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.
Listening to her is incredibly frustrating. I don’t see Snowden as a traitor but this bitch is one of the last people that should be trusted with intelligence
It’s just furthers Putin’s goals, even if it was the right thing to do. Broken clocks and all that.
Listening to casual misogyny is incredibly frustrating.
Edward Snowden sitting in Russia thinking “Damn it, if I had just kept those documents in my bathroom, I could be President right now!”
That’s her only decent opinion and THAT is what’s going to tank her nomination???
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.
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
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
Damn, this is a hard one. Gabbard is right to defend him but likely for deeply shitty motivations.
At the end of the day this is probably going to make it much more difficult to discuss why whistle-blowers deserve protection with my liberal family.
This is a stopped clock situation.
She’s not wrong to defend him. But she would be a catastrophically awful pick for this position.
Stopped digital clocks just display 88 all the time.
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
Is that not backing down?
I can try making a cake, if I stop trying before I manage to make one, it doesn’t mean I will complain if my girlfriend decides to make one instead of me!
It’s not even that, it’s someone told you to make a cake, so you talk about how you don’t make cakes, your against making a cake, but you could make a cake if someone really needs you to.
And if your girlfriend does then make a cake, you just start taking credit.
Actions are louder than words.
She pushed for his pardon
She now says she won’t do it anymore, that she agrees he broke the law (need to have broken the law to get a pardon) BUT that she still believes what he did was right, implying that he deserves a pardon, she just won’t be the one trying to make it happen anymore.
When the worst people make the right decision for the wrong reasons
Isn’t American law supposed to protect whistleblowers? I mean we all know it doesn’t but at least in public speaking defending whistleblowers should be considered a good thing no?
No it only pretends to. Because whistleblowers have to leak sensitive information to blow the whistle, the US goes after them for treachery.
These days whistleblowing against America or big companies leads to suicide with a bullet to the back of the head.
It doesn’t though - and that’s had an obvious chilling effect on whistle-blowers.
One of the key issues is that most politicians will express support for whistle-blowing in the abstract or when exposing flaws of opposing administrations. But the administration that is likely to be damaged by whistle-blowing is the one vested with the responsibility to protect it… and that abstract support evaporates pretty fucking quickly if it’s damaging your image.
Unless my memory is faulty the modern attacks on whistle-blowing mostly date back to Obama’s administration. During W Bush we had the Abu Ghraib torture revelations and the whistle-blower in that case ended up receiving high praise even while causing significant damage to both W Bush and Rumsfeld.
Something left of some principles in there?
No. She’s a Russian asset, and Russia purchased Snowden’s compliance with safe harbor. Everything else is theatre as far as she is concerned.
The thing about wedge issues and propaganda is that they’re wedge issues for a reason, that there is something fundamentally wrong with the society that makes it divisive in the first place, as some advocate for change and others resent it.
She’s a Russian asset,
How so? What’s the evidence?
