Snowden: Donald Trump could get pal Putin to kick me out of Russia NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden has warned Donald Trump, as US President, could do a deal with Russian leader Vladimir Putin to extradite or imprison the whistleblower. In an hour-long live-streamed video interview on Periscope with Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey today, Snowden argued the US had trapped him in Russia when it …
Count the generals and right-wingers tRump is putting together. They want to make an example of people who promise to keep US secrets and then break that promise.
How would we know if anyone were killed because of the information released?
Critical thinking? HAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHA! https://xkcd.com/386/
@jgarry
For fuck's sake you're a tool.
To answer the question: Donald Trump doesn't give a shit about US secrets, he only cares about US money. Something that will help bring him more money will be a pony show. Snowden can be that pony. If Trump does force him in, it makes Trump look like a cleaner and strikes even more fear into anyone that may attempt to do what Snowden has done. Thus, increasing trust in himself for whatever shady back room deals he will be involved in with any country or company.
However, I don't think he'll bring him in, as the government wants him forgotten and broken down. Besides, if they would dare convict him on this soil, there would be so many people standing behind him in this country that the government might have concerns of trust with their own citizens. Basically, politicians would deserve to be shot and they'd know it.
Count the generals and right-wingers tRump is putting together.-- @jgarry
Am I the only one who interprets comments that mutate politicians' names for supposed satirical effect -- "Tony Bliar", "ConDem", "Cammoron", "ZaNULabour", "Snorebyn" and suchlike -- as signifying the author's under the age of 16? It's clumsy, it's boring, it's not big clever or remotely funny.
"and suchlike -- as signifying the author's under the age of 16? It's clumsy, it's boring, it's not big clever or remotely funny."
I wholeheartedly agree. If anyone says something like that to me, I stop paying attention to them as it makes it obvious they have nothing to contribute to the conversation, especially when they say "Sheeple", "-industrial complex", or "Big *" (for the last two, I will listen if they can provide evidence of collusion or if they are discussing specific companies and deals, its when they try and make it some shadow-cabal that bother the hell out of me).
The same applies whenever anyone says something like "WinBlows", "CrApple" or "LinSux". I might agree with them, but that doesn't change that fact that I think they are being an unbearable tool. I agree that Trump is soem kind of quantum super-position of Hanlon's Razor (In that he is simultaneously both malicious -and- incompetent) but that the person who said that is a babbling moron.
BillG, Trump is not a politician. He's a celebrity. Completely different psychology which is why the political establishment, and most elites, completely fail at manipulating or predicting his behaviors. Cast Snowden into that analytical lens and see what the results look like.
I must admit that guys a genius at manipulating the media. Can't stand him, but what a show.
@BillG - no, that's not true. Fascists are quite different from centrist politicians like Obama and Clinton. If Obama were governing like that, Snowden would have been pardoned years ago.
What centrists do, and what virtually every US president has done, is to pay lip service to their base while doing deals with their political opponents. That's why every US president in living memory has routinely been described by their own keenest supporters as a traitor.
A fascist doesn't worry about appeasing the opposition, he just revs up his own base and if you don't happen to be part of his favoured demographic - well, sucks to be you. It's a leadership style that America hasn't seen in living memory. Although Europe has, and bits of the Middle East and Asia are enjoying it now.
I doubt that Trump would do it to send a message. Politicians spend all their time "sending messages" as a substitute for actually achieving anything. Trump is a businessman, not a politician. If Snowden gets sold down the river it will be in exchange for something, as a bargaining chip in some back-room deal. If the US wants Snowden, then Russia will need to get paid. And if the DoD wants Trump to pay Russia, then Trump will need to get paid. So the question becomes, how can the DoD scratch Trump's back.
Ian claimed: The ex-NSA IT nerd added the incoming White House administration – which has better relations with the Russian government than the Obama regime – may be able to get him kicked out of the country and delivered into the hands of Uncle Sam.
I browsed through the interview. I did not see anything that even remotely supports the above statement from Ian. I could not find anything Trump said RECENTLY that supports that statement. I did read from the interview the following statement:
"I'm not worried," Snowden said Tuesday in an interview with Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey, who asked if he is worried a Trump presidency could lead to his imprisonment.
To quote Yahoo news: "There is no evidence that Putin is considering such a move"
Ian, I politely ask that you please produce a quote from the interview that supports your position.
Bill, stop being tedious.
Snowden was asked if Trump could get him imprisoned. One very obvious way that would happen is if Snowden is deported from Russia and obtained by the US where he, right now, faces treason charges. Snowden said it was possible he could be locked up as a result of pressure from Trump but he wasn't worried about it. The article doesn't say it is likely to happen. That much is clear.
Don't accuse us of fake news.
C.
So, may i coin the term Cuden, Cubaden, Snouba, Snowba, SnowCastro, Castrowden??? cuz again it will be the weak who will be grinded like wheat between two rocks of mill ... US and Russia. Infact not the weak but the stupid. Cuba was stupid then to gun for cheap fame pretending to getting up for taming the capitalist evil. And now again Snowden seemingly stupid repeating the same. Forgetting that Russia ditched Cuba then and as per his own suspicion will ditch again this time very himself. CIA/FBI is in a very classic win win situation after quite a while... If Russia ditches Snowden the irreversible damage to face of Russia in form of this Cuba 2.0 and If it doesn't ditch snowden then Trump could disregard Russia's elections favour in returning/floodgates of favours/rewards!!! And god willing Mujahideen will prevail!!! Amen!.
He definitely wasn't pro-Hillary (he didn't like her ties to Goldman-Sachs), or pro-Trump. He was pro-third party, which lead to him saying something he may now be regretting:
(link)
@Snowden
There may never be a safer election in which to vote for a third option.
10:09 pm - 21 Oct 2016
He chose not to go after Trump like he did Clinton, that's for sure. The third party nonsense was Snowden being far more naive than he thinks he is.
Greenwald similar approach. Too busy attacking Clinton to see what's coming in the back door. I don't care beyond the comedy value of it. Greenwald is still doing it in fact. Live by the sword; there are worse things than Clinton if you're this kind of actor. Unless Trump really is the Russian agent he tries his best to look like - in which case you're good, carry on.
"how people can get the two mixed up has always bewildered me."
One of them was a Whistle-blower that risked life and limb to preserve freedom and civil rights, the other is a ego-centric asshole that will do pretty much anything to have his face on TV, like when he made Manning's releases all about himself.
Any reason that despite trying two computers via three different browsers on each, two completely disparate VPN's and two different internet connections, that the feed to the Periscope video keeps cutting off approximately every few minutes but immediately restarts when attempted (ie, therefore no network problems causing the disconnection)?
</tinfoilhat>
The deed was done. We survived and moved on. Let Russia keep him and pay for his living. We do not need to spend money on trials and keeping him in our prison. He doing a good job aggrevating their own government anyway. He just a pompus brat now. No respect for him what so ever!
"The answer to bad speech is not censorship, it's more speech calling out fake news," he said. "We need to spread the idea that critical thinking is important."
Er, am I alone in thinking that that's an ambitious aspiration?
Also I'm not entirely sure what fake news is, or rather more specifically, what real news is. People wring their hands about the traditional press and its 'real news' being eroded to irrelevance by online fake junk, etc, but then again the traditional press includes the Daily Mail, the Murdoch-owned newspapers, the Telegraph, Express, Guardian, etc. We 'know' that a lot of their output is designed to suit their owners' views and is far from being 'true'.
Even broadcast news is questionable - in the UK it's pretty much the same stories in the same order with the same-ish spin no matter which channel one tunes into. TV journalists are told by their editors what sort of story to get, and they choose what interviews with "members of the public" are actually used. And even if one thinks that the news channel is playing it straight, one often has to wonder why so many placards are written in English and displayed in so many protests in so many countries where English is not widely spoken.
