Hillary’s Claims About Snowden Rated “Mostly False”

by Joey Clark

Clinton’s Snowden Accusations Don’t Tell the Whole Story

In the first Democratic debate, Hillary Clinton flashed her establishment credentials by faulting Edward Snowden for not going through the proper “whistleblower” channels when he decided to reveal the NSA’s mass surveillance and data collection programs.  Said Clinton in the debate:

“He broke the laws of the United States. He could have been a whistleblower. He could have gotten all of the protections of being a whistleblower. He could have raised all the issues that he has raised. And I think there would have been a positive response to that.”

To those familiar with the Snowden case, Clinton’s statement is hardly an accurate portrayal of the federal law and how it applies to the sensitive information Snowden released to the public. Hillary seems to suggest that the United States intelligence community provides robust protections to whistleblowers such as Snowden. This is simply not the case.

Politifact agrees:

Clinton said that Edward Snowden “could have gotten all the protections of being a whistleblower.” A key 1998 law focused on intelligence community workers does lay out a pathway Snowden could have followed. However, there is at least a significant legal debate over whether the issues Snowden wanted to raise would fall under that law.

Additionally, legal experts including an Army inspector general have said that the 1998 law does not protect whistleblowers from reprisals.

The protections that Clinton referenced do not seem to be as strong as she suggested, and most of the expert opinion suggests they would not apply to Snowden.

We rate this claim Mostly False.

Read the rest of Politifact’s breakdown of Clinton’s statement here.