Glenn Greenwald
Politics • Writing • Culture
Thoughts on Grief and the Grieving Process
The grieving process is horrible but not hopeless.
May 27, 2023
post photo preview
[Glenn Greenwald, David Miranda, 2021]

Note to Readers: Returning to more frequent written journalism is something I have been wanting to do for some time. The combination of David's 9-month hospitalization and the need to launch our nightly Rumble show during that excruciating experience made it virtually impossible to find the time and energy for that. It is something I am still eager to do -- I'm writing an article now about the life of Daniel Ellsberg and my friendship with him for Rolling Stone, as the 92-year-old Pentagon Papers whistleblower nears the end of his spectacular life due to terminal pancreatic cancer. I originally started writing the following thoughts on grief for myself, with no intention to publish it, but decided to do so in part because I know it may give comfort to others (as the article I discuss below gave to me), but also because, for reasons I can't explain, it sometimes helps to write about this for others, and my view of the grieving process has become that you should do whatever provides any help at all to get you through the next day. I realize this is not for everyone but it's what I'm capable of and what is dominating my thoughts right now. I hope to be able to return to producing more traditional written journalism soon. 


 

The pain, sadness, and torment of grief deepens as you move further away from the moment of the death of a loved one. It keeps getting worse – harder not easier – with each passing day and each passing week. I know that it will begin to get better or at least more manageable at some point, but that can and will happen only once the reality is internalized, a prerequisite for healing and recovery. But the internalization that someone is really dead - that there's absolutely nothing you can do to reverse that - requires ample time given its enormity. Three weeks is nowhere near sufficient.

One of the hardest challenges of grief, of the grieving process, is finding the balance between confronting the pain, loss and sometimes physically suffocating sadness – all without wallowing in it to the point that it completely consumes and then incapacitates you. But while you can't let yourself endlessly drown in it, you also can't let yourself use some mixture of distractions, work, exercise and other "return-to-normal" activities to remain in a state of denial or escapism, to avoid the pain and suffering, to deny the need to process a reality this immense and horrible, to anesthetize yourself from the mourning. The pain and suffering is going to come sooner or later, and the longer you evade or postpone it, the more damage it will do.

If you try to close yourself off to it entirety, to pretend it's not there, that attempt will fail. The pain and sadness will come at the worst times, when you're least prepared for it, in the most destructive form, and will find the unhealthiest expression. But if you force yourself to swim in those waters with too much frequency, for too much time, without maintaining a vibrant connection to the normalcy of life, to the people around you whom you love, and to the things you still cherish, it will paralyze and consume you - drain all your energy and life force and replace it with total darkness, mental paralysis and physical exhaustion: just a cold, inescapable sense of bottomless dread. 

There's no perfect sweet spot, but every day, you have to keep trying to find the right balance between confronting and avoiding. What's most daunting is realizing how long this process of processing and acceptance will be: very possibly endless. During the first week after David's death, I told both myself and our kids that the first two weeks would be hard but not the hardest, that worse days lay ahead, once the shock begins to wear off and the inescapable reality sets in, once the ceremonies were over and everyone else moved on and want back to their lives. I knew we would then be left with nothing but the reality of this enormous loss and horrific absence, and that was when the worst days would commence.

But telling yourself that is one thing; experiencing it is something completely different. Even when you think you're momentarily safeguarded from it, it can just penetrate without warning in the sharpest ways. On Thursday, I stumbled into this Guardian article about a top-secret leak in Australia and there was a description of David in the article's second paragraph, printed below, that was the first time I saw this formulation in print. It fell so heavily and jarringly – at a moment when I wasn't prepared for it – because no matter how hard you try and how much effort you devote to it, the reality of death takes a long time to fully internalize. It's just very hard to believe that the person with whom you expected and wanted to share all of your life – decades more – is instead not coming back, ever, in the only form you know, that a person so full of life and strength and force is no more:

I don't know why that phrase packed such a punch. I've seen hundreds of articles and tributes talking about David's death. But this phrase casually indicates that he is someone of the past, with no present and no future in our world. It didn't just talk about the fact that David died but referred to him as a now-and-forever dead person. That subtlety had an impact far more painful and destabilizing than I could have anticipated. It disrupted my emotional state until I could find a way to move on to something else: the central challenge of every day.


