Your absurd story doesn’t make me a Snowden apologist
Defending truth in the Snowden Affair doesn't make one an "apologist", for either side. There plenty of ardent supporters on either side that need to be debunked. The latest (anti-Snowden) example is the HPSCI committee report on Snowden [*], and stories like this one in the Wall Street Journal [*]. Pointing out the obvious holes doesn't make us "apologists".Snowden & apologists will brush this off w/ vague denials and counteraccusations. Burden's on them to square his representations w/ reality.— Susan Hennessey (@Susan_Hennessey) December 31, 2016
As Edward Epstein documents in the WSJ story, one of the lies Snowden told was telling his employer (Booz-Allen) that he was being treated for epilepsy when in fact he was fleeing to Hong Kong in order to give documents to Greenwald and Poitras.
Well, of course he did. If you are going to leak a bunch of documents to the press, you can't do that without a bunch of lies to your employer. That's the very definition of this sort of "whistleblowing". Snowden has been quite open to the public about the lies he told his employer, including this one.
Rather than evidence that there's something wrong with Continue reading