Glenn Greenwald Politics

Greenwald: Congress’s 1/6 Committee Claims Absolute Power as it Investigates Citizens With No Judicial Limits

The Committee plotted with JPMorgan and its lawyer, former Obama AG Loretta Lynch, to obtain a citizen's financial records with no possibility of judicial review.
US Representatives Elaine Luria, Adam Schiff, Liz Cheney, Jamie Raskin, Adam Kinzinger and Chairman Bennie Thompson, speak to the media following testimony during the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the US Capitol (Photo by OLIVIER DOULIERY/AFP via Getty Images)

By Glenn Greenwald / Substack

In its ongoing attempt to investigate and gather information about private U.S. citizens, the Congressional 1/6 Committee is claiming virtually absolute powers that not even the FBI or other law enforcement agencies enjoy. Indeed, lawyers for the committee have been explicitly arguing that nothing proscribes or limits their authority to obtain data regarding whichever citizens they target and, even more radically, that the checks imposed on the FBI (such as the requirement to obtain judicial authorization for secret subpoenas) do not apply to the committee. 

As we have previously reported and as civil liberties groups have warned, there are serious constitutional doubts about the existence of the committee itself. Under the Constitution and McCarthy-era Supreme Court cases interpreting it, the power to investigate crimes lies with the executive branch, supervised by the judiciary, and not with Congress. Congress does have the power to conduct investigations, but that power is limited to two narrow categories: 1) when doing so is designed to assist in its law-making duties (e.g., directing executives of oil companies to testify when considering new environmental laws) and 2) in order to exert oversight over the executive branch. 

What Congress is barred from doing, as two McCarthy-era Supreme Court cases ruled, is exactly what the 1/6 committee is now doing: conducting a separate, parallel criminal investigation in order to uncover political crimes committed by private citizens. Such powers are dangerous precisely because Congress’s investigative powers are not subject to the same safeguards as the FBI and other law enforcement agencies. And just as was true of the 1950s House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) that prompted those Supreme Court rulings, the 1/6 committee is not confining its invasive investigative activities to executive branch officials or even citizens who engaged in violence or other illegality on January 6, but instead is investigating anyone and everyone who exercised their Constitutional rights to express views about and organize protests over their belief that the 2020 presidential election contained fraud. Indeed, the committee’s initial targets appear to be taken from the list of those who applied for protest permits in Washington: a perfectly legal, indeed constitutionally protected, act.

This abuse of power is not merely abstract. The Congressional 1/6 Committee has been secretly obtaining private information about American citizens en masse: telephone records, email logs, internet and browsing history, and banking transactions. And it has done so without any limitations or safeguards: no judicial oversight, no need for warrants, no legal limitations of any kind.

Indeed, the committee has been purposely attempting to prevent citizens who are the targets of their investigative orders to have any opportunity to contest the legality of this behavior in court. As we reported in October, the committee sent dozens if not hundreds of subpoenas to telecom companies demanding a wide range of email and other internet records, and — without any legal basis — requested that those companies not only turn over those documents but refrain from notifying their own customers of the request. If the companies were unwilling to comply with this “request,” then the committee requested that they either contact the committee directly or just disregard the request — in other words, the last thing they wanted was to enable one of their targets to learn that they were being investigated because that would enable them to seek a judicial ruling about the legality of the committee’s actions.

But now the committee is escalating its aggressive investigative actions. They have begun sending subpoenas to private banks, demanding the banking records of private citizens, and doing so such that either the person never finds out or finds out too late to obtain a judicial order about the legality of the committee’s behavior. In one case, they targeted JP Morgan with these subpoenas while knowing that that bank is being represented by former Obama Attorney General Loretta Lynch; Lynch — unsurprisingly — then directed her client not to accommodate any requests from its own customers to ensure they can seek judicial review. 

On November 22, the 1/6 Committee served a subpoena on Taylor Budowich — a former spokesman for the Trump campaign who never worked for the U.S. Government — that requested a wide range of documents as well as his deposition testimony. On December 14, Budowich voluntarily complied by handing over a large amount of his personal records, and then, on December 22, he flew to Washington at his own expense and submitted to questioning. There is no suggestion that Budowich was engaged in any violence or other illegal acts at the Capitol on January 6. Their only interest in this private citizen is his connection to the Trump campaign and his stated view that he believed the 2020 election was marred by fraud.

