Showing posts with label Commentary on Edward Snowden's disclosure. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Commentary on Edward Snowden's disclosure. Show all posts

Tuesday, June 27, 2017

Edward Snowden Asks Ron Paul If Intelligence Reports Ever Swayed His Vote

During an appearance on the Liberty Report last week, Dr. Ron Paul interviewed former NSA contractor Edward Snowden about the rise of the Deep State and how intelligence agencies are threatening Americans’ freedom. But in the closing moments of that interview, Snowden surprised Paul with an unexpected request:





“I was thinking I could ask you a question Dr. Paul, again about the intelligence stuff…I think it’d be interesting to people and I don’t think we’ve ever heard it from your perspective…”



As a former intelligence analyst and operative, Snowden wondered how well the intelligence community had performed in its mission to keep US policymakers informed on important world events, given that Paul had for more than two decades been a "consumer" of the intelligence community"s products.





“In the intelligence community at the working level, not the policy level, everyone is taught that the work that they do is to inform policy makers…to understand what the facts are so they can make the best decisions.”






“You were in Congress for an extraordinary time…and one question I’ve always wondered is during all your time in Congress, how many times did the intelligence community provide some reports that they briefed to you…and the material was so impactful…so valuable that they’d been breaking all these laws to get it…how many times did it impact your vote?”



Paul’s response? Not once.



Paul says he was almost never provided with unadulterated intelligence reports, and on the one occasion when he attended a briefing with the intelligence agencies, the information more closely resembled propaganda than credible intelligence.





“They never came to me. It’s one of these things - they only come to a group when they want to try to pass out their propaganda and of course that didn’t sell well with me.”



Paul noted that the problem of intelligence-as-propaganda was, unsurprisingly, a major problem during the early 2000s in the runup to the Iraq War.





“Leading up to the Iraq war they had a lot of people who supposedly knew everything and I said to myself ‘this is nothing more than propaganda.’”



Snowden said Paul’s response was, given his own experience, unsurprising.





“That’s one of the suspicions I think people would get when they look at the open hearings in Congress where they never seem to be revealing anything new and they have a clear agenda” Snowden said, referring to the testimony of former FBI Director James Comey and Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who have both testified publicly before the Senate Intelligence Committee in recent weeks.






“They’re not trying to inform Congress so much as trying to influence Congress.”



Paul said this is absolutely true before launching into an explanation of how he viewed his role during his time in Congress.





“The activity I was involved in, I recognized the limitations. I wasn’t going to change the world by being in Congress, but I knew there was an audience someplace. I believe you have to change people’s attitude, and that’s why your [Snowden’s ] work is so important.”


You have risked a lot to get this information out and this is one of the things this country needs is the truth tellers,” Paul said.






“There’s an old saying I use all the time ‘truth is treason in an empire of lies.’ And we are living in an empire of lies. And that’s why we need more truth tellers, just as you are.”



See below for a summary of part one of the interview.


* * *


In a discussion with Edward Snowden on his weekly “Liberty Report," Ron Paul and the former NSA contractor trace the genesis of the so-called Deep State, and discuss how the US intelligence community uses covert programs like those exposed by Snowden in 2013 to trample individual freedoms.


The most sinister quality of the Deep State, Snowden says, is its ability to mask its very existence from the public, allowing it to undermine President Donald Trump while remaining largely hidden from scrutiny.  





“Generally, when we’re talking about the Deep State, what we’re talking about is a mass of government that survives beyond administrations, but that is not responding to the politics of the people. This belongs not to a particular political party, but it serves across parties. Across administrations.”



The Deep State’s culture of secrecy convinces employees that they won’t ever be held accountable for their actions, Snowden said, since even routine communications between employees at the CIA and NSA are classified.





“Everything we do at the NSA and CIA is typically classified by default, unless you actually work to make it not classified."
 
“When I sent an email about lunch plans to one of my office buddies, that was going to be classified. Even the most banal email that you’re sending...is classified."



Though he says he favors small government and opposes widespread surveillance, Snowden balked at being branded a libertarian by Paul, arguing that labels like “libertarian” or “liberal” are often reductive and don’t allow for enough nuance to accurately represent his views.





