Greenwald sweats Snowden's statements - Washington Post

[flamingdem]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/06/24/glenn-greenwald-pushes-back-hard-on-latest-edward-snowden-revelations/

By Greg Sargent, Published: June 24, 2013 at 4:16

Much is being made today of the news that Edward Snowden told the South China Morning Post that he’d taken the job at Booz Allen — the firm contracted by the NSA — for the explicit purpose of getting access to classified documents that prove widespread surveillance. Some are even using the news to raise questions about the motives behind Glenn Greenwald’s reliance on documents leaked by Snowden.

But in an interview this afternoon, Greenwald dismissed the significance of the new revelations, saying they fit in logically with the chronology that’s already publicly known about Snowden — and he challenged critics to show proof of any wrongdoing on his part.

“Anybody who wants to accuse me or anyone at the Guardian of aiding and abetting Snowden has the obligation to point to any specific evidence to support that accusation,” Greenwald told me. “Otherwise they’re just spouting reckless innuendo.”

Snowden told the South China Morning Post: ”My position with Booz Allen Hamilton granted me access to lists of machines all over the world the NSA hacked. That is why I accepted that position about three months ago.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/06/24/glenn-greenwald-pushes-back-hard-on-latest-edward-snowden-revelations/

[randome]

1. Of course Greenwald is going to downplay it. The little shit.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[flamingdem]

14. He needed to prep Snowden a bit more

Now Greenwald can't slip away from what he surely helped to inspire. This is not Julian Assange and the Ecuadorians probably don't want another dude hanging out in their Embassy, this time in Moscow, scarfing all the vodka!

It's all going to come out in a trial, one can imagine.

[Hissyspit]

39. Because he thinks he knows the accusations to be false?

And calling him "the little shit" greatly diminishes any argument you are trying to make.

[Warren Stupidity]

2. i remember when the wapo had balls. now it is just pathetic.

[ProSense]

3. Wait

“Anybody who wants to accuse me or anyone at the Guardian of aiding and abetting Snowden has the obligation to point to any specific evidence to support that accusation,” Greenwald told me. “Otherwise they’re just spouting reckless innuendo.”

...he's throwing Snowden under a bus?

[closeupready]

5. David Gregory leveled that exact accusation, "aiding and abetting" -

See the video in the video forum. From yesterday's program.

So not likely an attempt to throw Snowden under the bus - more like parroting charges that have been made against him recently.

[Hissyspit]

9. No.

[ucrdem]

10. Eddie never had a chance. nt

[Hissyspit]

18. See post #5.

More baseless stuff from you.

[Babel_17]

37. It's the same as with Ellsberg

Journalists can be prosecuted if they conspire with someone to break the law. IANAL but that's what I think.

The New York Times, and The Washington Post, received the info without having told Ellsberg to get it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Ellsberg#The_Pentagon_Papers

Speaking of Ellsberg:

On June 10, 2013, Ellsberg published an editorial in The Guardian newspaper praising the actions of former Booz Allen worker Edward Snowden in revealing top-secret surveillance programs of the NSA.[41] Ellsberg believes that the United States has fallen into an "abyss" of total tyranny, but said that because of Snowden's revelations, "I see the unexpected possibility of a way up and out of the abyss."

Here's what Snowden seems to have done in regards Greenwald.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden#Media_disclosures

Snowden first made contact with documentary filmmaker Laura Poitras in January 2013.[36] According to Poitras, Snowden chose to contact her after seeing her report on William Binney, an NSA whistleblower, in The New York Times. She is a board member of the Freedom of the Press Foundation along with journalist Glenn Greenwald.[37] Greenwald, reporting for The Guardian, said he had been working with Snowden since February,[38] and Barton Gellman, writing for The Washington Post, says his first "direct contact" was on May 16.[39] However, Gellman alleges Greenwald was only involved after the Post declined to guarantee publication of the full documents within 72 hours.[39] Gellman says he told Snowden "we would not make any guarantee about what we published or when....Snowden replied succinctly, 'I regret that we weren’t able to keep this project unilateral.' Shortly afterward he made contact with Glenn Greenwald of the British newspaper The Guardian."[39]

[flamingdem]

49. thanks, good info nt

[randome]

70. I expect Poitras to distance herself from this kerfuffle.

"Hey, I only shot the film!"