After he furnished the committee with those documents and then testified, Budowich learned from others that the committee was issuing subpoenas directly to the banks used by other individuals for their personal accounts. He thus requested that his lawyer notify his own bank, JPMorgan Chase, that he would object to their cooperation with any subpoena without first providing notice to him so that he can have time to seek a legal ruling in court.

Typically, citizens learn when law enforcement agencies such as the FBI serve subpoenas to third-party providers such as banks or internet companies. That allows a crucial right: to contest the legality of the action in court before the documents are supplied. But when such a subpoena is concealed from the person, it prevents them from obtaining judicial review. In general, citizens learn of FBI subpoenas, and the FBI (with rare exceptions) has the power to impose a “gag order” or otherwise prevent the person from learning about it only if they first persuade a court that such an extreme measure is warranted (by arguing, for instance, that a terror suspect will flee or destroy evidence if they learn they are being investigated). That safeguard ensures that in most cases, a citizen has the right to seek judicial protection from an illegal act by an investigative body.

But the 1/6 Committee recognizes no right of any kind and no limits on its power. On November 23 — the day after it served a subpoena on Budowich himself — it served a subpoena on Budowich’s bank, JPMorgan. The original date for the bank to produce the records was December 7, but JPMorgan — advised by Loretta Lynch as its legal counsel — bizarrely requested that the deadline be extended until December 24: the day before Christmas, knowing that courts would be closed that day and the next. It was only on December 21 — when Budowich was in Washington for his testimony before the committee — did JPMorgan send him notice at his home that it had received a subpoena and intended to produce the requested documents on December 24: just three days later. As JPMorgan and Lynch knew would happen, Budowich did not see the letter until he arrived home on the evening of December 22: less than forty-eight hours before the bank told him they were going to give up all of his financial records to the committee.

Upon discovering that the committee had subpoenaed his bank, Budowich’s lawyers immediately advised JPMorgan that they had legal objections to the subpoena, and requested that — given it was about to be Christmas Eve and the courts would be closed — the bank seek an extension from the committee to enable Budowich to seek a judicial ruling. But the bank, advised by Loretta Lynch, refused — and told him they intended to turn the documents over on Christmas regardless of whether that gave him time to request judicial intervention. The bank even refused to provide a copy of the subpoena they received from the committee, which Budowich, to this very day, has not seen.

Budowich’s lawyers did everything possible to seek judicial intervention before JPMorgan gave all his financial documents to the committee, but the timing agreed to by the committee, Lynch and the bank — documents produced on Christmas Eve, with notice to him arriving just a couple days before when he was testifying in Washington — made it impossible, by design. As a result, JPMorgan gave all of his banking records to the committee without even seeking an extension.

Budowich was therefore left with no alternative but to file an after-the-fact lawsuit against House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the committee members, seeking an emergency injunction against the committee’s use of his banking records. In response, both the committee and JPMorgan argued that the entire question was “moot” given that they already handed over the documents. 

In other words, lawyers for the committee and Loretta Lynch created a plot whereby JPMorgan would notify Budowich of its intent to hand over the documents right before Christmas, so as to purposely deny him time to seek a court ruling, and then used the fact that he was “too late” in filing as a ground for arguing that the court should shut its doors to him and refuse to even give him a hearing. The court agreed that Budowich’s request for an emergency injunction was “moot” given that the bank already supplied the documents, but agreed to rule on the merits of the arguments about whether the subpoena was legal.

The parties’ briefs on this question were submitted to an Obama-appointed federal judge, James Boasberg, in Washington. The oral argument on Budowich’s request to enjoin the use of his banking records by the committee was held earlier on Thursday, and Judge Boasberg quickly rejected Budowich’s objections to the subpoena. It will now be appealed to the Court of Appeals, but the issues presented by the committee’s arguments are chilling. 

At the hearing, the committee’s lawyers essentially repeated the same argument they advanced in their legal brief: namely, that none of the legal safeguards imposed on the FBI and other law enforcement agencies to guard against abuse of power apply to this Congressional committee, which therefore enjoys virtually absolute power to do what it wants.

