It's simple. Either he was lying in prep for comms to Adm Rogers, or Snowden ultimately passed that. Very very simple.
Again, I think there's a respectable anti-Snowden case. HPSCI chose not to make it, but instead to propagandize. That's problem
-
-
it's a damage assessment. The point it is trying to make is what happened to US security. The Snowden comments are dicta.
-
Again, HPSCI chose to release a bunch of claims, a number of which are either misleading or clearly false. Why?
-
so the "misleading or false" is a layer of this debate that a) I won't take your word on b) won't defend for them.
-
Don't take my word on it. Or Bart's. Look up Snowden's GED #. But you ALREADY defended them. Thereby taking their word.
-
no, I just offered things that might be true. They might not be. I am not saying i think you or Barton are wrong. I'm just
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.