[autoreleasepool]

> He also doesn't believe the Snowden leaks, and thinks that when it comes to the pursuit of justice, the government should be trusted with everything.

Not believing the Snowden leaks is akin to denying the Holocaust IMO.

It's completley delusional to reject the validity of empirical evidence on the basis that it does not align with your preferred political narrative.

[dkokelley]

> Not believing the Snowden leaks is akin to denying the Holocaust IMO.

The parent's wording may have been off. My parsing of "He also doesn't believe the Snowden leaks" inferred a missing "were justified".

Then again, I could see a few different interpretations. We need a clarifying phrase after "doesn't believe the Snowden leaks", like "doesn't believe the Snowden leaks were justified" or "doesn't believe the Snowden leaks tell the whole story". One parsing is "doesn't believe the Snowden leaks are legitimate and authentic".

[grecy]

To clarify:

He doesn't believe that what Snowden leaked is true.

He doesn't believe the NSA is recording internet traffic / phone calls etc.

He doesn't believe multiple global intelligence agencies are working together to gather as much information as physically possible.

In short, he doesn't believe the NSA, etc. are doing the things Snowden said they're doing.

(Yes, I showed him the classified slides, he still doesn't believe it's true)

[autoreleasepool]

I'm not sure where you can justify inferring that extra information. From what you've described, the context simply doesn't exist outside of your mind.