General Discussion

merrily

(45,251 posts)

362. The court that is trying this case.

Sun Mar 9, 2014, 06:06 AM

Mar 2014

Don't mind me, though. I've haven't even been able to figure how why you so certain that the testimony was not submitted under oath.

I know the document at the link doesn't specify it was, but nothing says that the material at the link looks exactly like the physical papers that he submitted to the Parliament or that some law doesn't provide that all written material submitted is under oath, or whatever.

Don't know why any official body would even bother reading a statement by Snowden that was not subject to penalties of perjury, especially since he is an admitted lawbreaker.

In any event, maybe the statement is subject to penalties of perjury and maybe it isn't. I disagree that what we see at the link proves it wasn't. If it was, it's evidence. If it wasn't it could probably be submitted, though not by Snowden, in court as admission against interest, given he is confessing to a creime, and a serious one at that.

Then again, you're the lawyer.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

469 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Snowden: I Raised NSA Concerns Internally Over 10 Times Before Going Rogue - WaPo [View all] WillyT Mar 2014 OP

Why didn't he say this in the beginning? fried eggs Mar 2014 #1

Seems an important point BainsBane Mar 2014 #3

This has been said repeatedly. That private security contractors have no whistleblower avenues riderinthestorm Mar 2014 #10

Actually SCOTUS ruled this week they do have whistleblower protection BainsBane Mar 2014 #12

Ruled this week. Not applicable to Snowden at the time however nt riderinthestorm Mar 2014 #14

Unfortunately, whistleblowers still get smeared and have their lives ruined. cui bono Mar 2014 #110

Not Ellsberg. merrily Mar 2014 #146

And Ellsberg says that Snowden made the right call. His words: cui bono Mar 2014 #156

Yep. Because the 2010s are very, very different from the 1970s. merrily Mar 2014 #157

Not for lack of trying. backscatter712 Mar 2014 #172

Yes, but the case did get dismissed. merrily Mar 2014 #178

And if that is the best outcome Aerows Mar 2014 #181

You are singing to the choir, but please don't stop. merrily Mar 2014 #182

You likely couldn't keep me from it! Aerows Mar 2014 #188

That's fair. backscatter712 Mar 2014 #204

Taht is simply untrue--the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act of 1998 msanthrope Mar 2014 #17

Whistleblowers do not fair well even if they have supposed protection. cui bono Mar 2014 #111

Funny how Rex Mar 2014 #439

For me, the article is not specific enough. merrily Mar 2014 #158

Yes. He did the honorable thing. cui bono Mar 2014 #335

I agree. merrily Mar 2014 #361

I'll ask you again Aerows Mar 2014 #191

The issue is deprivation of Constitutional rights, but merrily Mar 2014 #202

Disclosing the identity of who you complained to to federal prosecutors, or the judge assigned to msanthrope Mar 2014 #250

Message auto-removed Name removed Mar 2014 #210

Did you read the excerpt you posted? udqamlqc Mar 2014 #237

Welcome To DU udqamlqc !!! WillyT Mar 2014 #243

Indeed...he had the Act available to him, chose not to conduct himself under it, and now, msanthrope Mar 2014 #249

Why would he follow an act which would not have protected him? JJChambers Mar 2014 #281

But it would have protected him--all he needed was an "urgent concern" of what *he* believed was msanthrope Mar 2014 #283

Again, other people say leaving the US was his best hope. merrily Mar 2014 #410

Apparently YOU didn't read it. All Snowden needed to do was to go to his hero Rand Paul, who has MADem Mar 2014 #302

Too bad the law protecting the PEOPLE rather than CORPORATIONS, was tampered with sabrina 1 Mar 2014 #293

LMFAO ...sure they will be protected by some ignored Act. L0oniX Mar 2014 #318

He didn't have to go to a lawyer--he could have gone to the OIG, or any member of certain msanthrope Mar 2014 #321

Would we know if Snowden had consulted with a lawyer? merrily Mar 2014 #364

Not only private contractors. Other whistleblowers merrily Mar 2014 #142

good citizen father founding Mar 2014 #297

This has been pointed out. Repeatedly. That you didn't know this riderinthestorm Mar 2014 #5

Is it authoritarian to note that Mr. Snowden hasn't provided documentation of this claim? nt msanthrope Mar 2014 #8

Does he have to? Wouldn't that "ruin" another NSA person's career as he's already been accused of? riderinthestorm Mar 2014 #16

Well, yes. FYI--Snowden was protected under the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act msanthrope Mar 2014 #20

Your post has an interesting legal opinion: ddddemarco Mar 2014 #101

Thank you - my sentiments also. erronis Mar 2014 #141

Of course....had he used the Act, he would have been shielded. But he didn't use the Act, did he? msanthrope Mar 2014 #165

I disagree that he would have been shielded. cui bono Mar 2014 #177

Oh--I think had he followed the proper channels and gone to Sanders or Warren, he would have been msanthrope Mar 2014 #259