 

All of this is complicated -- a lot -- by the need to find this balance not only for yourself but also for your kids, whose grieving is as intense but also different. It's at least just as hard to know how much space to give them to use distractions like entertainment, sports, friends and school to find some breathing space. There's a strong temptation to encourage them to use escapism because one so eagerly -- instinctively -- wants to see one's kids smiling and laughing rather than crying and suffering.

But their own need to feel this loss, the mourning, the sadness, the pain is just as inescapable as your own. There's no avoiding it. It's coming one way or the other, so you often find yourself in the disorienting position of watching your kids cry and show pain, and you feel a form of comfort and relief from seeing it because you know it's good and healthy and necessary that they feel that, even while you are submerged in that sharp, expansive pit in the center of your being that comes from having to watch your own children suffer.

[Rio de Janeiro, March 30, 2022: four months, 1 week before David's hospitalization]

For those interested, I want to highly recommend this op-ed from last week by New York Times editor Sarah Wildman, whose 14-year-old daughter, Orli, just died after a somewhat lengthy and evidently very difficult battle with cancer. Without thinking about it, I messaged her to thank her for her article and we shared experiences, condolences and advice. One thing I did not expect was how much comfort I get from hearing from others - people I know well, people I don't know well, people I don't know at all – describe their own experiences with grief and loss. There's that old cliché that physical death is the great equalizer: the inevitable destination awaiting all of us regardless of status and station. 

That is true of death, but it's also true of grief. Unless one chooses never to love in order to avoid the pain of loss – a dreary, self-destructive, even tragic calculation – the impermanence of everything material that we love means we will all experience grief and the pain of loss until we die ourselves. There's now a substantial body of research on people's end-stage regrets: what humans who know they are dying say they wish they had done more of and less of. 

Virtually nobody nearing the end of life on earth says they wished they worked more or made more money (many say they regret working too much). Most say they wish they had spent more time with loved ones. When all is said and done, one of the few enduring things we really value and from which we derive meaningful pleasure - something we are built and have evolved to crave and need – is human connection. We're tribal and social animals. That's why isolation is one of the worst punishments society can impose, or that one can impose on oneself. And that's why, looking back over these last weeks and even during David's entire hospitalization, thoughts and notes and comments and kind gestures from so many people, to say nothing of those who took their time to write to me to share, often at great length, their own experience with long-term hospitalization of loved ones and profound grief, provided so much more comfort than I ever imagined it would have.

Wildman's op-ed is raw, moving and unsettling. She doesn't falsify or prettify anything for the sake of making her daughter's death more comfortable for others or herself. The death of someone you love at a young age is not pretty or comfortable. It's tragic and deeply sad and incomparably painful and there's no getting around that. Some of the best advice I got in the last couple of weeks was to avoid lionizing David or erecting a mythology around his life or around his death. I loved a human being, not a flawless saint or an icon or an otherworldly deity. And one of the things that moved me most about Wildman's op-ed was her frank discussion of her daughter's fear of dying. It would be so much more palatable - for yourself or others - to say and believe that the person you lost was at peace with dying. Her daughter wasn't at peace with dying, nor was David. They wanted to live and fought to live and were afraid to die.

That's a hard and painful truth that does sometimes make things much more difficult – it means you focus not only on what you lost, not only on what your kids lost, but on what the person who died lost – but one can also find beauty and grace and meaning and inspiration by confronting that rather than whitewashing it. It's disrespectful to someone's life to build mythologies about them - about their life and their death - no matter how comforting those mythologies might be. Wildman's op-ed refuses to do that, yet it leaves no doubt that her daughter inspired her and others not just in how she lived but in also in how she died: with her determination, courage and strength. 