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Recursion]

4. Greenwald probably wishes he hadn't tweeted that he was working with S. since February

It's a fine line. Undercover journalism can be important, but I don't want a journalist lying to me to get information about me.

[Tarheel_Dem]

6. I would love to see that smug asshole (GG) in chains. nt

[DisgustipatedinCA]

8. And what other reporters would you like to see imprisoned?

I think there are lots of reporters guilty of BadThink. We should make a list.

[Tarheel_Dem]

21. Only the ones who make shit up. His timeline is smelling up the place. We'll be hearing more....

about that little diddy. Bank on it!

[Hissyspit]

11. Very revealing.

[Tarheel_Dem]

23. Help! I'm under attack by the Greenwald/Assange-anistas.

[Hissyspit]

24. No, you're not.

You incriminated yourself.

[Tarheel_Dem]

29. !!!

[Cha]

76. Which means a whole lot of

Nothing.

Tarheel

[Tarheel_Dem]

78. !!!

[SolutionisSolidarity]

84. I'd call their devotion religious in nature if I didn't know it was really financial.

The right-wing, authoritarian, and let's be honest, paid brigade of posters on this site are really doing a disservice to whichever pr firm is putting them out here, assuming that firm isn't trying to take apart the Democratic coalition. Their round-the-clock bullying may, and often does, succeed in shutting down critical opinion on DU, but that just pushes the discussion to other platforms. Reddit has gone from mostly positive to downright venomous towards the Democratic Party in a months time. It's a terrible omen - Reddit may be more white and male than the population as a whole, but they backed Obama strongly in 2012 and 2008.

We are at risk of losing a large segment of this generation to Libertarianism, a false philosophy that portrays itself as a Constitution-based reform movement that is above Party politics, when it is nothing less than a front for Fascism. And what is the response of the *Wise Shepherds* attempting to guide the Democratic flock? Release the trolls to shut down debate. Great plan.

[HardTimes99]

99. I'm especially alarmed to see posts on a (at least nominally) Democratic board that

advocate jailing journalists. I think that attitude is one of which the vast majority of our founding fathers (and mothers) would vehemently disapprove. The idea of a 'a free press' goes to the heart and soul of who we are as a nation and what sets us apart from the decadent aristocracies and monarchies of Europe.

[randome]

105. Should journalists have a 'Get out of jail free' card?

Do you think they never do anything illegal? If Greenwald aided Snowden in stealing documents, he is guilty of aiding and abetting a potential criminal.

There is nothing wrong with publishing secrets. But aiding a criminal is another matter entirely.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[HardTimes99]

107. "Aiding and abetting a potential criminal" is not a chargeable offense. Care to

elaborate?

[Euphoria]

104. +1

[Marr]

42. You aren't embarrassed to admit that? /nt

[Tarheel_Dem]

46. I'll bet Snowden gives him up, in exchange for a "Pepsi". According to his Chinese attorney, he's..

just a kid who likes Pepsi, and can't be separated from his computer, without trauma.

[flamingdem]

52. good one

[okaawhatever]

82. Me thinks he didn't want to be separated from his computer because he

thought he could dole out information on his terms. I'm wondering if China was the one who wanted "to protect" him by removing him from the hotel and into a government safe house. I'm also questioning why he came pretty close to being off the radar during that time. I also question why Greenwald didn't seem to be getting the stories or the access during that time. It seems the main stories were being reported in the South China newspaper.
The tweet that came during Snowden's time at the airport said he had been seen by a doctor. Could be nothing, but it's odd.

All in all, it wouldn't surprise me a bit if Snowden had been "protected" a little more than he wanted by the Chinese.