Do you have proof of that? cui bono Mar 2014 #322

The problem with your hypo is that the law that would have shielded Snowden was not in existence msanthrope Mar 2014 #325

So he should have stayed because of your faith in the system? cui bono Mar 2014 #330

He should have stayed because of his faith. Otherwise, his motive was purely malicious. msanthrope Mar 2014 #336

He didn't have faith in the system. Not many people do. cui bono Mar 2014 #340

Obviously, his faith was not in US fairness to whistleblowers. merrily Mar 2014 #411

I don't want to seem tit for tat, but merrily Mar 2014 #405

Skip out BEFORE stealing documents? OilemFirchen Mar 2014 #425

Skipping out before stealing is not what I meant. merrily Mar 2014 #453

The problem with your assertions is that several Whsitle Blowers who abided by the letter of the law sabrina 1 Mar 2014 #422

IIRC, Drake has as well. merrily Mar 2014 #408

Former whistleblowers, including Drake and Ellsberg, beg to differ. merrily Mar 2014 #394

Did they go to Warren, Sanders, or otherwise take action as directed by the whistleblower msanthrope Mar 2014 #396

You tell me. merrily Mar 2014 #404

P.S. FWIW, Drake's wiki also says he went through channels. merrily Mar 2014 #454

Says he tried. Doesn't matter now. This is NSA v. 4th Amendment. That matters. merrily Mar 2014 #184

Not to those that Aerows Mar 2014 #187

4th amendment rights are the issue, not Snowden. merrily Mar 2014 #193

Indeed, the issue is about 4th Amendment rights Aerows Mar 2014 #194

Yes, the issue is deprivation of our rights, but merrily Mar 2014 #199

Sorry I wasn't clear Aerows Mar 2014 #201

No worries. I did not take anything personally. merrily Mar 2014 #203

Your citation says that Snowden would not have been shielded. IOW ddddemarco Mar 2014 #314

No, but none of us knows if he really would have been shielded or merrily Mar 2014 #409

Well of course we should treestar Mar 2014 #103

If he has to prove it, it's to the country, if any, that entertains his request merrily Mar 2014 #189

He doesn't have to prove any of that until he comes to the US to be tried treestar Mar 2014 #271

I included a nation who takes his application for amnesty, if they request it. merrily Mar 2014 #360

This is a crop circle thread--the lack of proof confirms the truthiness of the claims. msanthrope Mar 2014 #277

LOL nt SunSeeker Mar 2014 #301

For reasons stated in my reply to treestar and others, the real crop circle may be merrily Mar 2014 #402

Or any claim for that matter.... VanillaRhapsody Mar 2014 #30

Here you go... cui bono Mar 2014 #113

Not proof....merely his words with no paper to back it up. nt msanthrope Mar 2014 #164

So what does it matter anyway? Does it change what the NSA is doing? cui bono Mar 2014 #168

What does it matter? Well, first of all, it's a claim in mitigation of the criminal msanthrope Mar 2014 #170

But how does that change what the NSA is doing? cui bono Mar 2014 #171

But the thread isn't about the NSA...it's about his claim of reporting 10 times to his superiors. msanthrope Mar 2014 #173

You're absolutely right about the thread. cui bono Mar 2014 #175

He's not in court yet, no court in the world. merrily Mar 2014 #406

Not proof, but evidence, isn't it. merrily Mar 2014 #196

Evidence of what? In what court do you think this is evidence? nt msanthrope Mar 2014 #262

All of them? JJChambers Mar 2014 #282

No, my friend, no. First, you have to clear the hurdle of relevancy. Explain to me msanthrope Mar 2014 #285

Perhaps, initially, you intended to address the admissibility of this evidence? JJChambers Mar 2014 #292

No. And no. nt msanthrope Mar 2014 #305

Then we're in agreement; evidence is evidence. JJChambers Mar 2014 #306

No, we are not in agreement. And you seem to be ducking a very precise question I posted msanthrope Mar 2014 #308

Yes, we are in agreement, unless you contend that evidence isn't evidence. Good day. Nt JJChambers Mar 2014 #310

I asked you a very specifc question about what you think is evidence, and it seems you cannot answer msanthrope Mar 2014 #313

In which post number did you ask that? JJChambers Mar 2014 #316

Post 285. nt msanthrope Mar 2014 #319

In that post you asked about relevancy. JJChambers Mar 2014 #320

Yes. Exactly. You are claiming this statement is "evidence." That is an apriori msanthrope Mar 2014 #323

Diversion JJChambers Mar 2014 #326

No--I'm really serious--you are claiming this is "evidence." Of what, exactly, pray tell? nt msanthrope Mar 2014 #328

You know it is evidence JJChambers Mar 2014 #334

Okay--you say it's "evidence" of motive and it's a mitigating factor. msanthrope Mar 2014 #337

How are they not? JJChambers Mar 2014 #339

Okay--the law does not work by proving negatives. It works by you claiming msanthrope Mar 2014 #341

Okay--forum discussions do not work constantly shifting the focus of the discussion. JJChambers Mar 2014 #344

Backing down? Okay. nt msanthrope Mar 2014 #345

I've addressed your post 262 concerning evidence JJChambers Mar 2014 #348

No--you still haven't answered the question--what is this evidence of, precisely? nt msanthrope Mar 2014 #357

It's a confession, it goes to motive, and it's a mitigating factor. JJChambers Mar 2014 #358

Oh dear, sweet Christ....if he's confessing to the crimes he's charged with, then msanthrope Mar 2014 #370

I think you're confused, my friend. JJChambers Mar 2014 #371

So now this is evidence for a forum, but not a court? Yeah...I can see why you'd back down. nt msanthrope Mar 2014 #372

Still confused? JJChambers Mar 2014 #373

No--again, when confronted with the illogical nature of your claims, you've backed down. nt msanthrope Mar 2014 #374

Just because you say something over and over doesn't make it true. JJChambers Mar 2014 #377

His claim is not evidence. OilemFirchen Mar 2014 #342

And how is testimonial evidence not evidence? merrily Mar 2014 #412

Testimonial evidence IS evidence. OilemFirchen Mar 2014 #420

thanks. I thought you were making a distinction between merrily Mar 2014 #426

... and may be admissible in court... OilemFirchen Mar 2014 #430

No idea why we beat the evidence issue to death when there's no arrest, let merrily Mar 2014 #451

Links to the statutes. merrily Mar 2014 #363

The court that is trying this case. merrily Mar 2014 #362

For anyone interested in admission against interest: merrily Mar 2014 #365

Yes....and I think any defense lawyer who tried to get this submitted would msanthrope Mar 2014 #369

Get this... Evidence... In? JJChambers Mar 2014 #380

I didn't call it "evidence," did I? And I do think that a defense attorney who msanthrope Mar 2014 #383

You don't have to call it evidence on DU for it to be evidence. merrily Mar 2014 #386

I responded already to your post on admissibilty. nt msanthrope Mar 2014 #392

Thanks. I'm thinking a prosecutor could probably get it in. merrily Mar 2014 #429

There is no question his sworn testimony in court would be evidence. merrily Mar 2014 #443

Your question wasn't whether the evidence was beneficial or damaging, JJChambers Mar 2014 #389

You and I will not agree. So what do you think this is evidence of? nt msanthrope Mar 2014 #393

We do agree JJChambers Mar 2014 #398

Secretly I agree with you? I think you've spent a little too much time trying to figure out my msanthrope Mar 2014 #399

Reeeedirreeecting JJChambers Mar 2014 #403

I'd better hope? Why? Is someone going to prosecute me? merrily Mar 2014 #382

That's a facile interpretation of an admission against interest--- msanthrope Mar 2014 #391

Again, it seems Snowden or attorney cannot introduce it. merrily Mar 2014 #413

To the best of my knowledge, he's not been charged in England. OilemFirchen Mar 2014 #428

He is under no obligation to do so and, AFAIK, no one has asked. merrily Mar 2014 #159

So just when will he "provide this documentation to us"? Aren't we important enough to see it? VanillaRhapsody Mar 2014 #205

The issue is not Snowden, but violation of the 4th Amendment. merrily Mar 2014 #217

No actually it is NOT this is about the truthfulness of Snowden again saying something VanillaRhapsody Mar 2014 #220

No, actually, it is about massive violation of the constitution. merrily Mar 2014 #222

NO in this thread we are discussing the fact that SNOWDEN again SAYS he has done something VanillaRhapsody Mar 2014 #223

Regardless of the OP, the 4th amendment is real issue in the entire scenario. merrily Mar 2014 #225

so are you saying that just the name Snowden is synonymous with the 4th Amendment? VanillaRhapsody Mar 2014 #226

No. You are absolutely not important enough. cui bono Mar 2014 #338

and apparently neither are you! VanillaRhapsody Mar 2014 #352

I'm not outraged about it. cui bono Mar 2014 #356

No but blindly believing Republicans Clapper and Alexander could be considered authoritarian. nm rhett o rick Mar 2014 #227

Look at these sub-threads! Rex Mar 2014 #438

That's simply not true. I admit I haven't followed the Snowden debates that closely fried eggs Mar 2014 #22

Help? merrily Mar 2014 #163

He can't legally name the 10 officials Aerows Mar 2014 #192

There is no prohibtion on naming NSA employees. Perhaps you could cite the law you msanthrope Mar 2014 #257

The Espionage Act of 1917 MannyGoldstein Mar 2014 #268

WHAT???? Kindly cite the actual subsection of the law you are referring to. You know, the one msanthrope Mar 2014 #275

It is just a joy to watch you in evisceration mode Number23 Mar 2014 #347

What is your response to this comment... DonViejo Mar 2014 #126

I replied to it Aerows Mar 2014 #195

Indeed--where is the documentation proving this claim? I would have saved an email or two. nt msanthrope Mar 2014 #6

And taken on a treason charge Aerows Mar 2014 #197

Kindly cite the law you are referring to, please? I am quite serious about this---kindly cite the msanthrope Mar 2014 #258

