Aiding and abetting a criminal is itself a crime, following that reasoning leads to a criminal interview, regardless of whether you think the original crime should be considered criminal.

>Aiding and abetting a criminal is itself a crime...

Bold move there, Cotton, got anything to back this claim up? As far as anyone's aware, these are just reporters who were reporting on the story.

Bold move there cotton? I've heard the phrase before, but could you explain what it means in this context?

I didn't say anyone was a criminal or what is a crime, what I am saying is that if you follow this particular train of thought:

1) You consider the action of Person A to be a crime. Note: The situation at hand at the border is so controversial, that many people DO consider it a crime, and many people consider their act as a RIGHT. I'll let you decide whether it is a crime or a right. But lets say you consider it a crime for the sake of this thought exercise. 2) You consider that the actions of Person B has aided Person A in the act in ANY way. 3) You reason from this that Person B has taken a partial role in the criminal act in 1) based on the legal doctrine that is Aiding and Abetting, which means: "aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures"

So can we agree that a person who believes it is a crime, and believes that journalists HELP the ones performing the acts, that that someone would also reason that those journalists are committing a crime?