Gregory to Greenwald: Why shouldn’t you be charged with aiding and abetting Snowden?

posted at 1:21 pm on June 24, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

Welcome to this week’s Journalism Rohrshach Test.  The Guardian’s Glenn Greenwald appeared on Meet the Press yesterday, where NBC host David Gregory posed a question that has been certainly in the public square over the last few weeks.  Should a reporter who aids and abets the dissemination of classified material be criminally liable for those acts?  Greenwald blasts Gregory for even asking the question:

DAVID GREGORY: To the extent that you have aided and abetted Snowden, even in his current movements, why shouldn’t you, Mr. Greenwald, be charged with a crime?

GLENN GREENWALD: I think it’s pretty extraordinary that anybody who would call themselves a journalist would publicly muse about whether or not other journalists should be charged with felonies. The assumption in your question, David, is completely without evidence — the idea that I’ve aided and abetted him in any way.

The scandal that arose in Washington before our stories began was about the fact that the Obama administration is trying to criminalize investigative journalism by going through the emails and records of AP reporters, accusing a Fox News journalist of the theory that you just embraced, being co-conspirator in felonies for working with sources. If you want to embrace that theory, it means that every investigative journalist in the United States who works with their sources, who receives classified information, is a criminal.

And it’s precisely those theories and precisely that climate that has become so menacing in the United States. It’s why the New Yorker’s Jane Mayer said investigative reporting has come to a standstill — her word — as a result of the theories that you just referenced.

TruthOut delivers a predictable response:

Gregory represents the pablum punditry with a status quo bias. His weekly panel of DC insiders passes for serious discussion of public policy without ever piercing the veil of what’s behind the curtain in the capital. …

Greenwald represents the integrity of journalists before the corporate-state became the arbitrator of what is legal and what is illegal journalism.

Greenwald, in the tradition of Seymour Hersh, Jane Meyer, and so many others, is doing what credible political and investigative journalists used to do, hold the government and other institutions accountable, reporting  to achieve transparency.

Now, we have the journalistic lackies like David Gregory and the Washington Post implying – as an echo chamber for the Obama adminstration [sic] – that pursuing such professional responsibilities may be a crime.

I’m no fan of Gregory, but, er … perhaps there’s another explanation for this?  Meet the Press is a talk show that debates issues, after all.  A journalist who asks a controversial question doesn’t necessarily endorse the view; perhaps the host might just want to give the guest a chance to answer a question, even if it is a “jerk question,” as Dave Weigel says:

I found the DoJ’s actions in regard to James Rosen outrageous, and I don’t think journalists should face criminal charges for reporting on government activities, even if their sources often should.  But I think it’s a real stretch to accuse Gregory of endorsing the prosecution of journalists just because he plays devil’s advocate with Greenwald on a show that’s supposed to feature some tough questions for the guests.  Journalists should be prepared to deal with that, no?

Update: Plus, there’s this:

It’s a bit of irony, but also evidence that Gregory was offering a devil’s-advocate position here.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

David Gregory: “C’mon. Shouldn’t you be prosecuted for making the man I love look bad?”

BuckeyeSam on June 24, 2013 at 1:24 PM

No, Davie my boy, because Greenwald apparently has the same insider connections that kept you from being charged for possessing a high-cap mag.

Fruitball. Where does the media find these jackasses.

Bishop on June 24, 2013 at 1:25 PM

Sure thing Dave….afterall YOU were charged for bringing a Clip onto the set of Meet an idiot, right??

Oh you weren’t??

ToddPA on June 24, 2013 at 1:26 PM

Does that apply to the possession of illegal gun magazines..?

d1carter on June 24, 2013 at 1:27 PM

Gregory…….mmmmm, what’s in his NSA folder?

It must be good, cause he cowers on a regular basis from his lofty perch.

PappyD61 on June 24, 2013 at 1:27 PM

Did he read that question off his Blackberry obamaphone?

can_con on June 24, 2013 at 1:27 PM

Really, Ed? An entire article about David Gregory asking about charging journalists with crimes, and not once do you mention this?