That is not an exaggerated summary of the committee’s argument. The primary law on which Budowich is relying is The Right to Financial Privacy Act (“RFPA”), which prohibits any “financial institution, or officers, employees or agent of the financial institution” from “provid[ing] to any Government authority access to or copies of, or the information contained in, the financial records of any customer” unless they have first complied with the requirement of that law. Among the key requirements is that a “financial institution shall not release the financial records of a customer until the Government authority seeking such records certifies in writing to the financial institution that it has complied with the applicable provisions of this chapter.” As Budowich’s lawyers argued, the key to the law is that a person whose financial records are sought must receive notice of that attempt and be given sufficient time to challenge it in court:

Both 12 U.S.C. §§ 3405 (administrative subpoena or summons) and 3408 (formal written request) require that a copy of the subpoena or request “have been served upon the customer or mailed to his last known address on or before the date on which the subpoena or summons was served on the financial institution” together with a formal statutory notice allowing ten (10) days from the date or service or fourteen (14) days from the date of mailing the required notice. See 12 U.S.C. §§ 3405, 3408. Additional provisions of RFPA establish the right of a financial institution customer to challenge a request for their financial records in an appropriate United States District Court, and that proceedings involving such challenges should be completed or decided within seven (7) calendar days of the filing of any Government response. See 12 U.S.C. § 3410(a)-(b).

The committee did not deny that it failed to meet these requirements. Obviously, they could not argue that, given that the plan they created with JPMorgan and its lawyer, Loretta Lynch, was designed to ensure that Budowich have no time to obtain a judicial ruling before his bank records were handed over. Instead, the committee’s response is they do not have to comply with this law. “The Act restricts only agencies and departments of the United States, and the Select Committee is neither,” the committee’s lawyer contended. In fact, they explicitly argued that these safeguards were meant to be imposed only on the FBI and other law enforcement agencies, but were intended to exempt Congress even when, as here, they are clearly engaged in investigating private citizens for potential crimes. “Multiple provisions of the statute underscore that Congress intended ‘Government authority’ to mean an executive branch agency or department,” the committee’s lawyers wrote in an assertion of power breathtaking in its scope and limitlessness.

All of the other committee’s arguments are similarly designed to bestow on itself absolute and unlimited power in how it investigates private citizens, and to insist that the judiciary is without power to impose limits on it. The committee insists, for instance, that it can investigate anyone it wants in connection with 1/6 even if its motive is not to enact new laws and even if the documents it seeks (Budowich’s financial records) have no relationship to any proposed new laws. That is because, it says, “Congressional committees are not required to identify a specific piece of legislation in advance of conducting an investigation of the pertinent facts. It is sufficient that a committee’s investigation concerns a subject on which legislation ‘could be had.'” 

Such a principle, if accepted, would destroy any limits on Congress’s ability to investigate citizens (clearly, it was possible for the McCarthy-era Congressional investigations to lead to new laws even though, as the Supreme Court twice ruled when striking them down, that was clearly not its primary purpose). But Judge Boasberg nonetheless accepted the committee’s argument on the ground that an appellate court had already ruled that the 1/6 Committee had a valid legislative purpose and he was therefore bound by that decision. 

The committee’s other arguments are even more extreme: namely, that “the Constitution’s Speech or Debate Clause provides absolute immunity to Members and committees when performing legislative acts” and that “sovereign immunity prohibits litigation against Congress to which it has not consented, and no such consent has been.” That would mean that the 1/6 Committee could literally do whatever it wanted to citizens, and no court would have the right even to review the legality or constitutionality of what it is doing let alone put a stop to it.

What happened during the first War on Terror — and so many other events that were perceived as traumatic — is instructive here. So many Americans were so horrified by the carnage of that day that, for years, many did not care or want to hear about legal niceties, constitutional limits or civil liberties regarding the government’s actions. Anything the government did in the name of responding to or retaliating for 9/11 became inherently justified, and anyone who objected — no matter the principles cited — was deemed to be on the side of the terrorists.

The same dynamic is prevailing here. There are serious constitutional limits on the ability of Congress to investigate private citizens. It is blatantly abusive to scheme with JPMorgan and its counsel Loretta Lynch to ensure that a citizen has no time to seek judicial relief regarding the committee’s attempt to obtain mounds of his personal and financial records. And, in general, the committee has been on a rampage targeting not only Trump officials or people who engaged in criminal behavior at the Capitol on January 6 but a wide group of citizens whose only crime appears to be their political beliefs and associations — exactly what the Supreme Court cited when striking down the excesses of Congress’s McCarthy-era probes of citizens.

