2 ms·
Well given Greenwald seems to concede that it would be a crime for him to "aid and abet" Snowden in his activities that means there is a line between journalist
by cmdkeen 13y ago
Well given Greenwald seems to concede that it would be a crime for him to "aid and abet" Snowden in his activities that means there is a line between journalist and "something else".
Given Greenwald is a lawyer surely a sensible response to the original question of whether he has broken the law is an explanation as to why he has not. Rather than a series of "you're a journalist, you shouldn't ask me that", "why don't we all arrest Congress for lying?" and "Obama is trying to criminalise investigative journalists".
His being a lawyer is supposed to be a big part of what makes him a good journalist. Given an opportunity to explain what aiding and abetting means in law, and why he hasn't done it, he decided to have a huff. Which is rather unlawerly.
- namdnay 13y agoI'm sorry, why would it be his responsibility to prove that he is innocent?
- noir_lord 13y agoOnce it wouldn't have been. These days you get judged in public long before you reach a court.
- waterside81 13y agoMy take on it was David Gregory was assuming, in his line of questioning, that Snowden is already a convicted felon so Greenwald is potentially aiding & abetting. Greenwald began his answer by saying Gregory's assumption in his question was flawed - therefore he couldn't be aiding & abetting someone who wasn't convicted of any crime. So while he didn't directly say "No" - he did give a pretty convincing answer by dismissing Gregory's premise from the outset.
- wavefunction 13y agoHe was also making the point that journalists are supposed to disseminate information. Snowden broke the law as he distributed classified materials contrary to his legal access and responsibilities, but Glenn Greenwald has no such legal liability. David Gregory has forgotten what journalism is. It's not sitting on TV bloviating and collecting a fat paycheck.