
Trump says he is considering pardon for Edward Snowden - elliekelly
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-politics-snowden/trump-says-hes-considering-pardon-for-leaker-edward-snowden-idUSKCN25B10Z
======
627467
I'm not American so my opinion won't matter.

Yet, in my view Snowden actions have been extremely important to set the
discussions we are having today: how private do we expect our digital lives to
be be it from the state or from megacorps.

I doubt that Facebook/CA affair in 2016 elections would have come to light (or
have the same impact) had Snowden leaks not had happened.

I doubt that Europeans would have stoped being 100% subservient to American
tech megacorps had those leaks not had happened.

I think alot of people around the world started even considering the
importance of who is watching or listening to their digital life because of
Snowden. Or at least, because of the conversation that his leaks started.

He wasnt alone in leaking information important to these conversations, but he
definitely has become an important advocate of his leaks and his own message.

~~~
surround
A nice example is uBlock Origin, which was (probably) created as a result of
the Snowden leaks.

June 2013 - Snowden leaks NSA documents

September 2013 - the first commit to the Script HQ extension is made (which
soon became HTTP Switchboard, which later became uMatrix and uBlock)

[https://github.com/gorhill/httpswitchboard/commits/master?af...](https://github.com/gorhill/httpswitchboard/commits/master?after=19d800213cafd4c20c2c3f2ab5201335ed0ac1b9+1385&branch=master)

~~~
compsciphd
ad blocking existed long before uBlock. uBlock was notable as being a more
efficient way of doing it, not a more effective way (i.e. its still using the
same form of block lists)

~~~
surround
Yes, but HTTP Switchboard and uMatrix are more useful for privacy than for
adblocking.

------
lazyjones
Snowden is doing OK apparently, he should pardon Assange - who is not so well
- quickly.

~~~
Daviey
Trump did love Wikileaks:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnEoVzLKNPw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnEoVzLKNPw)

------
mindcrime
I'll be impressed when he _actually_ issues a pardon. I'd say Trump is
notorious for "talking about" things without ever delivering anything. Take
the issue of 50 state concealed carry reciprocity. Regardless of what you
think about this issue yourself, it seems clear that Trump has tried to pander
to gun owners and 2A advocates by constantly talking about this. But last I
heard, there had been no meaningful action on it, or any reason to believe he
was actually pushing his allies in Congress on the issue.

~~~
duxup
Trump really hasn't taken the lead in much in the way of legislative action,
almost ever.

I don't think he understands or has the patience for the process.

Anything beyond what he can try to decree himself, he seems to lose interest /
struggle with. Even tripping up his own party members in congress while they
try to understand what he wants. He has threatened to veto things he pushed
for... then signed them shortly after.

I think he might simply be incapable of anything requiring too many new steps
for him.

~~~
refurb
_Trump really hasn 't taken the lead in much in the way of legislative action,
almost ever._

First major tax reform in decades?

~~~
djur
Entirely driven by congressional Republicans.

~~~
refurb
Umm... it was in his election platform.

And of course he needed help from congress, he can't actually pass a bill
without congress.

~~~
duxup
Presidents typically work with their party to pass something. His own party
more often complains about a lack of help or counterproductive behavior that
makes it difficult for them to pass things.

Trump's lack of effort to work with his own party was a constant topic, until
his partly largely quit talking about it as no help became the status quo.

------
krick
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
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.

~~~
koheripbal
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.

~~~
throwawaygh
_> > [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.

~~~
cryptonector
The police officers in the Rodney King case were tried and acquitted in State
court, then tried and convicted of essentially the same crime with a different
name in Federal court, and the courts declined to say this violated the Double
Jeopardy clause. It's not necessarily the case that the courts will allow the
same thing when the State seeks to try a defendant after they are acquitted in
Federal court or pardoned by the President, but it seems difficult to me to
distinguish the two kinds of cases, so I'm assuming it's more likely than not
that if POTUS pardons Manafort and NYS wants to try Manafort, they will be
able to.

IMO the Rodney King case was a very bad precedent. It was very bad politics
for the Federal courts to do otherwise, I understand, but it was not a good
decision. The SCOTUS essentially held that a) Dual Sovereignty means the
Double Jeopardy clause doesn't apply, b) that the courts can use the double
jeopardy condition as a mitigation in sentencing. (b) can be seen as weakening
the Dual Sovereignty doctrine, but (a) can be seen as a disaster because the
5th Amendment _is_ incorporated against the States, and the Double Jeopardy
clause is in the 5A, so allowing the Dual Sovereignty doctrine to overcome
Incorporation doctrine seems like a gross error that puts the entire
Incorporation doctrine in... jeopardy. Shall we now say that only parts of the
1A, 2A, 4A, 5A, are incorporated against the States? Which parts? This invites
more litigation.

Of course, that didn't happen, IIUC. There's been no litigation arguing that
if Dual Sovereignty overrides Incorporation in one case, it might in others.
But it could yet happen.

~~~
throwawaygh
Reasonable. But returning to Snowden, “one executive wants to pardon and the
other doesn’t” is pretty much by definition a case of differing interests. IMO
this question is more clear-cut than typical DJ questions.

It’s just really hard for me to believe that POTUS could protect Snowden from
prosecution in state courts via pardon. At the very least, a DOJ that wants
Snowden in prison can side-step this whole question by leaving it to a state
and keeping things out of federal court...

~~~
cryptonector
The case up-thread was Manafort -- NY State, IIRC, wants him in jail and may
prosecute if pardoned. I'm not sure which State laws Snowden might have
violated, or which States might want to prosecute him. BTW, I can see an
argument against double jeopardy in the Federal->State direction as opposed to
the State->Federal direction: the former, if allowed, could see a defendant
tried as many times as there are States + 1, and that can't possibly be in the
interest of Justice.

~~~
throwawaygh
_> The case up-thread was Manafort_

Oh, I see. I was speaking into the even further up-thread context of Snowden
:p Sorry about that.

 _> I'm not sure which State laws Snowden might have violated_

E.g.,
[http://euro.ecom.cmu.edu/program/law/08-732/Jurisdiction/Haw...](http://euro.ecom.cmu.edu/program/law/08-732/Jurisdiction/HawaiiElectronic.pdf)

 _> I can see an argument against double jeopardy in the Federal->State
direction as opposed to the State->Federal direction: the former, if allowed,
could see a defendant tried as many times as there are States + 1, and that
can't possibly be in the interest of Justice._

\+ a lot more than 1 because of Native American jurisdictions

It's a good pint, but the crime would have to occur in overlapping
jurisdictions, which doesn't apply in the case of Manafort. I think even in
the case of Snowden it'd be difficult to argue for jurisdiction outside of HI
and maybe any states he passed through with HDDs.

I just searched for drug trafficking and computer fraud cases that resulted in
multiple charges for the same act in several states. I couldn't find any
particularly egregious cases.

I'm not even sure how important this is in the case of computer crime;
jurisdiction gets hairy really fast.

~~~
dragonwriter
> a lot more than 1 because of Native American jurisdictions

Native American jurisdictions generally only have criminal jurisdiction over
their own members for actions on their own land, that jurisdiction is
Constitutionally an application of federal sovereignty, so where it applies it
doesn't add an additional possible prosecution, just replaced (or provides an
additional option) for one of the existing possible prosecutions. So, there's
no double jeopardy impact.

~~~
throwawaygh
Correct; for that subset of cases this conversation is relevant but the same
conclusions hold (lara)

------
option
Snowden should be pardoned. Good for Trump if he does this

~~~
refurb
Ha! Love how this is downvoted.

Trump could cure cancer and HN would fault in it.

~~~
dontcarethrow2
He has tons of fans everywhere.

'Ye but but' \--looks at the fake news bingo entry-- 'Russia!'

------
hi41
I am excited by this development. Snowden is a patriot by becoming a whistle
blower. I am also saddened by Obama’s complete refusal to pardon Snowden. Why
would Obama who is a progressive leader not pardon Snowden. That was a hard
thing for me to swallow. I hope Trump hurries and gets it done asap. Snowden
has suffered a lot for his ethical actions. I hope he gets to come home and
not suffer anymore.

------
kgarten
Is it just me or is the term leaker politically charged in the context. For
me, Snowden is a whistle blower not a leaker. There's a reason why he revealed
secretes (he also didn't just release them, but was very careful how much he
revealed), the secrete programs were unconstitutional -> whistle blower not
leaker.

edit: typo.

~~~
atlgator
He was not a Government employee at the time. Contractors don't get to be
whistle blowers.

