NSA says Snowden e-mails exempt from public disclosure and secret

[NanceGreggs]

383. Here we go - yet again.

Your attempts to change the subject are getting downright pitiful.

We are NOT having a discussion about Clapper, or the NSA at large, or me crediting the NSA with protecting us - NONE of that is part of this conversation.

The only point I have raised with you is your assertion that the NSA denied having ANY Snowden emails.

THINK ABOUT IT, sabrina.

Do you honestly think that if an agency like the NSA made a statement that despite Snowden having been an employee for three months, he never sent a SINGLE email in all of that time, THAT statement wouldn't have been BIG NEWS?

In view of that BIG NEWS, do you believe that not a single DUer would have posted about it? Do you believe that not a single news outlet would have covered it? Do you believe that not a single blogger would have written about it?

More to the point, do you think that Snowden wouldn't have made a BIG ISSUE of it, saying, "How can the NSA expect people to believe that I never sent a single email?" Do you think Greenwald wouldn't have made a major issue out of such a statement, if it actually happened?

Why do you think everyone is silent on the subject? Could it be because everyone KNOWS the NSA never made such a statement - other than you?

The links you've provided all discuss the emails in the context of the ones Snowden now claims he sent to his superiors, alerting them to his concerns. They do NOT even hint at the idea that the NSA ever denied that Snowden sent emails on other topics - because the NSA never took that position.

"The reason why they are refusing to release those emails is because Snowden is RIGHT and they are trying to defend themselves from being exposed as liars once again, USING THE OLD 'National Security', No, wait, THIS TIME they are using HIS PRIVACY."

Are you truly naive enough to think that the NSA is not OBLIGATED BY LAW to keep confidential information confidential? As for releasing anything that would disclose Snowden's personal information, again BY LAW they are not permitted to do so. In both cases, we are dealing with the LAW here, not a whim on the part of the NSA.

"How did YOU know about Snowden's Health Issues, you claimed they were trying to protect that information."

What I wrote was: "Those emails may contain very personal information about Snowden, e.g. the fact that he saw a certain type of medical specialist, or a series of shrinks."

Do you understand what the word "may" means? Do you understand what "e.g." means? It means "for example".

The fact that you are unable to understand the difference between someone saying what "may" be the case and someone making a definitive statement, along with not knowing what "e.g." means, leads me to believe that perhaps your problem lies with simple reading comprehension.

So explain to me again how what would be an astoundingly newsworthy announcement by the NSA - saying they had NO emails from Snowden whatsoever - has rendered you unable to find a SINGLE news story, blog, DU post, etc., containing that statement.

The FACT is, sabrina, that the NSA never took any such position. And rambling on and on about Clapper, and "defending the NSA", and who on a Dem forum believes what - yadda, yadda, yadda, does not change that FACT.

Seriously, girl - DU is full of Snowden supporters who follow every last detail about him and about the NSA. And yet you want me to believe that not a single DUer ever posted a comment on, an OP about, or an LBN post linking to what would have been an earth-shaking statement by the NSA.

Amazing.