this post was submitted on 30 Jan 2025
240 points (97.6% liked)

politics

19859 readers
4010 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] -3 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Ge leaked them to many nations not just the USA. You know that other nations can access US press and the internet in general, right? That’s the enemies Im talking about eg DPRK, Russia, or Iran.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

No, he didn't. This is 100% factually wrong. He gave them to to the Guardian and to the New York Times, and to Glenn Greenwald., and he gave it to them encrypted and deleted them himself. Part of his requirements was that they vet everything they released before they released it to make sure that no one was hurt as an effect.

This was part of why the Guardian ended up having it's higher level employees replaced after MI6 trashed the place (literally).

You might be thinking of Julian Assange, but even there there was double checking and not one single individual has proven to be hurt by those leaks.

That’s the enemies Im talking about eg DPRK, Russia, or Iran.

Let me guess, you're a liberal of the "Liberals hate every war except the current one" bent, aren't you? To the point that you're literally making shit up to slander an actual fucking hero that revealed quite a lot to the public that wasn't at that point known.

Get the fuck out of here with your stupid ignorant bullshit that lets you feel smugly superior.

EDIT: We never got the full leaks because the news organizations he gave them to ended up deleting them from under governmental pressure, and he no longer had copies of them.

Now, before you smugly utter the next banal lie liberals always do to slander him: He didn't want to go to Russia. He intended to go to Ecuador, but the Obama Administration broke a bunch of international laws, including forcing aircraft with diplomatic immunity to land in other countries airspace to try and capture him. Turned out, of course, that he wasn't on board. He went to Russia out of desperation.