By Tyler Durden
“No matter how you slice it… the polls show that there’s only one person who’s likely to challenge Joe Biden and defeat him for reelection, and that’s the person whom Biden’s DOJ happens to be prosecuting in multiple cases…”
Glenn Greenwald lays out the hypocrisy, and tyranny, of the “establishment” in a brief but all-encompassing discussion with Russell Brand. He continues:
“Not just cases that have been brought but ones that rely on highly dubious interpretations of the law.
It’s not like these are murder cases, rape cases, bribery cases, or things people traditionally think about when they hear of criminal accusations.
They’re very distant and vague accusations that depend a lot on free speech rights, and they will only worsen perceptions that the DOJ can’t be trusted…”
In fact, it has happened in the US before, as Greenwald explains…
“The first book I wrote in 2005 was an argument that the Bush and Cheney administration had committed obvious war crimes like torture, rendition, and warrantless spying on Americans…
The entire DC class agreed with Obama saying only banana republics prosecute their political opposition, and that was for real crimes like torture, kidnapping, killing people, and spying without warrants. Not these kinds of attenuated theories of criminality on which the Biden DOJ is now relying on to prosecute Trump, their primary political opposition…
At exactly the same time the Biden administration is prosecuting Donald Trump, they are also shielding Hunter Biden, who is guilty of far more blatant and obvious criminality, just blatant political corruption, tax evasion, and hiding assets in a way that most people go to jail for many years.
And Hunter Biden gets this incredibly generous deal that was so shocking to the judge because she couldn’t believe that the DOJ was really offering him full-scale immunity, given how many other crimes are pending.
And given how he was allowed to plead guilty to misdemeanors for what she has seen treated as serious felonies…”
Greenwald opened listeners’ eyes and ears to the ugly reality of the “two-sided” system in America today. But it’s not as clear-cut as it used to be, as he concludes:
“The relevant metric now isn’t left versus right. It’s anti-establishment versus pro-establishment.
Namely, do you think the loss of trust that these institutions of authority have suffered is valid or not? Do you think that they deserve the contempt in which they are held by a large portion of the population? I believe it’s absolutely justified to hold them in contempt…
That’s the fundamental distinction that defines our political spectrum more than old definitions of left versus right.“
Watch the full discussion below:
**Source
Comments