The 36 mysterious days of Edward Snowden

The 36 mysterious days of Edward Snowden

by Jon Rappoport

January 15, 2014

First, a comment about the number of documents Snowden took from the NSA. Estimates have ranged from 20,000 to 1.2 million. Snowden explicitly stated he had vetted all of them, to make sure their release would aid transparency, his goal, rather than harm individuals.

Whether the number is 20,000 or 1.2 million, it’s impossible to accept that Snowden carefully perused each doc. If you want to test this out, go to your local library and read 20,000 pages of anything. Never mind making notes. Just get to the end of it.

All right, let’s move on to the timeline of Snowden’s mysterious 36 days and explore what it means for the NSA, the smartest, largest, richest spy agency in the world. (The source for this timeline is The Guardian.)

May 20, 2013: Snowden arrives in Hong Kong from Hawaii. He’s just taken medical leave from the NSA. This is not troubling to his employer, despite the fact that, as AFP now reports, Snowden worked briefly at the US Embassy in New Delhi (2010) and abruptly left India, citing medical problems on that occasion as well.

Both times, Snowden didn’t seek medical help in the country in which he was employed.

June 1, 2013: Three reporters connected with The Guardian—Glenn Greenwald, Ewen MacAskill, and Laura Poitras—fly from New York to Hong Kong, and begin their week-long interview of Snowden. If this raises red flags, it doesn’t lead to intercepting Snowden.

June 5, 2013: The Guardian publishes its first article containing NSA leaks. The next three days see more NSA revelations, but there is no mention of Snowden.

June 9: The Guardian goes public about Snowden for the first time. According to Reuters, the NSA started an “urgent search” for Snowden several days before June 9—perhaps as early as June 1.

June 10: Snowden checks out of his hotel, but remains in Hong Kong. The US intelligence apparatus still can’t find him.

June 12: The South China Post publishes an interview with Snowden, who says he’ll stay in Hong Kong until he’s told he has to go.

June 14: The UK Home Office orders airlines to deny passage to Snowden, if he tries to come to the UK.

June 20, 21: The Guardian publishes more top-secret documents from the Snowden cache.

June 23: Free and unencumbered, Snowden flies to Moscow with Wikileaks’ Sarah Harrison.

During this entire period (May 20-June23), the NSA, and other agencies of the US government, have been unable to locate Snowden?

They’ve been unable to get hold of, or disable, his famous four laptops, which presumably contain all the documents he took from the NSA? Instead, Snowden transfers the documents to Greenwald and Poitras in Hong Kong, hides out successfully, and makes his flight to Moscow.

The Matrix Revealed

You can attribute all this, if you want to, to the sheer incompetence and stupidity of the entire US intelligence community.

There are other possibilities, if you take into account the fact that all intelligence personnel are trained to lie and deceive. It’s their staple.

Perhaps the NSA was aware of Snowden, as he was taking the documents, and they embedded a host of false trails and lies in his cache.

Perhaps some greater and more damaging revelations about the NSA were on the verge of exploding, and Snowden’s leaks functioned to conceal much deeper harm to NSA.

Perhaps the CIA, Snowden’s former employer, was still his employer, in their ongoing turf war with the NSA. And the CIA helped protect Snowden between May 20 and June 23, when he flew to Moscow.

In any case, believing that the NSA and other US intelligence operatives were unable to find Snowden in Hong Kong is like trying to eat metal.

It just doesn’t go down.

Snowden’s mysterious 36 days of freedom, as well as other elements of Snowden’s questionable bio, which I’ve covered in previous articles (see [ref1], [ref2], [ref3], [ref4], [ref5], [ref6], [ref7], and [ref8]), suggests the NSA-Snowden saga is more than it seems to be.

And don’t forget, despite the uproar about Snowden’s revelations, so far the NSA and the Surveillance State remain fully functional. The NSA’s reputation may have taken a large hit, but their work goes on unabated.

