Snowden Says Hillary Clinton’s BOGUS STATEMENTS Show a “Lack of Political Courage”

[Segami]

Hillary Clinton twice this week has insisted, contrary to the facts, that former NSA contractor Edward Snowden could have accomplished his goals and avoided punishment if he’d raised his concerns through the proper channels. Clinton first made that assertion at Tuesday night’s Democratic presidential debate, and again at a town hall meeting in New Hampshire on Friday.

“I firmly believe that he could have gone public and released the information about the collection of information on Americans under whistleblower protections, and he could have done it within the tradition in our country that shields people that come forth acting out of conscience to present information that they believe the public should have,” she said on Friday.

Snowden was asked about Clinton’s comments in an appearance, by videolink from Moscow, at a Bard College privacy symposium Friday afternoon. Snowden said her statement was “false” and he decried “a lack of political courage.”

“Truth should matter in politics, and courage should matter in politics,” he said.

During Tuesday’s debate, Clinton said Snowden “could have been a whistleblower. He could have gotten all of the protections of being a whistleblower. He could have raised all the issues that he has raised. And I think there would have been a positive response to that.” (She also innacurately claimed that the Snowden files had “fallen into a lot of the wrong hands.”) But media outlets and advocates quickly noted that Snowden was not in fact entitled to whistleblower protections, which do not apply to contractors. Snowden has also maintained that he did try going through established channels, to no avail. And the official response to his leaks strongly suggests that no one in his chain of command was interested in letting his concerns reach the public.

“Hilary Clinton is wrong and misinformed,” said Anna Myers, the executive director of the Government Accountability Project, in an e-mail to the Intercept. “No NSA whistleblower had been listened to in 13 years of trying. It is disingenuous for any informed current, or past, public official dealing with such matters to assert that whistleblowers in national security had a way to safely report their concerns about illegal and overreaching surveillance through official channels.”

Politifact rated Clinton’s claim as [b“mostly false”.]



cont'

https://theintercept.com/2015/10/16/snowden-says-hillary-clintons-bogus-statements-show-a-lack-of-political-courage/

[hrmjustin]

1. What did he think of Sanders reply?

[Segami]

3. "..Snowden said..

"....the fact that none of the candidates at the Democratic debate called him a traitor was a positive sign. “Many candidates wanted to prosecute me. But I would actually argue that [the debate was] an extraordinary leap forward in terms of recognition by the establishment that the actions of 2013 were not so harmful as originally claimed...”

[hrmjustin]

5. Well he made his choice so he has to live with it.

Thanks for the quick reply.

[rhett o rick]

6. He made a choice to fight the NSA/CIA Dark State while other are living in denial thinking that

the Dark State will keep them safe at the cost of their freedoms and liberties.

Clinton believes that we* need to sacrifice our freedoms and liberties for the promise of security. *of course we doesn't include her and her 1% friends.

[hrmjustin]

7. Yes he made a choice.

Whether it was right or wrong ti e will tell but there are consequences for his choices.

[rhett o rick]

10. Those that side with the billionaire oligarchs are the ones that think he did wrong.

He proved the Emperor has no clothes. Those living in denial, thinking the authoritarian NSA/CIA Dark State will protect them, see him as a challenge to their chosen authoritarian leaders. If you side with the wealthy because you think they like you, you are wrong.

50 million living in poverty and a Goldman-Sachs Admin won't do a thing.

[grasswire]

11. +++ nt

[hrmjustin]

13. You have a lovely night.

[treestar]

37. So I take it the oligarchs also control the NSA/CIA Dark State

[think]

44. Who did Snowden work for?

[rhett o rick]

47. Silly comment. I said nothing of the sort. But tell us what you think. So often here the defender

defenders of the status quo only have questions. Apparently afraid to commit themselves.

[treestar]

51. So they don't control it?

I thought the oligarchs controlled our country? Why would that not include the Dark CIA/NSA? You mean those functions can be used against the oligarchs? Then they are good! And Eddie should have left them to spy on the oligarchs and help Bernie bring them down!

[rhett o rick]

55. I find your tactic of trying to drive the discuss by continually asking questions kind of silly

really. But it seems to be a tactic used by those here that don't want to actually commit themselves to taking a stand. Take fracking for instance. Try to get those that support frack to actually commit, lol, no way.

I like Sen Sanders because he isn't wishy-washy like Clinton.

But I am glad to answer your insinuating questions. I don't see the NSA/CIA as separate entities. One wields the power and the other supplies the money to influence the government. I don't believe the NSA/CIA answer to the presidents that come and go. And obviously they don't answer to Congress.

