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.
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?