General Discussion

jeff47

(26,549 posts)

20. It's suddenly an issue because it may implicate Greenwald

Tue Jun 25, 2013, 01:58 PM

Jun 2013

It's legal for a journalist to receive and publish leaked information. It is not legal for a journalist to solicit a leak.

Snowden just admitted to getting the BAH job in order to leak information. He was in contact with Greenwald before he got the job.

If Greenwald encouraged or otherwise advocated for Snowden to get the job so that he can leak, then that could be a crime on Greenwald's part.

But to do more than speculate, we'd need more information than one quote from one newspaper from Snowden.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

66 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Greenwald does not have a timeline problem. The NY Times as the story broke: [View all] Luminous Animal Jun 2013 OP

I never thought Greenwald would lie about the timeline like that senseandsensibility Jun 2013 #1

oh senseandsensibility you are so right!!! tartan2 Jun 2013 #24

Kick. Luminous Animal Jun 2013 #2

are you trying to confuse people with facts?? grasswire Jun 2013 #3

It's a cryin' shame that DUers are now capable of being confused with facts. Luminous Animal Jun 2013 #4

We've Been Dumbed-Down Considerably Over The Years... WillyT Jun 2013 #8

That's the problem with a big tent OnyxCollie Jun 2013 #23

sometimes vermin crawls under the tent flaps frylock Jun 2013 #36

I guess the attack posse will have to pivot back to the "boxes in the garage" Vinnie From Indy Jun 2013 #5

I still think there's milage in the "Poledancing girlfriend" angle - she needs more investigation. leveymg Jun 2013 #51

We've already known for two weeks about Greenwald's "timeline problem" Jarla Jun 2013 #6

People are insinuating that he knew who Snowden was IN FEBRUARY (false) Luminous Animal Jun 2013 #7

Yes I know. Jarla Jun 2013 #9

Because the NY Times article and the facts would have been too fresh in people's memories. Luminous Animal Jun 2013 #13

It took the posse two weeks to figure out the law of conspiracy as it relates to whistleblowers. leveymg Jun 2013 #52

Big picture? What big picture? nadinbrzezinski Jun 2013 #56

Dry, very dry. ;-) leveymg Jun 2013 #62

It's suddenly an issue because it may implicate Greenwald jeff47 Jun 2013 #20

But is Snowden's admission really such a surprise? Jarla Jun 2013 #22

The surprise is that it destroys the "whistleblower" claims. (nt) jeff47 Jun 2013 #44

This doesn't ProSense Jun 2013 #10

Yes. Hissyspit Jun 2013 #12

And he was communicating with him without knowing his name or where he worked. Luminous Animal Jun 2013 #14

That's actually an interesting legal question. Robb Jun 2013 #48

How could he have possibly encouraged him to do an illegal act when it appears the illegal act had Luminous Animal Jun 2013 #54

But he deleted that Tweet that's still there. Hissyspit Jun 2013 #11

I saw some made up shit the other day about a deleted tweet. The Link Jun 2013 #15

There is so much made up shit that people like me who have a full-time job, can't keep up Luminous Animal Jun 2013 #42

So Greenwald flew all the way out to China Life Long Dem Jun 2013 #16

Bart Gellman of the Washington Post never even met the guy and wrote a PRISM article. Luminous Animal Jun 2013 #17

Yeah, he did. Hissyspit Jun 2013 #18

it's amazing the lengths that a JOURNALIST will go to secure a story frylock Jun 2013 #28

It helps to have the paper behind him nadinbrzezinski Jun 2013 #58

Kick. Luminous Animal Jun 2013 #19

Only people who can't understand plain English. Or pretend not to. /t Catherina Jun 2013 #21

The folks you are correcting are not confused on the facts, they are liars cthulu2016 Jun 2013 #25

No, the confusion are the rubes who think Greenwald just randomly installs encryption systems KittyWampus Jun 2013 #27

do you even KNOW what PGP is? frylock Jun 2013 #29

LOL! KittyWampus Jun 2013 #32

i'll take that as a "no, i don't know fuckall about encryption" frylock Jun 2013 #37

Unbelievably odd interpretation of what investigative journalists do. Luminous Animal Jun 2013 #35

in a garage? really?!! frylock Jun 2013 #38

Did the garage have boxes in it? DesMoinesDem Jun 2013 #59

The real question is why a supposed "investigative reporter" didn't already have PGP installed? baldguy Jun 2013 #47

and that is a valid question frylock Jun 2013 #49

I honestly think that Greenwald never expected to be a go-to reporter for classified documents... Luminous Animal Jun 2013 #55

Woodward and Bernstein met a stranger in a garage. Luminous Animal Jun 2013 #34

why they just type out words spoon-fed to them by the establishment.. frylock Jun 2013 #43

they don't seem very bright or tech savvy imho frylock Jun 2013 #30

and THEY (the others) don't seem to be very tethered to the reality based community. KittyWampus Jun 2013 #31

one person's reality is another person's fanatasy.. frylock Jun 2013 #41

Yes, he does. He was communicating with the traitor in February. Whether he knew the name or not KittyWampus Jun 2013 #26

He should have had encryption software all along and investigative journalists communicate with Luminous Animal Jun 2013 #33

Thanks for pointing that out. ucrdem Jun 2013 #46

i'm not in your party, i just vote a straight dem ticket.. frylock Jun 2013 #50

Recommend... Thanks for doing the NYT Article in numbered points! KoKo Jun 2013 #39

You are welcome, Koko. Luminous Animal Jun 2013 #40

Greenwald doesn't have a timeline problem, he has a serious legal problem ucrdem Jun 2013 #45

As usual, Hissyspit Jun 2013 #53

Post removed Post removed Jun 2013 #57

you really think that? Whisp Jun 2013 #60

i will say #3 certainly gives me some affinity w/greenwald arely staircase Jun 2013 #61

Me too! Luminous Animal Jun 2013 #63

it is funny how little bits of real human experience come through in these things arely staircase Jun 2013 #65

Aw! Nice post! I'd bet we'd get along well in real life, too. Luminous Animal Jun 2013 #66

Every time that other OP rises to the top. I'm kicking this. Luminous Animal Jun 2013 #64