That part of my comment that you left out directly disproves what you wrote after:
> That, plus the fact that (even after all this time) no one has come forward with any actual dispositive evidence for such a narrative.
> It's all just speculation.
I described the evidence, provided by Snowden himself and publicly available for anyone to check, which directly disproves your claim that "it's all just speculative". The actual evidence significantly favors the theory that it was espionage over the theory that it was whistleblowing.