But with the media overwhelmingly cheering anything done in the name of stopping the Trump movement and those who supported 1/6 in any way, all of these civil liberties concerns and constitutional protections are run roughshod over in the name of safety. The latest arguments from the Congressional 1/6 Committee amount to little more than an assertion of unfettered power for Adam Schiff, Liz Cheney and the rest of the committee members to dig into the lives of anyone they want without limits.

Glenn Greenwald

Glenn Greenwald is the author of several bestsellers, including How Would a Patriot Act? and With Liberty and Justice for Some. His most recent book is No Place to Hide: Edward Snowden, the NSA, and the U.S. Surveillance State. Greenwald is a former constitutional law and civil rights litigator. He was a columnist for The Guardian until October 2013 and was the founding editor of the media outlet, The Intercept. He is a frequent guest on Fox News, Rolling Stone and various other television and radio outlets. He has won numerous awards for his NSA reporting, including the 2013 Polk Award for national security reporting, the top 2013 investigative journalism award from the Online News Association, the Esso Award for Excellence in Reporting (the Brazilian equivalent of the Pulitzer Prize), and the 2013 Pioneer Award from Electronic Frontier Foundation. He also received the first annual I. F. Stone Award for Independent Journalism in 2009 and a 2010 Online Journalism Award for his investigative work on the arrest and detention of Chelsea Manning. In 2013, Greenwald led the Guardian reporting that was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for public service.

25 comments

    1. @Paul+Haeder: As usual, there is no substance to your comments; only ad hominem attacks.

  1. How to create a totalitarian state:

    Step 1: Wait for a target organization to make a peaceful demonstration

    Step 2. Infiltrate the target organization and redirect its demonstration towards violence

    Step 3 Perpetuate violence or instigate it.

    Step 4. Get video or create it and use it to point blame on the target organization.

    Step 5 Get mainstream media to build up the narrative blaming the target organization for the violence.

    Step 6. Pass laws against sedition, limit free speech, and create new police powers.

    Step 7. Repeat.

    To see how this works in practice, watch video “strategy of tension,” by metanoia films,

  2. ‘Both Conservatives and Labour Party figures in UK, their US ‘Atlantic Bridge’ counterparts in the Republican GOP and Democrat DNC and their fascist puppets globally – most notably within the Anglosphere ‘Five Eyes’ media-intelligence apparatus – are all cornered. And the only way ‘The Party’ can dig their way out of their own hole and get away with what they’ve already done and what they intended to do – is by starting a major war.’

    ‘A Global Britain ‘Black Swan’ Event by ‘Unthinkable’ Theatre (Checkmate)’ (2021) https://wp.me/p94Aj4-2UF

    Johnny McNeill
    #GaslightingGilligan (© 2017) 
    Twitter: @GasGilligan (free download)

  3. Glenn Greenwald does not realize that Congress creatures are special. They created their own Gestapo, by expanding the powers of the Capitol Police (who are not subject to the same minimal oversight as the FBI or CIA, but rather devoted and accountable only to Congress), so that the intentional welcoming of the 1/6 “insurrectionists” can never happen again. AOC in particular was traumatized (though not at the scene). As Thomas Jefferson noted about Shays’ rebellion, which involved armed people on both sides:
    “What country before ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon, and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure. Our Convention has been too much impressed by the insurrection of Massachusetts, and in the spur of the moment they are setting up a [hawk] to keep the hen yard in order.”
    Family built businesses can be burned to the ground and people beaten horribly, but frightening Congress is not allowed; it infers with their insider stock trading.

    1. A deft inversion that paints outrageous behavior by one part of the government (the executive) against another (the legislative) – as a noble rebellion of the first against the tyrannical second. Do I need to say what playbook this is out of? A playbook that construes a leader who was elected – but then un-elected – as the True Voice of the People, against hundreds of also elected officials, but who are deemed corrupt and self-seeking because they do not obey the True Voice.

      That’s not the American system of government, which puts Congress ultimately as the most powerful branch, able to impeach or ignore both the executive and the judicial branches. During Andrew Johnson’s Reconstruction, the Radical Republican Congress showed itself to be more powerful than Johnson plus the Taney Supreme Court put together.

