Edward Snowden’s decision to reveal the existence of massive national security databases of Americans’ email and telephone data remains a flashpoint for debate among Americans. Some people praise Snowden as a hero. To others, Snowden is a traitor. The U.S. government charged Snowden, an employee of a government security contractor, with violating the Espionage Act. He found asylum in Russia but would like to return home. At the first Democratic debate Oct. 13, CNN moderator Anderson Cooper pressed the candidates to offer their view of Snowden. Hillary Clinton said Snowden shouldn’t come home "without facing the music." "He broke the laws of the United States," Clinton said. "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." That’s not accurate, we found. While American law does shield government whistleblowers, it wouldn't necessarily apply in Snowden's case. ... Our ruling 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. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...n-says-nsa-leaker-snowden-failed-use-whistle/
