Aye aye sir. Now keep me on the Rolodex, ya’hear?
If there were any doubt at all about corporate (not to mention entirely self-absorbed) media playing the apologist when one’s place in the social pecking order in D.C. is at stake, let this exchange settle it – David Gregory and his cohort are only too glad to jump aboard the USS Patriot. And salute.
“Meet the Press” host David Gregory asked columnist Glenn Greenwald why he shouldn’t be charged with a crime for working with NSA leaker Edward Snowden.
Greenwald was on to discuss his source’s Sunday morning flight from Hong Kong to Moscow. (It is unclear where Snowden will ultimately land, though reports have suggested he is headed to Venezuela.) At the tail end of the conversation, Gregory suddenly asked Greenwald why the government shouldn’t be going after him.
“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?” he asked.
Greenwald replied that it was “pretty extraordinary that anybody who would call themselves a journalist would publicly muse about whether or not other journalists should be charged with felonies,” and that there was no evidence to back up Gregory’s claim that he had “aided” Snowden.
Keep speaking truth to power Glenn. You’re on the right side of this one. (There’s video at the link.)
*And who are ‘the villagers’? See here.
You can have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, or democracy. But you cannot have both.
Whatever Works 
How does Gregory keep his job?
LikeLike
Because he’s a card carrying villager of course . . .
LikeLike
You do remember this:
LikeLike
That he gets paid a LOT of Money?
He does because over at CNN John King asked just about the same question…..And that’s because the two guys WHERE asking questions a LOT of people where asking them…..
As long as Glenn keeps appaering in the media he’s home free…
But if this thing turns into a mass f*#kup with even one person hurt he better get a good lawyer….
LikeLike
I’d be willing to bet the NSA DOES have someone assigned to read his phone, and computer message in REAL time….
LikeLike
I’ve no doubt of that james. What’s not often mentioned is that Greenwald is actually a constitutional lawyer!
LikeLike
I am thinking that the point brought up about how our government needs to address the change culturally (because of the evolution of technology), needs to be seriously considered…
LikeLike
We can hope, Sandy . . . but . . .
LikeLike
By WHOM?
Your Government can’t decide which day it is right now….
LikeLike
james – did you see the crack recently by Barney Frank that the entire Senate would probably perish in a fire because they wouldn’t be able to agree to adjourn and flee. Of course, the way he said it was very witty. But that was the heart.
LikeLike
I don’t remember. It may have been some one on Up with Steve Karkack…(You got me hooked on Steve Mo!)
LikeLike
Uh oh Sandy – I’ve created a monster!
LikeLike
The question becomes how exactly did Greenwald aid and abet Snowden. Sullivan will protect Greenwald from successful prosecution for using Snowden as a source and publishing the illegally divulged data as long as that data wasn’t paid for or solicited by Greenwald. It won’t shield him from any aid that he gave to Snowden in his flight from prosecution.
I will, however, point out that this sort of media behavior that you’re bemoaning wouldn’t have happened in the Bush Jr. years or today if McCain had one the election. The MSM bends over backward for the Obama Regime like they never have for any other administration since WW2.
LikeLike
Oh puh-leez. That is such a tired refrain. I wouldn’t call the NY Times editorial of last excoriating Obama “bending over backward”.
LikeLike
I will give you this- the NYT and a very few other outlets, almost all print ones, have begun to get their heads out of this regime’s backside. They’re keeping it to editorials however and are still making sure their headlines are fairly pro-Obama or about something else.
LikeLike
Exactly, sted. And that’s hardly the first.
LikeLike
Never happened with Bush Jr? One word jonolan: Iraq.
In spite of widely available, credible and published information that showed clearly how pathetic the case for war was, the mainstream was aboard almost from Day 1. The NY Times – and its exec editor Bill Keller – was wildly criticized in other print media and in real time for its flawed and go go pre war reporting. The stories by Judith Miller (and, I think, Matt Cooper) alone were directly instrumental in making the administration’s case. The Washington Post was deliriously pro war on its editorial pages, even while some of its best reporters’ work contradicted the very claims they made in support of the war.