      They weren’t trading stocks then. They were following the rules, the laws and the votes that said Mr. Trump was going back to Florida, Mr. Biden moving in. That’s the opposite of corruption, as was the host of Republican judges that ruled that Trump’s suits were trash.

      No, frightening Congress IS not allowed and SHOULD not be allowed when they are performing the duties special to them, the way they have been performed for 200+ years. When a demented ruler who is trying to prevent them from removing him because they were obeying the People who had just kicked him out.

  4. I used to read and respect Glenn Greenwald. I have one of his books. But in the last few years he’s made quite the U-turn. This piece is baloney. Congress has a Constitutional right to investigate, and the stakes have never been higher.

    1. Your ox is getting gored, so now Greenwald is a bad guy. There’s no arguing with the actual points he’s making here, so what’s the problem? Greenwald is doing what he’s always done. Liberals and Dems loved him or at least ignored him when he went after Bush and the rightwing (actually the main characters on the 1/6 panel are right wing), but once Dems started getting targeted, he fell out of favor, to say the least.

  5. As noted, much like the immolation of civil protections after 9/11, January 6th serves as yet another pretext for wratcheting up authoritarian rule. Liberals smug, moronically gleeful, response to the overblown 1/6 “investigation” betrays a complete lack of self reflection about the full implications of a Congressional Committee that is above all legal or Constitutional constraints. If, once more, such an appalling abuse of power by a government body (or Intelligence agency) occurs under Republicans, these same people will be howling from rooftops about the fascism that they’re currently applauding.

  6. americans have always been racist xenophobic witch hunters. Greenwald merely examines technique and exposes that there is no morality nor any standards that matter in USA: but this has been examined by many—tocqueville, Gorer, Riesman, Berman, Hofstdter, Bauman, Lasch, Sennet, etc
    “in america the citizen has been transformed into a client, the worker into a consumer…in america equality means money”. Christopher Lasch
    “americans do not converse, they entertain each other. americans do not exchange ideas–they exchange images. the problem w americans is not Orwellian, it is huxleyan: americans love their oppression”. Neil Postman

  7. The events before during and after September 11, 2001 must be hotly debated! How else are we ever going to get rid of the fascist Patriot Act?!

  8. The events before during and after September 11, 2001, especially Including exactly how and why three tall steel skyscrapers collapsed at nearly freefall speed in their own foot prints, Still skyscrapers have never collapse like that before in recorded history!, must be hotly debated! How else are we ever going to get rid of the fascist Patriot Act?!

  9. We’ll done, Mr Greenwald. The Democrats and their blathering, foolish followers are every bit as corrupt and crooked as the Republicans they demonize on NPR, PBS, CNN, MSNBC, NY Times, WAPO, etc. Liberals are just unwilling to examine and understand the other side’s arguments and grievances. To quote the band Rush, “Quick to judge; slow to understand.”

  10. The 1/6 fiasco appears to be a creation of the executive branch, a product of Donald Trump in office orchestrating a reactionary movement to preserve what he broadly advertises as, and schemes to maintain, his entitlement to the U.S. Presidency. So by Greenwald’s stated criteria, Congress is acting within its chartered authority. As it should in this case. If the President was not actively stoking the insurrection, it might be a different matter — maybe, except since when has close adherence to the dictates of office and authority under the tripartite been a Republican (conservative) concern? The GOP built a monster and now it’s eating the U.S.A. and Greenwald is cashing in. There are no principles at work on Greenwald’s part, as has been clear since Assange. Greenwald appeals to principle when it suits his brand of agitprop, which is very different from acting on principle.

  11. I’ve often wondered what Glen Greenwalds attitude would be if it were a Republican administration and state dept that persecuted Assange, chased Snowden off to Russia, and all but banished him to Brazil. But alas, it was Hillary Clinton’s state dept under Barack Obama that did so.
    Sorry Glenn, but your buddying up to Fox News and their ilk in your seemingly never ending quixotic axe grinding crusade just makes you look like a bitter old schmuck. And now you top yourself with by jumping on the Koch train by crying crocodile tears for Americas slack jawed Christian dominionst reactionaries, the same kind that would gleefully hang every last homosexual they find.
    I remember when you were a good man Glenn. Now you just seem broken.

