General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Snowden: I Raised NSA Concerns Internally Over 10 Times Before Going Rogue - WaPo [View all]merrily
(45,251 posts)That's why I referenced a prosecutor introducing it.
As for being facile, it was not an intentional omission. I am not a prosecutor or a defense attorney. I got the information online and was repeating what it said. It did not go further.
But, if he is in court, he could name names under oath and that would be evidence, which is why this whole thing about evidence is beside the point anyway.
I think all the 100s of posts on this thread boil down to two things:
1) You are one of few who are certain that Ellsberg and Drake are wrong about this and Snowden would have been just fine if he had gone to the Senate or the NSA. Given you are a lawyer, you may have a different point of view than those of us who usually look at from another perspective. And no matter how many times you say he would have been shielded, I doubt people who believe otherwise will accept that at face value.
2) all this talk of evidence or lack of evidence is beside the point since he is not on trial and has had less than zero reason to produce any.
Debating about what he has not produced and has had no reason to produce may be interesting, but doesn't make much sense unless and until he gets to court and fails to produce evidence.
Implying anything, positive or negative from his failure to produce something when he is under no obligation so to do is not warranted.