How could she possibly come to the conclusion that what he did violates the Constitution? Has she even read it?
To simultaneously uphold and violate the Constitution on issues pertaining to the 4th amendment (or any other part of it for that matter), I think you have to be a member of one of the armed forces. He worked for the NSA as a contractor via Booz Allen. He was not under an oath to the Commander in Chief like Manning was. With this in mind, how could anything he has done be in violation of the Constitution? Is there some part of the Constitution I'm forgetting here?