I blocked it out and denied it at the time because I wasn't able to accept it, but David's doctors made clear in the days after he was first hospitalized in ICU last August that the probability that he would survive the week was very low. His inflammation and infection had already incapacitated his pancreas and caused full renal failure within the first 48 hours. By the end of the week he was intubated because sepsis delivered that inflammation to his lungs. Even a quick Google search reveals how dire that state of affairs is for anyone, no matter their age or overall health. 

That David fought so hard to live and return to us over nine excruciating months brought some horrifically difficult moments – watching him and his body get battered over and over every time it looked like he was possibly recovering was probably the worst thing I ever had to witness – but it also gave us and our kids some of our most moving, profound, genuine, loving and enduring moments with him and with one another that I and they will cherish forever, as I wrote about a couple months ago, in the context of gratitude, when I thought he was improving. 

It may seem at first glance that had he died a quick death in that first week, David would have spared himself and us a lot of agony. That may be true. But I am absolutely convinced that had he died in that first week without giving us and himself these opportunities, all of this would be infinitely worse. Every moment you share with someone you love - even if it's in an ICU ward with every machine imaginable connected to them - is a blessing and a gift, and David's characteristic fight gave us so many of those moments that, by all rights, we never should have had.

I really wish there some singular book or some magic phrase or some way of interpreting all of this that would make the still-growing and still-deepening pain disappear for myself, for mine and David's kids, for those who loved him, for those who love and lose anyone that matters so much in their life. There is no elixir. But that does not mean that nothing helps, that one is doomed to a life of endless pain, sadness, and dread, that it is impossible to find comfort and inspiration and even greater love in the grieving process. 


 

For that to happen, you need humility and an acceptance of what you cannot control. I can't bring David back - that's obvious - but I also can't find a way to entirely avoid the type of pain and sadness and despair that is sometimes utterly debilitating. I realized that very early on and so I'm no longer trying to avoid it entirely. 

Sometimes it comes when I seek or summon it, and sometimes it comes when I think I am far away from it - like happened this week when I saw the adjective "late" before his name and on a thousand other occasions when I looked at a photo of him and his eyes connected to mine, or when one of our kids shared a memory they had of him that brought him so vividly to life. When that pain comes, I don't try to fight it or drive it away. I let it come and sometimes stay in it on purpose, until I can no longer physically endure it. Other times I allow myself to be distracted: through work, though entertainment, through proximity to my kids, through conversations with them that are not directly about sharing our mutual grief over the loss of their father and of my husband.

I don't know if I returned to work too early or, instead, am sometimes succumbing too much to my desire not to work. Each day, I try to follow my instinct about what is best for me and for our kids, and to give myself a huge amount of space and forgiveness to calculate wrong and make the wrong decisions. Down every road lies sadness and even horror, but some of those paths also offer some beautiful moments of family and connection, ways to find inspiration, to embrace the spirit and passion and compassion and strength that defined David and his life.

I'm certain that one of the things that is helping most is our unified devotion to concretizing, memorializing and extending his legacy. One of David's greatest joys in life was seeing the construction and opening of the community center we built together in Jacarezinho, the community that raised him. It offers free classes in English and computers, psychological services and addiction counseling, support for animal protection and pet care, and meals for that community's homeless. We are going to create and build "The David Miranda Institute" to extend that work beyond that community. My kids are eager to assume a major role in working on this institute and community center – they know instinctively that it honors David and would make him so proud – and working on this together is one of the few things that provides us unadulterated comfort and uplifting energy. 

The grieving process is horrible but not hopeless. I'd be lying if I denied that it sometimes seems unbearable. Every day the reality that David lost his life and that we lost David in our lives gets heavier and more painful. But humans are resilient. We are adaptive. I can't prove it and there was a time in my life when I not only rejected but mocked this idea, but I believe our life has a purpose and, ultimately, so do our deaths. Each day I see that my suffering and our kids' suffering deepen and worsen for now. 

