King had warned, "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."
UPDATE #1 Greenwald just tweeted, "Just watched the King video; everything he said is based on the blatant lie that I threatened to disclose names of CIA covert agents." He also tells Greg Sargent that King's attacks will make him even more bold and determined in his own work on this issue.
Greenwald also tweeted this afternoon, "Sen John Tester makes clear: Edward Snowden's disclosures did not harm national security - hails them as 'helpful.'"
UPDATE #2 The Guardian issues a statement:
We are surprised and disappointed by comments from Rep. Peter King R(NY), chairman of the House Subcommittee on Counterterrorism, saying "legal action should be taken" against Guardian journalist Glenn Greenwald for his reporting on NSA surveillance.UPDATE #3 Greenwald on Chris Hayes' MSNBC show just now on the phone from...somewhere.
This is especially troubling in light of comments from Eric Holder, US Attorney General who stated: "As long as I am attorney general, we will not prosecute any reporter for doing his or her job." Holder went on to say he was “troubled by the possibility that leak investigations may chill the investigative journalism that holds government accountable."
Claims few take King seriously and most Americans find "repulsive" threats on journalists trying to bring truths out of the "dark." But he doesn't "dismiss it lightly" because after all he is a "sitting member of Congress." He calls a King "lie" that he had names of covert CIA agents and had threatened to disclose them-- not like "Scooter Libby," he joked.
After Snowden interview today, what is the leaker's game plan? When he talked to Snowden when first met it was clear he had "rationally" weighed the threats and his self-interest and still went ahead. "I have not specifically talked to him about what his plans are" but he's clearly aware of dangers.
What about criticism of his reporting on claiming "direct access" by NSA to the big tech companies such as Google? Says the Wash Post "walked back" part of their PRISM story but says his paper reported that part differently. Still don't know what shared and how, and how much--lot of "discrepancies" and need transparency on this angle.