NBC: Greenwald A Criminal For “Aiding and Abetting” Snowden

Glenn Greenwald is the Guardian journalist to whom Snowden came to expose the NSA’s widespread spying practices. Most of the mainstream media and Obama administration think that the only thing Snowden exposed was the fact that he’s a traitor. And in NBC’s David Gregory’s mind, Snowden isn’t the only traitor here. After all, Greenwald was the one “aiding and abetting” Snowden every step of the way. So Gregory asked Greenwald, “Why shouldn’t you…be charged with a crime?” This, coming from the guy who violated D.C. gun laws in his attempt to argue for more D.C.-type gun laws around the country. He got away with bringing a 30-round mag on his show, because he was “just trying to make a point.”

And now, Gregory’s trying to get Greenwald (and Snowden for that matter) on a technicality. Technically, the things that Snowden exposed aren’t illegal. Their practices are (allegedly) protected under the Patriot Act, and they’re (technically) not completely unwarranted, because they get secret FISA court approvals. So, Snowden can’t be said to be a true whistleblower. Therefore, he illegally revealed national security secrets. And Greenwald “aided and abetted” Snowden’s efforts.

Never mind the fact that just because something is illegal these days, doesn’t mean it’s unethical. And the converse is also true. Just because something is legal, doesn’t mean it must be ethical. The NSA shroud themselves in Patriot Act and FISA legalese, but their actions blatantly violate the 4th Amendment and are unethical to say the least.

So, here was Greenwald’s response to Gregory’s question about whether he should be charged with a crime:

 “I think it’s pretty extraordinary that anybody who would call themselves a journalist would publicly muse about whether or not other journalists should be charged with felonies. The assumption in your question, David, is completely without evidence — the idea I’ve aided and abetted him in any way. The scandal that arose in Washington before our stories began was about the fact that the Obama administration is trying to criminalize investigative journalism by going through the emails and records of AP reporters, accusing a Fox News journalist of the theory you just embraced — being a co-conspirator in felonies for working with sources. If you want to embrace that theory, it means every investigative journalist in the United States who works with their sources [and] receives classified information is a criminal. And it’s precisely those theories and precisely that climate that has become so menacing in the United States. It’s why the New Yorker’s Jean Mayer said investigative reporting has come to a ‘standstill,’ her word, as a result of the theories you just referenced.”

 Gregory went on to question what a journalist actually was and whether or not Greenwald fits that definition. It used to be that an investigative journalist’s job was to keep the government accountable and transparent, which I think is Greenwald’s and Snowden’s goal in this case.

But people say that journalism is dead now, because so many news organizations and reporters have become lapdogs whose job is to carry the water for the current administration and to give people the politically correct opinion. You know, like David Gregory.



  • raccman

    Snowden is to be lauded for his actions, as is Greenwald for his excellent on-target response ! I know of one major "criminal", a man who lied about his place of birth, born of two people who were not legally married, with a false social security card, and counterfeit birth certificate. Placed on the presidential ballot by leaders of the Democratic Party and the Speaker of the House with their full knowledge of his ineligibility. . . .Not to call this man a criminal of the highest order and to instead call a man who exposed the NSA's widespread citizen SPYING practices is quite ridiculous and reveals just a hint of the pervasive corruption in the Obama Administration !

  • VanceJ

    Let me see now, that means NBC should be criminalized for the lying support of Obozo right ?

    • cockroach


  • IAmAProudAmerican

    How about they arrest Andrea Mitchell for putting out false information via doctored videos on more than one occasion.

  • Adrian Fitzpatrick

    OK if the liberal left idiots want to prosecute everybody for doling out false information then this administration and most of the Senate is due a day in Court. Start with Pelosi, Reid, Waters, Frank, that Norton loud mouth from D.C. That will do for the first day but we would still have a couple of years of prosecution. That would entail an honest prosecutor, but Holder would be going to jail with all the other liars. We would have to get Judge Napolitano back on the bench to get a fair hearing, otherwise these leeches would have one of their own.

    • JCaude4553

      мy coυѕιɴ ιѕ мαĸιɴɢ $51/нoυr oɴlιɴe. υɴeмployed ғor α coυple oғ yeαrѕ αɴd prevιoυѕ yeαr ѕнe ɢoт α $1З619cнecĸ wιтн oɴlιɴe joв ғor α coυple oғ dαyѕ. ѕee мore αт...­ ­ViewMore------------------------------------------&#46qr&#46net/kkEj

      Not to call this man a criminal of the highest order and to instead call
      a man who exposed the NSA's widespread citizen SPYING practices is
      quite ridiculous and reveals just a hint of the pervasive corruption in
      the Obama Administration !

      • Adrian Fitzpatrick

        Totally agree. We know he is a criminal of the first order. I consider Snowden to be a Patriot. If he had not come forward we would not know of the extent to which Obama and his cabal are monitoring us.

  • cockroach

    Snowden and Greenwald highest honors as Patriots

  • MichaelZZ


    Senator Obama, when he was running to represent the Democratic Party in its quest to win the 2008 Presidency, was very aggressive in his call for the elimination of the “so-called” Bush tax cuts for those with taxable incomes (T.I.’s) in excess of $250,000.

    Subsequent to becoming President, Mr. Obama said that he would let the “so-called” Bush tax cuts for those with T.I.’s in excess of $250,000 expire at the end of 2010, according to the “sunset” provisions. The “popular” rationale was that it might damage the fragile economy if that portion of the Bush tax cuts were eliminated.

    Prior to the 2010 national elections, Congress did not address the continuation of the “so-called” Bush tax cuts. It seems to me that it would have been great politics for the Democrats to pass an extension of the so-called Bush tax cuts for those with T.I.’s under $250,000 prior to the 2010 elections. That was not done. Why?

    What was the reason that this was not done, given that this was the stated desire of the Democrats and President Obama? It would have been the correct action to take and great politics preceding the 2010 elections.

    The most rational and logical answer is that there never was any intention to allow those “tax errors” to expire.

    Please note that I have re-characterized “so-called Bush tax cuts” as “tax errors”.

    Alan Greenspan, on January 25, 2001, testified before the Committee on the Budget, U.S. Senate, regarding the “outlook for the federal budget and implications for fiscal policy”.
    His testimony reflected that his biggest concern was the disposition of federal receipts once the national debt was paid off due to the “burgeoning federal surpluses”, which had been projected. His full testimony can be read @ http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/testimony/2001/20010125/default.htm

    Thus, it appears that Mr. Greenspan lobbed a softball to Mr. Bush for the major tax “cut” of 2001. It was passed in an effort to mitigate the potential damages, as outlined by Mr. Greenspan, due to the projected “burgeoning federal surpluses”.

    How many of our Senators and Representatives suggested that much, if not most, of these “projected” excess collections could be used to fill the shortfalls in Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid?

    Further, with some of those funds, we might have thought about repairing our bridges and roads, rather than to include such expenditures in a “stimulus” program.

    The Fourth Estate should be posing the question to all who voted for this legislation: “Had you known then what you know, now, would you have voted in favor of that legislation?”

    Thus, my conclusion that “tax cuts” be re-characterized as “tax errors”.

    Our Senators and Representatives have “constituents” and “clients”.
    Could it be that President Obama is a pawn?
    Could President Obama be an example of the Peter Principle?
    Is Nancy Pelosi’s protesting of the extension of the Bush tax “errors” a façade, since she did not bring this up for a vote, prior to the 2010 elections?
    There is, absolutely, no rationale for the Democrats not to take the appropriate action without any Republican votes.
    6. Errors, problems, pain, etc., are facts of life, but once these are recognized, efforts
    should be put forth to eliminate or mitigate.

    CONCLUSION: Anyone who votes to extend the Bush tax errors regarding T.I.’s in excess of $250,000, whether temporarily or permanently, should be Impeached and ousted.

    As always, comments will be appreciated.

    November 12, 2010

    • VanceJ

      All of the above.

  • Troubleshooter

    Obama, His hand-picked lackeys, and the Media Puppets who have supported all of them have done FAR MORE DAMAGE to the United States Of America than Eric Snowden has or can. So, I guess that clarifies what needs to be done with the aforementioned bunch. Right?

    • Nameless App 1989

      It's "Edward," not "Eric," but I get the drift.

      I'm just worried the US might nuke Hong Kong and Russia off the planet for "aiding the enemy."

  • VanceJ

    Well NBC your criminal for even being on the air, with all your lies and made up stories !!!!

  • TPM

    NBC: Greenwald A Criminal For “Aiding and Abetting” Snowden
    TRANSLATION: Greenwald a Criminal for exposing Obama (and his NSA) as a Liars and abusers of our 4th Amendment rights.

  • jdbixii

    There is nothing in the 4th Amendment that applies to what the National Security Agency is doing.
    An analogy is this. Your radio is on 590 Khz and you want to hear a program on 1600 Khz. So you tune through the AM band of frequencies, and as you do, you happen to hear a program on 980 Khz. You hear something that catches your interest but it turns out not to be what you think it is. So you continue to the program on 1600 Khz. Was it irrelevant or illegal that you happened to hear a program on 980 Khz? Does it really matter? Does it violate the rights of the people who are broadcasting on any of those frequencies for public consumption? If you don't want your communications to be available for public consumption, vote with your pocketbook. In other words, kwitchur belyakin!....in good Russian.