But I also see us, together, creating ways to find and remain connected to that purpose. David's life, David's spirit, David's legacy, and somehow even David's death are what is propelling us, elevating us, toward that destination. I would trade anything for David to be back with us, but since that option does not exist, getting through the pain and then finding a way to strengthen us is our overarching challenge.

community logo
Join the Glenn Greenwald Community
To read more articles like this, sign up and join my community today
134
What else you may like…
Videos
Podcasts
Posts
Articles
Michael Tracey's Inauguration Day Roving Commentary

The inauguration may have been moved indoors, but the cold didn't deter enterprising MAGA merch sellers and various proselytizing religious groups from taking to the DC streets:

00:08:22
Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA) Falls Into Michael Tracey

You never know who you may run into at an inaugural ball...

Watch Michael Tracey's interview with Jim McGovern (D-MA) at the progressive, anti-war themed "Peace Ball":

00:06:13
Former Rep. Cori Bush's Shocking Interview on Ukraine

Former Rep. Cori Bush (D-MO) told Michael Tracey that the Biden administration pressured her to vote for Ukraine funding, or else "Black and Brown bodies" would be sent to fight against Russia.

00:05:35
Listen to this Article: Reflecting New U.S. Control of TikTok's Censorship, Our Report Criticizing Zelensky Was Deleted

For years, U.S. officials and their media allies accused Russia, China and Iran of tyranny for demanding censorship as a condition for Big Tech access. Now, the U.S. is doing the same to TikTok. Listen below.

Listen to this Article: Reflecting New U.S. Control of TikTok's Censorship, Our Report Criticizing Zelensky Was Deleted

Hey @IndieBee, is this, below, short enough for you, you constantly complaining kind of fuck tard, who thinks he ought to be able to control other people's actions and free speech.
Fuck you're obviously the kind of cunt who's parents had obviously never ever said no to you even once.

If you think my shit is too long for you to read, then don't read it. Isn't that simple enough for you as an individual?
But no, you have to write something trying to tell another person how to post stuff, don't you?

Is your picture in the dictionary next to the word narcissist? If not, it ought to be, right? - Get some self awareness you stupid lunatic.
You actually think anyone else actually gives a fuck if you are not perfectly happy, as if we care to make our posts exactly how you want it? Just go fuck yourself instead of trying to tell other people what or how to post 'their own stuff', yah?

Up here in Canada they've taken away all our voices on social media, I truly believe this means that if these ...

post photo preview

Matt Taibbi does it again! Another hilarious article on the official Democrat response to Trump & Musk.
https://www.racket.news/p/nation-shrugs-as-godzilla-eats-washington?r=1ngpds&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false

USAID Sucks! And so does the 'woke' Left

Tune in at 8pm Eastern

Rumble:

Youtube:

placeholder
post photo preview
Rubio's Shift: What is Trump's Foreign Policy? | Trump/Musk Attack CIA Fronts USAID & NED: With Mike Benz
System Update #401

The following is an abridged transcript from System Update’s most recent episode. You can watch the full episode on Rumble or listen to it in podcast form on Apple, Spotify, or any other major podcast provider.

System Update is an independent show free to all viewers and listeners, but that wouldn’t be possible without our loyal supporters. To keep the show free for everyone, please consider joining our Locals, where we host our members-only aftershow, publish exclusive articles, release these transcripts, and so much more!


Ever since Donald Trump entered the White House to begin his second term, there has been – by design – a flurry of highly significant orders, policies and changes, most of which, for better or worse, were promised during the campaign. The rapidity of these changes has created the impression for some that there is no coherence behind them, that they are all just designed to appease Trump's base voters with symbolism or to impose frantic vengeance.