“We’re more than tribes or labels. It is true that I think we have challenges that are derived from governments reaching a new scale that they haven’t previously occupied historically, allowing for the rise of these sort of ‘Super States.’”
 
“Small government tends to be more respecting of individuals’ rights than large governments. And the question we need to ask, is why?”



With the passage of time, the scrutiny on Snowden and the programs that he leaked has subsided, allowing him to focus on other tasks like advocacy.





“Things were really crazy that close to the event in 2013. You never knew what was happening and what they were saying from the government side.
 
There was this cycle of deception that was occurring where the journalists would publish some report and say this is what’s happening and this is how they’re violating your rights... Then the government would immediately come out and say ‘oh no we don’t do that that’s a misunderstanding it’s not quite right’ and they’d issue various denials to these reports.
 
“Then immediately the journalists would have to find some particular point that disproved [the government’s counter-report] then the government would sort of walk back their denial, and this went on and on and on.”
 
"This was really consuming my life, [the journalists] lives, and the lives of everybody involved for the longest time. But as we’ve gotten farther and farther from the event, I’ve gotten free to pursue my own interest once again."



Rejecting the idea that he’s a leader in the fight against deep-state overreach, Snowden assured his viewers that he’s “not a politician” and that he isn’t comfortable in the role of spokesman. Rather, he prefers to focus on engineering methods of protecting individuals’ privacy.






“[Some people] want me to sort of be a frontman for these issues like civil liberty and peoples’ rights but I’m not a politician, I’m an engineer. Last year I gave a presentation…at MIT on how we can make phones safer by understanding what’s happening inside of them.



When we start looking at all of the problems we’re facing today, there’s sort of two tracks. There’s the political track where the government is passing laws that don’t protect citizens’ rights…the other problem is how is it that so many governments are spying on so many people?”


Because of its global nature, the expansion of government surveillance has become an intractable problem, Snowden explained.





“Even if we passed the best legal reforms in the world in the US, that doesn’t do anything against China or Russia or Germany or Brazil or any other country in the world. If we want to solve these problems, we need to find new means and mechanisms for enforcing those rights and I think that’s going to primarily be through science and technology.”



At one point in the discussion, Paul asserted that the Deep State has usurped some of the powers of the legislative and executive branches of government.





“It’s becoming more commonplace now for people to realize that the average congressman doesn’t call the shots, but there’s a force out there called the deep state and they’re the ones calling the shots.”



The discussion then turned to the balance between security and freedom, which Snowden claimed is a false dichotomy. In reality, it’s a question of liberty vs. surveillance.





"The idea here is apologists for the national security state like to trot out the old argument where they go ‘look we need to find a balance between your liberty and security.’ And it sounds persuasive, it sounds fair, until you actually start to analyze it….and you go ‘well, this isn’t really about liberty vs. security at all, it’s about liberty vs. surveillance. Because surveillance exists in a vacuum of security. Surveillance is enabled by a lack of security, it’s where you’re exposed, it’s where you’re available to be observed and can be tracked.”
 
“Life becomes more private, life becomes more free when you’re not observed, when you’re not watched…”



Another problem that the public struggles with is that Americans don’t have a clear definition for what liberty is, which makes it more difficult to understand when their freedoms are being trampled.





“People have said recently that privacy is what we used to call liberty, and then in the same breath they say that privacy is dead. What liberty is…is the right to self-determination. It’s the ability to have something that’s yours, rather than society’s.”






“This is codefied into our language, when we talk about private property, we’re talking about your right, your ability to have something that belongs to you. You decide how it’s going to be handled, you decide what color you want to paint your house, you decide what color shirt you’re going to wear - you don’t have to ask anyone."
 

“Liberty is freedom from permission. It is the fountainhead from which all other rights spring.”
 
“Saying that you don’t care about privacy because you have nothing to hide is the same as saying you don’t care about free speech because you have nothing to say.”



Interest in the Snowden leaks was revived earlier this year following Wikileaks’ “Vault 7” disclosures, which exposed the extent to which the CIA uses backdoors to hack smartphones, computer operating systems, messenger applications and internet-connected televisions. They also suggested that there is another leaker in the intelligence community.