The NY Times 2004 apology is here: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/26/international/middleeast/26FTE_NOTE.html
Keller also wrote a self serving mea-culpa about two years ago. Tell it to the Marines, Bill.
How about MSNBC? (from Wikipedia)
“MSNBC also fired liberal Phil Donahue, a critic of Bush’s Iraq policy,[10] a month before the invasion began and replaced his show with an expanded Countdown: Iraq, initially hosted by Lester Holt.[11] Shortly after Donahue’s firing, MSNBC hired Michael Savage, a controversial conservative radio talk show host for a Saturday afternoon show.[12] Although Donahue’s show had lower ratings than several shows on other networks, and most reports on its cancellation blamed poor ratings, it was the highest-rated program on MSNBC’s struggling primetime lineup at the time of its cancellation”
The biggest war booster of course was FOX and if that isn’t mainstream media I don’t know what is.
(Note that it was in multiple Page One stories at the NY Times – via its reporter Jeff Gerth – that Whitewater (and eventually Monica Lewinsky) became national and went on to Clinton’s impeachment.)
LikeLike
There is a difference, Moe, between standing with the POTUS against a perceived foreign threat and generally giving the POTUS not only a free ride on his failings and misdeeds but also helping him attack any and all who do not toe the party line.
The MSM “under” Bush, Jr. was self-serving. That same media under Obama acts largely as a department of the Executive.
LikeLike
jonolan – sure standing with prez at a time like that is quite normal. Their failure was following the lies when there was abundant contradictory ad confirmed information right before their eyes.
Also, pre 9/11, Bush came into office under a cloud of doubt while Obama was elected well and truly without the Supreme Court intervening. Very different.
Obama was absolutely celebrated at first, and yes, his race probably had a lot to do with that. But mainly the world was thrilled to be rid of Bush. The celebration however, is long gone.
LikeLike
Yep. For a while after 9/11, critiquing the administration for anything would have been “unpatriotic”.
LikeLike
Unlike now, under Obama, when it’s just “racist.”
LikeLike
People will always find a reason for why one shouldn’t criticize the Presidents and politicians they like. I don’t think that’s about to change any time soon.
LikeLike
And Now we have the Supreme’s throwing part of the Civil Rights back to Congress?
That’s gone folks….
Anyways Snowden has gone from hero to heel…..
And the Russian’s now are stuck with him…..
http://www.politicaldog101.com/2013/06/25/nsa-leaker-snowden-update-62513-no-moves/
LikeLike
Now we have the SCOTUS finally doing what is right. That portion of the Voting Rights Act was always unconstitutional BUT it was also a constitutional rights trade-off between the state and the individual when enacted…but it hasn’t been revisited in substance since then and is still using criteria a data that is decades old.
Congress must now update things if they want to continue to deny certain states their basic rights, which they may do.
LikeLike
congress won’t touch it. Right now. But in a few years, after the Old Confederacy gets all southren’ again, expect to see this back in the lap of SCOTUS.
LikeLike
My how racist of you, Moe, pre-judging them based upon their race and culture…and for deeds committed long ago by other, similar men.
LikeLike
I”m not pre-judging jonolan; I’m remembering. It wasn’t so long ago.
I was a full grown adult when Selma happened. That’s not ancient history … . we have an obligation to ourselves to actually be a country where voting rights are not threatened for a class of people.
I love Roberts’ argument that Section 5 isn’t needed cuz things are better now. Hello!!! Just why is that Mr. Chief Justice? Why is that?
It took 100 years after the 15th Amendment for voting rights to be a reality. And even then, it went on for a few decades in places in some places.
You can be sure that it’s not over . . .
LikeLike
Yet we and the Court have no evidence that things aren’t better because Congress – both parties – has been too happy to have control over those states’ voting laws and redistricting to bother getting updated data.
It was past time for it to end. I don’t, however, say that it won’t come back, either legitimately or due to Democrat bullshit. This is because gerrymandering for straight-up, race-neutral reasons is part and parcel of state politics…but Blacks vote 90% Dem in those states.
LikeLike
james, I think there are a few more chapters to play out in the Snowden story. The fact that he intentionally sought that job so he could do what he did says to me there’s more to this story.