If one digs deeply enough, one can locate a coherent worldview, especially when it comes to Trump's foreign policy changes. When Trump began nominating a series of conventional establishment Republicans to key positions after the election, people like Marco Rubio at State and Elise Stefanik at the U.N. and others – many people demanded of us that we denounce these picks, given that they signaled that Trump's pledge for a new kind of foreign policy was clearly a fraud. In response, my answer was always the same: even though I didn't like some of those picks, I never thought that one could reliably read into every one of Trump's choices some sort of tarot card about what Trump would do given that I kept hearing from Trump's closest circle for a long time now that they were determined to ensure that all of Trump's picks this time around would follow rather than subvert his vision as laid out in the campaign. 

Marco Rubio just gave an interview to Megyn Kelly late last week that strongly suggests this is true, as Rubio sounded far less like the standard GOP warmonger he has been for years and a lot more like a committed America First advocate, with a series of surprising acknowledgments, highly unusual for someone occupying a high place in U.S. government officialdom. We’ll look at that, as well as the Trump administration's foreign policy actions thus far to determine which consistent and cohesive principles can be identified. 

Then: Our guest is Mike Benz, a former State Department official during the first Trump administration who has become one of the most outspoken and knowledgeable critics of the US Security State. In the last year, he has appeared on the shows of both Joe Rogan and Tucker Carlson to do so. He has become a font of information about why USAID in particular is such a destructive, toxic and wasteful agency – as Democrats march to protect it - and he'll be here with us to talk about why that is.


AD_4nXc8LjVTOrUT54oEY-sMxJ54H1y1JeFiMVMZpUPVFVq1PS1ia6Ka7SBzY-dH_E4DO0u9AOAY1MgZjJUtSJvrru7d75pmutSrOqLagpqaFXC-5cjXEXj47isNl1HGOJPUJ_RMCAtgr-WIucCx-c6ypc0?key=LPyFf7LERRmriSx0PsmD51NP

Donald Trump often railed against the toxic and evil influence of neocons, particularly in American foreign policy, throughout 2023 and 2024, as he attempted to return to the White House. He seemed convinced of it and had a lot of policy initiatives designed to undermine the promises of neoconservatism and, in the process, alienated a lot of them, beginning with things like his opposition to or at least skepticism about the U.S. involvement in the war in Ukraine, the U.S. making NATO a central part of our foreign policy, even though the original purpose which is to deter the Soviet Union from invading Western Europe, obviously no longer applies, and a whole variety of other pieties of the foreign policy establishment Donald Trump was waging a frontal assault on. 

Once Trump won the election and began choosing his national security cabinet, a lot of people immediately concluded that all of that must be a fraud because Trump was choosing people like Marco Rubio, Elise Stefanik, Mike Huckabee to be the U.S. ambassador to Israel, like John Ratcliffe at the CIA, like Mike Waltz to be his National Security Advisor, who have a long history similar to Mike Pompeo or Nikki Haley or even Liz Cheney in endorsing this sort of posture of endless war, of having the U.S. dominate the world in exactly the way that would please most neocons. 

Although, as I said, I wasn't thrilled with those picks, I wasn't the one elected, so my choices would be much different. I was very resistant to the idea that simply because Trump was choosing some, by no means all, but some politicians who have a long history of establishment dogma. Those are the ones who sped through confirmation in the Senate, of course, including with lots of Democratic support. It didn't mean that those people were going to be governing foreign policy in the Trump administration because it was clear that Donald Trump knew that he was the one who won this race and intended to impose his vision on the world and wanted loyalists around him who would carry out those visions. 

In contrast to the first term, when he had a lot of people there who were deliberately sabotaging his foreign policy, often applauded by the media, including members, by the way, of the U.S. military, which meant that the U.S. military was essentially seizing civilian control of foreign policy, seizing control from democratically elected officials and assigning it to themselves so that they would often counter or even ignore his foreign policy decisions and they would be celebrated by the press as the adult in the room. This was all something that I knew from hearing from many people inside the Trump circle, both on the show and otherwise, that they were most determined to avoid. And so, when they were picking the Marco Rubios and the Elise Stefaniks, I wasn't happy about it but I also knew that it wasn't proof that Trump was going to lead a conventional U.S. foreign policy because it was clear that they were picking people who, beyond any particular set of beliefs, was willing to be loyal to Donald Trump's worldview and his agenda, because that's what had just been ratified by the American people. 

