So your argument is that because his web site received capital financing to cover startup costs, and because Sibel Edmonds (who runs a competing alternative news web site) has 'concerns', therefore one should discount Greenwald's statement confirming communication with Snowden? A man who clearly has been in communication with Snowden before. One who clearly has direct access to him.
Can you point to any statement Greenwald has made in print or in an interview that has been proved to be a lie? Why should anyone assume this statement of his statement is a lie?
Furthermore, I'd like to point out the video you embedded was published in 2013. It has nothing to do with this story, and is simply an interview of Edmunds and her 'concerns' about Greenwald and Snowden. Not about this story at all.
I saw another video by Edmonds that was uploaded a day or two ago and she is suspicious of Greenwald now more than ever. I don't think she can compete with Greenwald who is backed by billionaires so I was not thinking about them as competitors. Edmonds' site is funded by a crowdsource (kickstarter) that netted them about $150k USD and that will last them the next 6 months or a year I think.
I haven't accused Greenwald of lying. I just don't trust him so I don't give any weight to his assertions. Remember when the british border service (or police) detained Greenwald's boyfriend at Heathrow airport. That was the intimidation. Next came the offers of of huge sums of cash. Greenwald may well be a fine and honest person but it is hard to know how one would respond under such circumstances.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
care to update?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit