Obama says he can’t pardon Snowden
David sends us a link from ArsTechnica which reports on an Obama statement to the German Newspaper Der Spiegel which questioned him about the chances of Edward Snowden getting a presidential pardon;
Obama replied: “I can’t pardon somebody who hasn’t gone before a court and presented themselves, so that’s not something that I would comment on at this point.” He continued:
I think that Mr. Snowden raised some legitimate concerns. How he did it was something that did not follow the procedures and practices of our intelligence community. If everybody took the approach that I make my own decisions about these issues, then it would be very hard to have an organized government or any kind of national security system.
At the point at which Mr. Snowden wants to present himself before the legal authorities and make his arguments or have his lawyers make his arguments, then I think those issues come into play. Until that time, what I’ve tried to suggest — both to the American people, but also to the world — is that we do have to balance this issue of privacy and security.
I agree that Snowden doesn’t deserve a pardon but the president isn’t being entirely truthful here. Richard Nixon was never charged before President Ford pardoned him. Most of the draft dodgers of the Vietnam War hadn’t been to court when Jimmy Carter pardoned them all, by crime, not by name, on his first day in office.
And as part of the Iran nuclear deal he negotiated, Obama himself pardoned three Iranian-American men who had been indicted but had not stood trial.
While it appears that the president has arrived at the correct decision, he’s not being truthful about the reasons that he arrived at the decision.
Category: Barack Obama/Joe Biden
Whaaat! (channeling Joe Flynn here) Mr. I’ve-got-a-pen-and-an-agenda isn’t the great and all powerful Oz? No! Say it isn’t true, Joe Biden! Hahahahahahah! Quite a blow to his adoring fans, who won’t even notice this.
I guess the seas aren’t going to do whatever the hell it was he said they’d do.
I’m chagrined! Yeah, that’s it. Once I stop laughing…
‘At the point at which Mr. Snowden wants to present himself….’
I was right. This just proves it. He is functionally illiterate and shows it every time he opens his mouth.
Has he never heard of the word ‘WHEN’, as in “When Mr. Snowden wants to present himself….”? Obviously, he has not.
Bullshyt..if Snowdon presented himself before a court, they would hang him…no pardon,just a handwritten note ….’FOOLED YOU”
In other words, it doesn’t Matt that the little chickenshit traitor is a darling of the left. He made the Glorious Leader look bad, so he must pay!
For my two cents, give Snowden a medal with his cigarette and blindfold. He brought some disturbing things to light. He also sold his country out to its enemies.
Agree with you there TOW.. in addition, it shows what an incredible Constitutional scholar 0 is..not that any of his supporters would notice or understand..
For some reason, it autocorrected “matter” into “Matt.” Smart phone my ass.
At least it is not a crunch bird!
Not truthful or doesn’t know that he can?
Good question.
I suspect the former, but the latter IMO isn’t out of the question.
This is the guy that taught Constitutional law?
Oy vey.
His entire lesson plan probably consisted of:
“Um, errrr, uh, the Constitution is a living document, so it says whatever you want it to say. Class dismissed.”
I’m so glad the adults get to be in charge again.
‘At the point at which Mr. Snowden wants to present himself….’
So let’s then rewrite this as, “At the point at which Mrs. Clinton wants to present herself…’
Until then fuck her and I hope Obama uses the same excuse to not even consider a pardon of all she has been accused of. I want her to pay for the lives lost in Benghazi, the federal crimes of misuse of classified communications and her ‘funded by terrorist organizations’, Clinton Foundation.
Given the rather intense hatred between Hillary and Obama and the Chick with a Dick, I really don’t see her making out on that even for the sake of party unity.
I think Hillary was just given a message not to expect any assistance from 1600 Pennsylvania Ave over the next 60 days.
That’s how I read it as well. One can only hope.
We’ll see.
I never thought that Obama would do this anyway. He’s in a position to take over as leader emeritus of the D’s, as his other comments over the weekend suggest. Letting Bill and Hillary dangle works to his advantage in moving what remains of the party to the left.
The president wasn’t truthful? No kidding, why would he start now?
Once again he proves he comes from a long line of democrats who lie even when the lie is unnecessary….
I agree with TOW, he embarrassed the Dear Leader and you just don’t do that. He is going to be the most lamest of the Lame Ducks and he knows it.
As far as Hitlery, well, I would not expect to see anything on that until March. Long after Barry is off doing whatever he did before he got into politics.
