He knows that all of his words will be examined and that the corporate media is just waiting to pounce on any inconsistency. Say what you will about him, but he is not stupid.

Glenn Greenwald is a remarkable smart human being and he is very aware of just what a cluster fuck our corporate media is!!!!!

It's clear that once a narrative is created by the low-evidence crowd, any facts are useless.

Why, I remember when we used to brag that we were the smartest discussion board on the internet.

and not enough Port-a-Potties.

and "high school dropout" arguments.

Thanks for posting!

cheers!

We've known since June 10th or 11th that Snowden first contacted Greenwald before he started working at BAH.

June 10th Tweet from Greenwald:

encouraged him to take the job at Booz Allen (false), and encouraged him to commit a crime (false).

Snowden already had the documents before Greenwald knew his name or knew where he worked.

I'm just wondering why people are only asking questions about this now and not two weeks ago?

If this is truly such a big deal, then why did they wait two weeks to raise the issue?

Those who've been most avidly pursuing Snowden aren't the sharpest tacks around here. They still don't grasp the details. The big picture is totally lost on them.

He gave money to Ron Paul, and I covered a Ron Paul rally


That is all that matters.

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.

Given the chronology of events, I'd been assuming all along that Snowden took the BAH job in order to leak information.

So?

As was Bart Gellman of the Washington Post.

It's illegal for a reporter (or anyone else) to encourage someone to commit an illegal act; does it matter whether the reporter knows exactly who the person is?

I have no idea. There is certainly a line somewhere.

already happened?

If you notice, so far, the documents revealed are date stamped with the date prior to Greenwald and Snowden communicating in late April or early May.

debunking the smears.

Before he even knew or met Snowden. I didn’t even know Edward Snowden’s name or where he worked until after he was in Hong Kong with the documents.

And, he didn't know his name until Snowden outed himself:

It's called getting the story.

Paying the bills.

whenever some stranger asks him to for no reason.

"Hey I got a story for you, here's an encryption system for your computer".

LOL!

some stranger asked an INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER to install encrypton software in order to exchange email regarding a STORY. what's so sinister about that?

Woodward and Bernstein met a stranger in a garage. Oooooooh!

that's where people keep cars. you don't exchange information clandestinely in a garage! going to have to rethink the whole Watergate scandal now.

Well, now he knows and I hope other reporters will assist keeping him up to date technology-wise.

What do you think investigative journalists do?

don't be silly!

I have to question your judgment based on the many references that you make to the "real world" and "reality." based on the "substance" of every one of your posts, I don't believe you have a very firm grasp of either.

is irrelevant.

Greenwald just randomly install encryption systems on his computer whenever some stranger calls him up and asks him to?

people who have classified information regularly. It is the nature of their job.

I wonder why this is so hard to accept. Aren't we all here because we're in the same party? Greenwald is not in it and never has been and never will be. He is not our friend and does not need our hearts and flowers.

am I, or others like me, not welcome? I mean, I can stop voting for democrats if that's what you'd like.

So many won't go there to read the link and you made it accessible here to remind folks.

and I hope his attorneys give him better advice than he appears to have given Snowden.

p.s. glad I could clear that up. Carry on.

You have nothing but stuff you make up in your head.

wtf is wrong with you?

57. Predictable
I suspect you'd be happy if a few inconvenient journos had inconvenient, preferably lethal, accidents.

I can totally see myself "not completing the installation process."

like you and I (for all our disagreements) "getting" that bit about the software. This is perhaps horrible, but remember the horrific Danny Pearlman beheading? And they fucked up the recording? They cut that poor man's head off and then someone must have said "hey the little red light wasn't on."

Anyways, hope you are well LM. We have crossed swords many times here but I bet we'd be good friends in real life.

Selah,
'rely

I've always appreciated your wit and sense of humor.