I am disappointed in people calling themselves Democrats that despise whistle-blowers, honest journalists, and protesters.

[treestar]

60. Well being called to be on the side of the billionaire oligarchs

isn't something you just get away with. Are we supposed to agree with what eddie did because of that? Maybe we happen to agree with the oligarchs this time. It's not always black and white. The oligarchs might sometimes have an opinion that collides with mine. I know they are this entity all one and don't have differences among themselves ever, especially on an issue like this. It's such black and white thinking. We are forced to think the world of Eddie or we agree to all else the oligarchs want on other issues. It is putting us in a false bind.

[BeanMusical]

26. There were boxes in his garage!

BOXES!

[KoKo]

18. ...!

[Uncle Joe]

2. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, Segami.

[JRLeft]

4. He shouldn't serve one day in prison.

[RandySF]

8. I don't feel sorry for that criminal.

If HE had any courage, he would have turned himself in. And, BTW, how different was her comment from Bernie's?

[grasswire]

12. Bernie didn't lie about anything. nt

[Fairgo]

33. there's that...

then there is the presumption of mitigating circumstances...

[rhett o rick]

14. He is fighting for our freedoms and liberties. Some are more comfortable letting the NSA/CIA take

good care of them. Those that prefer an authoritarian run state don't like whistle-blowers, true journalists, or protesters. These are not Democrats.

[SusanCalvin]

28. In a perfect world,

Whistleblowers would have a shot at a fair hearing. It's pretty well documented what happens to whistleblowers in this administration.

[Skidmore]

40. Whistleblowers never go unpunished

regardless of the size or nature of the system they come from. That is a fact. Whether you are imprisoned, hounded out of your profession, or publicly humiliated, there is always a price to pay as whatever system involved seeks to preserve itself.

[uhnope]

9. Fabulists like Snowden and Greenwald can't point their lying fingers at anyone. nt

[rhett o rick]

15. They have a message that you don't like, so you want them punished. Maybe you prefer the comfort

of complete authoritarianism.

[uhnope]

24. WTF?

I "want them punished"? How did your mind produce that message from my post? Sounds like you're having a relapse.

I want "complete authoritarianism"? WTF? Better to self-delete your message before it gets alerted on. That kind personal attack and McCarthyism is not apprecited on DU.

[rhett o rick]

29. Wait, before we get tooo excited, just tell me that you don't want them punished. Maybe I did misun

misunderstand. If you really want to live under the control of the NSA/CIA it isn't an attack. If you don't, just give us some indication. Persecution of whistle-blowers isn't cool in my opinion. What about you?

[uhnope]

35. do you ever get the feeling

that someone is watching you? Reading all your emails? listening to your phone calls? filming you everywhere you go? Keeping record of it all somewhere, in a big starchamber, and they discuss what to do about you?

[rhett o rick]

48. Funny that you guys always ask questions but rarely give us your opinions.

Maybe afraid to commit.

I will be glad to share my opinions with you. Like Sen Sanders, I am not afraid to state where I stand on issues. Unlike HRC that likes to waffle or triangulate.

There is good reason to suspect that the NSA/CIA wield enormous powers without regard to the Constitution and with zero objective overview. It disturbs me greatly that we have both Republicons and Conservative Democrats that welcome that authoritarian leadership and the Constitution be damned. These Conservatives of both parties live in a denial bubble and want to severely punish those that dare speak out against the authoritarian leadership of the NSA/CIA. They don't like whistle-blowers, honest investigative journalists, protesters, and liberals. They apparently believe that it's worth it to give up their liberties and freedoms for the promise of security. Sadly they are willing to look the other way as millions and millions slide into poverty. They will vote to maintain the existing establishment and status quo. They pretend to be progressive when they believe the authoritarian's promises to fix some social injustices.

[uhnope]

53. "you guys"?

Is that a bit of bigotry coming out now?

You don't believe in answering absurd questions, why should I?

Here's let's try this again:

Even if all the bad things you think about the USA is true, don't you think that relatively speaking it's doing much better democracy- and freedom-wise than Russia (or China)? (I'm not saying that means we should be satisfied in the USA, I'm saying don't you think you're being fooled by reading stuff from Consortium News that is written for an actual dictatorship in the Kremlin to make the USA out to be a Star Chamber Dark Death Star State?)

One more thing I will try to be nice about: Beware paranoia. It's very bad for you. People let themselves go and they start to have serious mental problems.

