What a scummy hit-piece. He was 29 (young punk!) and 6-weeks into his job… but he met with journalists who he had been in touch with for 4 months, wait huh? I g

What a scummy hit-piece. He was 29 (young punk!) and 6-weeks into his job… but he met with journalists who he had been in touch with for 4 months, wait huh? I guess he wasn't 6-weeks into this after all… that beginning stuff is nothing more than trying to set up a negative impression, paint a picture of a soviet era literal spy who set out to undermine the U.S. while Snowden is actually the total opposite of that. > he took only documents that exposed the malfeasance of the NSA says NOBODY. He never ever claimed that. He claimed that he took tons of documents because he had no time to carefully sort everything, and he gave them to responsible journalists with the explicit instructions that they use their judgment to figure out what was necessary to publicize to expose malfeasance. Everything else here is really overblown. The claim is made that everything Snowden has said is dishonest and that is backed up by only a bunch of minor claims from a few people about some particular details. There's not a single bit of actual damning evidence here. And the hit-piece author didn't even bother to acknowledge the context in which the revelations did blow-the-whistle on absolutely unconstitutional actions by the NSA and the now certain perjury of top officials. But that doesn't matter, we can just accept the DNC's assertion that Wikileaks is a puppet of the Russians and then go on vilifying Snowden and do nothing at all about the massive rampant, illegal attacks on civil liberties that he revealed.