how could they? Had no idea he was important at the time
-
-
Replying to @Robertwaldeck
Again, they didn't write this down on 6/10/13, when asked for Snowden deets. They did on 4/09/14.
@bmaz@BradMossEsq1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
so? Its a minor convo thay does not prove his claim of bringing concerns. You yourself agreed
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Robertwaldeck
I claimed it was not traditional whistleblower. Very different thing.
@bmaz@BradMossEsq1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
but it isn't even concerns. Its this guy said EOs were the same as enacted law. Not material.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Robertwaldeck
Well, it is a concern w/training program that happens to repeat problem w/other training programs.
@bmaz@BradMossEsq1 reply 1 retweet 0 likes -
If I read the article correctly the document was outdated (or at least had outdated info in it)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @BradMossEsq @emptywheel and
Even then, the doc didn't allege what Snowden claimed it said in the response you cited above
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @BradMossEsq
The USSID 18 document was brand new. Weeks old. But it sort of matched the 4 years out of date SOPs.
@Robertwaldeck@bmaz1 reply 1 retweet 0 likes -
again, how is it material? Its a rando question w/no specificity that does not support Snowden claim
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
How is it material that multiple pieces of training/SOP exhibited concern Snowden raised? @BradMossEsq @bmaz
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.