Rep. Peter King Lies About Glenn Greenwald, Uses Those Lies To Say Greenwald Should Be Arrested & Prosecuted
from the the-politicians-we-elect dept
We already mentioned how terrorist supporter Rep. Pete King has said that journalists reporting on government leaks exposing blatant abuse of power should be prosecuted, and rather than admit that he misspoke, he appears to be doubling down... by flat out lying. He went on Fox News to specifically call out Glenn Greenwald and claim that legal action should be taken against him, mainly based on the entirely false claim that Greenwald is threatening to reveal the names of CIA agents and assets. The problem is this is not true. Greenwald has made no such threats or even suggested anything like that. But King bases his entire attack on Greenwald on these false claims."I'm talking about Greenwald. Greenwald, not only did he disclose this information, he has said he has names of CIA agents and assets around the world and threatening to disclose that," King said. "The last time that was done in this country, we saw the CIA station chief murdered in Greece. No right is absolute and even the press has certain restrictions. I think it should be very targeted, very selective and certainly a very rare exception. But in this case, when you have someone who's disclosed secrets like this and threatens to release more, then to me, yes, there has to be, legal action should be taken against him. This is a very unusual case with life and death implications for Americans."Later on in the interview, King is asked about whether Greenwald's existing leaks should lead to prosecution, and King says yes, that this is clearly being done to "hurt Americans." When it's pointed out to him that Greenwald will (quite rightly) say that what he's doing is to help Americans by exposing abuse of power, King again says that because Greenwald has threatened to reveal CIA agents (again, a totally false statement), it shows his intent is harm.
Fox News: Well, Glenn Greenwald will say he's trying to help America.Hmm. And what "motivation" does it show when an elected official blatantly lies about a reporter revealing abuses of power from the federal government, and claims that reporter should be arrested and prosecuted for doing his job, based on those lies. Also, Fox News, perhaps next time you speak to Rep. Pete King, you can point out that he's been lying to you.
King: Well, first of all, he's not. To me, what shows his intent, is his saying he's threatening to release the names of CIA agents. There's no way that helps the United States. And that, to me, shows his motivation.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: cia, first amendment, glenn greenwald, nsa, peter king, slander, surveillance
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
the entertainment industry would soon step in. let's face it, there is no one better at spinning lies and bull shit after politicians than these folks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
No it isn't, but lying on TV doesn't violate the Constitution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Peter King, of course was notoriously supportive of the IRA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Peter King, of course was notoriously supportive of the IRA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Peter King, of course was notoriously supportive of the IRA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Peter King, of course was notoriously supportive of the IRA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Peter King, of course was notoriously supportive of the IRA
Rep(ulsive) King - how many days without charge, trial or access to lawyers have gusts of Guantanamo had?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If you think you've found an honest politician, you should be amazed. Not at finding one but that you're gullible enough to believe it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
POLL: Americans' Confidence in Congress Falls to Lowest on Record
At the top of the poll, 3 in 4 Americans have confidence in the military. At the bottom of the poll, only 1 in 10 Americans have confidence in Congress.
�Americans' Confidence in Congress Falls to Lowest on Record�, by Elizabeth Mendes and Joy Wilke, Gallup, June 13, 2013
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: POLL: Americans' Confidence in Congress Falls to Lowest on Record
�
( Sorry that didn't make it into my previous comment. )
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: POLL: Americans' Confidence in Congress Falls to Lowest on Record
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: POLL: Americans' Confidence in Congress Falls to Lowest on Record
I think that the solution is for the the electorate to get more involved in candidate selection, bullying people they think will do a good job into serving for a term. It would be cruel to force them to serve two or more terms, and any one volunteering for a second term should be looked at most carefully before re-electing them, and almost certainly replaced after a second term.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: POLL: Americans' Confidence in Congress Falls to Lowest on Record
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: POLL: Americans' Confidence in Congress Falls to Lowest on Record
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: POLL: Americans' Confidence in Congress Falls to Lowest on Record
I think too many people have their impression of the military given to them by their grandparents.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: POLL: Americans' Confidence in Congress Falls to Lowest on Record
oh, we forgot about the rule that if you are Commander in the military and you are accused of rape you must be automatically convicted!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: POLL: Americans' Confidence in Congress Falls to Lowest on Record
everyone has different opinions and different wishes and goals and requirements, politicians have to try to make 'things fair', they live in a world of compromises and limitations.
it's the "some of the people all of the time, or all of the people some of the time" problem.
It's just not about popularity, if a politician does someone for one group, and not for others the other group sees 'unfairness', you expect politicians to be 'all things to all people" ?
You surly have a great on the real world enough to know that that is simply not possible.
with 300 million people in America there is probably 300 million (or more) opinions about what a 'perfect' politician is, and 299 999 999 people who disagree about what that perfection is.
The best a politician can do is reach compromises, people understand they cannot get exactly what they want but most people understand that a compromise means you get some of what you want, if you are willing to put up with some things you don't want.
Reporters do not have this problem, they don't have an impact on how millions of people live, they can simply put out things they think will be popular to a large number of people (to sell their product) and that's all they have to do.
that is why the constitution says "We the people" not "ME the person"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: POLL: Americans' Confidence in Congress Falls to Lowest on Record
There are basic necessities and comforts that politicians should push for especially considering that they're elected by people to voice specific concerns and incite change.
The poll is proof that they're not voicing the concerns of the majority very well.
The fact that you are trying to dismiss the majority reference of the poll by pointing to the opinion of one person is a pretty ignorant thing to do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: POLL: Americans' Confidence in Congress Falls to Lowest on Record
or it shows that a lot of people expect the impossible, and have an expectation that THEY should not have to compromise and be a part of a community based on compromise.
they're elected by people to voice specific concerns and incite change.
actually NO, they are not, they are elected to Govern.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: POLL: Americans' Confidence in Congress Falls to Lowest on Record
How so? What exactly are the people expecting that is impossible for these politicians to attain?
...and compromise? What types of compromise are reasonable to the American public?
"actually NO, they are not, they are elected to Govern."
Um, excuse me? Politicians are elected by each state as the voice for the public, they serve the interests of the people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: POLL: Americans' Confidence in Congress Falls to Lowest on Record
making everyone happy all of the time, that is impossible, they do serve the interests of the people, they just do not serve the interest of the PERSON.
What if you don't have the same interests as the person who lives next door to you, who out of you two gets to have their interest served and who does not, who decides that ?
If you all have THE SAME interests (impossible) then it would be possible to serve YOUR interests, but if (like in the real world) there are as many 'interests" as there are people, that could change from day to day, how do you expect them all to be 'served'??
This is really an issue more about you living in a dream world as opposed to the actual REAL world.
It's also very egotistic and self-serving, you are saying if you do not get exactly what you want you get upset, and shows you have no care for what other people want, and no willingness to reach a fair compromise where (like the real world) you get some things you like and accept some things you don't. Because when you don't like is probably the thing someone else does like, and when you do like is probably what someone else (or many else) don't like.
Get it ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: POLL: Americans' Confidence in Congress Falls to Lowest on Record
Yes it is, but you're assuming that is what people want.
I agree, politicians are not there to support the interest of one person, but you're forgetting there are plenty of politicians who are only looking out for themselves and their interests instead of the people they represent.
"What if you don't have the same interests as the person who lives next door to you, who out of you two gets to have their interest served and who does not, who decides that ?"
Then I would start a special interest group of people with like minded values and we'd fund politicians to voice our interests. I'm not supportive of a singular voice of concern, but when you have a poll of multiple people displaying concern, you can't write it off as people expecting too much from politicians who are put into office to represent them.
"If you all have THE SAME interests (impossible) then it would be possible to serve YOUR interests, but if (like in the real world) there are as many 'interests" as there are people, that could change from day to day, how do you expect them all to be 'served'??"
According to your logic then, if a number of people voice their concern over say having clean drinking water, then they're being unrealistic?
