6 ms·

I agree with all these "wake me up when it happens" poster, because I just generally don't like "nothing happened" news. But seriously, say Trump (or whoever m

by krick 6y ago

I agree with all these "wake me up when it happens" poster, because I just generally don't like "nothing happened" news. But seriously, say Trump (or whoever might have been in his place) actually wants to do this as a populistic move: is it hard to do? Does it require any bureaucratic bullshit, arguing with people, forcing stuff, or is it just some paper to sign and it's done? Does it require any effort (and how much) on his side to actually pardon Snowden?

cryptonector 6y ago
If you'd been paying attention you'd know that the President has the absolute, unquestionable power to pardon offenses against the United States, which specifically means: offences under Federal law, but not offenses under State law.
- krick 6y ago
  I have absolutely zero idea what that means. So does it require some effort from him to pardon Snowden or not?
  - frank2 6y ago
    No! All he has to do is sign a piece of paper.
    - cryptonector 6y ago
      It can even be on a paper napkin. Most pardons involve process though. Felons apply for a pardon, there's a small board to review applications, most are rejected -- that sort of thing. But the President can pardon anyone, at any time, for any Federal crime they have been charged with, before during or after trial (if convicted).
- koheripbal 6y ago
  This was an idea floated recently in a backlash against the President looking to pardon Paul Manafort. ...but it is unclear if it holds any legal water. The reality is that it is legally untested, and there's a good chance that Double Jeopardy will protect someone who's pardoned Federally, and then brought up on State charges for the same offense. I might be wrong, but I don't believe there's ever been a case of a State prosecute even attempting to charge someone at the State level with an crime they've already been pardoned of by the President.
  - greggyb 6y ago
    IANAL A quick read through of the Wikipedia article for double jeopardy[0] describes implications and legal tests for double jeopardy. The shortest summary I can make of that article that seems relevant is this: If you need exactly the same set of facts to prove crime A as crime B, or fewer facts than A to prove B, then they are the same crime. If crime B needs one fact not required for A, then it is a different crime for purposes of double jeopardy. Based on this reading, it appears that a federal pardon would not imply no state charges. Or, a federal pardon leaves the question of state charges an open one. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Jeopardy_Clause https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Jeopardy_Clause
  - throwawaygh 6y ago
    >> [the president can pardon] offences under Federal law, but not offenses under State law. > but it is unclear if it holds any legal water. The claim that POTUS cannot grant clemency for a state conviction definitely holds legal water. The plain meaning of that clause is extremely clear and its meaning is thoroughly and universally understood in the legal field. > The reality is that it is legally untested Re: POTUS directly granting clemency for state convictions, only in a sort of vacuous way. Meaning, this is true for almost everything that is blatantly unconstitutional. E.g., the president having the military disband congress is also "legally untested". I have zero doubt that the current SCOTUS would unanimously reject an attempt by the president to directly grant clemency for a state conviction. > there's a good chance that Double Jeopardy will protect someone who's pardoned Federally, and then brought up on State charges for the same offense. Notice that the only reason this indirect argument is made is because POTUS clearly cannot grant clemency directly. Although this particular theory about Double Jeopardy has not been tested, there's an entire legal doctrine that addresses this question (the Dual Sovereignty Doctrine). The Roberts Court affirmed this doctrine in Gamble. The primary justification for the Dual Sovereignty Doctrine is that different sovereigns might have different interests. That justification speaks directly to whether the federal executive should be able to grant clemency for state convictions (no, because the state executive might have different interests in prosecution). See https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt5_2_1_2_2/ https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt5_2_1_2_2... So, 1. the President very clearly cannot directly grant clemency for state convictions, and 2. the Roberts court affirmed the Dual Sovereignty Doctrine not one year ago in a 7-2 decision. Go read that decision -- the reasons for upholding the Dual Sovereignty Doctrine speak almost directly to the question at hand. Given these two facts, it's highly improbable that the President could pardon a federal conviction and then convince the Roberts court to extend that clemency to state convictions via a significant narrowing of the Dual Sovereignty Doctrine. In fact, I'd say that a raw exercise of force is more likely to succeed.
- stjohnswarts 6y ago
  Pardoning a whistleblower who was just trying to protect the Constitution and help stave off intelligence agencies from spying on everyone a bit less seems like exactly what pardons were created for. What bigger injustice is there than upholding the law of the land and being declared a traitor despite only trying to help save our democracy from autocratic forces?
  - ttyprintk 6y ago
    Snowden's oath to the Constitution is only relevant for his disclosures about surveillance within the national borders. His disclosures of the capabilities of the NSA in other countries, where the Constitution does not apply, has been the problem since Obama.