I'm around lawyers all the time 1awake Mar 2014 #265

True...but since you are around lawyers all the time, why not ask them if it's a crime to msanthrope Mar 2014 #276

I wouldn't need to; I already know the answer. 1awake Mar 2014 #286

Really??? Care to cite the provision of law you think tells you this? nt msanthrope Mar 2014 #288

Which part? Your not really trying to say nobody at the NSA is doing convert/secret work? nt 1awake Mar 2014 #289

Again....point me to the law you think precludes you from naming an NSA employee, even if they msanthrope Mar 2014 #307

Your playing word games, thus not debating honestly. Ill opt out. nt 1awake Mar 2014 #309

I'm asking you this in all seriousness....you've made a claim, kindly provide the law you think this msanthrope Mar 2014 #311

If they're doing covert work, wouldn't that come close to the Plame situation. merrily Mar 2014 #419

I don't know, but I don't think that would have stopped the debates in the least. cui bono Mar 2014 #19

Maybe he did, and it simply didn't fit the reporting narrative? AtheistCrusader Mar 2014 #92

Maybe. Maybe not. merrily Mar 2014 #135

Bingo Aerows Mar 2014 #183

Because he just thought about it. eom 1StrongBlackMan Mar 2014 #317

This was made public, but if you think it would have avoided what you saw on DU... MrMickeysMom Mar 2014 #375

Sure didn't avoid it on this thread, did it? merrily Mar 2014 #414

Don't confuse the Snowden bashers with Cleita Mar 2014 #2

I would love the information!! Where's the actual proof he did this? nt msanthrope Mar 2014 #26

Do you think the WAPO reporter would have written this article Cleita Mar 2014 #29

Yes--I do. She provides a link to testimony, but not to actual evidence...like emails, or copies of msanthrope Mar 2014 #32

Sorry, I didn't write the article. Maybe you need to ask that author the Cleita Mar 2014 #34

Um...this was unsworn--as you can see by your link provided. And where's the link to the evidence msanthrope Mar 2014 #38

You need to email this reporter, if you really care, and ask her but I have Cleita Mar 2014 #61

Enough for what? He says he complained! Okay....show proof of that. It's pretty simple. nt msanthrope Mar 2014 #65

The burden of proof is not mine. Stop with the red herrings already. Cleita Mar 2014 #75

Then why do you believe it's there without seeing it first? treestar Mar 2014 #105

"Just because Eddie said so?" Oh plez. nm rhett o rick Mar 2014 #219

You are saying that asking for proof instead of relying on hearsay neffernin Mar 2014 #129

It goes both ways. merrily Mar 2014 #423

"you have a feeling" VanillaRhapsody Mar 2014 #206

Uh, you *are* a lawyer, right? Aerows Mar 2014 #190

Yes. nt msanthrope Mar 2014 #312

Here... cui bono Mar 2014 #115

That's a statement...not proof of anything. nt msanthrope Mar 2014 #169

Be honest... MrMickeysMom Mar 2014 #376

Good lord....I don't want to hear about your sexual fantasies towards me. How uncouth. nt msanthrope Mar 2014 #378

predictable answer... MrMickeysMom Mar 2014 #379

How should one answer your rudeness? nt msanthrope Mar 2014 #381

As you know, the OP article provides information. merrily Mar 2014 #415

I've been begging for information nonstop since the whole ordeal began Blue_Tires Mar 2014 #59

Does he have any evidence of this? Any? nt msanthrope Mar 2014 #4

He has this much evidence. randome Mar 2014 #9

I was thinking it was more the jack/shit quotient myself. nt msanthrope Mar 2014 #13

He's a liar. He needs to show proof if he's going to spout off his fucking mouth. Cha Mar 2014 #71

I await the proof of a single email. And enjoy reading the reasons why it can't be produced. nt msanthrope Mar 2014 #73

And if he did? Union Scribe Mar 2014 #161

So, because his proof might be treated with skepticism, that's the reason there is no proof? msanthrope Mar 2014 #167

He's a liar? We have plenty of documentary evidence that NSA is pakced with liars. DisgustipatedinCA Mar 2014 #162

No, he doesn't need to show proof before he speaks. merrily Mar 2014 #427

Much like the birthers and the President's birth certificate SwankyXomb Mar 2014 #95

And you can be convinced just because Eddie says so? treestar Mar 2014 #107

I wouldn't mind there being some evidence behind it SwankyXomb Mar 2014 #123

If he showed he went through what the WPA allows him treestar Mar 2014 #132

And for one reason Aerows Mar 2014 #185

Almost anything can be falsified anymore, even money. merrily Mar 2014 #433

So far, everything he's said has checked out, while MannyGoldstein Mar 2014 #251

So Snowden must be telling the truth because James Clapper lied? I don't think that's a logical msanthrope Mar 2014 #254

Which part of "most likely" means "must"? MannyGoldstein Mar 2014 #255

Again--not a very logical test for candor. I am dismayed to hear you echo a RW talking point: msanthrope Mar 2014 #256

