Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI) has been very unhappy about the leaks by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden from the very beginning. Now the head of the powerful House Intelligence Committee has become one of several personalities at the heart of the NSA leak scandal to lash out at one of the journalists publishing stories about the documents.

“For personal gain, he’s now selling his access to information, that’s how they’re terming it," Rogers told Politico after a hearing in his committee earlier today. "A thief selling stolen material is a thief."

Rogers was apparently referring to Guardian reporter Glenn Greenwald, although he didn't name him. Rogers said he got the information that Greenwald was charging for stories from "other nations' press services."

Speaking on Twitter, Greenwald dismissed Rogers' claim as an attempt to instill fear among journalists who cover national security. "The main value in bandying about theories of prosecuting journalists is the hope that it will bolster the climate of fear for journalism," he wrote.

Greenwald has described his arrangements with other media that have published NSA-related stories as standard freelancing agreements in which he's paid for his journalistic help with the stories. Speaking to Politico after the hearing, Greenwald specifically denied ever selling documents.

Contacted by Ars, a spokesperson for Rogers declined to provide any evidence or make any on-the-record statement about selling documents.

During the hearing, Rogers pressed FBI Director James Comey to say Greenwald's behavior was criminal. But Comey didn't quite take the bait.

“To the best of your knowledge, fencing stolen material—is that a crime?” Rogers asked Comey.

“It would be,” Comey said. He added that it would be “complicated” in a situation if the person in question was involved in newsgathering, because of "First Amendment implications."

Comey continued: "If you’re a newspaper reporter, and you’re hawking stolen jewelry, it’s still a crime," but a journalist selling access to information would be a "harder question."