So long and don’t let the door hit you in the ass on the way out. Also check and make sure all the silver and linens are still in place. Remember what happened the last time we had a democrat leave office.
Ohh! Ohh! That means he can’t do it for Bergdahl either!
Can you imagine? Mattis as SecDef and Bergdahl on trial? He’s so very very fucked.
I suspect the new SecDef would take an interest in that case but would steer clear of it. The term “undue command influence” comes to mind.
The c**ksucker says he will exercise his rights as a citizen to speak out against those things with which he disagrees that come from the Trump administration. What an asshole. He is going to remain in DC to boot. We’ll never get rid of that clown. He needs to keep the transformation alive in his absence from the White House. Well, he’s not just another citizen. Do people come to any one of us for our opinions and positions on foreign and domestic matters? Do we have 24 and 7 Secret Service protection? I really hate that bastard.
The cocksucker says he will exercise….
I fixed that for you 2/17 Air Cav.
He is accurate, constitutionally. e
Bullsh!t. He is not Constitutionally accurate. He has the power to pardon Snowden at any time he so chooses, including today.
A President can issue a preemptive pardon (e.g., a pardon that prevents prosecution) to anyone at any time – to include someone who has not been charged with a crime or even formally named as a subject of investigation. The sole requirements are that (1) the crimes be Federal crimes, and (2) they occurred in the past. The crimes don’t even have to be known.
Ford did exactly that when he pardoned Nixon for “all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed or taken part in” while POTUS. At the time the pardon was issued, Nixon was not under indictment or formally the subject of an investigation. He certainly had not appeared before any court of law regarding any Federal crimes committed while he was POTUS.
What a President cannot do is issue a prospective pardon – e.g., one for crimes to be committed in the future.
Pontification works much better when you actually know what you’re talking about, Poodle.
Lefties more often than not have great difficulty with the meaning of the most simple of words. They seldom grasp the difference between the meaning of “can” vice “may,” for instance and “can’t” vice “won’t.” That may be closely related to their common misunderstanding of “need” vice “want.”
All this may be too nuanced for us plebeians. In this case, perhaps he literally can’t do the pardon thing, not because its illegal but because he doesn’t want to do it.
I dunno. Slick Willie thought that he had an extraordinary and precise understanding of what the meaning of the word “is” is, as I recall. But you are correct that Democrats like to use words that somehow have different meanings for them that always support whatever lame or disingenuous proposition they are pushing.
Hondo’s statement is flat wrong.
“Righties” like to twist reality to match their perceptions.
Oh? Well then, defend your position with more than “You’re wrong” shitbag.
Otherwise kindly go fuck yourself.
And you can’t back up your fucking arguments with anything… you have a severe case of diarrhea of the mouth, Lars.
Fucking commie/proggie moron…
Isn’t there a provision that he cannot pardon an impeachment as well?Or is that urban legend?
An impeachment is not a criminal offense, so I don’t think it is subject to a pardon. No one goes to jail for an impeachment conviction by the Senate. It is a legislative proceeding resulting in the offender being removed from office.
Not an urban legend, David. That restriction is also in the Constitution (last clause of last sentence of first paragraph of Section 2). I didn’t think to mention that because the Snowden case is a criminal matter vice an impeachment.
I’m reasonably certain that the Constitutional provision disallowing the POTUS pardon authority in cases of impeachment was included so that the POTUS (1) cannot set aside the removal of office associated with same, and (2) also cannot set aside the ban on future Federal office which may be imposed in cases of impeachment.
The Constitution also specifically states that a person can be tried for criminal offenses for which they were impeached in a later criminal trial. While the POTUS couldn’t do anything about the impeachment results, the POTUS would have pardon authority over the later criminal trial. They’re separate actions.
Not a lawyer, so if I”m wrong I’d ask one of our resident lawyer regulars to correct me here.
Bullshit, presidents cannot give pre-emptive pardons. That would by the equivalent of nullifying all laws.
Your statement is absolutely false. Utterly.
The president can only pardon specific crimes AFTER they occurred.
He CAN pardon before the person is convicted but NOT before the crime occurred.
Though Obama could pardon him for the charges against Snowden in the already filed criminal complaint, he can’t issue a blanket pardon for all of Snowden’s actions because the extent of his crimes are not currently fully known.
Issuing a pardon for the small number of current charges would be politically costly and would still not protect Snowden from future prosecution for crimes not yet charged.
God, you are a fucking idiot. What is being discussed is pardoning Snowden for the crimes he DID commit.
No one is talking about pardoning for crimes that may be committed in the future. We are talking about what Snowden ALREADY did!
Geez. Poodle is a Con Law lawyer or a Judge in his parallel universe where all progtards reside (in their minds). We should carefully consider his legal opinions.
The Supreme Court has essentially upheld each and every use of the Presidential pardon, as the pardon clause has only the limit on pardoning Impeachment, and there is no higher authority to which one can appeal for overturning one.
Settled law, with lots of cases behind it. (Has anyone found a case of an overturned presidential pardon on a federal issue?)
You do appear to be confusing a preventive pardon of committed but undiscovered crimes, with a pardon before the crimes occurred. Hondo is clearly referring to pardons of existent crimes not yet charged or discovered (example: Ford pardoning Nixon.) Hondo is not time-traveling the pardon into future events.
I do not believe your “time-travel” pardon straw-man has actually ever been tried, so your attacking it can be pardoned, as the error occurred in the present.
Why do you do such things? Totally strange.
Answer: The Commissar lives in the parallel universe in the People’s Republic of Berzerkley. As part of his rhetorical training, he has learned the use of the Cheshire Cat Principle: “When I say a word, it means what I say it means, nothing less and nothing more.” Also, in his universe he can see into, or time-travel to (in his mind), the future.
I suppose it is relatively simple to destroy one’s own strawmen, versus real opponents who might present a real opposition, and might fight dirty with facts and logic.
He manages to face-plant when strawman slaying, occasionally. Funny to watch.
“I think that Mr. Snowden raised some legitimate concerns. How he did it was something that did not follow the procedures and practices of our intelligence community.”
Dafuq kind of answer is that? Raised legitimate concerns? Didn’t follow procedures and practices?
How about this as an answer. “I will not comment on that. Mr. Snowden is a fugitive from justice. He was charged with serious violations of United States law, most particularly, espionage and theft of government property. He remains a fugitive to this day. I understand the nature of your question but it would be wholly wrongful opf me to comment.”
Phuker sounds as if he truly expects a Global Government in his lifetime and he’s running for its first p[resident or emperor or something.
In his head he may already be THE grand ruler of it all. Why would he think otherwise?
But remember that was something he came up with off the cuff, not a statement crafted by his speechwriters and displayed on his teleprompter. Besides this clown never really practiced law anyway. I think he was lead counsel in maybe two lawsuits and I bet he had a second year associate craft every word above his signature. Also who has proof he ever taught Con Law? I have never seen or read an interview with anyone who says “Barack taught me Con Law.”
This signals no pardon for the hildabeast. It is a signal YOYO, your on your own, I am not getting tarred with your brush, mine is plenty dirty already.
The precedent of prosecuting the loser of an election for president is actually a rather dangerous one. If established, it will inspire much greater efforts at cheating, efforts at ending the process effectively, or lead to commonplace assassination of rivals.
Look around the world for examples, if you doubt the possibility. It seems to be the default in most places where votes are even notionally cast.
How about a compromise? “OK. A pardon is on the table. I will pardon any and all crimes you confess, in your own hand writing, writing witnessed, and then read aloud by you in public and filmed by multiple media for public release immediately. Specifically excluded are Murder, Rape, and Treason, and conspiracy to commit same. The pardon is perpetually conditional upon you never again involving yourself in politics, of any sort, anywhere, not even voting. The offer ends in one week.”
Accepting a pardon is an admission of guilt, as confirmed by Supreme Court decision previously. Is an admission of guilt and a “never to return” enough to preserve the process that has ensured peaceful transition of power for over two centuries?
Which process is -most- likely to preserve the Republic, and the Liberty it protects?
“Which process is -most- likely to preserve the Republic, and the Liberty it protects?”
“Ooh! Ooh! I know. I know. Pick me!”
“Okay. Air Cav?”
“Nailing her ass to the wall!”
“Would you care to expond on that?”
“Sure. It is merely coincidental that Clinton is the loser of a presidential election and is suspected of committing multiple felonies. She has not been treated as others would under the law; most certainly not by the FBI nor the USAG. Moreover, it is because she was the presumptive next president that she was accorded that special treatment. We are a nation of laws. That means something to decent Americans. it means that no one is above the law and all are subject to the law equally. Clearly, it doesn’t always seem to work out that way, but in Clinton’s case, it is an egregious abomination and perversion of that principle that demands she be prosecuted. Thank you.”
You get an A.
Here’s the u. The word was expound.
I see a pattern here with missing letters….