Jon Rappoport

The author of two explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED and EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at

28 comments on “The 36 mysterious days of Edward Snowden

  1. Bill says:

    This is all staged as part of the classic Problem, Reaction, Solution paradigm.

    Goal is to generate as much mistrust/dissatisfaction with the US government as possible. TPTB want to rebuild the world under the auspices of a one world government, but before that happens they need the US to crumble.

    Ergo, they’re deliberately attempting to manufacture revolt/anarchy in the country. They want a violent uprising to occur, at which time the US will crumble alongside the world economy.

    The solution? Nonviolent nonparicipation. We the people need to revolt, but on OUR terms. Violent revolution they’re prepared to crush. But nonviolent peaceful revolution? No corrupt regime on earth has long withstood that.

    • BethR says:

      “Problem, reaction, solution” indeed. Hey look everyone, the NSA is “broken” and we need to “fix” it (forget about questioning whether or not the NSA should even exist in the first place, and exactly what is their role supposed to be that wasn’t already covered under previous federal organizations?). If they can con the people into agreeing on a “fix” then they simultaneously con the people into thinking that the NSA should actually even be there (which it shouldn’t and needn’t be)

    • mikecorbeil says:

      That’s speculation, but even if they do want to try to stir up revolutionary protests that aren’t quite peaceful, say, peacefully marching in the streets in the thousands has proven what over the past decade+? That it doesn’t cause the govt to change course. Such demonstrations have proven to effect nothing for good changes with the powers that be.

      Voters continue to vote for criminals anyway. Obama’s supporters pretend to be peace-niks, anti-war, etc., yet the Obama Administration isn’t said to be worse than the predecessor for no reason and he concretely proved to be a real war criminal during his first term, but his peace-nik supporters wanted more of the same, so they voted for him again. Yeh.

      Only a small number of people who vote don’t vote for either of the two main parties. By far most voters do and plenty of these people are considered anti-war, etc. Ha, again.

      It’s a win-win situation for the “elites” and a lose-lose situation for the population that followed the perversioning, say, of the society because the “elites” like it that way. Some peace-niks pretended that voting for Obama was to choose the “lesser evil”, and I argued about that, for lesser or greater, evil is still evil. Many Obama supporters said that Obama, in 2002, opposed recourse to war on Iraq, so I asked some of these people to provide proof that this is truly what he did. Replies? Only one and it’s a well known “leftist” writer who said that voting for Obama was like choosing the “lesser” of two evils. Ha. I asked for proof. Response? Silence!

      The society has developed such a disease of socio-psychological deformation or disorder that most voters need to be rehabilitated by putting them through a school of real re-education. After all, one minute they pretend to be anti-war, pro-justice, etc., and then they do or choose the opposite when voting. Most voters apparently don’t have a clue what it means to be truly consistent or integral.

      The country is very, very ill.

      It might be a good time to head for the hills and become hermits. But then the NSA will still be able to watch you anyway. Hooray

  2. joanie says:

    On CTC this week, (1.13.14) George Noory inquires of private investigator, Ed Opperman what he thinks of Edward Snowden and Facebook – his response (I’ve summarized), Facebook, a government database and Snowden not what he represents himself to be since other whistleblowers don’t get the time of day.

    Opperman’s website –

    So, although we don’t know the truth behind the Snowden agenda, if something doesn’t seem right, it isn’t the truth. If people don’t see that, they aren’t using their birthright gift of intuition. Though people want to “believe”, it doesn’t make it so…

    • Gabriel says:

      Well said. Been sayin’ it from day one: real whistleblowers die forgotten in the dirt — they don’t get their stories blasted all across the media. Assange, Snowden: pure BS. The purest. Remember all the photos of Assange that paralleled his rise to fame? Did he take those himself? From his laptop? Probably not, but I have to ask this: Did all of his photographers refer to the same Artistic Assistant? They all look the same: high contrast from one side of the picture to the other interposed by the image of the lone and thoughtful genius hero. Over and over again.