  12. Greenwald opines, in his first sentence: “In its ongoing attempt to investigate and gather information about private U.S. citizens, the Congressional 1/6 Committee is claiming virtually absolute powers that not even the FBI or other law enforcement agencies enjoy.”

    Really is that what the Select Committee is charged to do? Here I thought it had to do with investigating the attempts of some citizens to damage to our government. I think Glenn is pandering to his base again.

    1. really Glenn? Give me a break.

      [quoting]”The Select Committee seeks information from you on a narrow range of issues. We have sincere respect for your privacy, and we are not seeking information about your political views or your efforts in the 2020 presidential campaign more generally. Rather, we are seeking information about your role and participation in the purported slate of electors casting votes for Donald Trump and, to the extent relevant, your role in the events of January 6, 2021,” committee chairman U.S. Rep. Bennie Thompson of Mississippi said in the subpoena.

      Beck, Molly. “2 Wisconsin Republicans who acted as false electors receive subpoenas from the committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack.” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 2022 Jan 28.

      1. @CityKid
        The fact that you care about this puts you on the wrong side. That’s the problem. This ridiculous committee shouldn’t exist in the first place. On the other hand, there should be committees investigating the illegal and immoral U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq, the illegitimate U.S. occupation of Afghanistan, U.S. kidnapping and torture of people, U.S. drone bombings, and other such things. 1/6? Who cares?

  13. Against many of the comments here, I welcome Glenn’s contribution. He makes good points; such committees can and have overstepped their limits.

    The Supremes said that Congress’s investigative power is “broad but not unlimited”. And because of the special situation – the “need to restrain the executive” is clearly involved. So while the abuses he describes are serious and should be stopped, the basic purpose is real, legal and is not a witch-hunt.

    Practically speaking, Congress enforces its subpoenas through the courts. With an extreme right-wing Supreme Court on top of the heap, it’s unlikely there can be mass repression by Congress this way. I hope more people stand up to this committee to keep them from fishing expeditions and intoxication with power.

    But they would have to work very hard to become as intoxicated with power as the prime begetter of this mess, Donald Trump. (Hillary Clinton is probably #2, with her Russiagate farce that recklessly polarized the country, only empowered Trump and gave precedent to his crybaby sore loser behavior).

  14. Gore Vidal pointed out that congressional acts after 911 cost us the Magna Carta. Unfortunately, this kind of thing was going on well before 911. COINTELPRO and other Ogre Hoover crap started a long time ago, and when the FISA court was created, removal of basic Bill of Rights protections was well on the way. This is just more of the same, albeit more extreme. Kudos to Greenwald for pointing it out, but this kind of thing is so far along that it would almost certainly take a major overhaul of our society and government to reverse it.

  15. The goal and mandate of the 1/6 committee are informative, not judiciary. I.e., it seeks to expose the people and machinations involved rather than persecute them.

    The premise, than, of the pile of the demagogic propaganda bile above fraudulent from the get go.

    1. @Democracy Gone Astray
      The U.S. has never been anything close to being a democracy. If you think that 1/6 was a threat to democracy in the U.S., you are either badly misinformed or right wing. Trump and his supporters are nothing more than a result of an unrepresentative system that has resulted in regular people getting screwed (relatively, Americans still have it far better than most of the people in the world, but they’ve come to expect a lot better than what they’ve gotten over the past 40 years).

      1. @Jeff
        It is difficult to have a dialog with someone whose reply does not include a single statement related to anything I said. That, and the fact that your reply has absolutely nothing to do with any recognizable reality lead to the only viable conclusion: your text is an echo of the demagogic nonsense of Greenwald’s text above. But ignorance is bliss, so enjoy yours.

      2. @Democracy Gone Astray
        This is for the public, not for Democracy Gone Astray. The comment to which I’m responding doesn’t deserve a response, but everyone should see what propaganda and illegitimate comments look like.

        All Democracy Gone Astray did was to engage in name-calling. They didn’t address one issue raised by Glenn Greenwald or me other than to excuse this ridiculously illegitimate committee by saying that it’s merely informative. Always ignore people and comments that resort to name-calling instead of addressing the issues, and be very wary of anyone attacking a journalist like Greenwald who despite being anti-establishment has won journalism awards.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: