<http://schema.org/articleBody>
" Shit&amp;#039;s getting real. &amp;quot;For personal gain, he&amp;#039;s now selling his access to information, that&amp;#039;s how they&amp;#039;re terming it.... A thief selling stolen material is a thief,&amp;quot; House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) told journalists after a hearing where the leaks set in motion by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden. were a major topic of discussion. I&amp;#039;ve had my eye on Rogers for a while now. A former Feeb, he&amp;#039;s got that fk-Miranda air to him, as though he lives in a permanent interrogation room of the mind. He&amp;#039;s a true believer in the Church Of Intelligence, and his faith in the church is whole, whereas his faith in the Constitution seems, well, &amp;quot;malleable&amp;quot; is the nice word for it. He likes to be on the teevee a lot, too, being Tough and Sensible in a world where we have Real Enemies, and only people like Mike Rogers and our all-too-human, but curiously error-prone, heroes in the secret cubicles stand between us and the perils presented by those Real Enemies and the personal freedoms that are their willing accomplices. During the hearing on global threats to U.S. interests, Rogers raised the issue repeatedly, referring to &amp;quot;discussions of selling access to this material to both newspaper outlets and other places.&amp;quot; &amp;quot;To the best of your knowledge, fencing stolen material - is that a crime?&amp;quot; he asked FBI Director James Comey. &amp;quot;It would be,&amp;quot; in most cases, Comey said. However, he quickly added that it would be &amp;quot;complicated&amp;quot; in a situation where the person selling that information was engaged in a newsgathering activity because of &amp;quot;First Amendment implications.&amp;quot; &amp;quot;If I&amp;#039;m a newspaper reporter for fill-in-the-blank and I sell stolen material, is that legal because I&amp;#039;m a newspaper reporter?&amp;quot; asked Rogers, who did not mention Greenwald by name during the hearing but made the reference to him clear later in response to reporters&amp;#039; questions. If Rogers is arguing that Glenn Greenwald is &amp;quot;fencing stolen material&amp;quot; by providing them to a newspaper and, thereafter, drawing a salary, then we&amp;#039;ve moved into a surreal world of First Amendment law. Does he propose to prosecute the editors of the Guardian for receiving stolen goods? Is he going to round up the folks in the accounts receivable department at the Guardian as accessoriesfor cutting Greenwald&amp;#039;s paycheck? How about the people who deposit money directly into Greenwald&amp;#039;s account? Are they guilty of facilitation? This is dangerous stupidity. By the way, if he&amp;#039;s got evidence that Greenwald is selling these documents to anyone else, Rogers should show us what it is, or he should shut up. In testimony Tuesday, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper fueled the notion that journalists or others could face prosecution for working with Snowden. He did so by also referring to those individuals as &amp;quot;accomplices.&amp;quot; &amp;quot;Snowden claims that he&amp;#039;s won and that his mission is accomplished. If that is so, I call on him and his accomplices to facilitate the return of the remaining stolen documents that have not yet been exposed to prevent even more damage to U.S. security,&amp;quot; Clapper said, repeating comments he made last week at a parallel Senate hearing. Yeah, I&amp;#039;m going to take advice from a guy who doesn&amp;#039;t feel compelled to tell the truth to Congress. That used to be an actual crime. "^^<http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string>
<http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a27228/the-snowden-effect-gets-real/>