Oh, now I'm a CPAC member. MannyGoldstein Mar 2014 #260

I'm saying that your concern over the Exec. branch echoes a hot CPAC topic--much like your Benghazi msanthrope Mar 2014 #263

"You're not CPAC... BUT YOU'RE A REPUBLICAN PLANT OF SOME KIND, DAMMIT!!!" MannyGoldstein Mar 2014 #266

You seem upset. I am merely noting the various concerns you raise, and the sources msanthrope Mar 2014 #267

It cracks me up that in the thread you refer to, you refuse to look at links I supplied MannyGoldstein Mar 2014 #269

Manny, your complaint doesn't seem grounded in logic or facts. msanthrope Mar 2014 #273

Before you know it you will be told that you have issues with your mother. L0oniX Mar 2014 #384

My mother ...drunk or sober. L0oniX Mar 2014 #333

Who did he go to, and when? Blue_Tires Mar 2014 #7

He's talking out his ass. randome Mar 2014 #11

His Lawyers are not going to let him give names. He has a sealed indictment KoKo Mar 2014 #50

I'm pretty sure he isn't planning to come back for the foreseeable future Blue_Tires Mar 2014 #82

You responded to an unbelivable non-sequitor. OilemFirchen Mar 2014 #89

It's up to Congress & EU Countries Parliaments to Open Investigations KoKo Mar 2014 #94

Why isn't it up to the Justice Department? Blue_Tires Mar 2014 #98

True why not identify them all if they did such terrible things? treestar Mar 2014 #109

I think Snowden in his mind has the notion (rightly or wrongly) Blue_Tires Mar 2014 #137

I have no idea......... KoKo Mar 2014 #176

MIght not be his choice. merrily Mar 2014 #431

Who says he has to fly under a U.S. passport? Blue_Tires Mar 2014 #464

No one, including me, said that, but I don't think merrily Mar 2014 #466

He couldn't apply for RU citizenship? Blue_Tires Mar 2014 #468

The only lawyer with access to Eddie is that guy from Russian intelligence, Anatoly struggle4progress Mar 2014 #224

Look--if his lawyers had any control over him, they would have stopped him from talking to the EU msanthrope Mar 2014 #264

did he keep copies of the emails? nt geek tragedy Mar 2014 #15

You know--you'd think he would. nt msanthrope Mar 2014 #23

Knowing what he knew about emails, I'm amazed he emailed. merrily Mar 2014 #432

In govt work...you DON'T just delete emails.....you keep a paper trail of all communication because VanillaRhapsody Mar 2014 #33

I'm sure he has email records of having raised issues. Right? Otherwise, it is hard to prove Pretzel_Warrior Mar 2014 #18

Did he say he raised issues about revealing top secret stuff via email? merrily Mar 2014 #424

Thank you, Edward Snowden. woo me with science Mar 2014 #21

Asking if he kept copies of his complaints is "truth supression?" nt msanthrope Mar 2014 #25

Stasi!!! Cali_Democrat Mar 2014 #43

My criminal clients need to try this strategy....I had a guy whose alibi msanthrope Mar 2014 #46

How DARE you come in here with your years of legal knowledge and experience and stuff! Number23 Mar 2014 #150

This is a crop circle thread. The lack of proof of aliens means.... msanthrope Mar 2014 #174

A crop circle thread. By George, you've nailed it Number23 Mar 2014 #216

Oh my. (Seventeen techniques for truth suppression) woo me with science Mar 2014 #229

It's a vague improvement over your usual sentences of noun, verb and "PROPAGANDA!1!" but not Number23 Mar 2014 #231

I know! How *unrealistic* the concepts of advertising and propaganda are. woo me with science Mar 2014 #234

I should probably be surprised a photo of crop circles set you off like this but for some reason Number23 Mar 2014 #235

"set you off like this" woo me with science Mar 2014 #238

Everything is simple when you see enemies and conspiracies around every corner Number23 Mar 2014 #245

Still Number 5. Trying desperately to invoke crop circles and "conspiracy" theories, woo me with science Mar 2014 #246

Spoken like a true #19 Number23 Mar 2014 #247

For eleven year olds anyway. merrily Mar 2014 #421

Apparently the crop circles have numbers, now. I suppose it got tiring to write msanthrope Mar 2014 #252

Yes and many others have noted the same thing. That asking for proof of Snowden's claims Number23 Mar 2014 #346

It's coming out now because Greenwald's book is out at the end of the month. It's part of a larger msanthrope Mar 2014 #351

Psst. woo me with science Mar 2014 #232

When she misspells "Orwellian" I'll be sure to let you know Number23 Mar 2014 #233

Yes, it's certainly tempting to make the allusion to that great novel woo me with science Mar 2014 #248

What was that wonderful piece of "Newspeak" used by General Clapper? bvar22 Mar 2014 #444

But even 60 years in law school wouldn't tell her if he has evidence or not. merrily Mar 2014 #434