"It's also very egotistic and self-serving, you are saying if you do not get exactly what you want you get upset, and shows you have no care for what other people want, and no willingness to reach a fair compromise where (like the real world) you get some things you like and accept some things you don't. Because when you don't like is probably the thing someone else does like, and when you do like is probably what someone else (or many else) don't like.
"
Really? is this how you justify what the NSA is doing? So it's egotistical for the public to be concerned about their privacy from the government?
And no, I don't get it because your logic matches your asinine analogies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: POLL: Americans' Confidence in Congress Falls to Lowest on Record
Specifically, the trust that they are honest and have the nation's best interests at heart even if they differ on positions.
Those days are long gone -- for good reason.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: POLL: Americans' Confidence in Congress Falls to Lowest on Record
"
Nixon, Carter ?, Reagan ? Bush 1, Bush 2? Truman ? Oliver North ? Hoover ? what short memory, or failure in History class you have !!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: POLL: Americans' Confidence in Congress Falls to Lowest on Record
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: POLL: Americans' Confidence in Congress Falls to Lowest on Record
It's kind of sad that the top spot is only at 76%.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tell the truth to the American public - Treason
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
1. Murder is not equivocal to the reveal of PRISM and th eNSA spying on people.
2. Murdering one person is not equivocal to something that affects a massive amount of people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
so replace murder with "stole a car" or "sold some drugs" or J walked, or treason, or murder, or rape, truth or the telling of it is not a defence that will result in no charge.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Most Australians don't have such a ridiculously poor grasp of English like you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
No. They'll prosecute you for the murder but thank you for telling them the truth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Not sure where you got that. I guess it is ok to make shit up, certainly you would not be alone in that regard.
"as you told the truth we cannot prosecute you for murde"
Yes, whistle-blowing is definitely the exact same thing as murder. Wow, a bit over the top are we?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Bruce Schneier has an excellent piece discussing this (http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/06/prosecuting_sno.html) - before anyone decides whether Snowden (or any whistleblower) has committed a crime by releasing classified information, it should be determined whether the information was correctly classified in the first place. If the information was erroneously classified and should in fact be available to the public, then no crime has been committed.
If in the balance we find that for the most part no crime has occurred (the information should always have been public) but some correctly classified details were also released along with the public information, then one would hope that the judge would consider how much the public good in releasing information that should be public and "blowing the whistle" on abusive behaviour should weigh against the actual crimes committed, and perhaps this would reflect in sentencing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Founded by geniuses, but run by idiots
Food For Thought
If you can get arrested for hunting or fishing without a license, but not for being in the country illegally ...you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.
If you have to get your parents� permission to go on a field trip or take an aspirin in school, but not to get an abortion ... you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.
If you have to show identification to board an airplane, cash a check, buy liquor or check out a library book, but not to vote who runs the government ... you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.
If the government wants to ban stable, law-abiding citizens from owning gun magazines with more than ten rounds, but gives 20 F-16 fighter jets to the crazy new leaders in Egypt ... you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.
If an 80-year-old woman can be stripped searched by the TSA but a woman in a hijab is only subject to having her neck and head searched ... you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.
If your government believes that the best way to eradicate trillions of dollars of debt is to spend trillions more ... you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.
If a seven year old boy can be thrown out of school for saying his teacher�s "cute," but hosting a sexual exploration or diversity class in grade school is perfectly acceptable ... you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.
If children are forcibly removed from parents who discipline them with spankings while children of addicts are left in filth and drug infested �homes�... you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.
If hard work and success are met with higher taxes and more government intrusion, while not working is rewarded with EBT cards, WIC checks, Medicaid, subsidized housing and free cell phones ... you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.
If the government's plan for getting people back to work is to incentivize NOT working with 99 weeks of unemployment checks and no requirement to prove they applied but can�t find work ... you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.
If being stripped of the ability to defend yourself makes you more "safe" according to the government ... you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.
If you are offended by this article, I'll bet you voted for the idiots who are running, and ruining our great country.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Founded by geniuses, but run by idiots
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Founded by geniuses, but run by idiots
Obama Is Officially The Worst President In American History!