[Tarheel_Dem]

83. Oh, I have no doubt he was ready to get the hell outta China. They got what they wanted.

This whole saga is just strange in so many ways. And now Assange has once again inserted himself into a news story. The last thing this kid needs is to get Assange stank on him. He reached out to a dude who can't step foot off the grounds of a government embassy for advice on how to elude capture? If Assange has all these "connections", why the hell is he still holed up after a year? I think that's pretty rich.

[Douglas Carpenter]

47. I remember about 40 years ago when an acquaintance of mine from South Africa said that the likes

South African newspapers because the government closely monitors them to make sure they are only printing the truth. Perhaps it's about time we initiate that policy in America too?

[phleshdef]

62. I can't stand Greenwald, but thats certainly over the top.

I'd like to see him humbled a bit, but certainly nothing like that.

[Tarheel_Dem]

64. Coming from you phleshdef, I'll take that admonishment in the spirit I think it was given.

Over-the-top certainly describes my response, but it can also describe Greenwald's "journalistic" integrity. Thanks for that.

[phleshdef]

67. No disagreement there. Greenwald is not a journalist.

He is really more of a pundit, if anything.

[Tarheel_Dem]

69. Agreed. nt

[Romulus Quirinus]

75. You've got problems. :/ nt

[morningfog]

91. Wow! Keep talking.

[Tarheel_Dem]

94. Wow! Keep moving.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

7. I don't find the word "sweats" anywhere in the headline or in the article.

In fact, as the URL you've posted suggests, the actual title of the op-ed is "Glen Greenwald Pushes Back Hard on Lateste Edward Snowden 'Revelations'". Just wanted to help a little with accuracy.

[byeya]

12. Too many here don't want too much accuracy - careful amigo!

[leftstreet]

15. +1 Lots of disingenuous titles around here lately

[still_one]

57. Agreed, on both sides I might add

[flamingdem]

22. I found it on twitter with a title similar to what I used

so yes it was an editorial comment that I revised slightly

[Scurrilous]

34. You should have used "Greenwald Destroyed."

See:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023067394


http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017124694

[flamingdem]

40. I wanted to be polite

and don't want to be responsible for shocking some sensitive DUers 'round here

[DesMoinesDem]

25. The propagandists don't want accuracy, they just want to frame the debate.

Attacking the 1st and 4th amendments isn't easy on a supposedly progressive site, but they're giving it their all.

[HardTimes99]

101. And they're taking the occasional pot-shot at the Fifth, as well (and the 14th, when

they show themselves ready to toss 'due process' into the quaint and obsolete dustbin of history).

[Tarheel_Dem]

27. Don't "sweat" it! This is GD, not LBN.

[Cali_Democrat]

13. Hmmmm.....

Just because you claim to be a "journalist", it doesn't give you carte blanche to do whatever you want.

Greenwald says he had contact with Snowden in Feb, but Snowden didn't take the job until March.

The Justice Department will have to look at Greenwald very very closely and I'm sure they are.

[flamingdem]

17. Brazil is close to Ecuador

He probably already has his route through the Amazon picked out. Now that will be a great section of the movie, kind of an Aguirre Wrath of God with Greenwald as Klaus Kinsky and monkees running wild as he sweats with fever.

[randome]

33. LOL! You have a way with words!

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[flamingdem]

45. Now you got me going with Glenn as Aguirre Wrath of God Greenwald

got to do a little photoshop job there..

[Cali_Democrat]

44. hahahahahaha

[deurbano]

16. Why would he need to sweat anything?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/24/edward-snowden-booked-on-plane-from-moscow-to-havana-live-coverage#block-51c8884ee4b0df83a9433372

Glenn Greenwald on Jake Tapper's program on CNN today:

<<Tapper plays the exchange we linked to earlier this afternoon in which NBC's David Gregory suggested Greenwald may have "aid[ed] and abet[ted]" a crime.

Tapper asks Greenwald if he had worked as closely with his source as James Rosen, the Fox News reporter whom the justice department called a "probable co-conspirator”….

