In Which Glenn Greenwald’s Friend Mona Holland Equates Me to a Neo-Nazi in Prison for Trying to Murder a Judge
It would seem that this post from yesterday found its mark: If You Read Down to Paragraph 18, You Discover That Glenn Greenwald’s Latest Article Has No Evidence.
The festivities were kicked off this morning by the Mighty Greenwald himself, who called out his legions to attack with a couple of provocative tweets:
Interesting history of one the most devoted online Democratic partisans & US Govt loyalists in the Obama era http://t.co/TdVy7Oev68
@LailaLalami Now he's a leading online Democratic booster. Quite revealing.
He’s linking to one of Gawker’s typical smear jobs (complete with crappy low res video screen grab) — written five years ago. BREAKING NEWS! For some odd reason that I’m pretty sure is related to my article, Greenwald went out of his way to find something vicious to post about me. It’s a pretty sleazy way to dodge out of dealing with the substantive criticisms in my post, but there you have it.
These tweets led to a predictable chorus of Greenwald personality cultists who are mostly in my TweetDeck global filter now (some people there’s just no point in even reading), so I thankfully missed most of the wharrgarbl until Greenwald’s long-time defender and sometime associate Mona Holland decided to directly equate me to Matthew Hale, the neo-Nazi who was once defended (pro bono) by Glenn Greenwald, and is now serving a 40-year prison term for conspiring to murder a federal judge.
So, that happened today.
Since Matt Hale has been brought up, we should mention that as Hale’s lawyer, Glenn Greenwald’s conduct was found to be unethical and deceitful after he recorded conversations with witnesses without telling them. Savor the irony of that, given Greenwald’s current crusade against intelligence services.
Here’s the judge’s opinion: ANDERSON v. HALE | Leagle.com.
Defendants’ counsel recorded telephone conversations with various third party witnesses, without disclosing to those witnesses that they were being recorded. Counsel and his tape-recorder were both in New York. The witnesses, at least some of them, called from Illinois. Plaintiff moved to compel disclosure of these tapes, arguing that this conduct was unethical and therefore vitiated any attorney workproduct privilege that may have attached to these recordings, and sought a protective order prohibiting any further recordings. 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 [another] person.”