I could name one, but why get bogged down in the specifics of a particular scenario? It's perfectly obvious that some events can remain secret and not be public knowledge for a period, and then later be exposed by documents or other primary evidence that was, for example, released by a whistle-blower. Giving an example of this to demonstrate it is absurd.
Lots of people have been on Tucker Carlson, for a hundred reasons - people he agrees with, does not agree with, argues with or likes, boring or interesting, Left or Right, one time guests or regular guests. The range is huge and framing his appearance on there as a "reward" and as evidence for his treachery is weak to the point of irrelevancy.
As said to you above, throwing around controlled opposition-like accusations is not helpful.
I don't know if I'm ready to jump to calling Greenwald (or anyone for that matter) controlled opposition without specific evidence.
Lots of things come out eventually, and some presumptions are more harmful than baseline skepticism.
So do you have any "direct evidence of covert action" from Greenwald then, beyond that he was chosen for the Snowden reveal?
"Direct evidence of covert action" is an oxymoron
No it isn't. What was covert in the past could obviously be exposed after the fact with direct evidence.
I see your circumstantial evidence. I don't buy it as at all conclusive (and especially not 2) but if you do, ok.
He seems to have been ostracized plenty. I've seen Greenwald called a traitor and "lost to the right" plenty of times.
OK, you win. Greenwald is a spy.
I could name one, but why get bogged down in the specifics of a particular scenario? It's perfectly obvious that some events can remain secret and not be public knowledge for a period, and then later be exposed by documents or other primary evidence that was, for example, released by a whistle-blower. Giving an example of this to demonstrate it is absurd.
Lots of people have been on Tucker Carlson, for a hundred reasons - people he agrees with, does not agree with, argues with or likes, boring or interesting, Left or Right, one time guests or regular guests. The range is huge and framing his appearance on there as a "reward" and as evidence for his treachery is weak to the point of irrelevancy.
As said to you above, throwing around controlled opposition-like accusations is not helpful.
Which I did not do.