Greenwald says the underlying premise of the question… is pernicious to the work of truth-telling and chilling to investigative journalism as an enterprise.

That being said, Greenwald says he did not go as far with his source as Rosen went with his.

"I didn't even know where Mr. Snowden worked or what his name was" before meeting him in Hong Kong, Greenwald says. "I had some preliminary communications with him" about how to establish secure channels of communication.

"Other than that, nothing.">>

[flamingdem]

20. Greenwald knew how to use secure communications from the git go

I suspect there's more than meets the eye. And I don't think he's careless, just hard to catch.

[Luminous Animal]

26. And you know this how?

[flamingdem]

32. Snowden said it in an interview

regarding working with Greenwald

[Luminous Animal]

19. That doesn't look like sweating to me.

[Arctic Dave]

28. Lots of shitbag authoritarian lovers posting today.

Nice of you to throw out some catnip for them to get all indignant with.

[FarCenter]

30. I'd be surprised if Greenwald ever returns to the US

There's most likely a sealed warrant for his arrest if he does.

[MattFromKY]

31. Journalists typically do not plant their sources.

Snowden's sole purpose of seeking employment at Booz was to leak information. Glenn Greenwald was in contact with him before he was employed there.

Greenwald is as guilty as sin and for those of you that will accuse me of being an apologist for this administration... here's some criticism for you:

They have been way too soft on Greenwald since this whole ordeal started.

[flamingdem]

36. I don't think we know the half of it

It's just too convenient. Take for example Snowden revealing US hacking in China at the time Obama was in serious talks with Xi. Too many coincidences

welcome by the way!

[MattFromKY]

41. Way too convenient. You know what they say about coincidences and politics.

Thanks for the welcome!

[HardTimes99]

102. Who is that ominous 'they'? And exactly what would you charge Greenwald with? It's not a

crime (at least not yet) to publish classified information.

[tridim]

35. Hack credentials confirmed, both Greenwald and Snowden. nt

[flamingdem]

38. Book or movie title: The Hack and the Hacker

[adric mutelovic]

43. Why did you change the title of the WAPO piece?

Why did you want people to think that the article said "sweats"? I'm trying to figure it out but....it's just weird.

[Tarheel_Dem]

48. If you want accurate headlines, you'll find them in LBN. People do it all the time in GD. nt

[adric mutelovic]

51. I didn't ask how frequently it's done. I asked why he did it

I await response by the person whom I asked the question.

[Tarheel_Dem]

54. As if you're owed an explanation. Oh, welcome to DU, by the way.

[flamingdem]

55. I found it on twitter with a similar title

which I further embellished.

you'll find that journalists do that -- one title on twitter that's more attention grabbing leads
to the real article

[Babel_17]

50. I just googled and found a recent GG interview

But Greenwald told me that when Snowden had initially contacted him, Snowden hadn’t even shared his name or where he worked — he’d simply said he had explosive documents that Greenwald (whose reporting on leak investigations and civil liberties abuses was already widely known) would want to see. At that stage, Greenwald said, their conversations only concerned how to set up an encryption system that Snowden wanted in order to facilitate private communication of documents with him. The system was not set up until several months later, Greenwald said.

It was only in May — and not before — that Snowden told him who he was, who he worked for (at that point he identified himself as affiliated with the NSA) and what sort of documents he had to share, Greenwald says. It wasn’t until June — when Greenwald visited Snowden in Hong Kong — that Snowden told him he worked specifically for Booz Allen, Greenwald adds.

“We had early conversations about setting up encryption, so we worked early on to set that up,” Greenwald says. “We didn’t work on any documents. I didn’t even know Edward Snowden’s name or where he worked until after he was in Hong Kong with the documents. Anyone who is claiming that somehow I worked with him to get those documents or helped him is just lying.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/06/24/glenn-greenwald-pushes-back-hard-on-latest-edward-snowden-revelations/

I guess the media is struggling to restrain itself and isn't waiting to ask questions before firing off their articles.

