Mike Rogers Tries To Make The Case That Glenn Greenwald Should Be Prosecuted For 'Selling Stolen Material'
from the is-he-insane? dept
Rep. Mike Rogers apparently just can't help but spin wild and ridiculous conspiracy theories. Fresh off his latest attempt to argue that Ed Snowden is a Russian spy -- an argument debunked by just about everyone, including his Senatorial counterpart Dianne Feinstein -- it appears he's now decided to pick up the ridiculously insane thread kicked off (purposefully) last week by Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, hinting that journalists who reported on Ed Snowden are somehow "accomplices" who can be prosecuted.During a House Intelligence Committee in which many members (from both parties) angrily criticized the intelligence community, Rogers continued to do everything possible to defend them, including pushing the bogus argument that Glenn Greenwald "sold stolen goods" in questions to FBI director James Comey:
Glenn Greenwald is not named, but that's clearly who they are targeting. A few folks have brought up the ridiculous charges of him "selling" the Snowden leaks to news organizations, but that's clearly bullshit. Greenwald has been doing freelance journalism work for a while. Publications pay him in the same way they pay any freelancer. He's not selling any documents at all -- and in fact has shared many of the documents with multiple publications for their own reporting activities.REP. ROGERS: You -- there have been discussions about selling of access to this material to both newspaper outlets and other places. Mr. Comey, to the best of your knowledge, is fencing stolen material -- is that a crime?
DIRECTOR JAMES COMEY: Yes, it is.
REP. ROGERS: And would be selling the access of classified material that is stolen from the United States government -- would that be a crime?
DIR. COMEY: It would be. It’s an issue that can be complicated if it involves a news-gathering and news promulgation function, but in general, fencing or selling stolen property is a crime.
REP. ROGERS: So if I’m a newspaper reporter for -- fill in the blank -- and I sell stolen material, is that legal because I’m a newspaper reporter?
DIR. COMEY: Right, if you’re a newspaper report and you’re hocking stolen jewelry, it’s still a crime.
REP. ROGERS: And if I’m hocking stolen classified material that I’m not legally in possession of for personal gain and profit, is that not a crime?
DIR. COMEY: I think that’s a harder question because it involves a news-gathering functions -- could have First Amendment implications. It’s something that probably would be better answered by the Department of Justice.
REP. ROGERS: So entering into a commercial enterprise to sell stolen material is acceptable to a legitimate news organization?
DIR. COMEY: I’m not sure I’m able to answer that question in the abstract.
REP. ROGERS: It’s something we ought to think about, is it not?
DIR. COMEY: Certainly.
REP. ROGERS: And so if there are accomplices in purveying stolen information, shouldn’t we be concerned about that?
DIR. COMEY: We should be concerned about all the facts surrounding the theft of classified information and its promulgation.
REP. ROGERS: Hmm. And interesting that over the -- again, the Munich Conference, where we had individuals tell us that in fact there are individuals who are saying to be in possession of this information who are eager to sell this information to other news organizations, would that be a legitimate exercise on behalf of a reporter?
DIR. COMEY: That’s a question -- now you’re getting from the general to the particular. I don’t want to talk about the case in particular because it’s an active investigation of ours.
REP. ROGERS: It’s an active investigation for accomplices brokering in stolen information?
DIR. COMEY: We are looking at the totality of the circumstances around the theft and promulgation.
It's pretty clear that Rogers is continuing his desperate, despicable and downright McCarthy-like arguments in an attempt to create chilling effects and to protect his friends in the intelligence community. You'd think that someone who is supposed to uphold the Constitution would respect the freedom of the press, but Rogers seems to be actively trying to stifle it -- just like his staff did to me last year, when they lied about me and told reporters that they could sue me for defamation.
Rogers has shown time and time again that he's little more than a lumbering bully who will do pretty much anything to protect his friends in the intelligence community, even if that means trampling all over the Constitution. Rogers can push these claims as much as he wants. I think it's unlikely that the DOJ would go anywhere near charging a reporter with "selling stolen goods" in a case like this, because they know that argument would almost certainly fail. That means the only reason Rogers is doing this is to try to scare off people with bluster and threats. Thankfully, most of the people that's targeted at actually understand the law and the Constitution, and take such threats as clear suggestions that they're on the right track. It all makes you wonder, just what does Mike Rogers want to keep hidden so badly?
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: congress, ed snowden, glenn greenwald, house intelligence committee, james clapper, james comey, journalism, mike rogers, nsa, selling stolen goods
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Not tangible property
Information can be revealed, copied, etc, but not stolen...
Now, if these "documents" where physical artifacts, and the originals had been removed - they could per-chance claim that the paper documents were stolen, and therefore must be returned - but that still wouldn't prevent someone from copying them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Huh
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I have a big hate for this clown.So also should the whole lot of you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
there's definitely something and sooner or later, it will come out! the interesting thing then will be how he tries to protect himself and whether 'his friends' are as keen on protecting him?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Whatever it is, the NSA is probably aware of it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
It's as if Swift had just published his "Modest Proposal" and Rogers jumped up and yelled at the top of his lungs, "WHERE'S MY COOKBOOK?!"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
It's almost as if he is in fealty to his masters
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Robin Hood to the rescue
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Those groups are butt hurt their precious has been exposed. Here they've been successful in circumventing the Constitution and it's intent. Suddenly Snowden has shown the public just how bad it is. Now anything that works to shut him up would be supported.
Character assassination, forcing presidential planes down despite diplomatic immunity, violating international law and treaties, even assassination of Snowden appears to be acceptable.
What I don't see and don't hear is anyone acknowledging that these various government branches have exceeded their mandate and authority. In fact there is a stone wall there of refusal to recognize it and that speaks more volumes to me than any amount of bad mouthing someone else to cover it up.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
"little more than a lumbering bully" who provides Mike with filler.
Masnicking: daily spurts of short and trivial traffic-generating items. (55 of 195)
Hey kids: if you don't want to be seen as censoring opinion, it's real simple: don't click "report" when comments are within common law! (98 of 195)
08:00:44[j-1-8]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Comey comes off OK here
Rogers tries to get Comey to agree with him, but Comey first says, "hey, first amendment but sure, so I don't call a member of congress an asshole, to be 100% technical: your question, most narrowly construed, is true." Then he won't agree with Rogers even though the ball is served up for him to hit. Finally he says, "look, we're looking into the whole situation" instead of "yes we're doing the criminal investigation you want us to."
I think the whole program should be disbanded, but at least here's one guy from the NSA who does not come off as an ass, at least in this case.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: "little more than a lumbering bully" who provides Mike with filler.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Comey comes off OK here
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Comey comes off OK here
Also what is disturbing in Comey's response is that he seems to promote the belief that there are some special first amendment rights that are granted just to professional journalists over all other citizens. This is a dangerous mangling of the language of the first amendment especially with regards to free speech on the Internet. As I said above, and have said many times before, freedom of the press (with a little "p" not a capital one) is about the right to disseminate information to the public and is a right granted to ALL CITIZENS not just professional journalists and news organizations.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
information crimes
I certainly would.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mister Rogers
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Comey comes off OK here
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Neighborhood
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Roger's found a backdoor way to outlaw all journalism
Reporting on some celebrities affair discovered by someone trespassing on their property? All the money you make from ads, selling papers, etc, are now illegal gains from YOUR trespassing. By profiting from it you're guilty of trespassing according to Mike Rogers.
Sure we still have freedom of the press, we just throw our journalists in jail for profiting off of their journalism, and don't give them a means of supporting themselves financially, that's all.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Not tangible property
That government will use anything related to property rights as a camouflage for their trouble defining the punishment for breaking their "duty of confidentiality" is the troubling part. Stealing is just a decoy, the crime they want punished is breaking the only partially overt code of conduct. For that, no civil crime is equitable.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Heh, heh. These censoring kids are now censoring complaints of censoring!
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
identicon
out_of_the_blue, Feb 4th, 2014 @ 12:01pm
"little more than a lumbering bully" who provides Mike with filler.
By the way, you kids are censoring me again! And there's even one of my clones out, apparently the "lines" moron who still hasn't figured out the horizontal rule.
Masnicking: daily spurts of short and trivial traffic-generating items. (55 of 195)
Hey kids: if you don't want to be seen as censoring opinion, it's real simple: don't click "report" when comments are within common law! (98 of 195)
08:00:44[j-1-8]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Rogers: Poster Child
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Heh, heh. These censoring kids are now censoring complaints of censoring!
How is this censoring?
I always click to show. Then I read for a laugh (I liek your gimmick).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Mike Rogers: Poster Child
[ link to this | view in thread ]
It's not property, and hence, cannot be stolen.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Not tangible property
Another way of thinking of it is the difference between a literal and figurative definition. Mike Rogers might figuratively be a 'scumbag', but unfortunately he can't be declared a public health hazard like a literal bag of scum could be.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: information crimes
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Not tangible property
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Not tangible property
I would never make that mistake. Fortunately, I have had no communication with Rep. Mike 'Typhoid-Mary-of-Bad-Ideas' Rogers. I give the AC I replied to more credit, though.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Comey comes off OK here
I agree with your comment but note that government is always the laggard, not the vanguard, and the tide does seem to be moving in the right direction on this one.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Comey comes off OK here
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
So when newspapers are going to publish something the government doesn't like, they can CLAMP down on it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Read it, fuckwit.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
And he is on the intelligence committee? Shows where the house priorities lie.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Heh, heh. These censoring kids are now censoring complaints of censoring!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
re
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Heh, heh. These censoring kids are now censoring complaints of censoring!
Add to that the assumption that "right to speak" = "right to be heard" and you'll soon discover that her sense of entitlement is through the roof.
Please stop replying to her.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Let's not get distracted
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rogers, King, Feinstein, Pelosi, Holder, Obama and all their supporters
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
tl;dr Dick Cheney never did any physics classes and is dumb as a brick and killed his own nation more than it's competitors and foes could have.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Robin Hood to the rescue
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Rogers, King, Feinstein, Pelosi, Holder, Obama and all their supporters
Even if I believed such. I don't think murder should be an actual option in a civilized nation, yes, even when tossing out the corrupt. Do not be irresponsible and cause this great site unwarranted scrutiny.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The problem with Rogers
That's right-from the Wikipedia article about him:
"He worked as a Special Agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation in its Chicago office, specializing in organized crime and public corruption, 1989–1994. He is a member of the Society of Former Special Agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation."
That means he thinks like a Fed, which means we, the people of this country are all suspects until proven otherwise.
He does not condone going against the rules. He will support all government activities as long as he can do so.
It's called "Believing in the Mission" and it's endemic amongst cops, military and Feds. Anyone who dares to question the "Mission" is a traitor and should be tried as one.
That especially goes for those horrible people called 'journalists' who dare question authority.
Anyone who is on the outside of the Mission does not have the right to question or investigate it, thank you very much.
So he's just protecting his own turf, according to his mindset and beliefs.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]