MadisonConservative on June 24, 2013 at 1:28 PM

In the letter, Nathan explained: “Influencing our judgment in this case, among other things, is our recognition that the intent of the temporary possession and short display of the magazine was to promote the First Amendment purpose of informing an ongoing public debate about firearms policy in the United States, especially while this subject was foremost in the minds of the public” after the Connecticut school massacre and President Obama’s address to the nation.

What a frickin’ hypocrite Greggers is.

Christien on June 24, 2013 at 1:29 PM

— daveweigel (@daveweigel) June 23, 2013

Dave Weigel is a known lib subversive phony conservative Journolister.

Why are you still so chummy with him, Ed?

portlandon on June 24, 2013 at 1:29 PM

If the audience was to see both feet of these men, they would see them wearing clown shoes.

LaughterJones on June 24, 2013 at 1:29 PM

I’m no fan of Gregory, but, er … perhaps there’s another explanation for this? Meet the Press is a talk show that debates issues, after all. A journalist who asks a controversial question doesn’t necessarily endorse the view; perhaps the host might just want to give the guest a chance to answer a question, even if it is a “jerk question,” as Dave Weigel says:

Well , speaking about jerks, funny you brought up Weigel…

the_nile on June 24, 2013 at 1:30 PM

Why are you still so chummy with him, Ed?

portlandon on June 24, 2013 at 1:29 PM

Yup, why?

the_nile on June 24, 2013 at 1:30 PM

Gregory to Greenwald: Why shouldn’t you be charged with aiding and abetting Snowden?

The appropriate response to this would be the following:

Greenwald to Gregory: Why shouldn’t you be charged with possessing a “high capacity” magazine in DC?

Gatsu on June 24, 2013 at 1:31 PM

Who’s on the Weigolist..?

d1carter on June 24, 2013 at 1:32 PM

Sure thing Dave….afterall YOU were charged for bringing a Clip onto the set of Meet an idiot, right??

Oh you weren’t??

ToddPA on June 24, 2013 at 1:26 PM

The spokesholes of the regime are above the law.

the_nile on June 24, 2013 at 1:32 PM

Also, what happened to this, Ed?

MadisonConservative on June 24, 2013 at 1:33 PM

It’s the difference between playing consistently the devil’s advocate versus the WH’s advocate that’s the problem.

I liked Greenwald’s musing: Who need to criminalize journalists when you have reporters like Gregory doing it for you.

I must be losing my grip. I find myself agreeing with Greenwald a lot lately:

Who ‘injures America’, those who secretly & massively Spy on Us or those who inform citizens that it’s being done? http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/22/snowden-espionage-charges

petefrt on June 24, 2013 at 1:33 PM

Your cosmetician missed a spot, Dave, you might want to tell her to apply the layers more evenly next time. Jeebus, he looks like he dipped his entire face in powder.

Bishop on June 24, 2013 at 1:34 PM

Really, Ed? An entire article about David Gregory asking about charging journalists with crimes, and not once do you mention this?

MadisonConservative on June 24, 2013 at 1:28 PM

Yeah, I don’t know how Ed forgot about that(or found it irrelevant). Even if you think the question was ok, David Gregory has no business asking it given how he could’ve and should’ve been prosecuted for what he did a few months ago.

Doughboy on June 24, 2013 at 1:34 PM

David Gregory:

The Poster Child for a self absorbed Media JACKAZZ.

ToddPA on June 24, 2013 at 1:36 PM

Gregory is a traitor.

Schadenfreude on June 24, 2013 at 1:37 PM

Which is more important to some bloggers: their comfy spot in the media establishment as a respected journalist, or their political principles?

MadisonConservative on June 24, 2013 at 1:37 PM

It’s a bit of irony, but also evidence that Gregory was offering a devil’s-advocate position here.

I don’t see this necessarily as “evidence” of a devil’s-advocate position. He could still be a first-rate hypocrite.

Bitter Clinger on June 24, 2013 at 1:38 PM

Isn’t it a felony to embarrass our puppy-eating demi-god of a President ?