Even The New York Times in the wake of Trump’s victory in November, and I'm not sure they meant this as a compliment or as a warning, but either way, they were the ones who were coming out and saying, look, these people were neocons for sure, but they've now made radical, visible and palpable changes to the way they talk about foreign policy. Here, The New York Times headline:

AD_4nXf44l2A0YETmI2chVvqcUBIZXi4-wjOaeHMhgbVdj74PH4_iuBWi_uNjwLDvBuSfkw7I0ZVm0H2WgX-uOANAbGt-6ha22THN8aMWfOfUevmZOkfuIvrvQG3Cx_Q3rqu20AKR55buT4XPniHgU3kCg?key=LPyFf7LERRmriSx0PsmD51NP

Only for Supporters
To read the rest of this article and access other paid content, you must be a supporter
Read full Article
post photo preview
Tulsi's Hearing Exposes Bipartisan Rot of DC Swamp
System Update #400

The following is an abridged transcript from System Update’s most recent episode. You can watch the full episode on Rumble or listen to it in podcast form on Apple, Spotify, or any other major podcast provider.

System Update is an independent show free to all viewers and listeners, but that wouldn’t be possible without our loyal supporters. To keep the show free for everyone, please consider joining our Locals, where we host our members-only aftershow, publish exclusive articles, release these transcripts, and so much more!


Tulsi Gabbard appeared before the Senate Intelligence Committee today – a committee specifically constructed to feature only blind supporters of the US Security State – and she was unsurprisingly, relentlessly pummeled by members of both political parties as part of her confirmation process to become Director of National Intelligence. I don’t want to make any predictions – the vote will be held after a secret session – but there is a real chance that some Senate Republicans will defect and her nomination could be in serious jeopardy. 

What matters is the reason these committee members were so enraged by her. They focused almost the entire session for hours in public on two and only two issues: 1) Tulsi has expressed support for NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, heralding him as a courageous whistleblower, and 2) she has expressed opposition to laws – specifically Section 702 of FISA – which allows the FBI and NSA to spy on American citizens without the warrants required by law. In other words, these committee members were furious with Tulsi Gabbard for having opposed the U.S. government's abuse of its spying power and their lies about it to the American public. 

So much of this hearing today so vividly illustrated exactly what is so destructive, grotesque and deceitful about the bipartisan DC establishment – what Donald Trump has so aptly referred to for eight years now as The Swamp. I can't think of a day that more viscerally demonstrated who these people are and why their dogma has been so damaging. 

We’re going to take the show tonight to really break down what happened today. There are so many components to it, so many dimensions that are really worth analyzing and because it was bipartisan, it says so much about the real way Washington works. 


AD_4nXe9jO-oNhncfcByW-WoodBP67vFdSUMKJV8aLmIMSmgih77tTLjchyaqS59cHzt0913roIaLagRHMWKC2B4GVKJGUd3j68sZaeJqqJc8wYHevy0XlBteE68MXPo-It0wj97R2ruRPeOFzUbFbPxWg?key=zRpQuWR-KXvlOm1xWul0BDAJ

Yesterday, I sat through almost the entire confirmation hearing of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to become Donald Trump's Health and Human Services Secretary where he was relentlessly attacked, as we covered and reported last night, by multiple members of that committee. The same exact thing happened today with Tulsi Gabbard in front of the Senate Intelligence Committee although she was attacked by members of both political parties, not just one. It also happened in the Senate Judiciary Committee, where Kash Patel appeared for his confirmation hearing to become director of the FBI.