LikeLike
After today’s news, I can’t help to wonder if this is yet another non-scandal that seemingly seeks to distract us from what the real issues are…because how will we ever be secure from the ears of anyone, the government, the corporations, perhaps even the neighbor down the block, if we choose to use technology?? Isn’t that an inherient risk of using it? And should we not acknowledge this fact?
LikeLike
Sandy – the fact that we interact with the internet pretty much guarantees we’ve lost privacy. But there’s a big difference between JC Penny knowing what kind of kitchen appliances I like, and the Federral spy agency knowing what I do.
That said, I don’t see any way to roll this stuff back. The only tool we have to fight back with is periodic exposure. Like what Snowden did. Like what wikileaks did.
LikeLike
America needs more Snowdens, and lots of ’em–I want to know what my government’s up to.
LikeLike
Yup. Assange said yesterday that they are now in possession of everything Snowden has – just in case . . .
LikeLike
In that case the genie’s never going back in the bottle.
Now I’m trying to wrap my head around the idea of Vladimir Putin as defender of our Fourth Amendment rights…
LikeLike
Oh that’s a good one!
LikeLike
It’s a weird world, right?
LikeLike
By his own admission, Snowden’s whole plan was to let other governments know what our was doing. Uncovering the domestic non-issue was only a byproduct, one the US MSM would pay him for.
Ahh well, the CIA has their own drones and the experience in removing his sort.
LikeLike
No, his intent really was to inform the American public of the government’s secret actions; however to believe that the gutless and subservient MSM would pay for, much less publish, the NSA’s classified information is naïve at best.
Now your point about the drones and the removing, that’s very true.
LikeLike
I’m going by his own words in his web chat earlier. He claimed he took the job so that he could get the information to give to other countries. The US stuff, really a non-issue, was just a by-blow.
LikeLike
I bet you got that from your CIA/NSA pals, jonolan 🙂
LikeLike
Nope. From his own web chat / press conference via the UK’s Guardian.
Actually, I’m persona non grata with the CIA and that suits me just fine. I’m still good with the NSA though, having worked for/with them successfully and happily on multiple occasions. My closest ties along those lines is with the FBI though thorough their computer crimes division and my second closest ties are with the Secret Service for similar reasons.
LikeLike
That explains why you’re so anti-Snowden.
LikeLike
I wasn’t that against Snowden until he said his whole plan was to provide foreign nationals the details of what the US was doing. Before that I didn’t especially care since the domestic stuff was a non-issue.
LikeLike
I can’t find a single reference on the Guardian site where Snowden says his intent was to provide foreign nationals the details of what the US was doing. In fact he says just the opposite, and he repeatedly asserts he did no spying for any foreign government. I’m willing to be shown that I’m wrong, but until I see some evidence to the contrary I’m inclined to take him at his word.
LikeLike
Yeah, the Guardian downplayed that part in the reporting of his web chat. Here’s a synopsis though: http://hotair.com/archives/2013/06/24/snowden-yes-i-took-the-job-at-booz-allen-to-gather-evidence-on-nsa-surveillance/
LikeLike
Well, I read every word of the article you linked to, and I still can’t find a single reference anywhere in it where Snowden states his intent was to provide foreign nationals the details of what the US was doing. It only repeats his statement that he took the job at Booz Allen to gather evidence on NSA surveillance. There’s also some speculation by the author of the article that the Russians and Chinese have gotten hold of Snowden’s data, based on references to assertions made by “two Western intelligence experts.” I suspect you’re reading into this story what you want to see, not what’s really there.
LikeLike
Umm.. his own quoted words…
Which followed his assertion that he took the job to expose our govt.’s surveillance activities….
LikeLike
Snowden was talking about screening the data he has before releasing it publicly, using journalists to vet the data. If the information is published, obviously anybody can read it, whether they’re Americans or foreign nationals. That quote certainly doesn’t speak to Snowden’s intent with respect to releasing the information publicy.
LikeLike
Oh please! Put your dogma aside for a moment and read and think.
LikeLike
My dogma? You said above, “his whole plan was to provide foreign nationals the details of what the US was doing,” That’s just false and absurd. You’re living in a fantasy world, dude.
LikeLike