The only way this would make sense is if there’s more to it than what Snowden has revealed. A minister involuntarily confirming something that already leaked is

The only way this would make sense is if there’s more to it than what Snowden has revealed. A minister involuntarily confirming something that already leaked is grounds for a stern telling off in private by the Prime minister, but not this. I would make sense for an internal party (the anonymous whistleblower) read Snowden’s revelations, understood thank to internal knowledge that there didn’t make sense or revealed something else, and decided to investigate. I’ve seen that myself a couple of times: shocking revelations about a company I work at that don’t add up, unless there’s more to it. If Findsen or Frederiksen had mentioned any of that, or even alluded to, typically “Oh, the reality is so much worse than that, if only they knew” or (more likely) “They are making a big fuss about normal proceedings; if they knew what’s really happening, they would be so much more upset.” then the accusations (and disagreement) would make sense: they think neither of those statement reveal much and claim their innocence, but someone inclined to attack the program would (paradoxically) want to use that revelation to hurt them.