This statement is clearly delusional as there is a wealth of data on this subject accompanied by many analyses performed by recognized experts most of which conclude otherwise.
It does however provide insight into that which you have quoted above. These statements could be considered Anecdotal Fallacy or Appeal To Ridicule, either way they are drowning in logic fail whilst completely devoid of supporting evidence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Founded by geniuses, but run by idiots
Oh yes, Obama's birth certificate.
That being said, I gave you an Insightful for a country founded by geniuses, and run by idiots. Especially four of the last five administrations. (I'm too young to know much about Carter.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Founded by geniuses, but run by idiots
So if you got everything you want, there would be someone (or many) that feel they did not get what they want.
How do you deal with that ?? do you just say "screw them"?
Or do you think it might be possible they would say "screw you"?
The politician in being everything you want him to be would have to be nothing someone else wants them to be, that simply cannot work, so you have to be willing to compromise and accept that you are not the only person in your country the politicians have to please, you also need to understand it is IMPOSSIBLE for the Government the be "all things to all people".
That is why you appear to be so upset with the world, you want to live in a world without compromise, where you get everything you want, and screw the rest of the world, and deny everyone else (or many others) that same privilege.
I guess you are so upset because the world is not perfect, and you expect it to be. If you expect to live in a perfect world you are 1) going to be very bored, and
2) very disappointed.
It's just NOT going to happen, and it would be really bad if it did.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Founded by geniuses, but run by idiots
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Founded by geniuses, but run by idiots
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Founded by geniuses, but run by idiots
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Upcoming 10am: House Judiciary: FBI Oversight
The witness for today's hearing will be the Honorable Robert S. Mueller, III, Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation. He has submitted written testimony.
Live video of the hearing is scheduled on C-SPAN 3, along with the usual webcast from the House Judiciary website. According to C-SPAN, Director Mueller is �expected to answer questions on the National Security Agency�s information-sharing program called �PRISM�.�
�
Upcoming in ten minutes or so. � (Unless the hearing starts late.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Upcoming 10am: House Judiciary: FBI Oversight
10:09 am EST: Live stream on C-SPAN 3. The FBI oversight hearing in the House Judiciary Committee has now come to order.
�
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Upcoming 10am: House Judiciary: FBI Oversight
Rep. Conyers: � collect � �?
Director Mueller agrees with Representative Conyer's understanding "within broad parameters."
Director Mueller was sworn in at the beginning of this hearing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Upcoming 10am: House Judiciary: FBI Oversight
Rep. Lofgren: � separation of powers � � speech and debate �
� members of Congress �
Dir. Mueller: I'm not certain �
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Upcoming 10am: House Judiciary: FBI Oversight
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Upcoming 10am: House Judiciary: FBI Oversight
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Upcoming 10am: House Judiciary: FBI Oversight
�FBI director: government reviewing Google request to disclose Fisa orders - live updates� by Tom McCarthy, The Guardian, June 13, 2013
Among other things discussed at the hearing today, The Guardian notes the questions about James Rosen of Fox News, who was identified as a co-conspirator in an espionage investigation.
Although The Guardian's live coverage does not note this, just before the conclusion of the hearing, Representative Labrador from Idaho also had questions about the James Rosen case. He was assisted in his questioning by Chairman Goodlatte.
While Director Mueller's answers were neither entirely satisfactory nor entirely clear, I was left with the impression that DoJ or FBI may have been interested in obtaining the cooperation of Mr Rosen in the leak investigation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Poor Peter King
Personally, I'd prefer his head would explode from the cognitive dissonance and we'd be rid of one of the worthless King boys in Congress. Unfortunately, his skull's probably too thick for that to happen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Slander or libel?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Slander or libel?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I bee he would be screaming about his rights if they were getting violated and he was working for less than 50k a year.
Seriously, fuck that guy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is what's referred to as "business as usual."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Impeach Peter King
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Angry
Must be a weekday.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]