Whatever the hell this is even supposed to mean Number23 Mar 2014 #460

Obviously, many care, including her, or this thread wouldn't be this long. merrily Mar 2014 #461

haha, Respect our Authoritay! Signed: Authoritarians of da BOG. Whisp Mar 2014 #209

Nope, it's a shameless Number 13. woo me with science Mar 2014 #236

LOL !!! WillyT Mar 2014 #27

LOL nt Mojorabbit Mar 2014 #28

LMFAOROTFLOL L0oniX Mar 2014 #385

Riiight. So he takes a shitload of classified documents/military secrets and TwilightGardener Mar 2014 #24

Too bad we live in a country in which he HAD TO flee WhaTHellsgoingonhere Mar 2014 #31

Snowden said he ran because he was afraid, now he is saying he was not afraid Whisp Mar 2014 #212

lol WhaTHellsgoingonhere Mar 2014 #213

this is nothing but observable opinion.. frylock Mar 2014 #45

Fact: He took the B/A/H job to access the material (he said this). TwilightGardener Mar 2014 #69

It may appear to you that he is a spy, but it does not appear to everyone that way. merrily Mar 2014 #435

Oh? South China Morning Post on 12 June 2013 reported that Snowden told them struggle4progress Mar 2014 #35

LIke I said. snowden's a fooking liar. Anyone who believes his shit.. Cha Mar 2014 #77

It's kinda like a mafioso reporting to the Godfather that the Mafia is doing illegal stuff. Tierra_y_Libertad Mar 2014 #36

Comparing Snowden to a rat is pretty apt. nt msanthrope Mar 2014 #39

As is comparing the NSA to the Mafia. Tierra_y_Libertad Mar 2014 #41

Without a doubt. Some of us don't think in terms of good and evil. nt msanthrope Mar 2014 #42

Exactly. BlueCheese Mar 2014 #152

One thing is certain: Maedhros Mar 2014 #37

So you say on a thread about Snowden. nt msanthrope Mar 2014 #40

All you do is throw bombs azureblue Mar 2014 #47

Excuse me? Look, if you've got proof that he actually complained, please post it. nt msanthrope Mar 2014 #49

It's always a moving target for you and your type DisgustipatedinCA Mar 2014 #70

Actually, it's not a moving target at all. He says he complained 10 times. Any proof? As for msanthrope Mar 2014 #72

So What So What So What Caretha Mar 2014 #270

We attorneys tend to know the difference between lying and perjury. And if you msanthrope Mar 2014 #274

Funny someone wants to question your bonafides after having proven them over many years. randome Mar 2014 #284

It's the same reaction criminal clients have when you tell them something they don't want to hear. msanthrope Mar 2014 #287

No one questioned her bona fides. merrily Mar 2014 #462

Just a FYI. Puglover Mar 2014 #290

Speaking of grandiose claims, that's just funny. Attorneys get fooled all the time. merrily Mar 2014 #416

Attorneys are not the sole owners of some special kind of Lie Detector. bvar22 Mar 2014 #445

In fairness, merrily Mar 2014 #463

Whether they filed has nothing to do with whether they merrily Mar 2014 #458

Please see post 458. Thanks. merrily Mar 2014 #459

Umm...where else would I post it? Maedhros Mar 2014 #54

... Rex Mar 2014 #118

Which is his own fault, to be fair... Blue_Tires Mar 2014 #88

Some others? He's already outed a good portion of the whole government. Tierra_y_Libertad Mar 2014 #153

Oops!.. There goes another irrelevant Talking Point favored by the Snowden haters. bvar22 Mar 2014 #44

Can you provide proof that he complained? nt msanthrope Mar 2014 #48

Did you read my post? bvar22 Mar 2014 #52

Oh, I read your post. I'm just wondering if you actually have any proof that he complained. If he msanthrope Mar 2014 #58

Can you provide proof that he didn't? Can you provide proof that Clapper didn't lie? Tierra_y_Libertad Mar 2014 #53

The person making the claim provides the proof. Otherwise, I can claim I'm the Empress of Russia, msanthrope Mar 2014 #56

Yet you seem inclined to believe what the NSA and the regime tell you. Tierra_y_Libertad Mar 2014 #60

What? Kindly cite where I've done that? Further, I'm not claiming that msanthrope Mar 2014 #66

Ouch. GoneFishin Mar 2014 #74

Why believe what the NSA tells us? randome Mar 2014 #80

Well, I'm a helluva lot more inclined to believe Snowden than the NSA. Tierra_y_Libertad Mar 2014 #86

Understandable. randome Mar 2014 #87

I rather doubt that you did anything near as devastating as the NSA has done. Tierra_y_Libertad Mar 2014 #155

Why? treestar Mar 2014 #114

I imagine in it's history it must have (maybe) done something beneficial. Tierra_y_Libertad Mar 2014 #154

So far, Snowden has a MUCH better record of Telling the Verified TRUTH than the NSA. bvar22 Mar 2014 #99

