Like... wow. Utterly dishonest.

You KNOW you are seeking to deceive people, and seem downright proud of it!

realized that tweet was intemperate.

which makes him an officer of the court, he was obligated to turn Snowden in once he knew he was committing an illegal act? And whatever you think of the information exposed, it was an illegal act to leak classified information. That's where Greenwald is in trouble and it sounds like he's finally figured it out.

describe is fairly nebulous. He has an obligation to not conspire in a crime...but the.thing is, Greenwald knows he isn't getting prosecuted by the sink ministration. but the civil liability for him is immense.

is enough...no need to conspire (although I'm convinced Greenwald did conspire). He doesn't get to decide which laws he obeys as a lawyer.

So what? It does not contradict what he is saying now. If it does, please explain how. I will admit I am wrong.

which was mentioned in the early reports. Kind of blows the apologists 'gotcha' attempts away once again.

HB Gary's secret emails revealed that they were very interested in Greenwald from several years ago. So much so that HB Gary when trying to get a Government Security Contract, proposed a smear campaign to 'discredit' Greenwald as part of their contract. Looks like someone got that contract. HB Gary had to shut down part of their operation, but the revelation that Greenwald was a target, obviously a desirable target for a Government Contract no doubt caused other 'contractors' to include it in their proposals also.

It's too bad that all this stuff got out. Now that we know what they are up to, that they actually DO target Journalists, which is a reprehensible thing for a democracy, a real threat to democracy actually, makes the smear campaign moot. People know where it's coming from and it must be frustrating to see how it has failed. Too bad our tax dollars are paying these contractors.

Any mere human to pronounce" would know all this stuff.

I'd type more, but I think "There's no time - the Kraken" or something like that.

If the president were to start human sacrifices on the wh lawn, they would be cheering his bold solution to overpopulation.

And if he came out tomorrow and pardoned Snowden, I would criticize the hell out of him.

A quick and speedy one. That way, he can't be disappeared until after he presents his case to the public, no doubt revealing much more in the process.

I also think that since the end result of a trial would be further publ;ic embarrassment for the NSA, I think it more likely the trial is delayed in perpetuity or Snowden suddenly dies in a high-speed car crash in LA

figured it out.

those people who trust a man whose past is well known, whose accomplishments are a mater of record, and who was elected (not once, but twice) to the highest office in the land.

He believes such people are fools - because everyone knows it is much wiser to trust a man who no one had ever heard of before two weeks ago, whose own account of his past has a few rather glaring discrepancies, who stole confidential documents and fled the country with them, and who had made all kinds of assertions about the reach of the NSA -- assertions which he has yet to offer a scintilla of evidence to support. (And we can't question the man's credibility, because it's NOT ABOUT HIM, it's about what he has to say - which, I reiterate, he has not come close to proving.)

I hope that clears things up for you.

campaign tours in the hopes of getting back stage at various campaign events?

"proof" of what he said the NSA not only has the power to do, but IS doing?

Or is he waiting for the groupies to all be assembled before he discloses the evidence to support his allegations?

I have no desire to win you over. We are clearly on opposite sides here, and neither one of us will be moved by the other.

But I do have the advantage. When I go about my life in the real world, I am reassured that more people agree with my view of things, than agree with yours. You have DU - I have reality.

And spare me any BS about how DUers are so much better informed than people in the 'real world' - that pony left the barn so long ago, he's been dead of old age for years now.

surveillance state that has been brought to light by multiple whistleblowers. I also see men telling congress the "least deceitful lies" and denying things Senators are telling us are overreaches..


All you can see is a mean man picking on your daddy figure.
To me it's not a battle of "dreamboat Snowden" vs "that dreamy Obama" in a thigh tingling edition of "Teen Beat Politics" Magazine.

More people agree with an american Idol, Kardashian, Beber world of personality distraction that is true. So what?
It's nothing more than uninformed acquiescence. It's all about using sports stars, glorified idols and team brand loyalties to replace thought and civic concern as well as any moral compass that may have once existed - congratulations.

The way Snowden said it's out of control? Where's the proof?

Keep telling yourself that this is all about "dreamboat Snowden v dreamboat Obama". That kind of BS plays well here in the DU bubble. In the real world - well, not so much.

Myself, I prefer reality. Your mileage may vary.

