7 ms·

Trump will scarcely do something like this unless he thinks it will benefit him. Does he think millenials will love him for it or does he think Snowden has dirt

by Olumde 6y ago

Trump will scarcely do something like this unless he thinks it will benefit him. Does he think millenials will love him for it or does he think Snowden has dirt on Obama? Time will tell.

quadrangle 6y ago
I agree. But still. No way I'll vote for Trump, but I have to admit that such a pardon would have me feel just a bit less antipathy toward Trump.
- djtriptych 6y ago
  I'm glad Edward Snowden leaked what he did, but I'm not sure a pardon makes any sense at all.
  - toomuchtodo 6y ago
    I think it’s unlikely Snowden would ever receive a fair trial, therefore a pardon is the best course of action, erring on the side of compassion versus “justice” typically dispensed by the US justice system. What he revealed about the domestic surveillance apparatus violating US law and citizens’ rights had significant value to nation. Regardless, if this is how the pardon comes about, I happily support it even if it’s not ideal.
    - shallowthought 6y ago
      I think it's impossible to have a fair trial when the guy has made an entire career out of detailing precisely what illegal actions he has taken.
      - toomuchtodo 6y ago
        Demonstrating gross breach of legality and trust by intelligence agencies? In other countries, leadership of those agencies who lied to Congress (or their version of the legislative branch) would’ve done time. It boggles the mind that some can attempt to justify the egregious actions of the US intelligence community while supporting the railroading of a whistleblower. Perhaps the intelligence community could be more responsible and compliant with statute, negating the need for whistleblowers to reveal their illegal activities.
      - cryptonector 6y ago
        You can admit guilt and plead innocent. It's weird, but it's true. And the jury can acquit in spite of overwhelming evidence of guilt. That's how the anglosaxon system of criminal justice works (or used to; perhaps this is only true now in the U.S.?).
    - duxup 6y ago
      I wonder what a fair trial means to people...his own admissions include describing his own illegal activity...
      - cryptonector 6y ago
        You can admit guilt and plead innocent. It's weird, but it's true. And the jury can acquit in spite of overwhelming evidence of guilt. That's how the anglosaxon system of criminal justice works (or used to; perhaps this is only true now in the U.S.?).
        duxup 6y ago
        A jury can...but that really depends on the opinions of the jury. It's not like a legal argument about what you knew or when and what the law says about your responsibility / actions. A jury ignoring admissions of crimes is pretty rare and a roll of the dice. I get why people would want that to happen, but expecting that random chance of an outcome and using it to measure fairness, I dunno, they're likely to be disappointed.
      - mindcrime 6y ago
        Without going too deep down the "jury nullification" rabbit hole, I'll just say that it's entirely reasonable to admit taking an action that is prohibited by law, while pleading not guilty to violating the same law. You may argue that there were extenuating circumstances that pre-empt the law in the specific case, or you may argue that the law itself is inherently wrong, etc. Yes, it's difficult to win an acquittal like this, but it does happen. That we can't just mechanically apply the law like the axioms of mathematics is part of the very reason that we have judges, juries, and the adversarial system, to allow for some measure of human judgement in the process.
        duxup 6y ago
        Jury nullification is so rare and really relies on a particular jury thinking a particular way... A jury can even be sympathetic... and still convict him. I hear folks talk about a fair trial but he's already admitted to crimes... so is the "fairness" only determined by a highly unlikely outcome, I'm not sure that's about fairness.
    - ttyprintk 6y ago
      > What he revealed about the domestic surveillance apparatus violating US law and citizens’ rights had significant value to nation. That would be only one of the charges. And a reasonable Snowden defence would be to recite the oath he swore to the Constitution. If this were the only charge, I don't rule out a fair trial. But the second charge would be revealing NSA programs operating outside inside USA borders. This was the reason Obama didn't want to write a pardon, and the reason Pompeo sides with executing Snowden. The accusation that Snowden was working for a foreign intelligence agency hinges on two questions: why did he reveal those overseas programs, and how did he get onto (or know to get onto) Aeroflot without a passport. This is why he can be simultaneously a patriot and traitor. Trump (or his predecessor) could have written a pardon the first charge and deliberately left out the second. Whether Snowden would want to take his chances with a trial on the second charge would be a tough choice.
  - cirno 6y ago
    Judging by Chelsea Manning's treatment post-pardon, Snowden would be rather foolish to act upon it and return to the United States anyway. But it might be a good opportunity to get a valid visa and travel to another country that lacks US extradition agreements.
- repsilat 6y ago
  Yeah. I don't like him (not eligible to vote for or against), but the "threat to our democracy" narrative is completely sunk. He clearly has no dictatorial aspirations. Maybe it's just because of events in the lead-up to the 2016 election, but if anything he seems worried about abuses of unchecked executive power on people's privacy. He's certainly at odds in some cases with Barr, who is a classic AG and wants ever-greater state power so long as it's responsibly exercised.
  - malnourish 6y ago
    Can you explain how you reconcile that belief with multiple statements supporting e.g. running for more than 2 terms, un-elected leaders, as well as the very recent refusal to fund the post office because it will help more people exercise their constitutional rights and the installation of a postmaster general who is actively removing sorting machines and post boxes, as well as unsourced claims of mass voter fraud, particularly through mail-in ballots?
    - repsilat 6y ago
      Ah, well perhaps it would have been more accurate to say that his dictatorial tendencies are more a threat to democracy than they are a threat to liberalism. He's interested in being and staying President, not at all principled about what he needs to do to make it happen, but seemingly not so interested in expanding the surveillance state, suppressing speech, that sort of thing. As one of the "taxed but not represented" people in the US, I guess I might value voting rights a little less than I should.
      - malnourish 6y ago
        Do you have opinions on the federal agents that were in Portland and the actions they took?
  - jjoonathan 6y ago
    He repeatedly floats the idea of having journalists shot, pardons people for intimidating witnesses on his behalf, goes on public television to invite foreign interference in American elections so long as he's the beneficiary, he deploys troops on American soil against the wishes of state governments, sets new standards for noncompliance with judicial investigations, and spams illegal executive orders like a pentester searching for open ports. Even if one were a fan of his policies, I cannot comprehend the confusion of principles that would lead them to put "checking executive power" anywhere on his priority list. Not as it relates to privacy, and not in general.
eli 6y ago
He floats a lot of ideas that 1) make headlines but don’t really make sense and 2) never actually happen. He’s been two weeks from announcing a new healthcare plan since he took office.
- duskwuff 6y ago
  Ditto for building "the wall", making various trade deals, bringing peace to the Middle East, ending the opiate crisis, launching the Space Force... He has a real knack for announcing bold new projects with no clear plan for carrying them out, then quietly moving on.
  - adventured 6y ago
    You're right on everything except for the trade deals. He did in fact deliver several major trade deals in the first three years. That includes replacing NAFTA with a modestly upgraded USMCA. He got China to sign a deal that very aggressively favors the US (maybe they won't stick to it of course; which would imply they may never stick to any consequential trade deal). Along with the new trade deals with Japan and South Korea. The only major trade deal remaining is with the EU (and then Britain whenever they're ready to do so, likely after the virus is brought under control).
  - refurb 6y ago
    But he did do (or at least started) most of the things you just mentioned. Opiate crisis excluded.
  - burfog 6y ago
    275 miles of wall have been built as of August 10. https://www.cbp.gov/border-security/along-us-borders/border-wall-system https://www.cbp.gov/border-security/along-us-borders/border-... It is fair to include replacement of vehicle-only barriers and other ineffective junk. That had been effectively nothing, because even the most non-athletic large person could comfortably walk right through.

