Wait, some of you think Greenwald admitted stolen docs to a NYT reporter and then denied it?

[Bonobo]

Why the hell would he do that? It makes no sense so it must be thrown out.

Why would someone admit a crime to a reporter KNOWING it will be reported on and then subsequently deny ever having said it on Twitter?

Answer: It is a ridiculous claim.

The original NYT story never said he told anyone that and then the "refurbished" version said he did say it. I call bullshit. Why? because it doesn't pass the smell test.

If you believe Greenwald told the truth via a 2nd hand source, why wouldn't you believe his tweet that it wasn't true?

Either way, you are accepting Greenwald at his word, just being choosy about the thing you WANT to believe and ignoring the fact that one is a first-hand statement and the other is 2nd hand -otherwise known as hearsay.

[grasswire]

1. where is the refurbished version? nt

[RobertEarl]

2. They are using the NYT?

Heh. Wasn't the NYT the rag that hid much of Bush spying until after the election? And fell in lockstep with the Iraqi invasion?

Really? They trust the NYT to tell the truth?

[Recursion]

3. Sadly somewhere in the past 30 years people stopped learning to read source attributions

I'm dead certain I learned that in junior high English, but I doubt they teach it anymore. Probably NCLB's fault...

[joshcryer]

8. There are attributions and then there are credible sources.

I don't see why Savage, who I find credible on a wide variety of issues, would insert that in there unless he believed it.

[Recursion]

9. There are several possibilities

1. Savage intended the attributions from the neighboring sentences to carry over to that one. Possible, but he's usually more careful than that.

2. Greenwald told him that, but refused attribution (possibly after Savage had done the majority of his reporting)

3. Savage has a different source he isn't naming

[joshcryer]

11. I think it was an implied thing.

"I'm not saying that the Snowden files were on the encrypted flash drives."

"Ahh, yeah, I gotcha."

GG gets to deny he didn't say that.

Savage gets to say there were Snowden files.

Neither is lying.

In fact, when GG said "NYT got that wrong, I never said that there were Snowden files," he's being cheeky, because Savage never said that GG said that.

[grasswire]

4. the original NYT story had the weasel words...

.....where the sentence below was not attributed to Greenwald but made up by the reporter.

All of the documents came from the trove of materials provided to the two journalists by Mr. Snowden.

No attribution. No quote.


Are you saying that the NYT has published a new version?

[joshcryer]

7. Please. Savage doesn't make shit up.

And Greenwald has not called for a retraction as he has in other cases. Probably because both Savage and Greenwald are both right about the details.

[Marr]

5. They've chosen to promote a bit sleazy editorializing in the original NYT piece...

... in which the reporter conveyed a series of statements by Greenwald, with one of their own additions stuck in the middle.

If you read it with a critical eye, it was pretty obvious-- but if you want to believe the bullshit, well... it would be very easy to.

[joshcryer]

6. Why would Savage lie?

I think Savage felt it was implied in a candid conversation with GG, and put it in there. I think both GG and Savage are being truthful in this instance. GG didn't say it, as he denied he didn't say it. Savage didn't say he said it, either, but Savage certainly felt it was implied, or otherwise he wouldn't have included that in the article.

Note: importantly, GG said that he never said that. Savage never said he did!

[sweetloukillbot]

12. Savage was confident enough in his reporting to include it

And his editors were confident enough (or verified it independently) to not take it out.

[Egnever]

10. Maybe cause he is a liar

and has been proven to be so time and time again, or maybe just maybe his agenda has nothing to do with spying and everything to do with tearing down democrats?

And no I am not accepting GG at his word I am noticing the discrepancies in his statements.