Just remember that you're "in a safe place" here, where others who think just like you do will bolster your every fantasy.

"uninformed acquiescence - you might want to look into a mirror now and again, you just might recognize yourself.

as well as one that designed the net they are using have already confirmed the documents were real and Senators are simultaneously telling us that is only the tip of the iceberg.

This level of willfully uninformed consent you display is astonishing. All you keep saying is "that mean man lies about daddy"! You are focused so entirely on Snowden and Obama, you don't even know the issue. Read more and be less emotionally invested in the love and hate of personalities, there is much to learn.

you really miss it by miles ...

a way to recommend individual posts. Yours is stellar.

Or conspire to engage in criminal behavior.

Whether or not he knew his name in February does not matter.

This was pre-planned.

on wrong doing to the public. And those who are contacted by them have to be sure they are legitmate. Did you think that they just call a journalist on the phone and the next day the material is published?

What do you think of the information that we are all being spied on by our own government? THAT is what is illegal and criminal under the law.

of the criminal code that makes what the NSA did illegal and criminal (BTW, those are synonyms)? And don't post the 4th amendment - the Court has decided cases like this many times and there are limits. Thanks.

warned about the illegality of what they were doing.

I assumed all Americans knew that American Intel is forbidden from Domestic spying?

And the section that forbids domestic spying also would be great. I've seen too many people spouting nonsense in the last 2 weeks to take anyone's word....don't take it personally.

The 4th Amendment of the Constitution of the US forbids the Government from intruding on the right to be left alone without a Warrant, which cannot be obtained without showing and swearing to probable cause of wrong doing by a citizen of the US.

What probable cause of wrong doing by over 300 million Americans was presented to get a warrant? They do claim to have a warrant. How did they get it and what are all those people suspected ofa?

Provide a link that shows that this Amendment was removed from the Constitution.

Limits to the 4th are all over the place and since when are you a supreme court justice? You know, the only 9 people whose opinions actually matter. Let me know when they deem the FISA court unconstitutional because your opinion is just your opinion and essentially meaningless.

in the constitution? I know the ACLU claims it's illegal but there is no case law to back that up (as I'm sure you know but are ignoring).

some actual proof of that would be nice.

if he has done nothing wrong??

Last edited Tue Jun 25, 2013, 12:09 AM - Edit history (1)

It's still there.

The tweet is still there.

claim, it's nothing but a CT.

Thank the lords, I was getting worried there and rolling insanity checks!!!

Nerds unite.

"nihilistic misuse of other human beings" in regards to anything to do with Greenwald/Snowden is too ironic.

And it doesn't even matter if he knew they person's name.

It's a damning FACT that Greenwald was working with the traitor BEFORE he went to work at BAH.

A major proponent of rat fucking is that it is a ploy used by those in power, with the power, not someone who is driven to do what he did, on account of otherwise the public was being screwed without their knowledge of what was happening.

yeah, THAT karl rove! the one that looked like a bumbling idiot on election night. so despite any lack of evidence, and despite the fact that republican leaders are all on board with this program, somehow it's still a republican scheme to make Obama look bad.

You obviously think that the fact that Snowden contacted Greenwald before B&A means that Greenwald was a co-conspirator.

You have no evidence of this beyond your desperate wish that it be true. But you proclaim your baseless suspicion of what you hope to be true to be a fact here in the real world the rest of us are stuck living in.

Odd stuff.

The Nixon Committee for the Re-Election of the President (CRP or "CREEP&quot , a private non-governmental campaign entity, used funds from its coffers to pay for, and later cover up, "dirty tricks" performed against opponents by Richard Nixon's employee, Donald Segretti. Segretti famously coined the term 'ratfucking'.

CREEP ran the show, and were also responsible for The White House Plumbers, sometimes simply called the Plumbers. A covert White House Special Investigations Unit established July 24, 1971 during the presidency of Richard Nixon. Its task was to stop the leaking of classified information to the news media. Its members branched into illegal activities working for the Committee to Re-elect the President, including the Watergate break-in and the ensuing Watergate scandal.

The irony is, in your ignorance you use CREEP "dirty trick" analogies to point at the victims of the new White House plumbers. You are actually describing the neo-liberal conservative authoritarian hobbyist plumbers wielding pipe wrenches to bash whistleblowers while posing as progressives posting smears calling the leakers "ratfuckers" of all things as well as traitors, racists, and all around "scumbags" on progressive boards.