      You give the right advice: you are your own teacher: refer to your own thoughts as an authority. Of course if you’re like me and most other people you suck at both thinking and at teaching yourself: you’re waiting to hear it from the book, like you spent the first 18-31 years of your life doing! Until we realize and learn that our education system was designed to create just such an effect we have little chance of attaining the ability to act on your own volition. For a history lesson on how American schooling was very much designed to create incapable and easily-led and managed people listen to John Taylor Gatto! Thirty-year middle-school teacher; Teacher of the Year in NYC and NY State for several years, who found out where the American education system came from, how he was personally contributing to the idiocy of our people, and now encourages people to get their kids out of school at any cost, John Gatto has an enlightening lesson in store for you. Here’s something from his website:

      And, very fine interviews with John Taylor Gatto are easily found online. Cheers!

      • michael says:

        And you can use this after Gatto as a digestif……………
        “Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time”- Carroll Quigley

        It’s a long haul at a 1090 pages but it is the wellspring of whats in their head….BTW if you look you might still be able to find it online for free. But i am sure it won’t be there for long.

        • mikecorbeil says:

          Copies of Quigley’s book are still available for free. There’s a copy at, which I guess means that the book remains freely available rather indefinitely; but, this copy doesn’t work well for me in Firefox and I’m not familiar with the viewer controls there. There’s a 1,090-page copy at (in PDX-XChange Viewer anyway). There’s also what appears to be a truly complete PDF copy at, 1,367 pages. The latter includes an image of the book cover and some initial geographical images, f.e., while the partial copy at wantToKnow lacks these images, so possibly also others.

          I recalled having seen the name of Carroll Quigley in the past, but couldn’t recall what was said about him. So I did a Web search of and found some articles that refer to his book, “Tragedy and Hope: …”; not to criticize it. The references make use of information expressed in the book. So the book apparently is a good recommendation.

          Not many people would want to read such a long text though. It requires avid readers. 1,300+ pages? I hope it’s not too repetitive.

    • mikecorbeil says:

      I read maybe 7 or 8 years ago that Facebook is a CIA front. This might’ve been Alex Jones, who I stopped listening to except on very rare occasion since maybe as many years ago, because of his nuisance character. But, why wouldn’t the CIA want to use social networking websites to spy on people?

      James Corbett also provided a reminder of some very interesting things about the founder of Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg, who evidently doesn’t care about protecting the privacy of Facebook users’ information.

      “The Last Word on Privacy” (8:39), published Jan. 2013

      I’ll excerpt a paragraph from the transcript and sources page for the video.

      Quote: “Some will see this as poetic justice. This is, after all, the same Mark Zuckerberg who participated in an IM exchange with one of his friends in 2004, shortly after launching Facebook, in which he bragged that “I have over 4000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS. People just submitted it. I don’t know why. They ‘trust me.’ Dumb fucks.””.


  3. bleak says:

    Yeah, the NSA couldn’t find him just like the CIA couldn’t find Osama bin Laden even before 9/11. But most people still believe what they hear on TV.

    What are we being setup for, I keep wondering? Kind of makes the Snowden/Greenwald/Poitras/Paypal deal look like a sideshow. I wish the state of Utah would cut off the water supply to the NSA building. Nullification can be a powerful thing.

  4. Anna says:

    Another round of manufactured dissent. With luck, Greenwald’s greed, arrogance, and establishment bootlicking will sink this ship and become another lesson learned. Why pick such a petulant go-between?

  5. greenback says:

    Eddie Snowden = Julian Assange 2.0 – Snowden’s reveals that NSA spies on everyone; everyone already knew it. Assange releases loads of leaks of little value. In both cases the idea of ‘leaks” overshadowed the actual leaks themselves. Wikileaks failed to become the center for alternative information. Now Glenn Greenwald’s new partnership with billionaire investor is attempting to create a news agency capable of grabbing the public’s trust for future propaganda distribution. They need to create false heroes, Snowden, Greenwald and others in order for the people to buy into it. Classic Hegel’s Problem, Reaction, Solution. One thing about the NWO, we have their playbook so none of this should be a surprise.

