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?
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.