Edit: Time I took a break, lol, I'm reposting a link the OP put up! It's a matter of me having too many Tabs open and being struck by a section of an article.

I'll be back after I hit the gym, etc. Sorry about this.

[flamingdem]

58. There are different accounts out there

This isn't the only one

[Babel_17]

63. Yes, we need some good questioning and answering (nt)

[DisgustipatedinCA]

59. The funny thing is, the article you found is the same one referenced in the OP

It's just that the OP changed the subject line to match his agenda. The article that both you and the OP linked to doesn't say anything at all about Greenwald sweating.

[Babel_17]

65. Information overload?

Ha, I know I'm suffering a bit from it. I think a roughly reliable narrative of some key facts is forming. I'm going to try to be patient.

[Aerows]

53. Why are you all so upset about evidence of government spying?

And why are you all so eager to convince everybody that it isn't happening.

I just wonder.

[randome]

68. What evidence?

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Aerows]

71. At this point, the best reply is

What fire? It gave off a bunch of smoke, but *I* didn't smell anything since I have cotton balls stuffed up my nose.

[randome]

72. Oh, face it, Snowden gave us practically nothing.

The legal warrant about phone metadata? We already knew about it.
The spying on other countries? Duh.

Everything else is supported by nothing but his word. Pretty slim pickings from a guy who scared us all with the vague words "I saw things".

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Aerows]

73. Couldn't see anything either

since I had to wear blinders, and my ears had cotton in them too. It was amazing that I recognized a fire when I felt the heat at all! How could it possibly get that hot?

[morningfog]

92. But, Secretary Kerry says it could lead to deaths.

[still_one]

56. At the minimum it is conspirisy to commit corporate espionage. Snowden's father is correct, he

should shut up

[flamingdem]

60. Did Snowden's father weigh in?

Now I feel bad for his family, they must be very worried, yeesh

[still_one]

74. I read it, he was on faux, I did not see it. It was maybe a couple of weeks ago, right after

Snowden's first interview with the Chinese newspaper. He supported his son at least to some degree, but felt he should stop talking

[DeSwiss]

61. Anyone who reads this shitty rag......

...deserves to be misled.

Trashed

[DevonRex]

66. Too bad Glenn. Free speech and all. Weird he released a FISA ruling. You being a lawyer

and all wouldn't have had anything to do with him snooping for that, right? Like when you talked to him in February and he only went to work there in March...

Must all be coincidence. Sure wouldn't want to be reckless with my free speech would I, Glenn? hmm?

[Cha]

77. Greenwald walked into his own trap.. he's his own worst enemy.

TheObamaDiary.com @TheObamaDiary

What makes it all so delicious, it was Greenwald's ego that drove him to tweet that oh so damning tweet....



April @ReignOfApril

Hey @lawscribe, check this. Now Greenwald is saying he didn't know Snowden's name until Hong Kong?

Greenwald: I Didn't Even Know Snowden's Name Until He Was In Hong Kong
Glenn Greenwald, one of the reporters to whom Edward Snowden leaked classified NSA documents, said that he did not even know "where Mr. Snowden worked or what his name was until he was in Hong Kong...

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/greenwald-i-didnt-know-what-snowden-did-until

http://theobamadiary.com/2013/06/24/chat-away-questions/#comments

Now, of course.. he's the little victim.. wah wah wah peddle faster.

[Demit]

79. I don't see where those two statements conflict.

For the life of me I don't understand why people think that Greenwald had to have known Snowden's real name in order to have worked with him. On something like this, wouldn't it have been understandable for Snowden to have used a name other than his real one?

[Hissyspit]

86. They don't.

[Demit]

87. Sigh, I know.

[Tarheel_Dem]

80. You mean Greenwald's a big ol' liar?

Why anyone would trust a "lawyer" (loosely) who was admonished by a judge for his own wiretapping? Talk about phoney!

[Cha]

88. Because he hates Pres Obama.. that's all they need to

know. little lying fuck has been trying to bring down PBO since the beginning.. how's that workin' out for ya, GG?