I want to repeat that last part. Michel Chossudovsky of Global Research is so nuts he's some kind of Tsunami Truther who thinks the USA had an evil plot not to tell the fishermen about the 2004 tsunami in the Indian Ocean. http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO412C.html

It's very bad for your life to you let loons like that influence you. When I met people who have been taken in, it's sad. It's like people who watch only FOX News and listen to RWNJ talk shows and read The Blaze and Drudge for ten years--there's a certain point where their thinking is so altered that it can never come back--they can see reason, they can't think critically, they can't really think for themselves.

Take care.

[rhett o rick]

54. Sorry about the "you guys". We must of course be concerned about Russia, China, and the

Communists, but an equal danger is to be herded into believing those that would impart equally bad restrictions on our freedoms and liberties. "Being paranoid is very bad for you", is what you said and I say it right back at you. The paranoia about Communists helped bring the Nazi's to power. While I believe that paranoia can be dangerous, so can naivete.

The NSA/CIA have unlimited power that they promise to use for goodness and wonderfulness, but we must be skeptical. We need oversight to insure that our Constitutional rights are not abused. The information the NSA/CIA is collecting is extremely valuable for corporations and those that may have bad designs for us.

[uhnope]

56. simply not true

"The NSA/CIA have unlimited power" is simply not true. This belief is the result of taking in bad info, I suspect, or maybe even in believing that TV shows and movies give an accurate picture of reality. It's the problem of listening to globalresearch or consortiumnews or Alex Jones or other fake news sources. If I were you I'd be really angry that they had manipulated me into believing falsehoods, of being afraid when there was no rational reason to be.

There are clear and somewhat strong limits on both the NSA and CIA, especially domestically. I personally am not bothered by NSA metadata collection that is accessible by court order--and they recently limited that more, too: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/04/us/winning-surveillance-limits-obama-makes-program-own.html

[rhett o rick]

57. I can understand the need to believe that there is something keeping the NSA/CIA in check.

And I can see how upsetting it might be to some when the curtain is drawn back exposing the lie. But what a shame for people that think they are liberish Democrats, instead of determining if the claims are true, seek to kill the messenger.

I can understand those that wish to live in the denial bubble, but strongly resent it when they disparage others seeking the truth.

[uhnope]

58. lol. So the whole article I just linked to is what--a Starchamber production?

That's hilarious. Do you really think articles and authorities and officials detailing the new limits on the NSA, detailing what it can and cannot do, are some kind of conspiracy, that they are all working together to just to make us "believe that there is something keeping the NSA/CIA in check." And that the truth is to be found on Globalresearch, even after what I've shown you?

You rely on info coming from state-run media of a brutal, racist, homophobic dictatorship before you'd listen to the hundreds of sources that try to give the balanced view of what is going on, apparently.

I guess it's more exciting to think the world is like the X-files or a movie or whatever. But it's not reality-based.

Sad. I stopped trying to persuade my family members who have exposed themselves to FOX, Alex Jones, Coast to Coast and RW talk radio too long. I guess I'm going to have to give up on you, too.

Good luck.

[rhett o rick]

59. I have a couple of problems with the new "safeguards". Odd that the President got

them approved by a Congress that hates him. I really can't see Republicons restricting the NSA/CIA.

And the safeguards are wonderful if verifiable. This is a problem we've had. Those in Congress that are authorized to oversee, are not given access to everything they need, and the data they do get, can't be reported because of classification. Sen Wyden told us that he saw evidence that he didn't think was legal but had no way to deal with it.

And would any of this happen if it wasn't for Eric Snowden?

[treestar]

61. When everything is personal and black and white

I suppose this would seem logical.

We're all you and Eddie's enemies. Once people disagree on a thing, that's it. No dealing or compromising those people again, and certainly condemn them left and right. Maybe we can just have a war of all against all.

And of course Obama and the CIA are in cahoots against us to favor the oligarchs. What a bleak view of the world.

[rhett o rick]

62. We know some of the horrible history of the CIA. They seem to be an entity all on their own.

They need to be kept under control and I don't believe our government has been able to do that. I would love to believe that everything is wonderful in the world, but I refuse to drink the kool-aid.

[irisblue]

34. alert results

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

This poster is out of control, personally attacking a DUer for expressing an opinion. It so OTT and rude to accuse someone that they "prefer the comfort of complete authoritarianism" just between you agree with their opinion on something. This is a form of McCarthyism, accusations of disloyalty, "complete authoritarianism" because you disagree with their opinions. Totally inappropriate to DU discussion

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Oct 17, 2015, 03:03 AM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: This is a ridiculous alert in the context of this thread, or indeed any context.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Hide denied. You can't be serious with this alert?
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: This alert is out of control. Let us please get back to discussing things on this discussion board.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: silly alert. LEAVE
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Another lame alert to avoid discussion. I don't agree with the post, but I'm not so scared that I would hide it.



