First one was not published by the journalists Snowden chose, whom he directed as to the kinds of things he wanted published and not. The NYT got the archive from the guardian against Snowden's wishes and knew better. Your criticism is of the NYT.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jun/29/edward-snowd...

And plenty more.

How are your criticisms of the CIA, NSA and Dept of homeland security coming along? Or you are unable to criticise clapper, the cnn paid expert at this time.

Let's forget about publishing. He took a top secret document on NSA spying on China to Chinese territory and then on to Russia. The fact that the Times published them and not his preferred journalist is besides the point. The damage was already done when he took them to Chinese territory and then on to Russia.

> and then on to Russia

False.

The only people who saw the documents that Snowden had were the journalists chosen by Snowden. In any country, including the USA. Some were less responsible than others hence the nyt got a copy. Hong Kong is wholly and totally irrelevant.

The fact the times decided to publish is 100% their responsibility.

Again, what criticisms do you have of the NSA, CIA and dept of homeland security? List them all briefly here, please.

> The NYT got the archive from the guardian against Snowden's wishes and knew better.

No, the NYT was reporting on documents that Der Spiegel obtained from Poitras, according to Snowden's wishes. The Der Spiegel journalists had decided to publish a book about those documents and made them public in Germany at the same time.

Your objections here are like criticizing a homeowner for shooting a burglar with an unregistered gun. Yes, it's illegal, but nobody cares because there is a much more severe crime going on, and it's strange that you would focus on that.