Hours before Tulsi Gabbard appeared for a combative hearing on her nomination as director of national intelligence on Thursday, NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden gave some public advice to the woman who once pushed for his pardon.
“Tulsi Gabbard will be required to disown all prior support for whistleblowers as a condition of confirmation today. I encourage her to do so. Tell them I harmed national security and the sweet, soft feelings of staff. In D.C., that’s what passes for the pledge of allegiance,” Snowden said on X.
Even after facing more than a dozen questions about Snowden, however, Gabbard refused to back down.
Instead, Gabbard told the Senate Intelligence Committee that Snowden broke the law and that she would no longer push for his pardon — but that he had revealed blatant violations of the Constitution.
That’s her only decent opinion and THAT is what’s going to tank her nomination???
She’s got a lot of well thought out positions. None of them much agree with the American propaganda machine as it currently sits.
Stop watching fox
It’s opposite decade in the US.
I find it hilarious that the 3 letter agencies are handing over big brother to the gustapo, without protest, while acting like they’re the goodies… as though they aren’t literally doing the exact thing Snowden warned everyone about — as a tool that will be turned against the people by domestic enemies.
And the best part? It only took 12 years post-leak for the worst case scenario to occur — for them to hand the keys to the entire kingdom over to fascism.
The keys have always been in the hands of fascists.
The Reagan/Bush Era was plenty reactionary. The Carter/Nixon era wasn’t anything to brag about, either. FFS, the Eisenhower government had a healthy assortment of literal ex-Nazis scattered through it. The ugly specters of J. Edgar Hoover, Allen Dulles, Henry Ford, and Prescott Bush have haunted our country for longer than any of us have been alive.
Trumpism is the dead fish rot finally reaching the noses of the white working class (and even then, just barely). Americans are looking on in horror at the prospect of the government treating everyone like we’ve been treated Black People and Native Americans for the last century.
There’s a lot of common sense, popular opinions that you can’t have in Washington because there’s a bipartisan consensus to do the opposite.
It’s a bad look when the director of national intelligence supports someone who leaks intelligence secrets to enemy nations. It’s a good reason to pass on her aside from all of her personal issues.
He leaked information to the citizens of the country doing the spying.
It’s interesting you describe them as enemies
Ge leaked them to many nations not just the USA. You know that other nations can access US press and the internet in general, right? That’s the enemies Im talking about eg DPRK, Russia, or Iran.
No, he didn’t. This is 100% factually wrong. He gave them to to the Guardian and to the New York Times, and to Glenn Greenwald., and he gave it to them encrypted and deleted them himself. Part of his requirements was that they vet everything they released before they released it to make sure that no one was hurt as an effect.
This was part of why the Guardian ended up having it’s higher level employees replaced after MI6 trashed the place (literally).
You might be thinking of Julian Assange, but even there there was double checking and not one single individual has proven to be hurt by those leaks.
Let me guess, you’re a liberal of the “Liberals hate every war except the current one” bent, aren’t you? To the point that you’re literally making shit up to slander an actual fucking hero that revealed quite a lot to the public that wasn’t at that point known.
Get the fuck out of here with your stupid ignorant bullshit that lets you feel smugly superior.
EDIT: We never got the full leaks because the news organizations he gave them to ended up deleting them from under governmental pressure, and he no longer had copies of them.
Now, before you smugly utter the next banal lie liberals always do to slander him: He didn’t want to go to Russia. He intended to go to Ecuador, but the Obama Administration broke a bunch of international laws, including forcing aircraft with diplomatic immunity to land in other countries airspace to try and capture him. Turned out, of course, that he wasn’t on board. He went to Russia out of desperation.
I believe the letter agencies consider the public their enemy #1, there some old ex CIA dude quote about it I’m too lazy to open Firefox to find
God forbid you have a head of intelligence might follow the bill of rights
Why would you think that’s their job? Do you have any idea how any of this works?
Snowden compromised the security of the intelligence apparatus of the USA and regardless of the reason you can’t have a DNI that approves of this.
https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title%3A5+section%3A3331+edition%3Aprelim)
I mean, you can dismiss it as pageantry and fluff. But every appointee has it in their job description as a matter of law per Title 5 Civil Service Functions and Responsibilities statute.
Go look what the DNI’s job is and tell me what she has to do with protecting constitutional rights.
The oath of office is cute but try looking at the job description of the office we are talking about as that’s actually relevant.
Identifying and eliminating criminal misconduct within Intelligence Agencies would go a long way towards protecting the constitutional rights of US residents.
The absolute state of modern liberalism.
That’s not the job of the DNI.
You made a really weak argument utilizing the oath of office. Do you really think you are in a position to speak down to anyone after demonstrating such a flawed understanding of our system?
“The oath of office is trivial, you don’t understand the US Government and by supporting Snowden you’re saying that the CIA, FBI, NSA, are criminal organizations.”
That’s how you sound.
The DNI’s opinion on Snowden has no bearing on their ability to direct the efforts of National Intelligence. I think Gabbard is a terrible candidate but not for her opinion on Snowden. My problems with Gabbard stem from her inability to justify foreign correspondence or donations. Also her repeated parroting of FSB and RT talking points.
But wanting the departments under them to follow the nature of the FISA proposal in the 70’s isn’t a barrier to entry for the DNI. Even the CIA admit that unwarranted surveillance has been a problem in the US for a long time.
Someone who would honestly and legitimately push against the expansion of the surveillance state is exactly what we need right now. Is Gabbard that person? Absolutely not. But I will not stand by and watch you chide someone wanting a candidate with the backbone to uphold the Hatch Act.
https://www.cia.gov/resources/csi/static/Article-Evolution-of-Surveillance-Policies-1.pdf`
Honest question what clearance have you held? What oaths have you taken?