by Olumde 6y ago

Trump will scarcely do something like this unless he thinks it will benefit him. Does he think millenials will love him for it or does he think Snowden has dirt on Obama? Time will tell.

quadrangle 6y ago

I agree. But still. No way I'll vote for Trump, but I have to admit that such a pardon would have me feel just a bit less antipathy toward Trump.

djtriptych 6y ago
I'm glad Edward Snowden leaked what he did, but I'm not sure a pardon makes any sense at all.
- toomuchtodo 6y ago
  I think it’s unlikely Snowden would ever receive a fair trial, therefore a pardon is the best course of action, erring on the side of compassion versus “justice” typically dispensed by the US justice system. What he revealed about the domestic surveillance apparatus violating US law and citizens’ rights had significant value to nation. Regardless, if this is how the pardon comes about, I happily support it even if it’s not ideal.
  - shallowthought 6y ago
    I think it's impossible to have a fair trial when the guy has made an entire career out of detailing precisely what illegal actions he has taken.
    - toomuchtodo 6y ago
      Demonstrating gross breach of legality and trust by intelligence agencies? In other countries, leadership of those agencies who lied to Congress (or their version of the legislative branch) would’ve done time. It boggles the mind that some can attempt to justify the egregious actions of the US intelligence community while supporting the railroading of a whistleblower. Perhaps the intelligence community could be more responsible and compliant with statute, negating the need for whistleblowers to reveal their illegal activities.
    - cryptonector 6y ago
      You can admit guilt and plead innocent. It's weird, but it's true. And the jury can acquit in spite of overwhelming evidence of guilt. That's how the anglosaxon system of criminal justice works (or used to; perhaps this is only true now in the U.S.?).
  - duxup 6y ago
    I wonder what a fair trial means to people...his own admissions include describing his own illegal activity...
    - cryptonector 6y ago
      You can admit guilt and plead innocent. It's weird, but it's true. And the jury can acquit in spite of overwhelming evidence of guilt. That's how the anglosaxon system of criminal justice works (or used to; perhaps this is only true now in the U.S.?).
      - duxup 6y ago
        A jury can...but that really depends on the opinions of the jury. It's not like a legal argument about what you knew or when and what the law says about your responsibility / actions. A jury ignoring admissions of crimes is pretty rare and a roll of the dice. I get why people would want that to happen, but expecting that random chance of an outcome and using it to measure fairness, I dunno, they're likely to be disappointed.
    - mindcrime 6y ago
      Without going too deep down the "jury nullification" rabbit hole, I'll just say that it's entirely reasonable to admit taking an action that is prohibited by law, while pleading not guilty to violating the same law. You may argue that there were extenuating circumstances that pre-empt the law in the specific case, or you may argue that the law itself is inherently wrong, etc. Yes, it's difficult to win an acquittal like this, but it does happen. That we can't just mechanically apply the law like the axioms of mathematics is part of the very reason that we have judges, juries, and the adversarial system, to allow for some measure of human judgement in the process.
      - duxup 6y ago
        Jury nullification is so rare and really relies on a particular jury thinking a particular way... A jury can even be sympathetic... and still convict him. I hear folks talk about a fair trial but he's already admitted to crimes... so is the "fairness" only determined by a highly unlikely outcome, I'm not sure that's about fairness.
  - ttyprintk 6y ago
    > What he revealed about the domestic surveillance apparatus violating US law and citizens’ rights had significant value to nation. That would be only one of the charges. And a reasonable Snowden defence would be to recite the oath he swore to the Constitution. If this were the only charge, I don't rule out a fair trial. But the second charge would be revealing NSA programs operating outside inside USA borders. This was the reason Obama didn't want to write a pardon, and the reason Pompeo sides with executing Snowden. The accusation that Snowden was working for a foreign intelligence agency hinges on two questions: why did he reveal those overseas programs, and how did he get onto (or know to get onto) Aeroflot without a passport. This is why he can be simultaneously a patriot and traitor. Trump (or his predecessor) could have written a pardon the first charge and deliberately left out the second. Whether Snowden would want to take his chances with a trial on the second charge would be a tough choice.
- cirno 6y ago
  Judging by Chelsea Manning's treatment post-pardon, Snowden would be rather foolish to act upon it and return to the United States anyway. But it might be a good opportunity to get a valid visa and travel to another country that lacks US extradition agreements.
repsilat 6y ago
Yeah. I don't like him (not eligible to vote for or against), but the "threat to our democracy" narrative is completely sunk. He clearly has no dictatorial aspirations. Maybe it's just because of events in the lead-up to the 2016 election, but if anything he seems worried about abuses of unchecked executive power on people's privacy. He's certainly at odds in some cases with Barr, who is a classic AG and wants ever-greater state power so long as it's responsibly exercised.
- malnourish 6y ago
  Can you explain how you reconcile that belief with multiple statements supporting e.g. running for more than 2 terms, un-elected leaders, as well as the very recent refusal to fund the post office because it will help more people exercise their constitutional rights and the installation of a postmaster general who is actively removing sorting machines and post boxes, as well as unsourced claims of mass voter fraud, particularly through mail-in ballots?
  - repsilat 6y ago
    Ah, well perhaps it would have been more accurate to say that his dictatorial tendencies are more a threat to democracy than they are a threat to liberalism. He's interested in being and staying President, not at all principled about what he needs to do to make it happen, but seemingly not so interested in expanding the surveillance state, suppressing speech, that sort of thing. As one of the "taxed but not represented" people in the US, I guess I might value voting rights a little less than I should.
    - malnourish 6y ago
      Do you have opinions on the federal agents that were in Portland and the actions they took?
- jjoonathan 6y ago
  He repeatedly floats the idea of having journalists shot, pardons people for intimidating witnesses on his behalf, goes on public television to invite foreign interference in American elections so long as he's the beneficiary, he deploys troops on American soil against the wishes of state governments, sets new standards for noncompliance with judicial investigations, and spams illegal executive orders like a pentester searching for open ports. Even if one were a fan of his policies, I cannot comprehend the confusion of principles that would lead them to put "checking executive power" anywhere on his priority list. Not as it relates to privacy, and not in general.

eli 6y ago

He floats a lot of ideas that 1) make headlines but don’t really make sense and 2) never actually happen. He’s been two weeks from announcing a new healthcare plan since he took office.

duskwuff 6y ago
Ditto for building "the wall", making various trade deals, bringing peace to the Middle East, ending the opiate crisis, launching the Space Force... He has a real knack for announcing bold new projects with no clear plan for carrying them out, then quietly moving on.
- adventured 6y ago
  You're right on everything except for the trade deals. He did in fact deliver several major trade deals in the first three years. That includes replacing NAFTA with a modestly upgraded USMCA. He got China to sign a deal that very aggressively favors the US (maybe they won't stick to it of course; which would imply they may never stick to any consequential trade deal). Along with the new trade deals with Japan and South Korea. The only major trade deal remaining is with the EU (and then Britain whenever they're ready to do so, likely after the virus is brought under control).
- refurb 6y ago
  But he did do (or at least started) most of the things you just mentioned. Opiate crisis excluded.
- burfog 6y ago
  275 miles of wall have been built as of August 10. https://www.cbp.gov/border-security/along-us-borders/border-wall-system https://www.cbp.gov/border-security/along-us-borders/border-... It is fair to include replacement of vehicle-only barriers and other ineffective junk. That had been effectively nothing, because even the most non-athletic large person could comfortably walk right through.