EDIT: Turns out the law does protect contractors, so I guess it's
circumstantial that employees get branded whistle blowers and contractors get
charged as spies.

~~~
peacefulhat
Brilliant, just hire contractors to get around good governance rules :)

~~~
Lammy
I mean, it works for Google and Facebook.

------
duxup
I suppose on his mind this might fit with some sort of fight with the "deep
state".

Beyond that I would just chalk it up to some inherent capriciousness...
bordering on concerning instability.

~~~
cryptonector
You've addressed the President's possible motivations. But, do you think
Snowden should be pardoned? Just curious. (It's a tough call. I've not decided
my own position on the matter.)

~~~
HenryKissinger
Snowden is charged with theft, unauthorized communication of national defense
information, and willful communication of classified communications
intelligence information to an unauthorized person, under the 1917 Espionage
Act. His unauthorized disclosures of classified information caused grave
damage to the national security of the United States and allowed enemies of
the United States to better conceal their communications and activities.

I do not think Snowden deserves a pardon. Edward Snowden should be extradited
to the United States to receive a trial and an appropriate sentence.

~~~
throwaway1777
Almost everyone thought mass surveillance was a conspiracy theory before
Snowden. On the balance maybe he still deserves prison, but denying the
positives of what Snowden did is disingenuous.

~~~
longtimegoogler
I don't think so. Wasn't it common knowledge that the Government had access to
emails via ISPs and shredder well before Snowden's revelations? What was
revealing, I guess was some of the technical details of how it was being done.

~~~
bcrosby95
Part of why Google decided to speed up their timeline on encrypting traffic
across their internal network is because they learned the NSA tapped into it.

~~~
marcan_42
I was there when it happened, and basically the entire engineering org was
pissed off at the NSA. It went from ongoing project to "we're flipping the
switch within a month" or something like that.

~~~
refurb
Why were they pissed at the NSA? I thought Google cooperated with the NSA to
provide access. Or did I misunderstand the situation?

~~~
jeffbee
There is nothing in Snowden's leaks to support this conclusion, much to
suggest that it is false, and Google flatly denies cooperating with the NSA in
clear, non-weasel-word terms.

[https://googleblog.blogspot.com/2013/06/what.html](https://googleblog.blogspot.com/2013/06/what.html)

~~~
refurb
Well there you go. I guess it was my own assumption based on one of the PRISM
slides that show when surveillance for each company started.[1] I assumed it
involved cooperation.

[1][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program)#/...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_\(surveillance_program\)#/media/File:Prism_slide_5.jpg)

~~~
jeffbee
Well, that's court-ordered production of data based on given search terms.
Being ordered by a court to do something is not the opposite of "cooperation"
but it's not the same thing either.

What Googlers were angry about was the stuff in the leaks that showed they
were tapping undersea cables.

~~~
refurb
I see. So they were aware of some data collection, because the court forced
them to, but there was other collection going on they weren't aware of.

------
glaive123
This is not news. Let's see him actually pardon Snowden, then talk about it.

~~~
jjordan
Considering 3-4 years ago he referred to him as a traitor, I'd say the
significant shift in stance is news. Should a pardon happen, this would set an
important precedent for future whistleblowers and for the rule of law in the
often obfuscated corners of the federal government.

Support the efforts of Rand Paul and Thomas Massie, who have already publicly
stated their support for a Presidential pardon in this case.

~~~
deelowe
I think after 3 and 1/2 years, we'd all recognize by now that Trump more often
than not says things just to stir up controversy. As others have said, this
isn't newsworthy until he actually does something.

~~~
Lammy
If stirring that controversy means reigniting debate about our collective
surveillance apparatus then I'm not sure how I should feel :)

~~~
bobthepanda
Usually the "stirring up controversy" isn't on the merits of whatever the
controversy is itself, but to draw attention away from some other controversy,
like the whole USPS debacle.

------
s17n
If he actually does it I'll seriously considering voting for him. He won't,
though.

~~~
eagsalazar2
It is interesting, your comment is completely insane to me. Doesn't that seem
strange to you too?

~~~
SmokeyHamster
It's insane to vote for someone who does things you support?

To someone with full blown TDS, sure, a Snowden pardon probably won't sway
your opinion at all. But think of someone who leans libertarian and maybe
doesn't love Trump but also doesn't hate him, and remembers how the Obama
admin forced Snowden to flee and revoked his passport, forcing him to stay in
Russia. Seeing a pardon from Trump could move them into being a mild
supporter.

A lot of people have one or two big issues that their political allegiance
revolves around. It can be abortion rights, gun rights, taxes, the national
debt, anything. If someone's core issue is fighting the surveillance state, a
Snowden pardon would be a massive change in the landscape.

~~~
ttyprintk
I wonder though, since Trump signed the extension to warrentless wiretapping,
would your vote send a message that a pardon for Snowden is sufficient without
institutional change? Trump seemed to only care that section 702 allowed
Carter Page to be wiretapped when the other side of the conversation was out
of the country.

------
coronadisaster
Also repeal the "PATRIOT" Act while you're thinking about doing the right
thing...

~~~
insickness
Presidents can't repeal laws. Only congress can do that.

~~~
coronadisaster
But in this case, the president can get rid of it because it expires
periodically and all he has to do is not sign the extension. But
unfortunately, I don't think that he will need to sign it before the next
election and also, they often include a bunch of unrelated stuff in the bill:
[https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/11/21/fund-n21.html](https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/11/21/fund-n21.html).

Obama promised to let it die... but he didn't.

------
pfarnsworth
No he didn't, he said no such thing.

If you listen to the video, all he did was say he knows nothing about the
issues, but he'll "look into it." That's his standard line. He wasn't actually
saying he was considering it at all. Honestly, I don't think he would really
have any intention to pardon Snowden. It gains him no points with the left,
and would damage him with his base supporters. That's probably why the media
reported it, to try to get his supporters upset at him.

It's the same thing with the whole manufactured outrage of Kamala Harris and
the question posed to him by the reporter. Trump didn't even mention Harris,
and the reporter brought it up and asked him whether he heard about the
report. Trump said that he knew nothing about it, and he would have assumed
that the Democrats would have already validated Harris' eligibility, but he
would "look into it." He never even made a point about it, it was obvious it
was a non-issue to him. It's a meaningless statement that the media tries to
use to make him look bad, and meanwhile it just lets his supporters keep
saying that the media lies, which is true when they bend the truth like they
do.

~~~
krick
I didn't see the video, but if it's true it's extremely funny (and wording @
reuters suggests it is exactly true). Nothing happened, then journalists (as
usual) created a catchy title and extremely misleading news-story out of it,
and here now HN users are all over themselves having a lively discussion and
angrily arguing about the topic and hardly anybody even bothered to verify it.

------
1MachineElf
Just do it.

------
kgwxd
It's obviously some kind of campaign tactic. Appeal to the nerds.

------
drewcoo
Even in the title, Reuters editorializes blatantly by labeling Snowden
"leaker." And the downvotes here are already clearly politically motivated.

~~~
duxup
Personally I don't see leaker as an automatic pejorative.

~~~
SmokeyHamster
Agreed. There have been plenty of people labeled "leakers" inside the White
House who have been celebrated by the media, like Eric Ciaramella.

~~~
duxup
Yeah I think of it as a verb, whatever good or bad is up to the person to
interpret on their own.

------
tlow
blank

~~~
wyxuan
Did you miss the word “considering”?

------
klyrs
Trump doesn't do U-turns, he does donuts. Wake me up when he actually pardons
Snowden; this isn't news.

------
boomboomsubban
The Post conversation reads like Trump has just heard a pitch to attract
voters, and wants to know which side of the argument could help him more.

~~~
ekianjo
Thats what all politicians do. They have market researches and bring up issues
that are of concern to voters in times of elections.

~~~
boomboomsubban
Deciding your position on an issue and deciding whether an individual should
face the justice system are two separate things to me.

------
LOVV
Well, to pardon someone they first need to pass a sentence, right? This didn’t
happen yet, and the process would probably take longer than Trump‘s current
term.

Can someone who is familiar with the US law system shine some light on this
matter?

~~~
sneak
No, one can be pardoned at any time. I thought otherwise until recently, as
well.

~~~
LOVV
Thanks a lot for the clarification.

------
totalZero
Kind of hard to prosecute Assange if you're willing to pardon Snowden. I'm
gonna go make some popcorn and keep watching for Assange's name in the pre-
election headlines.

