Imho, given the publicity of the issue, there's no way the current US judicial system could find Snowden guilty of treason without creating a huge domestic and international scandal. Politically, this would turn into an enormous backlash.
To maintain the image of a state of law, the US has no other choice than prosecute, but the outcome will turn out as either:
- a mistrial, followed by a strong attempt at burying the case somehow (probably with other events)
- a non guilty verdict, with spin doctoring to display the whole thing as a demonstration of the fact that the US constitution and overall legal system is sound,
- a "guilty" verdict, but with so much attenuating circumstances than there will be no significant sentence
However, for Snowden, I doubt that he will be able to find a job again in his line of work, after breaking the "ethic rules". What security company would hire a (skilled even) security analyst (or whatever Snowden was actually doing) if he cannot keep it shut on the internal practices? The scope could widen to any entreprise actually.
I think the point is not that one should use larger samples, but rather than the conclusion is wrong since the sample is too small. Iow, there's no proof that the situation really changed in the US on the discussed topic.
- a mistrial, followed by a strong attempt at burying the case somehow (probably with other events)
- a non guilty verdict, with spin doctoring to display the whole thing as a demonstration of the fact that the US constitution and overall legal system is sound,
- a "guilty" verdict, but with so much attenuating circumstances than there will be no significant sentence
However, for Snowden, I doubt that he will be able to find a job again in his line of work, after breaking the "ethic rules". What security company would hire a (skilled even) security analyst (or whatever Snowden was actually doing) if he cannot keep it shut on the internal practices? The scope could widen to any entreprise actually.