I am generally pretty distrustful of anything that any government tells me, which includes the United States government. Still, I TRY to not fall into confirmation bias or good guy vs bad guy assumptions and I try to look at all the evidence before jumping to a conclusion. So I'm allowing for any possibility as to the truth behind this story. That all being said, while there are some actions Snowden took that I find potentially contrary to his story, the majority of the available evidence leads me to assign a higher probability that whistleblowing on unconstitutional programs was at least his primary motive.

Now that doesn't change the fact that what he did was illegal. But I'm wise enough to know that what is moral and what is legal can often be very different things. So I think granting his request for a public trial and the ability to argue a public interest defense is perfectly reasonable. The fact that the government is not willing to do so I think speaks volumes about their lack of evidence that his actions were those of a spy.

Even this kind of nuanced view is borderline suspicious within much of the defense/intelligence community. That kind of hidebound, close-minded mindset is one of the big reasons why I didn't feel like I fit in within that work environment...