An intelligence source cited by the Wall Street Journal said the “Vault 7” leaks are far more significant than the Snowden leaks. Even Snowden himself praised the Wikileaks disclosures, saying that "what @Wikileaks has here is genuinely a big deal", while making the following observations: "If you"re writing about the CIA/@Wikileaks story, here"s the big deal: first public evidence USG secretly paying to keep US software unsafe.”


Among the most high-profile programs exposed by Snowden were his revelations that the NSA could use secret court orders to force US telecoms companies like Verizon to hand over citizens’ phone records. Snowden also revealed the existence of “PRISM” – a program allowing the government to access servers of major tech companies like Google, Facebook, Microsoft and Apple upon request. The Snowden revelations stretched beyond activities of the US government when he disclosed how the British intelligence service GCHQ had the capability to tap into fiber-optic cables to eavesdrop on foreign leaders.
Fundamentally, the growing power of the deep state cuts against the US democratic system.





It raises the question: Who really has the most power in our society? Is it the voter, or at least in theory the politicians who are supposed to be carrying out their will, or is it this larger group, this constellation of influential actors who are able to subvert and shape the decisions of these Congressmen or even Presidents.”


Wednesday, June 21, 2017

Ron Paul Interviews Snowden On The "Rise Of The Deep State"

In a discussion with Edward Snowden on his weekly “Liberty Report," Ron Paul and the former NSA contractor trace the genesis of the so-called Deep State, and discuss how the US intelligence community uses covert programs like those exposed by Snowden in 2013 to trample individual freedoms.


The most sinister quality of the Deep State, Snowden says, is its ability to mask its very existence from the public, allowing it to undermine President Donald Trump while remaining largely hidden from scrutiny.  





“Generally, when we’re talking about the Deep State, what we’re talking about is a mass of government that survives beyond administrations, but that is not responding to the politics of the people. This belongs not to a particular political party, but it serves across parties. Across administrations.”



The Deep State’s culture of secrecy convinces employees that they won’t ever be held accountable for their actions, Snowden said, since even routine communications between employees at the CIA and NSA are classified.






“Everything we do at the NSA and CIA is typically classified by default, unless you actually work to make it not classified."



“When I sent an email about lunch plans to one of my office buddies, that was going to be classified. Even the most banal email that you’re sending...is classified."



Though he says he favors small government and opposes widespread surveillance, Snowden balked at being branded a libertarian by Paul, arguing that labels like “libertarian” or “liberal” are often reductive and don’t allow for enough nuance to accurately represent his views.





“We’re more than tribes or labels. It is true that I think we have challenges that are derived from governments reaching a new scale that they haven’t previously occupied historically, allowing for the rise of these sort of ‘Super States.’”



“Small government tends to be more respecting of individuals’ rights than large governments. And the question we need to ask, is why?”



With the passage of time, the scrutiny on Snowden and the programs that he leaked has subsided, allowing him to focus on other tasks like advocacy.





Things were really crazy that close to the event in 2013. You never knew what was happening and what they were saying from the government side.



There was this cycle of deception that was occurring where the journalists would publish some report and say this is what’s happening and this is how they’re violating your rights... Then the government would immediately come out and say ‘oh no we don’t do that that’s a misunderstanding it’s not quite right’ and they’d issue various denials to these reports.



“Then immediately the journalists would have to find some particular point that disproved [the government’s counter-report] then the government would sort of walk back their denial, and this went on and on and on.”



"This was really consuming my life, [the journalists] lives, and the lives of everybody involved for the longest time. But as we’ve gotten farther and farther from the event, I’ve gotten free to pursue my own interest once again."




Rejecting the idea that he’s a leader in the fight against deep-state overreach, Snowden assured his viewers that he’s “not a politician” and that he isn’t comfortable in the role of spokesman. Rather, he prefers to focus on engineering methods of protecting individuals’ privacy.





“[Some people] want me to sort of be a frontman for these issues like civil liberty and peoples’ rights but I’m not a politician, I’m an engineer. Last year I gave a presentation…at MIT on how we can make phones safer by understanding what’s happening inside of them.



When we start looking at all of the problems we’re facing today, there’s sort of two tracks. There’s the political track where the government is passing laws that don’t protect citizens’ rights…the other problem is how is it that so many governments are spying on so many people?”