Projection much?


You do realize your posts merely serve to remind me of the parallels between now and the last time "plumbers" were called to stop leaks to the press:

A 'damning fact'. How is a journalist working with a source a 'damning fact'?? I can't believe some of the anti-Constitutional stuff I am reading on this site. Have you ever heard of the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution? Name one journalist working with a source who has ever been convicted of a crime in this Democracy, FOR working with a source? The press has special protections in democracies and for very good reason.

I can say this with conviction, even the Corporate Shills we pretend are 'journalists' like David Gregory, would be horrified if that were to happen.

What you are describing is a totalitarian state where journalists who do their jobs are prosecuted and persecuted and smeared as traitors for doing so.

If there is one thing even Bush was afraid to do, it was to even suggest the prosecution of the man who published the leaks that could have toppled his administration. He DID threaten him however with the now infamous statement 'if there is another terror attack, you will have blood on your hands'.

You should think twice before ever calling for the prosecution of a journalist, especially on this Democratic site. Even the Bush supporters, except for the most rabid of them, like Palin, refrained from going that far after the NYT published those leaks that led to the changing of the FISA law to try to protect Bush.

Such an important point, sabrina!

The founders knew there would always have to be a counterweight, a balance, to the power of the state. They were pretty brave about installing the freedom of the press in our founding document. It showed their sincerity about wanting to have a democracy. "If you can keep it," as Franklin so presciently warned.

David Gregory and his ilk want to join with the power of the state. Put their thumbs on the scale, you could say. Damn, no country should be one man, especially when our form of govt changes that man every four or eight years! Those who rail against the exposing of the state's abuse of power seem to feel they are defending Obama. That the expose is an attack on Obama. It is not. The USA is not a "L'etat c'est moi" form of government. The expose is of the burgeoning & overweening power of the state, of which we should all be frightened.

Some kind of ingrained hatred for who he is as a person.

"How intellectually dishonest would a person have to be to think that reposting a tweet of Greenwald saying he had been in touch with Snowden months ago would contradict Greenwald saying he learned Snowden's name only recently?"

...Greenwald actually stated "I didn't even know where Mr. Snowden worked or what his name was until after he was in Hong Kong with the documents."

You can claim that Greenwald didn't mention a name in the tweet, but you can't claim that he didn't know Snowden's name before Hong Kong.

You can't. From the link:

You have had at least an hour to come up with something and that was the best you could come up with?

You peddled an outrageous smear that you KNEW was bogus, and now try to resuscitate it by clinging to the petty inconsistency (that I assume all noticed. I certainly did) between two accounts, one saying he didn't know name or employer until June, and the other saying he knew the name in May, and employer in June.

Having thrown up this mote (which is indeed real) to further abuse the credulous, you hope to distract from the beam in your eye...

THAT MAY AND JUNE ARE BOTH MONTHS THAT COME A LONG WAY AFTER FEBRUARY


You knew you were peddling a smear to your credulous readers... that you were making fools of them by abusing their trust.

It is sick and horrible to watch.

"You peddled an outrageous smear that you KNEW was bogus, and now try to resuscitate it by clinging to the petty inconsistency (that I assume all noticed. I certainly did) between two accounts, one saying he didn't know name or employer until June, and the other saying he knew the name in May, and employer in June."

...and WTF? I did no such thing. You're desperately trying to attack other people's crediblity when you have no shred of evidence to support your claim, but you're outraged about the fact that I posted a TPM piece along with some previous links?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023085699

"You knew you were peddling a smear to your credulous readers... that you were making fools of them by abusing their trust. "

What utter bullshit!

"It is sick and horrible to watch."

I bet!

Did Deep Throat reveal his identity to Woodward and Bernstein right away? If not, then when can they claim they started dealing with him?

Maybe, just maybe, Snowden had some other much more recent guy in mind, a guy who was too free with his identity and how he shared his information.

But in this day and age, anonymous first contacts with would be leakers are kind of to be expected.

Well, at least I learned some things.

No surprise at all.

who sees someone post an accusation with nothing to back it up and would like to hear something that backs it up.

Not exactly satire fail, but buyer beware, and not quite cricket. JMHO

Basically that Snowden was outting operatives that could result in their lives being lost. Bwahahaha