I was 5

[Segami]

46. +1

Lame Alert deserves a crush.......

[rhett o rick]

49. Thank you for posting. I was warned that they would alert if I didn't self delete.

Sadly trying to censor what I have to say.

[840high]

16. k/r for Snowden.

[kelliekat44]

17. "Snowden?????" surely you jest.

I won't even begin to make the comparison. Just this: Hillary is here in the US...Snowden is......

[Demeter]

20. Snowden is trapped in Russia by a government (his own) that pulled his passport

A government that forced down the official airplane of the president of Ecuador on suspicion of carrying Snowden (diplomatic immunity be damned! Civil rules be damned!) A government that tortured, imprisoned and and destroyed other whistleblowers and files criminal charges based on a law that was illegal on its face when it came out 100 years ago, but they dug it up for evil purposes anyway, as nothing more suitable was at hand...

A government that has shown lots of good reasons why it has earned the distrust and hatred of most of the other nations of the world...and loses allies with astonishing rapidity. Why, just today, all of the Eurozone, picked up and moved into Russia's column. And why? Because US foreign policy is unsupportable, and Europeans do not like freezing all winter long.

Russia has graciously granted asylum to our hero in exile. I trust that Bernie Sanders will be able to personally welcome Ed home under a complete pardon, before his second term of President.

I've no hope that any war criminals will be prosecuted, but it could happen.

[Segami]

21. Your Question mark key

is stuck.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

19. Courage? No. But, platitudes about "tradition in our country" is her forte.

[Overseas]

22. K&R.

[Keep-Left]

23. Who Cares what he says?

isnt he a criminal and hiding oversees?

[NotHardly]

25. Snowden ... his comments

I get it. He fled. He published. There are issues with what he has presented. I get that.

However, whatever good intent he may have had, right now, he's just another tool for Russia. Putin's puppet. Right after that, he's a no-account.

[jberryhill]

27. Earlier today, you were concerned that Hillary mishandled classified data

[treestar]

39. Irony alert. Yes the Eddie supporters should have no problem

With it all being out in the open. They considered it "authoritarian" that there is anything hidden at all.

[jberryhill]

41. I guess he's upset he couldn't get his hands on her email

[treestar]

42. Yes considering all she is hiding and the evil she is doing

and he is protecting our freedoms and all (from Russia :rofl he likely feels quite upset not to have exposed her nefarious doings.

The NSA knows her thoughts as she types anyway, so the fact she has not been arrested only proves her membership in the oligarchy.

[jberryhill]

43. Careful, or you might get stuck that way

[sabrina 1]

30. That statement made me puke. Ask Blake and Binney how going through the normal channels

as Whistle Blowers, worked for them.

Snowden is correct. He SAW what happened to those who did what Hillary claims he should have done.

So glad he was smart enough to do what was needed to inform the Public of what their government was up to.

Blake and Binney btw, SUPPORT Snowden, even though they chose the path Hillary advocates.

[randome]

38. Funny he never mentioned going through channels until months after he ran.

Funny he never referenced Blake and Binney. Of if he did and I missed it, it was again months after the fact.

None of these things mattered to him until he saw there was some benefit to himself to bringing them up. And he was wrong on that front, too.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[Todays_Illusion]

31. I am one of those people who consider Snowden to be a tool, not a hero. A tool of some

Last edited Sat Oct 17, 2015, 12:18 AM - Edit history (1)

who cognizant thinking people recognizes as intent on the destruction of the U.S.A.

Here is a clue if you can get it.

http://www.conciergeguide.com/group-planner/venues/search-by-group-size/643-koch-seminar-building-booz-allen-hamilton-room

[Evergreen Emerald]

32. I am not sure the guy who ran to Putin

Should talk about courage.

[treestar]

36. I agree with Hillary on this

and do not give a damn about Eddie's self serving statements.

[Babel_17]

45. Even without Snowden calling attention to this

Even without Snowden calling attention to this, people who's concern is NSA abuses noted Secretary Clinton's remarks.

Her positions have pushed a large segment of the IT crowd, and other nerds, who are concerned about government overreach, even further away from supporting her. This will have implications down the road, imo.

[Bread and Circus]

50. Hillary Clinton disingenuous? Blasphemy!!

[Vattel]

52. She was lying. She should be called out on that in the next debate.

It's one thing to oppose what Snowden did, it's another thing to lie about him for political reasons.