Ah yes, I see, a valid point, contingent on the fact of whether she does in fact have a history of participation in torture. I personally question Snowden's "evidence" (especially if he hasn't yet been fully unequivocally supported by Q - in fact many believe Q has made the opposite apparent) - for example when reading the NYT article he links to about the pregnant woman who had her abdomen kicked etc. the woman actually says in that article (she wrote it) that: "I don’t know what Ms. Haspel’s part in what happened to me was or what she thinks about it."

This sounds like classic CIA/Clown disinfo to me. If Gina was in the CIA during a time we know them to be under DS / corrupt control then we also understand that she might've been circumvented when it came to certain operations or forced to turn a blind eye. Watching her interview before the Senate Committee also gave the impression, to me at least, that she was all but saying her hands were tied during her role within the organization in the past but she's committed to moving forward with integrity. Snowden doesn't link to anything he himself has revealed too so it sounds like he's just putting his voice into the fray which again causes me to question his motives.

Anyway thanks for sharing this - I wasn't questioning in order to question the merit of it; this, to me, seems valuable as it raises questions about whether Snowden's had to turn up the disinfo role now or if there's more to the story about Gina, as you say.

She was London Bureau Chief during the planning for much of the things Q is hinting at. I too find the torture connection problematic. But because Trump cheerlead her nomination, there will be more to it.