by accusing those who bring it, of endangering national security. there's been nothing revealed that has been remotely endangering of national security. the only thing people have learned anything is the american people who have learned the spying apparatus is directed at them. but it isn't edward snowden making the decisions about what is published. he didn't upload the documents to the internet or pass them to adversary governments which is what he could have done, had his motive to harm the united states. he came to two newspapers, "the guardian" and "washington post" and said, i want you to be extremely careful about what it is that you publish and what it is that you don't publish. only publish what americans should know, but don't harm national security. we have withheld the majority of things that he gave us, pursuant

pretty strict about the fourth amendment. they've let it err on the sense of national security. it's the congress, actually, who can rein it in, but it's the congress that's allowed it to be much broader and allow collection to happen. my biggest point is not everybody in the congress is given access to what is really happening. and so when our american public says, hey, we don't know about this, and why are you doing this, maybe we can't tell everybody in our nation, but you would think 435 members of the

of the revelations that he enabled that we reported is that the director of national intelligence, james clapper, went before the u.s. congress and lied outright when asked if the nsa is collecting data on millions americans. director clapper's response was, no, sir. as "the new york times" said today, even clapper had to say that that statement was absolutely false. the very first conversation i had with mr. snowden, he showed me the folder in which he had placed the documents and labeled it nsa lying to congress, that

you have been in contact with him. is there additional information he is prepared to leak to bolster his and your claim that he is actually a whistleblower, and not a criminal, responsible for espionage? >> sure. i think the key definition of whistleblower is somebody who brings to light what political officials do in the dark, that is either deceitful or illegal. in this case, there's a "new york times" article just this morning that describes that one of the revelations that he enabled that we reported is that

david, but i know that the documents that i have in my possession, and that i have read from the nsa, tell a much different story. which is that there was an 80-page opinion from the fisa court, in spying on american citizens, is a violation of both the fourth amendment and bounds of the statute. it specifically said that they are collecting bulk transmissions, multiple conversations from millions of americans, not just people that are believed to be involved in terrorist organizations, or w k

glenn greenwald referenced it about whether he should or will face charges. i want to acknowledge there is a debate on twitter that goes on online about this, even as we're speaking. here's what greenwald has treated after this morning. who needs the government to try to criminalize journalism when you have david gregory to do it. he claims to be a journalist, raising questions, which is not actually embracing any particular point of view. that's part of the tactics of the debate when lawmakers have questioned him, there's a question about his role in this, the guardian's role in all of this. it is actually part of the debate rather than going after the questioner. he could take on the issues and he had an opportunity to do that here on "meet the press." what is journalism, mike murphy,

terrorist organizations, or w k working for a foreign agent. they tried to plan to accommodate that ruling. i think the real issue is, why should we have to guess? how can we have a democracy in which a secret court rules that what the government is doing in spying on us is a violation of the constitution and the law and yet we sit here and don't know what that ruling is, because it's all been concealed and secret? i think we need to have transparency and disclosure. that's why mr. snowden stepped forward so we could have that. >> there are reports he is

helpful to national security. >> right. this is what u.s. government -- the claim that you just referenced has been saying for decades. they said the same thing to daniel elseberg and whoever leaked the bush nsa eavesdropping program to "the new york times" in 2005, or told dana priest about the black sites. this is how the government always tries to protect themselves from transparency is by accusing those who bring it, of endangering national

you do not dispute edward snowden has broken the law, do you? >> no, i think he's very clear about the fact that he did it because his conscience compelled him to do so, just like daniel elseberg did 50 years ago, and admits that he broke the law. the question, though, is how can he be charged with espionage? he didn't work for a foreign government. he could have sold this information for millions of dollars and enrich himself. he did not do that either.

>> they should use every legal avenue we have to bring him back to the united states. and listen, if he believes that he's doing something good -- by the way, he went outside all of the whistleblower avenues available to anyone in this government, including people who have classified information. we get two or three visits from whistleblowers every single week in the committee. and we investigate every one thoroughly. he didn't choose that route. if he really believes he did something good, he should come back and face the consequences of his actions. >> do you think he's gone?

but i'd like you to hang around. i want to get pete williams in here as well. to the extent that you have aided and abetted snowden, even in his current movements, why shouldn't you be charged with a crime? >> i think it's pretty extraordinary that anybody who would call themselves a journalist would publicly muse about whether or not other journalists should be charged with felonies. the assumption in your question, david, is completely without evidence. the idea that i've aided and abetted him in any way. the scandal that arose in washington before our stories began is about the fact that the obama administration is trying to criminalize journalism by going through the phone records of a.p. reporters, and co-conspirators in felonies in working with sources, that means every journalist in the united states who works with their sources, receives classified information is a criminal. it's precisely those theories

that you may think is abuse. this is a partisan who is single-handedly deciding to expose programs that there is both support for, and in doing so, illegally. this is more of an agenda, and frankly, there's a lot of concern that one person would take it upon himself to undermine a program that a lot of people believe is actually helpful to national security. >> right.

he has jeopardized our national security. i disagree with the reporter. clearly, the bad guys have already changed their way. remember, these were counterterrorism programs essentially, and we have seen that bad guys overseas, terrorists who are committing and plotting attacks on the united states and our allies have changed the way they operate. we've already seen that. to say that that is not harmful to the national security of the united states, or our safety, is just dead wrong. >> glenn greenwald mentioned he