Because of its global nature, the expansion of government surveillance has become an intractable problem, Snowden explained.





“Even if we passed the best legal reforms in the world in the US, that doesn’t do anything against China or Russia or Germany or Brazil or any other country in the world. If we want to solve these problems, we need to find new means and mechanisms for enforcing those rights and I think that’s going to primarily be through science and technology.



At one point in the discussion, Paul asserted that the Deep State has usurped some of the powers of the legislative and executive branches of government.





“It’s becoming more commonplace now for people to realize that the average congressman doesn’t call the shots, but there’s a force out there called the deep state and they’re the ones calling the shots.”



The discussion then turned to the balance between security and freedom, which Snowden claimed is a false dichotomy. In reality, it’s a question of liberty vs. surveillance.





"The idea here is apologists for the national security state like to trot out the old argument where they go ‘look we need to find a balance between your liberty and security.’ And it sounds persuasive, it sounds fair, until you actually start to analyze it….and you go ‘well, this isn’t really about liberty vs. security at all, it’s about liberty vs. surveillance. Because surveillance exists in a vacuum of security. Surveillance is enabled by a lack of security, it’s where you’re exposed, it’s where you’re available to be observed and can be tracked.”



“Life becomes more private, life becomes more free when you’re not observed, when you’re not watched…”



Another problem that the public struggles with is that Americans don’t have a clear definition for what liberty is, which makes it more difficult to understand when their freedoms are being trampled.





“People have said recently that privacy is what we used to call liberty, and then in the same breath they say that privacy is dead. What liberty is…is the right to self-determination. It’s the ability to have something that’s yours, rather than society’s.”



“This is codefied into our language, when we talk about private property, we’re talking about your right, your ability to have something that belongs to you. You decide how it’s going to be handled, you decide what color you want to paint your house, you decide what color shirt you’re going to wear - you don’t have to ask anyone."



“Liberty is freedom from permission. It is the fountainhead from which all other rights spring.”



“Saying that you don’t care about privacy because you have nothing to hide is the same as saying you don’t care about free speech because you have nothing to say.”



Interest in the Snowden leaks was revived earlier this year following Wikileaks’ “Vault 7” disclosures, which exposed the extent to which the CIA uses backdoors to hack smartphones, computer operating systems, messenger applications and internet-connected televisions. They also suggested that there is another leaker in the intelligence community.


An intelligence source cited by the Wall Street Journal said the “Vault 7” leaks are far more significant than the Snowden leaks. Even Snowden himself praised the Wikileaks disclosures, saying that "what @Wikileaks has here is genuinely a big deal", while making the following observations: "If you"re writing about the CIA/@Wikileaks story, here"s the big deal: first public evidence USG secretly paying to keep US software unsafe.”


Among the most high-profile programs exposed by Snowden were his revelations that the NSA could use secret court orders to force US telecoms companies like Verizon to hand over citizens’ phone records. Snowden also revealed the existence of “PRISM” – a program allowing the government to access servers of major tech companies like Google, Facebook, Microsoft and Apple upon request. The Snowden revelations stretched beyond activities of the US government when he disclosed how the British intelligence service GCHQ had the capability to tap into fiber-optic cables to eavesdrop on foreign leaders.


Fundamentally, the growing power of the deep state cuts against the US democratic system.





“It raises the question: Who really has the most power in our society? Is it the voter, or at least in theory the politicians who are supposed to be carrying out their will, or is it this larger group, this constellation of influential actors who are able to subvert and shape the decisions of these Congressmen or even Presidents.”


Sunday, June 4, 2017

Putin Tells Stone: "Snowden Is Not A Traitor"

Just hours after Megyn Kelly announced on NBC’s Today show that she would be interviewing Vladimir Putin in St Petersburg tomorrow at the International Economic Forum, Showtime released the first trailer and extended clip for The Putin Interviews, a sit-down with the Russian president conducted by the film-maker Oliver Stone for a four-part special that premieres on 12 June.



In the extended clip released on Thursday, The Guardian reports Stone and Putin can be seen driving in a car with an English translator in the backseat, discussing topics such as Edward Snowden’s whistleblowing and Russian intelligence.