J_Crater on June 24, 2013 at 1:38 PM

It’s a bit of irony, but also evidence that Gregory was offering a devil’s-advocate position here.

So Dave’s an Obama-advocate.

the_nile on June 24, 2013 at 1:38 PM

Gregory got a pretty good slap down there.

justltl on June 24, 2013 at 1:38 PM

I wonder if any “conservative journalists” are on the Weigolist..?

d1carter on June 24, 2013 at 1:38 PM

But I think it’s a real stretch to accuse Gregory of endorsing the prosecution of journalists just because he plays devil’s advocate with Greenwald on a show that’s supposed to feature some tough questions for the guests. Journalists should be prepared to deal with that, no?

I might be inclined to agree with you if David Gregory had a reputation for asking tough questions to all his guests.

Curtiss on June 24, 2013 at 1:39 PM

So it’s been proven that Snowden has committed criminal acts?

I thought he didn’t have access to such material.

davidk on June 24, 2013 at 1:41 PM

Has James Rosen been on MTP..?

d1carter on June 24, 2013 at 1:42 PM

But I think it’s a real stretch to accuse Gregory of endorsing the prosecution of journalists just because he plays devil’s advocate with Greenwald on a show that’s supposed to feature some tough questions for the guests.

Why should I give the lapdog media the benefit of the doubt?

Fenris on June 24, 2013 at 1:42 PM

Which is more important to some bloggers: their comfy spot in the media establishment as a respected journalist, or their political principles?

MadisonConservative on June 24, 2013 at 1:37 PM

heh.

the_nile on June 24, 2013 at 1:42 PM

C’mon, asking the jerk question that spurs the guest to get outraged is basic TV journalism. You’re talking about it, aren’t you?

The other card often played is “It was just good humor”…

If an interviewer asks a question, he has every right to be attacked and explain why he asked that question.

In this case Gregory would have to say, because the White House asked to me to ask that question…

right2bright on June 24, 2013 at 1:42 PM

But I think it’s a real stretch to accuse Gregory of endorsing the prosecution of journalists just because he plays devil’s advocate with Greenwald on a show that’s supposed to feature some tough questions for the guests. Journalists should be prepared to deal with that, no?

Both sides of the interview should be prepared to “deal with that”…no?

right2bright on June 24, 2013 at 1:43 PM

Your cosmetician missed a spot, Dave, you might want to tell her to apply the layers more evenly next time. Jeebus, he looks like he dipped his entire face in powder.

Bishop on June 24, 2013 at 1:34 PM

My thanks to you for a laugh last week while on vacation.

I accessed HA one day, and read a reference from you
about Al Franken (D: Somalia)

In the face of all the rancid articles about ..well everything,
(I find even perusing the news anymore to be the ultimate letdown),

your post gave me something to laugh about…

ToddPA on June 24, 2013 at 1:43 PM

Oh for crying out loud, he wasn’t playing devils advocate, he called Greenwald a felon for aiding and abetting Snowden. Just because Gregory got called on it in real time through Twitter then made up the BS excuse of “just asking question” doesn’t change that. It’s like Morrissey telling everyone you didn’t see what you actually saw. Only question is why Morrissey is doing it.

lowandslow on June 24, 2013 at 1:48 PM

Didn’t he bother to explain that THOSE rules only apply when a Republican is in office, once you get a Democrat everything changes, including the constitution.

I do believe this should answer any and all questions about the journalists at NBC news. If this is the best they can get to do a Sunday “news” show, they’re in really tough shape at NBC/MSNBC. They could put Chris Matthews on there and get the same level of idiocy.

bflat879 on June 24, 2013 at 1:48 PM

Just because Gregory got called on it in real time through Twitter then made up the BS excuse of “just asking question” doesn’t change that.

lowandslow on June 24, 2013 at 1:48 PM

Funny, because the “Just asking questions” bit used to be the tool of conspiracy theorists.

You know…those same conspiracy theorists who have been threatened with banning from HA if they put those theories forward.