  6. Bruce Marshall says:


    Abetted or not, the fact remains that public statements of Edward Snowdens represent an direct articulation of a support of the Constitution and Bill of Rights through a declaration of his intention of loyalty to his Oath to defend the Constitution and Bill of Rights.


    • mikecorbeil says:

      That doesn’t prevent him from being naive, gullible and, therefore, manipulatable. Many citizens who enlisted in the US military to serve in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq did so believing the bullshit that came from the White House. It didn’t take more than a week or so for one to wake up to reality, and thousands of others also came to wake up to it as well. We have many thousands, tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of veterans of these wars who’re stricken with PTSD, including severe. I’ve read a number of times that more veterans of these wars have committed suicide than those who were KIA.

      Wanting to defend the Constitution and Bill of Rights doesn’t necessarily mean that a person will do this correctly. Very many Americans do not realize how to perform this defence. Many of these Americans repeatedly vote to re-elect political candidates who’ve already proven to be roguish, criminal, including genocidal, as well as treachorous. When new candidates arrive on the scene, what is there for any real vetting? Nothing, or, at best, virtually nothing.

      A person can have some good intention, but carelessness and being naive makes for lousy defence.

  7. mikecorbeil says:

    Very good article.

    I haven’t yet read all of the “ref” articles linked in this one, but have read two and they’re very good, so I’ll be reading the others as well. However, there’s one aspect of the Snowden part of all of this that I haven’t seen specific questioning about, yet.

    I’ll begin by providing links for 3 of the 4 sources I’ll be using for this comment and will then refer to them, clearly, I hope.

    “How Did A Guy With A GED End Up With Top Secret Clearance At The NSA?”,
    by Eric Lach, June 11, 2013

    “A Guide To The Career Of Edward Snowden”,
    by Eric Lach, June 10, 2013

    “Interview 793 – John Young Breaks Down the Snowden/NSA Saga” (36 min), Dec. 17, 2013

    Two things that remain particularly standing in my mind about what John Young, editor of, said in the interview are:

    1) the NSA may’ve tricked Snowden into believing that he was actually getting or “lifting” very important documents, rather than documents that may cause a bit of stir, all while being comparitively nothing for the NSA, for it has known for many years that it was exposed many years ago for spying on Americans; and,

    2) the whole Snowden-Greenwald-Omidyar-Paypal-NSA story is considerably less important than watching and therefore knowing what the billlionaires, who Young says or explains really are institutions, are doing, while adding that there’re conflicts between them.

    The latter makes sense to me. I forget exactly which article it is, but I read one yesterday that explains that there’re very strong ties, say, between billionaires and governments. Perhaps it’s one of your articles, but whoever the author is, the person definitely makes very strong sense.

    As for the trickery, I agree with Young about this as well, but perhaps Snowden was also tricked in another way as well.

    I’ll now refer to the TPM articles by Eric Lach. I’m not sure that I’ll be referring to anything said in his June 11th piece but will include its link anyway, for it is very amazing that someone like Snowden could obtain top secret clearance. Imo, it isn’t credible. That he got this status is very suspect, for he shouldn’t have been able to receive it. I don’t question whether he did or not. I question the absurdity of granting someone with his academic record a top secret clearance, so I’m really questioning the intentions of the people who granted him this status.

    Snowden’s IT job titles:

    Lach says, quote: “Snowden told The Guardian’s Glenn Greenwald, in an on-camera interview the newspaper put online on Sunday. “I have been a systems engineer, a systems administrator, [a] senior advisor for the Central Intelligence Agency’s solutions consultant, and a telecommunications information systems officer.””

