Seventeen seconds into the above it's stated that " ...by the Russian Government to peddle information..."
If this is accurate then the Russian government and the Trump campaign were negotiating as prospective buyers and sellers of this information. Since no bargain was struck, there is no way to determine whether the price was at market value, and no campaign finance laws were violated.
Further on at 25 seconds the reporter says that Trump Jr. wss told that "The Russian government wanted to share information..."
Peddling and sharing are not the same thing, I wonder which term is accurate.
Further into the video Greenwald compares this to the so called "Trump Dossier", originally paid for by a Republican, then paid for by the Democrats, and finally aired during the campaign by McCain. While this indicates that none of the parties involved were above using foreign operatives to dig up dirt on their opponent, it may also raise distinctions between truth and falsehood.
AFAIK no one has claimed that what has been presented as Podesta's E-Mails are anything other than Podesta's E-Mails, while Steele's claims that Trump had prostitutes pee on a bed in Moscow because Clinton slept there. Steele hasn't found many believers, even among the FBI.
Is it possible that the veracity of the information gives it a pass, just as it would if the charge was libel or slander? Wouldn't free speech give anyone in America the right to tell the truth about anyone else, no matter where that information was obtained?
We had a very newsworthy Mayor in Toronto who had been arrested in Florida on drug and alcohol charges. Some American apparently furnished His Honor's Loyal Opposition with a news paper clipping of the arrest. The Loyal Opposition brought this up during the campaign, but the idiot still won.
'Twas a dirty mud slinging campaign that my side lost, but I'm grateful to the reporter who noted the alleged perp.'s occupation, and I thought that democracy was served by having the scandal aired in the middle of the campaign.
Was it a case of foreign manipulation of a Canadian election, yes it was.
Would democracy have been better served if the voters of Toronto had been kept in the dark, no.
If Hillary's team had cheated to keep Sanders in check should the electorate be informed, certainly.
Would democracy have been better served if the American voters had been kept in the dark, no.
The 1st Amendment shields anyone who tells the truth. I've never heard of having your 1st amendment rights abrogated because the truth you expose came via a rival entity.
Greenwald also makes note of the "mission creep" that MSM is engaged in, and hopes that Mueller won't succumb to temptation. He was Bush the Lessor's head of the FBI for Christ's sake.
One final note is that Greenwald hinted that Clinton's interactions with Ukrainian politicians might be looked into. That's a Pandora's box that the public doesn't need to see. Hillary's out & the election is over. Had it been brought up during the campaign I would have thought differently, but there's nothing to gain by dragging her through that stinking pile of slime.
Terry