To be kind, this is a load of uninformed crap. She obviously has not read much of the info available, because much of what she said has already been explained at length and renders the great majority of her article completely obsolete (again, being very kind). Addressing her points sequentially:
A) He tried to contact Greenwald. This failed due to GG's lack of tech savvy as pertains to installing encryption software for communication. Only then did he go to Poitras, whom GG has spoken of often in his articles (Snowden was a reader of his) and who also serves together with GG on the board of their Freedom of the Press Foundation. He went to her, essentially to get back to GG. It is absurd to insinuate he was seeking out a talented filmmaker. Moreover, that he was organized and planned this out is to be expected. If you worked in the NSA and planned on smuggling out information, you'd sure as shit better be organized about it, lest you get sloppy and get disappeared.
B) Of course he knows his talking points! Any of us in here would, too. That's the reason he came forward! They're not "talking points" by the way; they're called "principles." Though I can understand how this may be a foreign concept for many, these are things all of us in the liberty movement have been discussing for years and so naturally there are numerous main themes which flow from the tongue with ease, let alone from someone who is as plainly intelligent as is Snowden.
C) He is a GG reader. These are the issues as it pertains to whistle-blowing that GG has covered at length, and for YEARS, particularly with respect to Obama's unprecedented war on whistle-blowers using the espionage act. What would be unusual is if he were UNAWARE of the possibilities as a GG reader and did NOT discuss them.
D) "It is actually in the Police State's interest to let everyone know that everything you write or say everywhere is being surveilled.." Not in a purportedly democratic society when the program is SECRET and ILLEGAL and elected officials careers can end overnight if it is discovered and public opinion swings. What an asinine point from Naomi here.
E) Baseless. Stupid.
F) This has been discussed at length by people far more knowledgable about the issues at play when it comes to extradition and Hong Kong. She cites not a single one of them.
G) So what? The media speculates baselessly on his unknown whereabouts, and this reflects on Snowden??
H) How do we know he doesn't have a legal team? Because he's not holding public press conferences? The first step was to release the documents. That only JUST happened. We have no idea where he is, what he's doing, or what steps have been taken otherwise.
This entire article was pure rubbish, from the headline to the very last word. Utter trash.