51–60 of 232 posts
I seriously hope that the President gives Snowden a pardon even it as a dick move on his way out. His releases were far less dangerous than Manning but I think his problem is no compelling story to distract from his actions and he did step on a lot of toes. Toes that deserved to be stomped.
Manning wasn't pardoned, though.
Manning was granted clemency based largely on how the military treated her in detention.
Putting aside domestic disclosures, it's difficult to see how the scope of stolen materials merits praise or euphemistic titles. Snowden is a fugitive. As it pertains to the majority of what was stolen, he is not a whistleblower, but a thief.
Had Snowden simply revealed unconstitutional domestic mass surveillance programs, perhaps he could be pigeonholed as a whistleblower.
The big question is what Russia has to gain from this. Is it just to troll the US?
And now Russia has a chance to turn those tables on the U. S.? I'm kind of disappointed that it took them this long to execute the obvious play.
I seriously hope that the President gives Snowden a pardon even it as a dick move on his way out. His releases were far less dangerous than Manning but I think his problem is no compelling story to distract from his actions and he did step on a lot of toes. Toes that deserved to be stomped.
I seriously hope that the President gives Snowden a pardon even it as a dick move on his way out. His releases were far less dangerous than Manning but I think his problem is no compelling story to distract from his actions and he did step on a lot of toes. Toes that deserved to be stomped.
And Presidential authority doesn't extend to say "Whatever he did, this country forgives him" in the absence of a guilty verdict. It's commonly thought to, but the actual result is unknown; a subsequent President's authority to arrest him on his "pardoned" actions and try him for commission of crime under the theory that one cannot be pardoned for crimes not tried has never been tested in the US legal system.
Trump is enough of an outlier that someone might actually be willing to test the hypothesis on any pardons he fires off.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can but accepting a pardon is admission of guilt.
this is technically true. however, is there any case where the admission of guilt has been used to coerce testimony from a pardon recipient? is there really a practical downside to being pardoned?
No, it is not even technically true.
EDIT: However, as pointed out, the following statement, in my original response, was incorrect: Nor do pardons even have to be “accepted” to have effect, it's a unilateral executive power.
EDIT[2]: additional response on another point previously overlooked:
> however, is there any case where the admission of guilt has been used to coerce testimony from a pardon recipient?
Any imputation of guilt is a side issue on coercing testimony; a pardon (if accepted, and this is the main practical reason why it might not be accepted) makes the recipient immune to prosecution for the offenses it covers, and thus makes the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination irrelevant to the extent related to offenses within the scope of the pardon. The government has plenty of power to compel testimony wherever the Fifth Amendment does not apply already, an admission of guilt is not necessary once that shield is moved out of the way.
I'm happy for Snowden, he seems like a decent person willing to take a stand for what is right and face all the negative outcomes from exposing crimes within an organisation.
Kind of weird to say he "faced all the negative outcomes" when he fled the US to avoid the most major of the potential negative outcomes.
The big question is what Russia has to gain from this. Is it just to troll the US?
It’s an easy PR win. The US behaves like a petulant child, and Russia can come off like the benevolent country protecting freedom. That seems like an extremely easy decision to make.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The president can't pre-pardon him though. He'd have to go to trial first.
You can but accepting a pardon is admission of guilt.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burdick_v._United_States
> After President Gerald Ford left the White House in 1977, intimates said that the President privately justified his pardon of Richard Nixon by carrying in his wallet a portion of the text of the Burdick decision that suggested that a pardon carries an imputation of guilt and that acceptance carries a confession of guilt. Legal scholars have questioned whether that portion of Burdick is meaningful or merely dicta.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The president can't pre-pardon him though. He'd have to go to trial first.
Completely false. Look at Nixon.
It's actually real unclear what the legality of it would be if a subsequent President had tried to arrest him.