He's been working with him since Feb before he started at Booz Allen.. and didn't know his name until Hong Kong.. GG says so. That's not good enough.

Sneaky leakers.

[Tarheel_Dem]

89. That's one of those tricky little mishaps like "direct access", huh? He's a schmuck.

[Cha]

90. From smartypants..

"Finally, I can't help but wonder how Greenwald would approach this if the shoe were on the other foot."

“I approach my journalism as a litigator,” he said. “People say things, you assume they are lying, and dig for documents to prove it.”

And yet questioning him is reckless innuendo.

“Anybody who wants to accuse me or anyone at the Guardian of aiding and abetting Snowden has the obligation to point to any specific evidence to support that accusation,” Greenwald told me. “Otherwise they’re just spouting reckless innuendo.”

"Why not just demonstrate some transparency and publish the communication he had with Snowden? You KNOW that's what he would be demanding if the roles were reversed"

http://immasmartypants.blogspot.com/2013/06/why-did-snowden-take-job-at-booz-allen.html

Of course, Greenwald is hypocrite.

[Tarheel_Dem]

93. That's what I find so preposterous about GG & Assange. They're for everybody....

else's "transparency", exept their own. Screw 'em.

[Cha]

97. GG is lying. That's my starting point. Unless I see some transparency that proves otherwise..

Charles Johnson @Green_Footballs

Greenwald: "Whether he ends up in the hands of Castro or whatever, it doesn't really make a difference." Done, done, on to the next one.

http://theobamadiary.com/2013/06/24/chat-away-brave-sir-gigi/

Not to his ugly ass.

[Tarheel_Dem]

98. Who's he talking about? Snowden? If so, that seems very casual. But, of course...

Snowden has served his purpose as far as GG's concerned.

[Cha]

100. Yeah, GG was refering to leaker Snowden.. Yeah, he's done.. stick a fork in him.

here's another tweet and some more info from Charles Johnson at Little Green Footballs who wrote the previous one on Snowden being "done".

Flashback: When Andrew Sullivan suggested Snowden might have taken the Booz Allen job specifically to leak secrets, Glenn Greenwald called it a “moronic conspiracy theory.”

Glenn Greenwald ✔ @ggreenwald

Completely figures that Andrew Sullivan is channeling this moronic conspiracy theory - HE WORKED AT NSA SINCE 2009!!! http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/06/10/enter-the-media-martyr

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/42178_Edward_Snowden_Took_NSA_Job_Specifically_to_Steal_Secret_Documents

Who's the Moron now?

[Whisp]

106. good find, Cha.

I hope that someone brings that up to GG's face in the next interview and we can watch GG squirm like the little worm he is.

[Aerows]

81. It's like reading The Bell Jar

and then reading more things by Sylvia Plath. You really don't want to read anymore. Then you do and discover a bunch of things you would rather have not discovered.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

85. Who wouldn't with an out of control totalitarian state that terrorizes, tortures, and murders GLOBAL

WITH 0 RESPECT FOR THE CONSTITUTION, JOURNALISTS, OR ITS OWN CITIZENS, YOUD BE A FOOL NOT TO.

[Bonobo]

95. PERFECT example of "Weasel words". Here:

"Some are even using the news to raise questions about the motives behind Glenn Greenwald’s reliance on documents leaked by Snowden."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word
A 2009 study of Wikipedia found that most weasel words in it could be divided into three categories:[13]
Numerically vague expressions (e.g. "some people", "experts", "many&quot
Use of the passive voice to avoid specifying an authority (e.g. "it is said&quot
Adverbs that weaken (e.g. "often", "probably&quot

?w=830&h=792

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

96. Your headline is made up. Not the author's or the Washington Post's.

Speaking of "distorting the truth".....

[Thinkingabout]

103. Yep, Snowden has leaked information from the NSA and he will leak on Greenwald also. Once a snake

always a snake. Perfect example when you dine with buzzards you can't soar with eagles. Get ready Greenwald, he will dump you and anyone else he thinks he can get a bite of news coverage, you have been used.