Snowden states he was able to look up information on any citizen, including the President, without any explicit approval or subsequent investigation. What evidence do you have to refute that?
That's not the way logic works. Affirmative assertions need to be demonstrated by the person making the claim. It's not encumbent on anyone to disprove Snowden's claims; it's his responsibility to show that they are true.
The weird thing is the NSA has never refuted the very specific allegation of Booz's access and the lack of supervision (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/09/edward-snowden-...), merely just repeated that 'oversight exists'. Since we're all discussing a massive series of leaked documents, how do you logically think otherwise?
Let's see what the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) has to say:
