I hadn't read this and generally admire Gellman. Thanks for the link.

We can analyze the claims Gellman makes here, though, and further our understanding of the controversy. I believe these are all of them:

* The House report claims Snowden lied saying he left military training due to broken legs, and instead washed out due to "shin splints". Gellman objects, saying he has a documented diagnosis for Snowden saying he was discharged with "bilaterial tibial stress fractures". But tibial stress fractures are a form --- a common form --- of shin splint.

* The House report claims Snowden never completed his high school equivalency. Gellman has the score Snowden got on his equivalency back in 2004. The House report's claim is inexplicable.

* The House report claims Snowden was a very low level employee. Gellman objects based on his titles and the fact that he was sent to Europe under diplomatic cover. It's difficult to evaluate this dispute. His claims about Snowden's titles are very unconvincing --- it's also extremely unlikely that Snowden had the role Gellman claims he had w/r/t/ Dell's cybersecurity group (Dell employs a huge number of infosec people). You'd also want to know whether it was routine for people employed at CIA to be deployed under diplomatic cover, because Gellman uses that as evidence of his seniority.

* The House report claims Snowden doctored his performance evaluations. Gellman rebuts that Snowden was demonstrating a vulnerability in the web app that displayed it. I'm inclined to believe both sides of this story could believe their side in good faith, but you might disagree.

* The House report claims Snowden stole the answers to an employment questionnaire. (This claim was also made by officials on 60 Minutes) Gellman rebuts that the test in question was very basic, and by this point in Snowden's career he'd had so much experience --- and an MCSE certificate --- that he wouldn't need to. Gellman doesn't know whether this happened, or what test they're talking about. The 60 Minutes claim is that the test involved getting into NSA's TAO group, which makes me think the MCSE certificate not so relevant. But ultimately: we don't know, and neither does Gellman.

* The House report makes mention of Snowden's flight to Russia. Gellman rebuts that it was in fact a thwarted flight to Ecuador. I think Gellman is probably wrong about this: the claim that Snowden was diligently trying to reach Ecuador depends on him being stuck in Sheremetyevo due to passport invalidation, but it's been pointed out repeatedly that he could have obtained an exit visa without a valid passport. There's also the wrinkles that Snowden spent time (days) in the Russian consulate in Hong Kong, and that he was advised by others to seek asylum in Russia. Both sides again might have valid reasons to push their arguments, but Gellman's rebuttal isn't dispositive.

* The House report notes that Snowden didn't avail himself of whistleblower protections in the US. Gellman claims he could not have. Both sides can be right. There is very little evidence that Snowden attempted to escalate his findings through channels (there are a lot of public claims that he did, but the actual evidence apparently comes down to a single email that makes no mention of an urgent complaint). Further, we have Snowden's own claim that he took the Booz Allen job specifically to get access to these documents and send them overseas --- internal whistleblower channels would impede that objective. Moreover: this is a slippery argument: Gellman can always define some action (for instance: bulk delivery of internal documents to The Guardian) for which whistleblower protections would not apply.

* The House report claims that Snowden stole 1.5MM documents. Gellman says we don't have evidence as to the specific number. I mean, sure. Whatever.

* Members of the House Intelligence Committee have claimed that Snowden did more damage to US interests than anyone in history. Gellman, rightly, points out that this is total bullshit.

It's worth remembering that Gellman is focusing primarily on a single section of the executive summary of the House report --- the one claiming that Snowden is a fabulist.

Like I said: I'm an admirer of Gellman's. It's clear to me that Gellman is several steps removed from the lingo and trade knowledge of information security, so I think he can sometimes find himself convinced by things that would leave an expert wary. But I also think Gellman, more than some other writers, is at pains to make reported, fact-based, good-faith arguments.

I didn't find this piece totally convincing, but there are clearly claims that the House IC has made that don't withstand any scrutiny, so the fact check is definitely valuable. Thanks again for finding it!