    Those are serious professional IT jobs and Snowden wasn’t qualified for any of them. He still isn’t, today. “Not by a long shot.” F.e., not even most people who graduate in computer science (CSC) are qualified to be computer systems engineers, for they require both computer science and electrical engineering (EE) courses, a combination most CSC graduates don’t have. Better suited would be graduates in EE who also took sufficient courses in CSC, a minor or more in the latter.

    Lach didn’t include a link for the Guardian page for the video, but a Web search turned up the link.

    Snowden’s statement about the IT job titles is at or shortly after the very beginning of the video and one thing that’s peculiar is that he had to hesitate before stating one or two of the tiles. Once he remembers it or them, he looks at Greenwald and seems like seeking approval. It’s like Snowden was trying to recall the title or titles from interview prepatory material or notes he had read; not written, only read.

    A real professional would know the job titles right off of the top of his/her head!

    Quote: “[a] senior advisor for the Central Intelligence Agency’s solutions consultant”.

    That’s ambiguous for title. Was Snowden a senior advisor to a solutions consultant employed by the CIA? Or, was he saying that he was a senior advisor as a solutions consultant to the CIA? The title means that he was claiming to have been a senior advisor in IT, which is clear for meaning even if it isn’t credible at all for someone like him. However, it isn’t sufficiently clear who the solutions consultant was. If he was both, then it’d be more straight-forward if he said, f.e., “As a solutions consultant I worked as a senior advisor to/for the CIA”. It’d be totally clear; not credible, far from it, but nevertheless clear in meaning. Whatever the meaning is supposed to be, Snowden wasn’t and still isn’t qualified, “not by a long shot”.

    He said that he did poorly in high school, and he clearly dropped out, for he had to get a GED many years later. Yet, he goes from HS drop-out to a college in Maryland from 1999 to 2001 and quits. He returns to the college from 2004-2005 and quits again. Later, he gets a GED for HS equivalency. This is rather very peculiar, since successful HS completion normally is a prerequisite for acceptance at any college or university.

    Also, while the college said that they had a record of some Edward Snowden attending as a student during the years stated above, this student never took any cyber-related or NSA-approved information systems security courses. And I know that taking any computer science (CSC) courses requires having done sufficiently well in maths, but Snowden did poorly in HS, so he surely didn’t do well in HS maths, either. Iow, he surely didn’t take any real CSC courses at all. If he did, then the college becomes suspect as well.

    Computer systems engineering requires courses in both CSC and electrical engineering (EE). Snowden did this? Clearly not.


    It seems that someone suggested that he state these IT job titles, for he remains, to this day, extremely unqualified for any of them.

    The NSA may very well have tricked Snowden into believing that he was obtaining highly sensitive documents, but if the NSA did this, then it or another party seems to have also tricked Snowden into believing that he could claim very professional IT experience while working at the CIA and/or NSA that simply is absolutely not credible for someone with his prior work experience and academic education. Most people learning about this story wouldn’t be able to discern that the job titles, alone, are extremely suspect for someone like him, for most people know little more about computers than using their Web browser, word processor, etc.

    As for Greenwald, Omidyar, etc., well, perhaps the following article:

    “Omidyar’s PayPal Corporation Said To Be Implicated in Withheld NSA Documents”,
    by Sibel Edmonds, Dec. 11, 2013

    Those evidently are documents of real value and Sibel Edmonds uses responses from real NSA whistleblowers. Be well seated when reading the piece.

    She provides a bio. for each of those people at the end of the article, btw. Searching, and possibly, f.e., will turn up more about these former NSA people, including interviews. BFP and CR both have interviews with Russell Tice, f.e. The BFP one is over 2 hours long. I haven’t yet listened to them, but they’re downloaded for listening to hopefully this week.

    But, if the NSA tricked Snowden about the documents and the ones he got actually include incriminating evidence against PayPal for its strong relationship with the NSA, then this results with questioning I don’t even imaginatively have any answer for; besides incompetence. If the NSA didn’t trick him and he got such documents, then how? He doesn’t have any qualifications for the types of IT jobs he reportedly claimed to have had at the CIA and/or NSA.

    Well, one of your articles that I read is about the CIA-NSA turf war, so perhaps the answer would be found in this respect.

    The big eye over the pyramid on US currency “rings a bell”. But who, exactly, is the “Wizard of Oz” in all of this?

    • Michael says:

      Yeah but what does intuition tell you…this was very slick marketing Mike. Puts some Gucci underwear on this naked kid clutching four laptops to his chest. Spray a little Axe on him, everybody would be phoning the NSA appealing “Pick me, pick me.”
      What a sweet face that Snowden has, if there ever was a perfect actor for the role…and I don’t think he gnows it.
      I believe he thinks he’s a spook of the highest order…visions of “Hi my names is James…James Bond” running through his head….four laptops…are you kidding!. Guess that is what the problem/reaction/solution lead-up to the ‘we can search your laptop’ within the 100mile Constitutionally Free Zone.

      As for the “Wizard of Oz”, one source says it is a five year old girl in Fargo, North Dakota, the other appeals that the position is open, they are still taking applications…its a tough job though Mike, the negative feed back alone will turn your bowls to water and age you ten years in a day.


      “Best to keep your head down, and put a Bindi dot the size of a dinner plate on your forehead.”

      • mikecorbeil says:


        If the Snowden-Greenwald-Omidyar-…-NSA, and possibly CIA, game is to be exposed for the stage show that it clearly is, then substance is required. After all, the aim shouldn’t be to preach to the choir. It should be to try to help people who want to expose this whole stage show to have real arguments or explanations to present to people who’re taken in by this show of charlatan making. Don’t tell someone naive that they’re being misled by a charlatan. Instead, back that up with sufficiently substantial explanation. If you talk to them in kid-like way, then it definitely won’t be easy to be persuasive. Again, the aim is to try to help naive people to wake up; not to preach to the choir.

  8. paul maleski says:

    Just ask Edward Snowden who did 9/11? Need I type more!

  9. Tarzie says:

    “If you want to test this out, go to your local library and read 20,000 pages of anything. Never mind making notes. Just get to the end of it.”

    Yeah, it’s a testimony to how lazy and dumb the press is that not even Snowden’s detractors have crunched the numbers here. We know from the New York Times that the trove consists of at least 50,000+ documents, since that’s the reported size of just the subset the Guardian gave them for safekeeping. Also, by Greenwald and Co’s own usage, which conforms to most popular usage, ‘document’ does not equate to ‘page.’ Gellman has referred to the 41 PRISM slides as ‘a document.’ In his testimony to the Brazilian Senate, Greenwald described the documents as ‘very long.’

    So even if we go by just what the Times has, and we hypothesize a conservative two pages per document, we’re looking at a number of documents that would be impossible to go through, even if Snowden began harvesting them in 2009 when he went to work for Dell. And that’s no even considering that he would have reviewed a number of documents that didn’t meet his criteria for inclusion in the leak. The story is just preposterous and especially reprehensible considering how Snowden, Greenwald and Gellman have used it to disparage Chelsea Manning, promoting government legends about her recklessness that at least Greenwald knows to be entirely false. They started in with this stuff from the beginning, and as late as the December hagiograpy in Rolling Stone, were still at it.

    • mikecorbeil says:

      Quote: “Yeah, it’s a testimony to how lazy and dumb the press is that not even Snowden’s detractors have crunched the numbers here”.

      That’s an assumption based on appearances. It’s very possible that the journalists realize that it isn’t credible that Snowden carefully studied or examined all of the documents, but these journalists clearly aren’t aiming to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Journalists who lie like this can certainly seem dumb, but they or most of them surely know that they’re lying. One reason is to hold onto their jobs and incomes, as plenty of critics have stated. F.e., plenty of journalists who tow-the-Washington-line about 9/11 surely realize that the official story doesn’t hold up to careful scrutiny, but they want to hold onto their jobs and incomes, so they play along to keep their jobs.

      Yellow journalism surely is often or usually done by “journalists” who know that they’re lying.

      • Tarzie says:

        I think in this case some of them — at least on the leftier side of the spectrum — believe everything Snowden and Greenwald tell them.

        • mikecorbeil says:

          I don’t know about the journalists supporting Snowden and Greenwald, but it’s done in some alt. media. The Nation, f.e., is surely doing it.

          As for other citizens wanting to believe Snowden is on the up-and-up and that Greenwald is absolutely honest, refusing to consider critical questions that’re justified, well, consider how most voters were in 2008 with respect to Obama. Many, perhaps most of them behaved as if they believed he was totally honest and would definitely bring about good and needed changes, improvements, corrections in Washington policy-making. They elected him. He then proved to be a war criminal President, as well as very roguish with respect to domestic policies. And they still voted to re-elect him again in 2012.

          What was the excuse in 2012 for re-electing him? They feared his Republican opponent? Well, an option was to vote for none of the main, “leading” candidates. Most voters fear doing this and they repeatedly elect and re-elect CRIMINALS, after which, they stick their heads in the sand and hope that life will become better by the time they take their heads out of the sand to look around again. They can say that repeating the same error or very similar ones over and over again is dumb, but they do it anyway and then live in denial; sometimes wittingly, albeit while also working to suppress their awareness of this.

          Obama had clearly proven himself to be criminal and they re-elected him. Some might not have realized that he was guilty of being criminal, but I imagine that many of his 2012 supporters did. How could that many people be so damn ignorant that none of them would’ve been able to realize that he proved, of himself, to be a criminal?

          If some of these “lefties” realize that there are things to question about Snowden and Greenwald, then maybe they’re going to behave like the “lefties” who re-elected a known crirminal as U.S. President in 2012 and will deny that he’s a criminal, suppressing knowledge of the opposite being the truth. In the case of Snowden, I’m not prepared to say that he’s proven to be criminal; but, he’s definitely questionable and has very poor judgment.

          I learned of the following article tonight from a reply Kevin Ryan posted at his blog to a user’s comment.

          “In 2009, Ed Snowden said leakers “should be shot.” Then he became one
          In Internet chat, Snowden opined on travel, short-selling — and national security”
          by Joe Mullin, June 26 2013

          He also opined about the Obama presidential campaign, saying it’d be great if Obama would run with sick John McCain for running mate for V.P. Ha.

          He was angry about the NYT having reported about Washington trying to covertly work on sabotaging Iran’s nuclear weapons development. Iran didn’t provably have such a program, but this doesn’t matter to the roguish individuals who run Washington … unconstitutionally, hypocritically and hegemonically, either. Snowden clearly believed that Iran had this program when the CIA analysts reported years earlier that there was no evidence at all of Iran having such a program any longer.

          He was pro-NSA spying on citizens.

          He clearly had very poor judgment and he then hands NSA documents he purportedly “lifted”, all by himself, to Greenwald and Poitras, plus some msm corporate “news” media, which any sufficiently aware person knows to publish lies, etc.

          If he’s innocent, that is, being honest, not having ill will, which he doesn’t appear to have, then he has poor judgment. He handed the documents over to the wrong parties. Some critics of Greenwald’s behavior in this have said that it’ll take 40 years before we have all of the documents. I wonder if we’ll have them all even by then.

          • Tarzie says:

            Yeah, I think the comparison to Obama 2008 is very apt, right down to the campaign atmosphere and cultishness. Same people, too, for the most part. The ones that found relief in Greenwald’s invective when the disappointment set in.

  10. Orion says:

    I saw a magician once (long long ago) slice a woman in half, then I saw him make a dove disappear . What was amusing to me at the time was that while everyone watched the moving *look at me hand* I watched the other slick stealthy one and the trick was nulled…. When you’re being directed it’s not always easy to see pass the fog…

  11. […] The 36 mysterious days of Edward Snowden by Jon Rappoport […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s