27 would not be on Snowden’s side of the divide (and the Snowden breach ended the career of many of them, including General Alexander.) But political leaders in both parties could also be found on the anti-Snowden side of the divide. “T don’t look at this as being a whistle-blower.” Senator Dianne Feinstein (D. - Calif.), the head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said after she was briefed on Snowden's theft of documents. "I think it’s an act of treason." Rep. Mike Rogers, (R.-Mich.), her counterpart on the House Intelligence Committee, said on the NBC program, “Meet the Press,” that Snowden might be working for a foreign intelligence service. And a former prominent member of President Obama's cabinet went even further, suggesting to me off the record in March this year that there are only three possible explanations for the Snowden heist: 1) It was a Russian espionage operation; 2) It was a Chinese espionage operation, or 3) It was a joint Sino-Russian operation. These severe accusations generated much heat but little light. They were not accompanied by any evidence from these Congressional leaders showing that Snowden had acted in concert with any foreign power in stealing the files or, for that matter, that he was not acting out of his own personal convictions, not matter how misguided they may have been. On this side of the divide, Snowden's critics regard the whistle blowing narrative as at best incomplete, and at worst fodder for the naive. They point out that the FISA document that gave him credentials as a whistle-blower was only issued in the last week of April 2013, which was three months after he first contacted Greenwald and almost 9 months after he began illegally copying secret documents. They further believe that the evidence contradicts Snowden’s claims that he stole only documents that exposed NSA transgression into domestic surveillance, that he turned over all the stolen documents to journalists, and that he was forced to remain in Moscow b