by krick 6y ago

cryptonector 6y ago

If you'd been paying attention you'd know that the President has the absolute, unquestionable power to pardon offenses against the United States, which specifically means: offences under Federal law, but not offenses under State law.

krick 6y ago
I have absolutely zero idea what that means. So does it require some effort from him to pardon Snowden or not?
- frank2 6y ago
  No! All he has to do is sign a piece of paper.
  - cryptonector 6y ago
    It can even be on a paper napkin. Most pardons involve process though. Felons apply for a pardon, there's a small board to review applications, most are rejected -- that sort of thing. But the President can pardon anyone, at any time, for any Federal crime they have been charged with, before during or after trial (if convicted).
koheripbal 6y ago
This was an idea floated recently in a backlash against the President looking to pardon Paul Manafort. ...but it is unclear if it holds any legal water. The reality is that it is legally untested, and there's a good chance that Double Jeopardy will protect someone who's pardoned Federally, and then brought up on State charges for the same offense. I might be wrong, but I don't believe there's ever been a case of a State prosecute even attempting to charge someone at the State level with an crime they've already been pardoned of by the President.
- greggyb 6y ago
  IANAL A quick read through of the Wikipedia article for double jeopardy[0] describes implications and legal tests for double jeopardy. The shortest summary I can make of that article that seems relevant is this: If you need exactly the same set of facts to prove crime A as crime B, or fewer facts than A to prove B, then they are the same crime. If crime B needs one fact not required for A, then it is a different crime for purposes of double jeopardy. Based on this reading, it appears that a federal pardon would not imply no state charges. Or, a federal pardon leaves the question of state charges an open one. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Jeopardy_Clause https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Jeopardy_Clause
- throwawaygh 6y ago
  >> [the president can pardon] offences under Federal law, but not offenses under State law. > but it is unclear if it holds any legal water. The claim that POTUS cannot grant clemency for a state conviction definitely holds legal water. The plain meaning of that clause is extremely clear and its meaning is thoroughly and universally understood in the legal field. > The reality is that it is legally untested Re: POTUS directly granting clemency for state convictions, only in a sort of vacuous way. Meaning, this is true for almost everything that is blatantly unconstitutional. E.g., the president having the military disband congress is also "legally untested". I have zero doubt that the current SCOTUS would unanimously reject an attempt by the president to directly grant clemency for a state conviction. > there's a good chance that Double Jeopardy will protect someone who's pardoned Federally, and then brought up on State charges for the same offense. Notice that the only reason this indirect argument is made is because POTUS clearly cannot grant clemency directly. Although this particular theory about Double Jeopardy has not been tested, there's an entire legal doctrine that addresses this question (the Dual Sovereignty Doctrine). The Roberts Court affirmed this doctrine in Gamble. The primary justification for the Dual Sovereignty Doctrine is that different sovereigns might have different interests. That justification speaks directly to whether the federal executive should be able to grant clemency for state convictions (no, because the state executive might have different interests in prosecution). See https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt5_2_1_2_2/ https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt5_2_1_2_2... So, 1. the President very clearly cannot directly grant clemency for state convictions, and 2. the Roberts court affirmed the Dual Sovereignty Doctrine not one year ago in a 7-2 decision. Go read that decision -- the reasons for upholding the Dual Sovereignty Doctrine speak almost directly to the question at hand. Given these two facts, it's highly improbable that the President could pardon a federal conviction and then convince the Roberts court to extend that clemency to state convictions via a significant narrowing of the Dual Sovereignty Doctrine. In fact, I'd say that a raw exercise of force is more likely to succeed.
stjohnswarts 6y ago
Pardoning a whistleblower who was just trying to protect the Constitution and help stave off intelligence agencies from spying on everyone a bit less seems like exactly what pardons were created for. What bigger injustice is there than upholding the law of the land and being declared a traitor despite only trying to help save our democracy from autocratic forces?
- ttyprintk 6y ago
  Snowden's oath to the Constitution is only relevant for his disclosures about surveillance within the national borders. His disclosures of the capabilities of the NSA in other countries, where the Constitution does not apply, has been the problem since Obama.