from:@MarkSZaidEsq "snowden"

Here's a hint: say negative things about #Snowden

Fantastic that this info is publicly reported but really raises questions re extent to which Snowden's broad illegal disclosures were fully necessary or effective, much less had significant impact on actual govt operations. Key is Snowden could have taken lawful steps instead. https://twitter.com/charlie_savage/status/992519023320592384 …

Unless the coward is willing to come forward publicly, mute is the next step!

Wow, you are really clueless about how the system or law works. Not a surprise that you're a Snowden supporter.

Did we want to see Snowden?

But will she ask Snowden to marry her?

Jess, here's a deal. You avoid me. I'll avoid you. I have zero interest in you. I rarely even tweet anything about Tom (don't think I have in 8 months), who's a nice guy who got screwed. I will continue to criticize Snowden. If you have an issue with that, too bad.

I'm not insulting you if I argue you're wrong. You can think what you want. It doesn't change the fact you're wrong.

"Espionage is spying (criminal act) with general intent or knowingly, or the specific intent or purposely to transmit information to another nation. Some forms of espionage require the attendant circumstance that the conduct occurs during wartime."

Sure you can think that if you don't know anything about the Espionage Act and actually what spying means. So, no, no you can't.

A distinction without a difference, wow. Being charged as a foreign spy (basically a traitor to country) vs alleged to retaining uncompromised classified documents at home. Right, no difference at all.

Personally, I don't favor "death" analogy when it comes to leaking classified info. When does death matter? Does it have to happen w/i a week or release? A month? A year? What if someone dies 5 years later? Still a valid consideration? I'm not necessarily addressing Snowden

But Peter, Snowden's situation is quite different from most sources. Most don't turn over 1+ million (I recognize the exact # is publicly unknown) pages of highly classified information. Other than Manning, I know of no other. Ellsberg at least knew what was in Pentagon Papers.

I agree. But it is certainly a factor that people can reasonably consider when deciding whether they agree with what Snowden did, in full or in part (and I recognize ppl can support one aspect but not others).

Was there a written binding agreement that Snowden could sue Greenwald et al over had they decided to disregard his "request" to please, please not disclose anything that could be truly damaging to national security? Seriously, that's your ethics argument to justify what he did?

Since we are discussing criminal violations of the law I fail to see what the "common usage" has to do with this discussion then, other than for you to mislead the public about what actually happened so as to try and minimize Snowden's legal culpability and justify his actions.

To all the lawyers out there, how would this fly in court? Snowden supporters say he didn't do anything wrong (other than steal classified info & illegally give to third parties but I digress). He let others do it! "Judge, I didn't kill him. I just gave the shooter the gun." https://twitter.com/BarrettBrown_/status/963211391938252800 …