Only for Supporters
To read the rest of this article and access other paid content, you must be a supporter
Read full Article
post photo preview
RFK Jr. Hearing Reveals DC Pro-Pharma Consensus | Trump's Executive Order to Deport Student Protesters Criticizing Israel | Untangling DC Think Tank Funding & Influence
System Update #399

The following is an abridged transcript from System Update’s most recent episode. You can watch the full episode on Rumble or listen to it in podcast form on Apple, Spotify, or any other major podcast provider.

System Update is an independent show free to all viewers and listeners, but that wouldn’t be possible without our loyal supporters. To keep the show free for everyone, please consider joining our Locals, where we host our members-only aftershow, publish exclusive articles, release these transcripts, and so much more!


If you told someone that Trump would appoint a lifelong pro-choice Democratic Party environmental lawyer to lead our country's health agencies and that Democrats would then unite and enrage opposition to him, you would likely be very surprised, especially if you heard that – just a week ago – all those Democrats unanimously united to vote to make Marco Rubio secretary of state. This is exactly what is happening: Democrats led by people like Ron Wyden, Liz Warren and Bernie Sanders, were quite vicious and scathing in maligning virtually every aspect of RFK Jr.'s character, repeatedly portraying him as a corrupted sell-out, a science denier and opponent of vaccines who will directly kill huge numbers of children with his policies. 

For months now, Israel supporters have been looking for a way to criminalize both protests against the Israeli war in Gaza and, even more menacingly, speech that is critical of the foreign government that they revere. That effort to destroy the First Amendment to protect this foreign country received a major boost today when President Trump announced an executive order for the deportation of anyone legally in the U.S. on a student visa, but who participated in protests against the Israeli destruction of Gaza. This is a pure speech-based order, by which I mean that if you're a foreign student legally in the U.S. and you protest in favor of Israel, even if you commit crimes while doing so, you're perfectly fine: no worries at all. You're a foreign student; you're allowed to protest in defense of Israel and your visa will not be jeopardized even if you break the law. This order only threatens those who protest against Israel: a classically unconstitutional assault on free speech, which is purely viewpoint-based. 

In our third segment, we’ll talk to Nick Cleveland-Stout, a research fellow in the democratizing foreign policy unit of the Quincy Institute. He has been producing some very interesting and important reports on exactly who is behind the most influential think tanks in Washington and how that funding shapes their influence over our government. 


AD_4nXflygA-RmHTSRAGp1aE4DIuN-a9d2uL1ZZ-q4Qr5m-vjPvzMWCuiWxuG9J0JtYE4v7wEPQfgEeXsthBe7oCgOKc6jnp0V8T4osedioHDdi1Uhh3qU62lMvRfIW06s__22dnnE_XNMFo9vaU5_my2Ks?key=RSJKGScrH_bd_YbY7ZyZYkpo

I just want to show you a couple of clips from RFK Jr.'s confirmation hearing today that took place before the Senate Finance Committee because it was really something that was far more virulent, I think, than a lot of people expected. 

Obviously, Democrats in large numbers were going to be opposed, although some suggested they might be open to it, and yet the venom that they used to treat RFK Jr., a lifelong Democrat, a pro-choice environmental lawyer whom Donald Trump has tapped to lead the health agencies was something that was really quite remarkable. They really tried to do everything possible, not just to suggest he was unqualified for the position or dangerous in it, but really to destroy his character in every way. 

AD_4nXd320aMssPCmTlnJwKomSJ_YNYY5ngoHliKzv1civgDfAodR2FX5fG-VE9MXq7J6SSgZeJR5XXmCHMnfMUtlWABeAUtrHK0sLzTJ5B4ZT0eHCTWG8mmF2NfCn8Hkt_egzAqjNMYwprLXidwCtexegc?key=RSJKGScrH_bd_YbY7ZyZYkpo

Only for Supporters
To read the rest of this article and access other paid content, you must be a supporter
Read full Article
See More
Available on mobile and TV devices
google store google store app store app store
google store google store app tv store app tv store amazon store amazon store roku store roku store
Powered by Locals