I'd rather believe Snowden. 840high Mar 2014 #207

If you believe, wherever you are, clap your hands and he'll hear you . . . ucrdem Mar 2014 #291

The NSA has been proven to have lied to us. merrily Mar 2014 #465

There may be DU members who work for the NSA. L0oniX Mar 2014 #388

Funny how that works zeemike Mar 2014 #90

The only people who mention boxes are the Snowden defenders. randome Mar 2014 #93

For me "boxes in the garage" is a metaphor for zeemike Mar 2014 #96

+1000 bvar22 Mar 2014 #139

Yup. It's called flinging shit woo me with science Mar 2014 #300

My mother ...drunk or sober. L0oniX Mar 2014 #331

yep..nt xiamiam Mar 2014 #102

He admits that he was guilty! treestar Mar 2014 #116

There it is! Maedhros Mar 2014 #124

He admits it treestar Mar 2014 #127

Then post that, rather than some stupid smilie that belongs on a middle-school twitter feed. [n/t] Maedhros Mar 2014 #131

You don't like that smiley? treestar Mar 2014 #134

No reason, other that a desire to see the level of discourse improve [n/t] Maedhros Mar 2014 #148

It would be a waste of time. It seems some of you must see Snowden discredited at any cost. rhett o rick Mar 2014 #221

Fantastic Post! Recommend! KoKo Mar 2014 #51

+ 1,000,000,000 What You Said !!! WillyT Mar 2014 #57

+1000! n/t Catherina Mar 2014 #64

" than a cat trying to bury shit on a linoleum floor" woo me with science Mar 2014 #68

woo please add solicitor general lying to sc to list questionseverything Mar 2014 #304

Thank you for adding this. woo me with science Mar 2014 #353

I'm not even a hater... Blue_Tires Mar 2014 #91

Questioning Snowden is now questioning democracy treestar Mar 2014 #112

1000+ DeSwiss Mar 2014 #133

^^^THIS^^^ ...should be its own op. + a billion bvar L0oniX Mar 2014 #390

Snowden!? Look out a chemical reaction has started! Rex Mar 2014 #55

I might be wrong but I tend to believe Snowden more than my own government. ... spin Mar 2014 #62

Me Too... Well Said... WillyT Mar 2014 #63

No kidding.. BlueJac Mar 2014 #97

+10000000 woo me with science Mar 2014 #100

Snowden has a better track record of telling the truth: bvar22 Mar 2014 #147

Indeed. woo me with science Mar 2014 #240

+ another billion L0oniX Mar 2014 #395

...^ 840high Mar 2014 #208

Spare me your tales, Comrade Eddie. SoapBox Mar 2014 #67

Ooh, accusation of *Russkie* sympathies. woo me with science Mar 2014 #106

WOLVERINES!!12 frylock Mar 2014 #128

Time to Crawl Out from that Nuclear Bunker fascisthunter Mar 2014 #442

This is simply ProSense Mar 2014 #76

Snowden's a whiny liar. Cha Mar 2014 #78

Good catch treestar Mar 2014 #120

Changing his story again? Try reading this from 4 months ago: SomethingFishy Mar 2014 #121

Yes, ProSense Mar 2014 #143

Flawless Victory, Prosense. Whisp Mar 2014 #200

But he didn't go through proper channels and is not claiming he did. merrily Mar 2014 #436

Same old BS. No matter how many times he is proven right, and them wrong. It is the same GoneFishin Mar 2014 #79

To ascend to that 'proven' dimension, one needs 'proof'. randome Mar 2014 #81

I'll let time do the talking. It has and will continue to do so. Meanwhile no one here is fooled GoneFishin Mar 2014 #104

Kicked and recommended a whole bunch.....nt Enthusiast Mar 2014 #83

Thank you, Edward Snowden. randome Mar 2014 #84

This ^^^^^^^^^ treestar Mar 2014 #117

guffaw... Whisp Mar 2014 #211

Oh? What concerns? That tyranny is coming? ucrdem Mar 2014 #85

I was waiting for this smear! He's a dirty LIBERTARIAN!!!!!11! woo me with science Mar 2014 #108

Not a smear. Snowball forked over $500 to Ron Paul in 2012: ucrdem Mar 2014 #119

Bwah! woo me with science Mar 2014 #140

I'm a bot like Snowball is a journalist. nt ucrdem Mar 2014 #166

Nice. I bookmarked that collection of links. Thanks. GoneFishin Mar 2014 #296

Oh, so Poitras is a "Libertarian" now? Do you even realize how clueless that makes you appear? Maedhros Mar 2014 #130

Let's just say her horizons expanded when she joined the Koch crowd. nt ucrdem Mar 2014 #180

You, sir or madam, are out of your mind. Maedhros Mar 2014 #230

You don't seem very good at figuring things out. ucrdem Mar 2014 #242

You don't think it's concerning that some junior analyst at the NSA... Hippo_Tron Mar 2014 #144

He's never offered any proof he could do that. randome Mar 2014 #149

Only 10 times? Obviously 11 times would have been the correct number, but he did not raise his GoneFishin Mar 2014 #122