MadisonConservative on June 24, 2013 at 1:52 PM

David Gregory’s Privilege

BigGator5 on June 24, 2013 at 1:49 PM

If I still used Twitter, I’d RT the s**t out of that.

MadisonConservative on June 24, 2013 at 1:53 PM

BATTLE OF THE EGOTISTICAL HYPOCRITES!

mojo on June 24, 2013 at 1:53 PM

David Gregory should be charged for having two first names.

That sh!t just ain’t right.

Christien on June 24, 2013 at 1:53 PM

I’m sure David Gregory would have no problem with the NYT releasing classified information under a Republican administration.

Liam on June 24, 2013 at 1:55 PM

Old: Jerk question
New: I have zero self-awareness question

Christien on June 24, 2013 at 1:56 PM

Greenwald blasts Gregory for even asking the question:

As he should have. Gregory is a moron.

VorDaj on June 24, 2013 at 1:57 PM

Only question is why Morrissey is doing it.

lowandslow on June 24, 2013 at 1:48 PM

I assume you’re offering a devil’s-advocate position here, right?..

the_nile on June 24, 2013 at 2:00 PM

I might be inclined to agree with you if David Gregory had a reputation for asking tough questions to all his guests.

Curtiss on June 24, 2013 at 1:39 PM

This. I don’t buy it as playing Devil’s Advocate. I do think he’s playing Advocate though.

Perhaps I’ve just become too much of a cynic. Anyway, in the grand scheme of things in the media that I get fussed about, this ranks pretty low. Now if he continues to ask that same kind of question in similar instances, then I’m going to get worried.

Chris of Rights on June 24, 2013 at 2:00 PM

Why shouldn’t Gregory be charged with aiding and abetting Obama?

albill on June 24, 2013 at 2:00 PM

Which is more important to some bloggers: their comfy spot in the media establishment as a respected journalist, or their political principles?

MadisonConservative on June 24, 2013 at 1:37 PM

What political principles? You are ‘assuming’ ‘facts’ not in evidence.

VorDaj on June 24, 2013 at 2:01 PM

If Gregory wanted to play Devil’s Advocate, he would not have personalized his question. Instead, he would have mused whether journalists in general should be charged in certain cases.

Christien on June 24, 2013 at 2:02 PM

Gregory gets a pass from Obama’s tools in DOJ for intentionally violating DC’s gun laws to make a cheap dramatic gesture on Meet The Press. (Citizens get no such consideration from the DOJ’s DC US Attorney.)

Gregory asks the “jerk question” that coincidentally echoes the Obama spin on the Snowden leaks. (Citizens don’t have national TV soapboxes available for the repayment of favors.)

Bonus: Ed’s buddy Dave Weigel is coordinating the Son Of Journolist. (Is Ed on Weigie’s new list? Any other Hot Air crew members? Or are they all just as shocked as the rest of us at Weigie’s ongoing perversions?)

novaculus on June 24, 2013 at 2:05 PM

Christien on June 24, 2013 at 2:02 PM

Excellent point, although I would note nuance isn’t one of Gregory’s strengths.

But he was definitely taking a shot. After taking heat, he engages in another Gregory tactic, pretending his personal jab was not personal, just business. Gutless and hypocritical.

novaculus on June 24, 2013 at 2:09 PM

This was written BEFORE the NSA matter broke…

Greenwald: Obama’s War On Journalism Escalates

It is now well known that the Obama justice department has prosecuted more government leakers under the 1917 Espionage Act than all prior administrations combined – in fact, double the number of all such prior prosecutions. But as last week’s controversy over the DOJ’s pursuit of the phone records of AP reporters illustrated, this obsessive fixation in defense of secrecy also targets, and severely damages, journalists specifically and the newsgathering process in general.