“As an ex-KGB agent, you must have hated what Snowden did with every fiber of your being,” Stone asks in the clip.



“Snowden is not a traitor,” Putin replies. “He did not betray the interests of his country. Nor did he transfer any information to any other country which would have been pernicious to his own country or to his own people. The only thing Snowden does, he does publicly.”



Even though Putin condemned the NSA"s spy operation, he told Stone that Snowden shouldn"t have leaked the documents they way he did.  



"If he didn"t like anything at his work he should have simply resigned, but he went further," Putin said in a clip of the interview released Saturday.  



Stone, whose 2016 film Snowden detailed the rise and fall of the whistleblower, goes on to ask Putin about his own intelligence activities, and though the clip features no overt references to rumors of Russian meddling in the 2016 US election, Stone can be seen asking Putin about hacking in the special’s official 30-second trailer.







“I think they’re working quite well,” Putin says of Russian intelligence. “Our intelligence services always conform to the law. That’s the first thing. And secondly, trying to spy on our allies if you really consider them allies and not vassals is just indecent. Because it undermines trust. And it means that in the end, it deals damage to your own national security.”



Stone recently took to Facebook to express his views on Trump and Putin. This film comes against a frightening background wherein the US is sleepwalking into a situation where it becomes more and more likely that Russia will react. Which is precisely what so many angry American neocons and Hillary-wing Democrats seem to want! Why? Is it really worth it to push the world closer to the nuclear precipice for this anger? Is it Trump they hate or is it truly the Russians? And why have they conflated these 2 issues?

Saturday, February 11, 2017

Russian Government Considers Offering Snowden As "Gift" To President Trump, NBC Reports

Echoing a now eerily prophetic comment by Edward Snowden in December that "there could be some kind of deal - give this guy to me as a present," NBC News reports, citing US intelligence official sources, that Russia is considering turning over Edward Snowden as a "gift" to President Donald Trump - who has called the NSA leaker a "spy" and a "traitor" who deserves to be executed.



In an interview streamed on Twitter in December, Snowden said being forced to return to the U.S. would be a human-rights violation but would also put to rest to accusations that he is a Russian spy.


"A lot of people have asked me: Is there going to be some kind of deal where Trump says, "Hey look, give this guy to me as some kind of present"? Will I be sent back to the U.S., where I"ll be facing a show trial?" Snowden said. "Is this going to happen? I don"t know. Could it happen? Sure. Am I worried about it? Not really, because here"s the thing: I am very comfortable with the decisions that I"ve made. I know I did the right thing."


Here’s what @snowden told me about the possibility of Putin handing him over as a good will gesture to the Trump administration. pic.twitter.com/LdoxE7cYvA


Then a month ago, none other than Michael Morell (former CIA acting director and Clinton supporter and adamant anti-Trumper) suggested that Snowden would make “the perfect inauguration gift” for Donald Trump.





There are “a lot of reasons” that would “make sense” for Russia to take such a step, Morell wrote in his column in the Cipher Brief. The former CIA acting chief believes that “the Russian president needs a relationship with the incoming US president where the US overlooks Moscow’s anti-democratic activities at home and destabilizing activities abroad.”



Moreover, “gifting” Snowden could also become a good way “to poke his [Putin’s] finger in the eye of his adversary Barack Obama,” Morell added.



In addition, “this would give President Putin one of the things he desires the most – being seen at home and abroad as an equal of the US.”



To which Edward Snowden’s lawyer Anatoly Kucherena exclaimed:





“These statements coming from the former CIA head are stirring mixed feelings and can be seen only as a kind of utter nonsense, there is hardly any other way to put it,”



But now, as NBC News reports, according to a senior U.S. official who has analyzed a series of highly sensitive intelligence reports detailing Russian deliberations, a Snowden handover is one of various ploys to "curry favor" with Trump. A second source in the intelligence community confirms the intelligence about the Russian conversations and notes it has been gathered since the inauguration.


Snowden"s ACLU lawyer, Ben Wizner, told NBC News they are unaware of any plans that would send him back to the United States.





"Team Snowden has received no such signals and has no new reason for concern," Wizner said.



