4 ms·

I wouldn't particularly care about the drugs side but conspiracy to murder (x5) is pretty hard to forgive. If trump wants to be generous, let him look at Snowd

I wouldn't particularly care about the drugs side but conspiracy to murder (x5) is pretty hard to forgive. If trump wants to be generous, let him look at Snowden, Assange and Manning. As it is, I don't believe any of them (Ulbricht included) were or will be given any consideration. If there's nothing obviously in it for trump, trump won't do it.

dragonwriter 6y ago
> I wouldn't particularly care about the drugs side but conspiracy to murder (x5) is pretty hard to forgive. Given that the those convicted of an actual slaughter that was a war crime have been pardoned by Trump, someone whose sentence took into account uncharged involvement in murder for hire schemes that did not culminate in actual killing is kind of small potatoes. > If trump wants to be generous, let him look at Snowden, Assange and Manning. Assange makes sense for purely corrupt reasons so has a better chance than the others, but all three would fit his lame-duck feces-throwing style pretty well. (Which isn't to say I don't see good arguments for pardoning Snowden fairly generally and Manning more selectively; I just don't think those good arguments are in any way relevant to Trump’s likely behavior.)
- LatteLazy 6y ago
  I sympathise over trumps recent pardons. One of the few really interesting powers of the US president is the (mass) pardon. Carter pardoned everyone who skipped the Vietnam draft. If Trump wanted to improve his legacy (and throw some feces on the way out), he could mass pardon all non-violent federal Canabis offenderd or even add other drugs to that list. President would be on his side, it would be very popular with anyone young and 30 states have legalised it already so why not right a moral wrong?
underseacables 6y ago
Unlike Snowden and Manning, Ullbrechts crimes were not against the state. A lot of things I can forgive but those two committed treason, or damn close to it. The future results do not justify their past actions. Where does that line stop?

dragonwriter 6y ago

> I wouldn't particularly care about the drugs side but conspiracy to murder (x5) is pretty hard to forgive. Given that the those convicted of an actual slaughter that was a war crime have been pardoned by Trump, someone whose sentence took into account uncharged involvement in murder for hire schemes that did not culminate in actual killing is kind of small potatoes. > If trump wants to be generous, let him look at Snowden, Assange and Manning. Assange makes sense for purely corrupt reasons so has a better chance than the others, but all three would fit his lame-duck feces-throwing style pretty well. (Which isn't to say I don't see good arguments for pardoning Snowden fairly generally and Manning more selectively; I just don't think those good arguments are in any way relevant to Trump’s likely behavior.)

LatteLazy 6y ago
I sympathise over trumps recent pardons. One of the few really interesting powers of the US president is the (mass) pardon. Carter pardoned everyone who skipped the Vietnam draft. If Trump wanted to improve his legacy (and throw some feces on the way out), he could mass pardon all non-violent federal Canabis offenderd or even add other drugs to that list. President would be on his side, it would be very popular with anyone young and 30 states have legalised it already so why not right a moral wrong?

underseacables 6y ago

Unlike Snowden and Manning, Ullbrechts crimes were not against the state. A lot of things I can forgive but those two committed treason, or damn close to it. The future results do not justify their past actions. Where does that line stop?