Under US law, it is not illegal to publish classified information. That fact, along with the First Amendment’s guarantee of press freedoms, is what has prevented the US government from ever prosecuting journalists for reporting on what the US government does in secret. This newfound theory of the Obama DOJ – that a journalist can be guilty of crimes for “soliciting” the disclosure of classified information – is a means for circumventing those safeguards and criminalizing the act of investigative journalism itself. These latest revelations show that this is not just a theory but one put into practice, as the Obama DOJ submitted court documents accusing a journalist of committing crimes by doing this.

Indeed, as Harvard Law Professor Yochai Benkler noted recently in the New Republic, when the judge presiding over Manning’s prosecution asked military lawyers if they would “have pressed the same charges if Manning had given the documents not to WikiLeaks but directly to the New York Times?”, the prosecutor answered simply: “Yes, ma’am”. It has long been clear that this WikiLeaks-as-criminals theory could and would be used to criminalize establishment media outlets which reported on that which the US government wanted concealed.

Now we know that the DOJ is doing exactly that: applying this theory to criminalize the acts of journalists who report on what the US government does in secret, even though there is no law that makes such reporting illegal and the First Amendment protects such conduct. Essentially accusing James Rosen of being an unindicted co-conspriator in these alleged crimes is a major escalation of the Obama DOJ’s already dangerous attacks on press freedom.

It is virtually impossible at this point to overstate the threat posed by the Obama DOJ to press freedoms. Back in 2006, Bush Attorney General Alberto Gonzales triggered a major controversy when he said that the New York Times could be prosecuted for having revealed the Top Secret information that the NSA was eavesdropping on the communications of Americans without warrants. That was at the same time that right-wing demagogues such Bill Bennett were calling for the prosecution of the NYT reporters who reported on the NSA program, as well as the Washington Post’s Dana Priest for having exposed the CIA black site network.

But despite those public threats, the Bush DOJ never went so far as to formally accuse journalists in court filings of committing crimes for reporting on classified information. Now the Obama DOJ has.

Resist We Much on June 24, 2013 at 2:18 PM

Gee, I wonder who said this was coming?

MadCon and other traitor-enablers are going to be hilarious with this news. I told you this was coming. Citation not needed. You know I’m right again.

….among yourselves

Capitalist Hog on June 24, 2013 at 2:21 PM

‘The Bill of Rights changed the original Constitution into a new charter under which no branch of government could abridge the people’s freedoms of press, speech, religion, and assembly. Yet the Solicitor General argues and some members of the Court appear to agree that the general powers of the Government adopted in the original Constitution should be interpreted to limit and restrict the specific and emphatic guarantees of the Bill of Rights adopted later. I can imagine no greater perversion of history.

Madison and the other Framers of the First Amendment, able men that they were, wrote in language they earnestly believed could never be misunderstood: ‘Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom . . . of the press. . .’ Both the history and language of the First Amendment support the view that the press must be left free to publish news, whatever the source, without censorship, injunctions, or prior restraints…In the First Amendment, the Founding Fathers gave the free press the protection it must have to fulfill its essential role in our democracy. The press was to serve the governed, not the governors.

The Government’s power to censor the press was abolished so that the press would remain forever free to censure the Government. The press was protected so that it could bare the secrets of government and inform the people. Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government. And paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people.

In other words, we are asked to hold that, despite the First Amendment’s emphatic command, the Executive Branch, the Congress, and the Judiciary can make laws enjoining publication of current news and abridging freedom of the press in the name of ‘national security.’ The Government does not even attempt to rely on any act of Congress. Instead, it makes the bold and dangerously far-reaching contention that the courts should take it upon themselves to ‘make’ a law abridging freedom of the press in the name of equity, presidential power and national security, even when the representatives of the people in Congress have adhered to the command of the First Amendment and refused to make such a law.

The Founding Fathers gave the free press the protection it must have [to] bare the secrets of government and inform the people.’