This is the reason for all the... ReRe Mar 2014 #125

Interesting thought...isn't it. KoKo Mar 2014 #215

They've been stacking the deck for decades... ReRe Mar 2014 #218

K&R DeSwiss Mar 2014 #136

K&R Ichingcarpenter Mar 2014 #138

He just blew a gigantic hole right through the "why didn't he do this officially" crowd LittleBlue Mar 2014 #145

Well, we know at least he didn't go to the Inspector General Blue_Tires Mar 2014 #179

+1 The talking points have become sad parodies of themselves. woo me with science Mar 2014 #239

It seems obvious to me. BlueCheese Mar 2014 #151

Unlike those valiant citizens mentioned by name, Snowden ran. idendoit Mar 2014 #160

And Yet They Support Snowden.. WillyT Mar 2014 #186

They didn't say they supported him running away. idendoit Mar 2014 #198

They support what he did. And are grateful. truebluegreen Mar 2014 #280

Still don't see any support for him running away. idendoit Mar 2014 #294

"All the other REAL whistleblowers either retired or were reassigned." truebluegreen Mar 2014 #349

Just can't accept your boy being what he is. idendoit Mar 2014 #359

Your concern is noted. truebluegreen Mar 2014 #366

Really? Before or after 2009? underthematrix Mar 2014 #214

puhleese, the generals and Fearless Defenders will just respond by asking "but why didn't he go MisterP Mar 2014 #228

People outside the intelligence community know what happens to whistleblowers too. JoeyT Mar 2014 #241

Recommend! KoKo Mar 2014 #279

+1000. They're desperate and full of shit, and they know it. All because they could not just GoneFishin Mar 2014 #295

You nailed it. What a great summary of the relentless, irrelevant diversion woo me with science Mar 2014 #298

Excellent encapsulation! bvar22 Mar 2014 #303

How can people who do things like that believe that anyone but a conservative Zorra Mar 2014 #324

+ 1,000,000,000... What You Said !!! WillyT Mar 2014 #350

he still criticized the policies of a sitting Democratic president and that will NEVER,NEVER NEVER Douglas Carpenter Mar 2014 #244

and why should we believe this without hard evidence?? DCBob Mar 2014 #253

"Oh, and by the way, I saved President Obama's life once." randome Mar 2014 #261

You've summed it up the most succinctly treestar Mar 2014 #272

Absolutely. nt mimi85 Mar 2014 #327

CYA works better before "going rogue", Snowjob. nt tridim Mar 2014 #278

Ummmm....WTF? Cali_Democrat Mar 2014 #299

Our government wants to be totalitarian and fascist. L0oniX Mar 2014 #315

Did he say this before or is this new? hrmjustin Mar 2014 #329

New, apparently. You'd think he might have mentioned this before. nt msanthrope Mar 2014 #343

Then this is suspect if he never mentioned this before. hrmjustin Mar 2014 #354

Whatever it takes to get our TLA's to actually do their jobs instead of "collect it all." Pholus Mar 2014 #332

K & r! n/t wildbilln864 Mar 2014 #355

*****SHOW PROOF NOT JUST A THEIVES WORDS!!!!!!!!!!!************* uponit7771 Mar 2014 #367

Perhaps you meant "thief's" /nt think Mar 2014 #400

I was gonna say I before E except after C. Puglover Mar 2014 #441

Yeah...Make CLAPPER give some! Pholus Mar 2014 #447

Clapper an admitted thief too? uponit7771 Mar 2014 #449

What's your point? merrily Mar 2014 #455

Nope, he gave the "least untruthful" answer to avoid admitting it. Pholus Mar 2014 #457

"Least untruthful" = gobbledegook speak for "huge lie." merrily Mar 2014 #469

Another NSA Whistleblower, Russell Tice, was ignored by ABCNNBCBSFakeNoiseNutworks. Octafish Mar 2014 #368

Let's be totally blunt here. Hell Hath No Fury Mar 2014 #387

+1 woo me with science Mar 2014 #407

Agreed. How true. GoneFishin Mar 2014 #418

agreed. nt La Lioness Priyanka Mar 2014 #440

Agreed. bvar22 Mar 2014 #446

BULL FUCKIN SHIT!!! If an idiot haphazardly puts folks lives in danger (per Der Spiegel) NEEDLESSLY uponit7771 Mar 2014 #450

The disclosures have not been haphazard. merrily Mar 2014 #456

I'll take Der Spiegels word for it, they said he handed over items that could put peoples lives in uponit7771 Mar 2014 #467

I hear you, Snowden. I hear you. Baitball Blogger Mar 2014 #397

Highly recommend. n/t Jefferson23 Mar 2014 #401

I. Don't. Believe. Him...nt SidDithers Mar 2014 #417

Kudos. merrily Mar 2014 #437

I.don't.believe.CLAPPER.neither. Pholus Mar 2014 #448

Clapper admitted he lied to congress and the American people, but merrily Mar 2014 #452