Furthermore, Snowden"s Russian lawyer told the state-run news agency last month that his client would like to return to the United States - with no criminal charges hanging over his head.





"We hope very much that the new U.S. president would show some weighted approach to the issue and make the one and only correct decision - to stop prosecution against Edward Snowden," Kucherena said.



Former deputy national security adviser Juan Zarate urged the Trump administration to be cautious in accepting any Snowden offer from Russian President Vladimir Putin. Again, seemingly based on pure speculation, Zarate tells NBC there is no way to predict if Putin will deliver Snowden — or when.





"I think this is one of those rare cases where the stakes are so high, the diplomatic implications so deep, that anything can happen," he said.



"So this could be a secret diplomatic deal made in the dead of night, or it could be a weeks-in-formation deal with lawyers on all sides," he said.



"I think at the end of the day, Moscow holds the cards here."



"For Russia, this would be a win-win. They"ve already extracted what they needed from Edward Snowden in terms of information and they"ve certainly used him to beat the United States over the head in terms of its surveillance and cyber activity," Zarate said.



"It would signal warmer relations and some desire for greater cooperation with the new administration, but it would also no doubt stoke controversies and cases in the U.S. around the role of surveillance, the role of the U.S. intelligence community, and the future of privacy and civil liberties in an American context.



"All of that would perhaps be music to the ears of Putin."




In light of the sources (or lack of them), NBC News is forced to admit that The White House had no comment, but the Justice Department told NBC News it would welcome the return of Snowden, who currently faces federal charges that carry a minimum of 30 years in prison. Putin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said talk about returning Snowden is "nonsense."


Finally, moments ago Snowden himself responded to the article in steide, tweeting that - if true - it would be evidence that contrary to repeat accusations and even a major Congressional report claiming otherwise, he had not worked with the Russians...



... followed moments by a Snowden retweet of a Katie Couric interview, explaining that he is "encouraged" by the possibility of being sent back to the US.


Friday, January 13, 2017

Assange Agrees To Extradition If Obama Grants Chelsea Manning Clemency

Just hours after NSA Whistleblower Edward Snowden urged President Obama to "save [Chelsea Manning"s] life by granting her clemency," Wikileaks" founder Julian Assange says he will agree to be extradited to the United States if the president grants clemency to the former US soldier Chelsea Manning, who is currently serving a 35-year sentence for leaking documents.



The US Constitution allows a president to pardon "offenses against the United States" and commute -- either shorten or end -- federal sentences. Obama has so far granted 148 pardons since taking office in 2009 -- fewer than his predecessors, who also served two terms, George W. Bush (189) and Bill Clinton (396). But he has surpassed any other president in the number of commutations, 1,176.



We noted previously that there was a number of high profile cases in front of President Obama as he prepares to leave The White House including Edward Snowden who tweeted yesterday...



And now, as AFP reports, Wikileaks" founder Julian Assange has offered himself up if President Obama releases Manning...



Assange has been living in the Ecuadoran embassy in London since June 2012 to avoid extradition to Sweden to face sexual assault allegations.





The Australian former computer hacker said he fears Stockholm will in turn extradite him to the US, where he angered Washington over WikiLeaks" publication of thousands of US military and diplomatic documents leaked by former US soldier Manning.



Manning is currently serving a 35-year sentence in solitary confinement for handing over the 700,000 sensitive documents from the US State Department.



Supporters of the transgender soldier are putting their hopes in a pardon by Obama before he leaves office later this month, although the White House has said the president will not be granting her clemency.



Manning has already made two suicide attempts and currently has an appeal pending before a military court.



Washington has maintained the threat of prosecuting Assange over the 2010 leak, though no charges have been filed.



Interestingly, Assange"s offer comes just days after his uncharacteristically emotional interview with Sean Hannity...





"I have been detained illegally, without charge for six years, without sunlight, lots of spies everywhere. It"s tough... but that"s the mission I set myself on. I understand the kind of game that"s being played - big powerful actors will try and take revenge...it"s a different thing for my family - I have young children, under 10 years old, they didn"t sign up for that... and I think that is fundamentally unjust... my family is innocent, they didn"t sign up for that fight."



