Ray McGovern asks Litt why he claims Snowden signed an oath not to leak and he basically refuses to answer the question.
-
-
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel Because McGovern is harping on the term "oath" in the context of the NDAs Snowden absolutely signed. Which were binding.1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @BradMossEsq
@BradMossEsq Yes. His point was Litt should stop using "oath." GIven that Litt had no response to his point, maybe he should.1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel Which I'm fine with but sounds like nitpicking.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @BradMossEsq
@BradMossEsq As someone who'd prefer our NatSec people take their constitutional "oath" more seriously than their NDA, it doesn't to me.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel That's a red herring. Assumes that they had violated their constitutional oath.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @BradMossEsq
@BradMossEsq Yes. And it is in fact the case that govt employees have been known to do so.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel They violated their constitutional oath how? Operating a program authorized by Congress and relying upon SCOTUS precedent?3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @BradMossEsq
@BradMossEsq It is in fact the case that govt employees, writ large, have violated oath at times. Don't be intentionally dumb.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel OK, but that's a broad allegation with no real specific focus.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
@BradMossEsq No. It is an assertion that for oath to do what it was meant to do it must be seen to trump NDA.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.