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.
Why would you think that’s their job? Do you have any idea how any of this works?
Snowden compromised the security of the intelligence apparatus of the USA and regardless of the reason you can’t have a DNI that approves of this.
No, he didn’t.
You know nothing about this topic as I detailed in my other response.
Stop spouting lies.
https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title%3A5+section%3A3331+edition%3Aprelim)
I mean, you can dismiss it as pageantry and fluff. But every appointee has it in their job description as a matter of law per Title 5 Civil Service Functions and Responsibilities statute.
Go look what the DNI’s job is and tell me what she has to do with protecting constitutional rights.
The oath of office is cute but try looking at the job description of the office we are talking about as that’s actually relevant.
Identifying and eliminating criminal misconduct within Intelligence Agencies would go a long way towards protecting the constitutional rights of US residents.
The absolute state of modern liberalism.
That’s not the job of the DNI.
You made a really weak argument utilizing the oath of office. Do you really think you are in a position to speak down to anyone after demonstrating such a flawed understanding of our system?
“The oath of office is trivial, you don’t understand the US Government and by supporting Snowden you’re saying that the CIA, FBI, NSA, are criminal organizations.”
That’s how you sound.
The DNI’s opinion on Snowden has no bearing on their ability to direct the efforts of National Intelligence. I think Gabbard is a terrible candidate but not for her opinion on Snowden. My problems with Gabbard stem from her inability to justify foreign correspondence or donations. Also her repeated parroting of FSB and RT talking points.
But wanting the departments under them to follow the nature of the FISA proposal in the 70’s isn’t a barrier to entry for the DNI. Even the CIA admit that unwarranted surveillance has been a problem in the US for a long time.
Someone who would honestly and legitimately push against the expansion of the surveillance state is exactly what we need right now. Is Gabbard that person? Absolutely not. But I will not stand by and watch you chide someone wanting a candidate with the backbone to uphold the Hatch Act.
https://www.cia.gov/resources/csi/static/Article-Evolution-of-Surveillance-Policies-1.pdf`
Honest question what clearance have you held? What oaths have you taken?
You are trying to argue that the individual duty of the director of national intelligence is to protect the constitutional rights of citizens because of the oath of office? Go look at the job description and tell me what they have to do with that.
The DNI’s opinion on people who have violated US espionage laws IS relevant to her job. In fact it’s a really important part of her job that she NOT support people working against the USA which Snowden did.
To be crystal clear here are you aware that Snowden wasn’t talking about many things we didn’t already know about in regards to surveillance? The article below was published 4 years before Snowden leaked anything. There are many other examples of stories like this.
https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=3535528&page=1
First of all I am not @[email protected] I am saying that the DNI can levy clemency for Snowden if they so choose as that has no bearing on their daily duties.
Secondly, a job description is not the totality of responsibilities of the DNI. You obviously have no history in the US government. As you’ve held no clearance and taken no oath. You’re basing your views on a job posting and a news article. What Snowden brought out was proof of these programs. Smuggled in a rubics cube. Go roleplay a pundit elsewhere. Because you have no comprehension of what you’re taking about.
You have no idea about my background with anything. I would not share that information with strangers on the internet nor would I trust anyone who made claims on it.
Go look back at the first paragraph of your last post and tell me you didnt repeat the same argument.
Again no mention of the fact that he exposed intelligence to foreign sources and that violating US espionage laws is in fact directly relevant to her position.
The Director of National Intelligence isn’t going to be doing anything in regard to individual rights. It’s a cabinet position. They are an executive.
In general I agree she is a bad choice for many reasons but I also feel that this specific job shouldn’t support people who did what Snowden did. Aside from DNI and maybe some military roles I wouldn’t take issue with people supporting Snowden.