I listen to it while working in the kitchen... I'm not through it all the way myself.
Cliffs notes version so far: Snowden shared classified info with bona fide news outlets, asked them to vet his data, and only release what they thought was in the public interest. He gave them way more data than they have published because they are honoring that request. He is willing to come back and face trial if the government (prosecution) will allow a "public interest" defense. The government will not allow such defense, and their argument (according to Snowden) is that, basically, it doesn't matter if you are exposing illegal activity, proving that public and sworn statements made by public officials to Congress are false, selling state secrets for personal gain, or a bona fide seditionist. All are the same, all violate the exact same law, and the jury is not allowed to know WHY you did what you did, or to even know whether or not what you released harmed anyone. All they are allowed to know is IF you did what you are accused of. In Snowden's opinion, this law is therefore raised to an even greater level of crime than murder. At least in a murder case you are allowed to argue extenuating or mitigating circumstances (like self defense). The espionage act (and the gorvernment's application of it) allows for absolutely no consideration of extenuation or mitigation.

He also lays out the history of the programs he was working on, how and why they are unconstitutional, what steps were taken BEFORE deciding to leak the info, and why he feels he did the right thing for the American people, even if it was the wrong thing for the American government.

SFC Casey O'Mally - Thanks for crunching. He's truly a man without an island.