– Justice Hugo Black, writing for the majority, in New York Times Co. v United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971)

The Free Press Clause protects the freedom to publish, not solely writers and commercial publishers. The Founders intended for the lowliest, volunteer pamphleteer have the same constitutional protections as the Publisher of the New York Times or ‘journalists,’ who are paid for their work. The protection is to the publication – IN ANY MANNER – not merely to whom is doing the publishing (just as lawmakers were not full-time and had other jobs in the ‘real world,’ the Founding Fathers recognised that one could be both a farmer and a member of the ‘press.’) In the first case the Supreme Court dealing with the Free Press Clause, Lovell v City of Griffin, 303 U.S. 444 (1938), Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes defined ‘press’ as ‘every sort of publication which affords a vehicle of information and opinion’ based upon the writings of the Founding Fathers.

The ‘press’ be it someone at the NYT or a blogger has First Amendment rights and CANNOT be prosecuted for seeking and publishing information.

The exceptions, which aren’t really exceptions, would be where a member of the press turns documents or other information over to a foreign country or foreign national acting on behalf of a foreign country OR where a journalist conspires with another to gain access and sell/publish it. In other words, if Greenwald had colluded with Snowden in a plot that would involve the latter getting a job for the sole purposes of stealing information to give to the former, then, that would probably be a crime. A journalist obtaining information from a source – even seeking it out – and publishing it is NOT a crime and is protected by the First Amendment.

Resist We Much on June 24, 2013 at 2:29 PM

Should a reporter who aids and abets the dissemination of classified material be criminally liable for those acts?

If a Republican is President, no.

If a Democrat is President, then, yes, definitely-national security you know.

Just like how Iraqi WMD never existed but Syrian WMD must be dealt with before the entire world is destroyed! (doesn’t matter if it’s the exact same WMD that was in Iraq in the first place…Boosh is still a lying criminal).

Dr. ZhivBlago on June 24, 2013 at 2:29 PM

http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2013/06/23/Weigolist-Revealed-and-We-re-Not-Invited

Dave Weigel of Slate, who was a central figure in the “JournOlist” controversy in 2010, has been running another listserv, described as “Weigolist” in an article by Ana Marie Cox at the UK Guardian on June 22.

the_nile on June 24, 2013 at 2:30 PM

In this case Gregory would have to say, because the White House asked to me to ask that question…

right2bright on June 24, 2013 at 1:42 PM

On NBC, the odds favor your theory.

When is Ms. Michelle Malkin doing a film report on investigative journalism?

People need to understand, MM! Our older citizens need it, our leaders need it, and most of all —- our Journalism students need it so they don’t grow up to be MSNBC parrots!

Nobody is interested in my journalism reform theories.

Help us.

IlikedAUH2O on June 24, 2013 at 2:32 PM

TruthOut

lol, they’re still around?

2006: TruthOut’s version of Jimmy Olson, the infamous Jason Leopold, writes this story informing his Low-IQ Democrat “readers” that the evil Karl Rove has been indicted.

Only one problem-the story is false.

But in 2013, 7 years after Leopold’s fake story was run, TruthOut still has it in in its archives, and it has never apologized to its “readers” for the story’s falseness, and it has never even added a simple correction to the article.

In fact, Low-IQ Democrats are still posting comments to the archived story, 7 years later.

Del Dolemonte on June 24, 2013 at 2:42 PM

Lying Monkeys turn on one of their own…

(golf clap)

workingclass artist on June 24, 2013 at 2:44 PM

“Journalists” turning on “journalists” what a world, what a world!

Cindy Munford on June 24, 2013 at 2:44 PM

oops…meant to type flying monkeys…but lying monkeys works too.

workingclass artist on June 24, 2013 at 2:44 PM

Capitalist Hog on June 24, 2013 at 2:21 PM

So?

Cindy Munford on June 24, 2013 at 2:46 PM

It’s a bit of irony, but also evidence that Gregory was offering a devil’s-advocate position here.

Only if you believe Gregory capable of basic self-reflection. I haven’t seen any evidence of that…

The alternative, that he’s narcissistic and a bit sociopath believing rules should apply to everyone except him… I think I can find more evidence of those than evidence of rational self-awareness.

gekkobear on June 24, 2013 at 2:53 PM

Me to Gregory: Shouldn’t you be charged with impersonating a jpournalist?

bw222 on June 24, 2013 at 2:54 PM

DAVID GREGORY: “To the extent that you have beaten your wife, why shouldn’t you, Mr. Greenwald, be charged with a crime?”

whatcat on June 24, 2013 at 2:59 PM

Gregory was not playing the Devil’s advocate. Listen to the question, he accused Greenwald of aiding and abetting him currently, with no evidence what so ever!

