Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly. There were a lot of people from the government that came out in the past few months and said there are checks and balances and a lot of oversight in these processes. That clearly isn't true. It will be interesting to go back through all of those statements with this new information/evidence on hand. Greenwald has timed this well. He put out enough information early on to give Snowden opponents enough rope wi…
>Greenwald has timed this well. He put out enough information early on to give Snowden opponents enough rope with which to hang themselves. I have to wonder if the staggered deployment of the leak has anything to do with savvy, or more with his own need to digest what he's got as he works through it and reports as he goes. Either way, the story has more legs than past revelations, so I'm happy for that, and I certain…
Q: Thanks for reporting this. I have to ask though, why is it that you are doling out this information now after the recent congressional inquiry into NSA spying and not earlier?
A: We've published almost two dozen exclusive articles about NSA spying in the last 7 weeks, in multiple different countries around the world. Is that pace not fast enough?
There are thousands upon thousands of documents and they take time to read, process, vet, and report. These are very complex matters. On top of everything else that has to be done with these articles, from explaining, debating and defending them in the media to dealing with the aftermath.
People can accuse us of many things. Not publishing enough or fast enough is hardly one of them.
That House vote was about one specific topic - bulk collection of phone records - that this newest article has nothing to do with. That House vote isn't the be all and end all: it's just one small battle in what I can assure you will be a sustained and ongoing discussion/controversy.
There is a lot more to report still. Accuracy is the number one priority. That takes time.