by a number of survivors. This included a case filed by two teenage Orthodox Jewish boys. And another case filed by a Black minister. These people were selected by Benjamin Smith because they looked like the religious/ethnic minorities they are.
And Glenn Greenwald called them ‘odious and repugnant’ for suing his client–
Indeed the Center’s suit appears to link Hale’s rejection into the bar to Smith’s “rampage.” In late June, the state bar’s Committee on Character and Fitness again denied Hale’s petition to join the bar. Smith, who had testified as a character witness for Hale that April, began shooting two days later. “Immediately after the Illinois State Bar’s decision and as part of the World Church of the Creator’s war, Smith ... began a rampage of genocidal violence,” the lawsuit states.
And while Hale himself has linked the shootings to his bar application in the past, he said Tuesday that it’s ridiculous to think he had any control over Smith.
Further, Greenwald said, “I find that the people behind these lawsuits are truly so odious and repugnant, that creates its own motivation for me.”
The first suit, filed in state court by Chicago attorney Michael Ian Bender on behalf of two Orthodox Jewish teens shot at in Rogers Park, is pending, though a circuit judge in Chicago threw out allegations that Smith’s parents were somehow responsible for the shootings.
It wasn’t enough that Glenn took the case, which was his right to do. No–he had to insult the Plaintiffs–shooting victims. And then, he unethically taped the witnesses he subpoenaed, even directing their statements. A court found that he violated TWO separate rules–
“The magistrate judge granted both motions, finding defense counsel’s conduct unethical under two separate rules: Local Rule 83.58.4(a)(4), prohibiting “dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation;” and Local Rule 83.54.4, stating “a lawyer shall not ... use methods of obtaining evidence that violate the legal rights of person.”“ANDERSON v. HALE 159 F.Supp.2d 1116 (2001)
He also attempted to manipulate the witness statements, per the magistrate’s findings of fact-
“A 52-page transcript of one conversation showed defendants’ counsel steered the conversation by eliciting particular responses to detailed questions, leading to more detailed questions, to lure the witness into damning statements for later use.” Anderson v. Hale, 202 F.R.D. 548 (N.D.Ill. 2001),
That’s right–Glenn Greenwald, self-proclaimed civil rights lawyer, violated the civil right of witnesses. The New York Bar later wrote a clarifying opinion on the ethics of said taping, referencing this case–
And of course, Glenn Greenwald thinks Matthew Hale is wrongly imprisoned by Prosecutor Fitzgerald.
“Mr. Greenwald, who said he believed that Mr. Hale was wrongly imprisoned, said he did not recall the exact message Ms. Hutcheson relayed to him, or the person it was intended for, but that he had declined to deliver it. He called the message “a caricature of what a coded message would be.””
After listening to Chris Hayes and reading that one of his references to the story about Obama assassinations was Glenn Greenwald, I perused many of Greenwald’s anti-Obama articles cleverly disguised as “civil libertarian” and wonder how anyone in the progressive movement can take Glenn Greenwald seriously. Greenwald admits to being a civil libertarian, much in the mold of Ayn Rand, Rand Paul and most libertarians on the far right. After doing a stint at a Wall Street corporate law firm (Wachtel, Lipton) he strikes it out on his own by representing white supremacist Matthew Hale, who was the leader of the World Church of the Creator, and is now doing forty years in prison for authorizing a hit on a federal judge. Greenwald has not written a single article that has been favorable toward the Obama Administration, and he was one of the leading voices pushing this disproven idea that Obama is “the same as Bush” to try to undermine Obama’s support in his progressive base. The conservative magazine Forbes indicates Greenwald is “one of the 25 most influential liberals in the media,” despite his libertarian views and admission that he is not a liberal.
With this backdrop, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that Glenn Greenwald is a conservative/libertarian mole within the progressive movement with the sole mission of undermining the movement. Specifically, with respect to authorized killing of Al Qaeda operatives: since when does one need a trial when one admits in writing continuously that they are part of Al Qaeda and are found to be engaged in an operational role in killing Americans? When have we ever asked on the battlefield whether one is authorized to defend oneself against the guy with the gun shooting at you, who is dressed in enemy gear and who has promised to kill you? Should we do as Greenwald suggests, and call a “time out” during the heat of battle and have a civil trial to determine whether this guy really is what he has demonstrated to be? I am all for due process when it make practical sense, but during the heat of battle when someone is actively trying to kill you, I think defending oneself first in battle and then defending oneself in court later if necessary appears to be the appropriate course of action. Maybe we should put Greenwald on the battlefield and see if he really thinks it’s practical to call a time-out and go to court. Only in the wildest fantasy of an obsessed lawyer would such a thought even be possible, and Greenwald appears to be obsessed with second-guessing commanders on the ground, even though he himself could never really imagine what it is like to be on the battlefield of war.
War sucks, and I at least agree with Greenwald that we should avoid war if necessary, and quickly bring to an end any outstanding wars, as long as it is done responsibly so we do not have to go back in after we leave. But Greenwald’s obsession with undermining Obama in this effort should make any progressive pause, especially given his right-wing background, his inability to write a single positive story about the Obama administration and his inability to write about anything other than civil liberties that progressives care about.