Also the clip ended early and we missed the follow up by Gregory where he basically said Greenwald was not a real journalist. I kind of expected better analysis on this website.

OliverB on June 24, 2013 at 3:03 PM

Yep, Gregory is just asking questions..?

d1carter on June 24, 2013 at 3:05 PM

So?

Cindy Munford on June 24, 2013 at 2:46 PM

Indeed.

MadisonConservative on June 24, 2013 at 3:06 PM

Capitalist Hog on June 24, 2013 at 2:21 PM

That points to saboteur, something you of all people should have picked up on right away. Willful selfawarelessness suits you.

Christien on June 24, 2013 at 3:07 PM

Gregory was not playing the Devil’s advocate. Listen to the question, he accused Greenwald of aiding and abetting him currently, with no evidence what so ever!

Also the clip ended early and we missed the follow up by Gregory where he basically said Greenwald was not a real journalist. I kind of expected better analysis on this website.

OliverB on June 24, 2013 at 3:03 PM

Yup. It would seem Ed needs a refresher course in logical fallacies, loaded questions and circular reasoning. To not catch the glaring example offered up by Gregory is embarrassing, to say nothing of buying into it.

whatcat on June 24, 2013 at 3:11 PM

So?

Cindy Munford on June 24, 2013 at 2:46 PM

Heh.

Exactly.

In fact, we should be more incensed to the fact that our Government collects secret data on private citizens, and allows that data to be leaked.

portlandon on June 24, 2013 at 3:13 PM

Capitalist Hog on June 24, 2013 at 2:21 PM

That points to saboteur, something you of all people should have picked up on right away. Willful selfawarelessness suits you.

Christien on June 24, 2013 at 3:07 PM

Especially since the very first comment at CH’s linked story says what you just said.

That’s pretty much admitting to espionage, correct?

Del Dolemonte on June 24, 2013 at 3:15 PM

portlandon on June 24, 2013 at 3:13 PM

I know, right? Rumor has it that Snowden did not graduate from high school but even if he had, his expectations of getting hired and being put into a position of having access to “top secret” information has to be along the same level of me winning the lottery on those weeks I remember to buy a ticket.

Cindy Munford on June 24, 2013 at 3:20 PM

Greenwald’s clearly a racist.

Dr. ZhivBlago on June 24, 2013 at 3:23 PM

In fact, we should be more incensed to the fact that our Government collects secret data on private citizens, and allows that data to be leaked.
portlandon on June 24, 2013 at 3:13 PM

When our security is so lax (or non-existent) to the point where a 20-something, hipster highschool dropout can do this at whim, the guy himself is probably the least of our problems.

whatcat on June 24, 2013 at 3:26 PM

Cindy Munford on June 24, 2013 at 3:20 PM

Indeed.

whatcat on June 24, 2013 at 3:27 PM

“My position with Booz Allen Hamilton granted me access to lists of machines all over the world the NSA hacked,” Snowden told the South China Morning Post on June 12. “That is why I accepted that position about three months ago.”

Really, they gave him that list before they hired him and checked him out? Was one of them the Xerox machine? Fax?

Cindy Munford on June 24, 2013 at 3:28 PM

Gregory’s a hypocrite and Obama sycophant, but it was a fair enough question.

There Goes the Neighborhood on June 24, 2013 at 3:48 PM

Why shouldn’t Gregory be charged with aiding and abetting Obama?

albill on June 24, 2013 at 2:00 PM

If only that were a crime…

There Goes the Neighborhood on June 24, 2013 at 3:54 PM

Gregory’s a hypocrite and Obama sycophant, but it was a fair enough question.
There Goes the Neighborhood on June 24, 2013 at 3:48 PM

How so? For what crime is he to be punished?

whatcat on June 24, 2013 at 4:05 PM

All of my Far-Left friends are apoplectic about what Gregory said; I decided to wade into DU and some of the other usual suspects to see if that outrage carried over.

DU:

How dare that right-wing stenographer question anyone’s journalistic bona fides?

(Gregory is a Rethuglican? “I did not know that!”)

So Mr. Gregory, for aiding and abetting the illegal invasion of Iraq, Why should charges not be brought against you?

David Gregory proving, once again, what a clown he is.

It’s only a matter of time before David Gregory is working for FOX. Who knows he might already be collecting a little on the side.

“It Burns!”

Del Dolemonte on June 24, 2013 at 5:19 PM

Why are you still so chummy with him, Ed?

portlandon on June 24, 2013 at 1:29 PM
Yup, why?

the_nile on June 24, 2013 at 1:30 PM

Because HA is really just a Journolist/Leftist front?

Nutstuyu on June 24, 2013 at 5:56 PM

Why shouldn’t Gregory be charged with aiding and abetting Obama?

albill on June 24, 2013 at 2:00 PM

If only that were a crime…

There Goes the Neighborhood on June 24, 2013 at 3:54 PM

It will be in my administration.

Nutstuyu on June 24, 2013 at 5:57 PM

I’m no fan of Gregory, but, er … perhaps there’s another explanation for this? Meet the Press is a talk show that debates issues, after all. A journalist who asks a controversial question doesn’t necessarily endorse the view; perhaps the host might just want to give the guest a chance to answer a question, even if it is a “jerk question,” as Dave Weigel says:
. . . (blah, blah, blah)”

And then, there is Ed’s tweet, followed by you stretching this Gregory “point” into a devil’s advocacy quip:

It’s a bit of irony, but also evidence that Gregory was offering a devil’s-advocate position here.

Wait a second, Allah!

First, consider the fact that THIS was Gregory’s question:

DAVID GREGORY: To the extent that you have aided and abetted Snowden, even in his current movements, why shouldn’t you, Mr. Greenwald, be charged with a crime?

Gregory did NOT ask it this way:

NOT DAVID GREGORY: Some would say that you became an “accessory after the fact” to the crimes of Snowden, even in his current movements, and if so, why shouldn’t you, Mr. Greenwald, be criminally chargeable under those circumstances?

Gregory began his question with the clear presumption that Greenwald had somehow “aided and abetted” Snowden, a presumptive accusation of having actually engaged in the criminal behavior. What evidence is there of that?

Secondly, you made an entirely illogical jump — you presumed that because David Gregory personally chose to commit a distinct criminal act in order to avail himself of an opportunity to write a news story about it, that he somehow concluded there was a necessary relationship between his commission of that act, and the actions of another person in reporting on acts of a third party following the “commission” of a criminal act.

Greenwald’s actions at best could logically amount to becoming an “accessory after the fact” in a situation where someone else had clearly completed the actual criminal offense. Glenn didn’t “aide and abet” the commission of the crime, unless he encouraged Snowden in advance to steal the files so that he (Glenn) could then write about it! If he had, then he would and should be charged with the crime. But there is no evidence I’ve heard of to support that!

Maybe I’m missing something?

Trochilus on June 24, 2013 at 7:15 PM

We shouldn’t be surprised that blogs like Hot Air still link to the thoroughly disgraced Davey Wiggles.

L’affaire Wiggler says an awful lot about what is seen as “Conservative Media”.

Namely, Wiegel is a Lefty who was hired to play a Righty reporting on Right Wing media. He was outed when his Journolist emails were leaked to the public, proving him to be your typical Lefty journo.

Weigel is still in good stead with many in Right-Wing media because they themselves are Dave Weigelses, paid to do pretty much what he did.

sartana on June 24, 2013 at 7:29 PM

Dave is a hack….. no more no less… a simple hack

roflmmfao

donabernathy on June 24, 2013 at 7:31 PM