I've long ago concluded that the only reason something is broadcast or printed or Web published is because someone somewhere wants you to absorb their point of view to further their own agenda. Editors mostly, press officers too. The difference being these days that almost anyone can be an editor online, and social media 'trending' popular content brings it to the fore. Fake news? 'Real' news outlets are just as capable of deliberately misconstruing or misrepresenting or imagining 'facts' to suit the agenda of the owner of the newspaper, TV channel, etc. For example, look at the BBC's abysmal role in spreading the demonstrably false scare stories about the MMR jab. Balance? Balance my arse - sensational stories bring high viewing figures, broadcast and revel in the numbers, that's their only motivation. On this particular topic, Brian Cox pointed out that the BBC's 'balance' weighed the entirety of scientific peer reviewed wisdom against the opinion of a man not accepted as an authority in the field with no peer reviewed papers to back him up, and judged them to be equal. Oh dear.
Anyway, so almost no one involved in the creation, dissemination of 'real' news is truly an honest broker. So why is 'fake' news significantly worse?
About the only exception is Private Eye, which is pretty good at putting out mostly facts (rare mistakes) and mostly letting them speak for themselves. And the tech press like El Reg does a good job of sticking to tech news.
The kind of people who share those fake news stories are not going to be deterred by people calling them out as fake. In their world those people are trying to suppress the truth about Hillary's child sex ring run out of a random pizza joint, and the more people who try to deny it the more they will need to counter them by making sure the truth is out there.
Facebook has given us the platform that will lead to Idiocracy becoming reality. Trump is just the first stage, I fear it may get much worse in the future - and it will be coming from the left as well as the right next time.
Only a fool would consider Putin a tool and likely to destroy all of his street hero credibility with any action designed to create a destructive division rather than strengthen an advantageous position.
The story is tabloid fodder and nothing more exciting than that. Such happens all of the time, even in the best of informing circles. It helps IT and Media keep the natives informed of nothing important enough to have them bothered to do anything about anything.
. If he does get sent to the US for a "show trial," Snowden will argue that he has released no secrets personally – giving that job to the press – and none of the information has harmed anyone nor the American government itself,
I'm not a lawyer, but (1) I'm pretty sure that releasing classified data to the press counts as "releasing to unauthorised persons", and (2) is completely irrelevant -- it'd be like getting stopped for drink driving and pleading not guilty on the grounds that you didn't actually kill anyone.
All right, let's say the Grand Conspiracy of Trump and Putin conspire (which makes it a conspiracy yanno) to end Ed's stay in Russia. Since the US government has threatened anyone who harbors him with nuclear annihilation (let's have fun speculating) he won't have anywhere to go and CIA kidnap squads can snatch him somewhere. And then he's returned to the US to "stand trial".
This would hardly be a victory for US spy agencies or the Federal government. Such a trial would attract gobs of unwelcome media attention. Most people don't care about Ed now, but put him on the news daily and that would change. The last thing the spy lords want would be to turn Ed into a well-known poster child for privacy and government accountability.
Far from Sending a Message to intimidate future Snowdens, such a trial would likely energize the opposition and cause more pushback than less. They have to trumpet and thunder for the press, but I don't think they really want to open that door.
A couple of months ago Mr. Snowden said "America's election is a choice between Goldman Sachs and Donald Trump"
Savor that for a moment while contemplating the 6 current of former GS wanks the mango Mussolini has already appointed and then ask yourself why, when Putin and DJT's was well known before the election why it just occurred to Ed that this could be a problem for him.
Since Snowden is not a total idiot occums razor would suggest his current statement is simply a disinformation campaign to a) preserve his alleged independence from his current owner and b) somehow indicate that DJT was not really Putin's candidate.
Yes you did personally release classified information... to the press.
It's the public who will sit in the jury seat and judge you. If you truly believe you did the right thing for the USA, then go back and plead your case in court. You only have to convince 1 juror.
Those who've made a stand against the government and won by getting the people behind them, never did it from outside the country. They were brave enough to keep their chin up. They didn't run like a coward and shout insults from a distant land.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