Perhaps his hope is that President Trump will pardon him at the end of his term?

Tuesday, January 3, 2017

Edward Snowden Trashed In Absurd WSJ Op-Ed

Submitted by Mike Shedlock via MishTalk.com,


Edward Jay Epstein has an op-ed in the Wall Street journal promoting his new book “How America Lost Its Secrets: Edward Snowden, the Man and the Theft”.


Epstein discusses the Fable of Edward Snowden


At the forefront of Epstein’s claims is the fact that Snowden lied. “As he seeks a pardon, the NSA thief has told multiple lies about what he stole and his dealings with Russian intelligence,” says Epstein.


snowden





Of all the lies that Edward Snowden has told since his massive theft of secrets from the National Security Agency and his journey to Russia via Hong Kong in 2013, none is more provocative than the claim that he never intended to engage in espionage, and was only a “whistleblower” seeking to expose the overreach of NSA’s information gathering. With the clock ticking on Mr. Snowden’s chance of a pardon, now is a good time to review what we have learned about his real mission.



Mr. Snowden’s theft of America’s most closely guarded communication secrets occurred in May 2013, according to the criminal complaint filed against him by federal prosecutors the following month. At the time Mr. Snowden was a 29-year-old technologist working as an analyst-in-training for the consulting firm of Booz Allen Hamilton at the regional base of the National Security Agency (NSA) in Oahu, Hawaii. On May 20, only some six weeks after his job there began, he failed to show up for work, emailing his supervisor that he was at the hospital being tested for epilepsy.



This excuse was untrue. Mr. Snowden was not even in Hawaii. He was in Hong Kong. He had flown there with a cache of secret data that he had stolen from the NSA.



Well la-de-friggin da. The idiocy of those opening paragraphs is obvious to the world.


What was Snowden supposed to say? “Hey guys I am not coming into work because I stole documents and I am meeting up with Greenwald?”


So of course Snowden lied... he had to lie.





It was not the quantity of Mr. Snowden’s theft but the quality that was most telling. Mr. Snowden’s theft put documents at risk that could reveal the NSA’s Level 3 tool kit—a reference to documents containing the NSA’s most-important sources and methods. Since the agency was created in 1952, Russia and other adversary nations had been trying to penetrate its Level-3 secrets without great success.



Yet it was precisely these secrets that Mr. Snowden changed jobs to steal. In an interview in Hong Kong’s South China Morning Post on June 15, 2013, he said he sought to work on a Booz Allen contract at the CIA, even at a cut in pay, because it gave him access to secret lists of computers that the NSA was tapping into around the world.



Snowden figured out the NSA was involved in illegal activity and he wanted to investigate the depth of it. He succeeded. Congratulations to Snowden for a job well done.





In October 2014, he told the editor of the Nation, “I’m in exile. My government revoked my passport intentionally to leave me exiled” and “chose to keep me in Russia.” According to Mr. Snowden, the U.S. government accomplished this entrapment by suspending his passport while he was in midair after he departed Hong Kong on June 23, thus forcing him into the hands of President Vladimir Putin’s regime.



None of this is true. The State Department invalidated Mr. Snowden’s passport while he was still in Hong Kong, not after he left for Moscow on June 23. The “Consul General-Hong Kong confirmed that Hong Kong authorities were notified that Mr. Snowden’s passport was revoked June 22,” according to the State Department’s senior watch officer, as reported by ABC news on June 23, 2013.



Mercy! His passport was invalidated on June 22, not June 23. Call out the national guard. It’s treason I say.





To provide a smokescreen for Mr. Snowden’s escape from Hong Kong, WikiLeaks (an organization that the Obama administration asserted to be a tool of Russian intelligence after the hacking of Democratic Party leaders’ email in 2016) booked a dozen or more diversionary flight reservations to other destinations for Mr. Snowden.



Oh yes, let’s drag Obama’s stupidity into the discussion. The only thing Epstein failed to deliver was nonsense from the Washington Post. Perhaps it’s in the book.


Nowhere did Epstein make the case Snowden was anything more than a whistle-blower.


His op-ed is so ridiculous, one can dismiss the book as the work of a misguided fool who fails to understand what the US constitution is all about.