~~~
lettergram
Assange isn’t even a US citizen, nor (if I recall) was the “crime” on US soil.
Further, The “crime” of booting up the drive should be independent of what was
done with it. It’s insane to me Assange is being prosecuted. Who in the US
government is willing to stand up and say this is wrong? The person who leaked
the data is going to get far less time in prison.

~~~
totalZero
Citizenship is not a component of any relevant statute, to my knowledge. It's
certainly not mentioned in the First Amendment.

What I'm saying is, if Snowden -- who is the alleged primary source of a leak
-- gets pardoned, then how can Assange -- who may not have had any primary
involvement whatsoever with the leak of the documents he published -- be held
responsible? Logically it makes no sense because Assange's alleged crime is
lesser than Snowden's.

------
runawaybottle
Politically, bringing back Snowden brings back the issue, Obama/Biden era big
government spying program Prism.

Trump: Remember everyone, Biden used to spy on you.

This is similar to when he did a press conference with all of Bill Clinton’s
accusers. Just a means to an end for Trump.

~~~
gringoDan
If this is the case, not a bad strategy for Trump. In general, I assume that
any move by a politician is made entirely out of self-interest.

~~~
runawaybottle
Yeah I mean, if he pardons before the debates, suddenly that takes up a debate
topic slot. All he has to do is directly ask Biden, ‘You don’t think Snowden
did the right thing by exposing your administration’s surveillance program?’.
It’s such an easy win, and will take mindshare away from other issues
(coronavirus response, police reform, Medicare/social security cuts). Add a
TikTok ban in there and take up another debate slot, fill it in with all the
anti China stuff.

There are things he can do to set the stage for sure.

~~~
tlear
I think there is almost zero chance that Biden will debate him.

If he does pardoning Snowden and making that into an issue is a brilliant
move. That will sting hard.

~~~
eagsalazar2
Biden already accepted invitations to the debates, last I read Trump had not.

~~~
refurb
Huh? Biden agreed to 3 debates and Trump asked for a 4th which Biden
declined.[1]

[1][https://www.wsj.com/articles/joe-biden-rejects-trumps-
push-f...](https://www.wsj.com/articles/joe-biden-rejects-trumps-push-for-
more-debates-11592860503)

~~~
eagsalazar2
Not sure honestly and I can't read that article (paywall). I recently (just a
few days ago) read official acceptance of the debate committee schedule had
only been completed by Biden campaign. So maybe Trump proposed 4 but then
hasn't accepted the actual invite yet?

~~~
refurb
Maybe. Article doesn't state he's accepted any invites.

------
coliveira
At least one good thing can come out of Trump's stupidity. It's absurd how
badly they treated a whistle blower against the ilegal machinations of the
NSA.

------
asgard1024
I think that Trump believes that Snowden is a Russian spy, because he cannot
imagine (given their different personalities) that somebody would do what
Snowden did just for intrinsic reasons.

So Trump is trying to make a deal with Snowden - find some dirt on Democrats
(Obama administration) during election, and I will pardon you.

However, Snowden is most likely not a spy, so no way this is gonna happen.

------
Olumde
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
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
I'm glad Edward Snowden leaked what he did, but I'm not sure a pardon makes
any sense at all.

~~~
toomuchtodo
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.

~~~
duxup
I wonder what a fair trial means to people...his own admissions include
describing his own illegal activity...

~~~
mindcrime
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
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.

------
spicyramen
Trump is in campaign mode, he tried to get the Latino vote after Mexican
president visit. His team understand that most SV and New York tech workers
are not part of their voting base, but Snowden being an important figure in
this area can help him win some votes. 88022

------
brbsix
The response to this news on HN has been very disappointing. By contrast,
there was a lively apolitical discussion[0] back in 2015 about the effort to
bring Snowden back to the US. On the other hand, people now seem more
concerned about the motivations of Trump. If it's the right thing to do, who
cares about the motivation behind it or the person enacting it? This reminds
me a little of the response to Trump's efforts to end the War in Afghanistan.
I realize I'm not talking about individuals, but it's maddening to see
communities that had almost universally supported both things for many years
seemingly let political biases get in the way of doing the right thing.

[0]:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9655693](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9655693)

~~~
Renaud
The main issue I see with Trump's support of anything is the impact this
support has on the cause.

I believe Snowden needs to be pardoned. He made the Public aware of the shady
things that are done in its name. So the Public needs to pardon Snowden for
being a whistleblower and this can be voiced through the President, who is
supposed to be the ultimate voice representing the Public and its interests.

However, Trumps motivations for doing anything have been fickle and marred in
short-term political or personal popularity gain, sometimes to the detriment
of the very thing he is supporting.

So supporting a pardon for Snowden is great but the reasons for doing so are
really not clear and -as usual- not articulated in any sensible and reasonable
way.

Maybe I'm wrong but this looks more like a political diversion to me, maybe a
way to divert the outrage when he pardonned Stone -clearly a shady character
if there was one- or just keep the news busy for a while.

------
HenryKissinger
> realDonaldTrump: ObamaCare is a disaster and Snowden is a spy who should be
> executed-but if it and he could reveal Obama's records,I might become a
> major fan

He should be executed, but in the same breathe he may deserve a pardon? Not
going to happen.

Neither the State Department, the Justice Department, the Defense Department,
or the Intelligence Community, is particularly sympathetic to Snowden's cause
(for good reason imo). There has been no change on that front from the Obama
administration to the Trump administration. William Barr, Mike Pompeo, and
Mark Esper are no more fans of Snowden than Loretta Lynch, John Kerry, and Ash
Carter were. Snowden will die in Russia or in a US prison. I know it's not
what the vigilantes of the Internet want to hear, but it's the most likely
scenario.

~~~
gpm
Your quote is from... October 2013 [1]. I think Trump's views and information
might have changed since then, and the state of the world has changed which
will modify the pros and cons of this move to trump. I expect his decision
will mostly be made based on how he perceives it impacting his chance of
getting re-elected.

I haven't noticed trump ever being particularly concerned about what the
intelligence community thinks.

[1]
[https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/39568370275766272...](https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/395683702757662721?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw)

~~~
m463
I expect it might be calculated to help his re-election - if he does it.
Remembering how google locked down its internal network after the revelations,
I would expect lots of silicon valley might align with snowden's plight.

------
csilverman
Two possibilities come to mind:

1\. My uninformed kneejerk guess is that Russia, for whatever reason, wants to
be rid of Snowden. It's the only explanation for why Trump—who has no pressing
reason to be thinking about Edward Snowden right now, and almost certainly
does not approve of Snowden or people like him—would suddenly raise the issue.

2\. That, or it's something Trump knows will get everyone talking and he needs
a distraction. Maybe both.

I could be missing something, but I can't see how this is going to help Trump
in an election at all. The people who care about Snowden are not going to
overlook everything else Trump has done, and at the risk of sounding callous,
I don't think most millenials are really thinking about Snowden at this point.

The question for me is why Putin wants Edward Snowden gone, and when you look
at the one vs. the other, the answer looks pretty clear to me.

~~~
duxup
I don't think Russia needs anyone's help being rid of Snowden...

Russia is not a very free country, if they want him silent, gone, whatever it
would happen.

~~~
cryptonector
Clearly Snowden has been useful to them, at least from a propaganda angle, and
perhaps intelligence-wise as well. By now they've extracted all the value they
were ever going to extract from him, and he may just be a cost center to them
now, but you're absolutely right that if they wanted to be rid of him, it'd be
trivial to do it.

~~~
JamesBarney
How would he be a cost center?

~~~
cryptonector
I was speculating for the purpose of reasoning about whether they might want
to get rid of him. How could he be a cost center? I don't know -- maybe they
provide security for him?

------
sneak
The CIA will instagib Snowden the instant it is physically possible for them
to do so. A pardon will never change that.

The commander of the CIA states it plainly:
[https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/39568370275766272...](https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/395683702757662721)

(Remember, we're talking about the same CIA that hacked US congressional
computers, because the congress was investigating the CIA’s torture record and
they wanted to cover it up. Then the CIA lied about hacking them. Then they
later lied about lying about it.)

The IC knows they would suffer zero consequences for his “heart attack”.

Ed is far too smart to ever put himself in that situation.

Thus, for practical purposes, such a pardon is irrelevant.

~~~
dylan604
Except a pardon would mean he could move back to the US and leave Russia

~~~
sneak
Perhaps I wasn’t clear. If he ever sets foot in the US again, he will be
quietly and instantly murdered by his former coworkers, even after he is
pardoned.

~~~
learc83
What leaker or whistleblower has the CIA murdered? Why didn’t they murder
Manning?

~~~
sneak
Manning was declared guilty _in advance_ by the US president prior to her
trial, and subsequently was tortured so badly _prior to trial_ she tried to
kill herself twice whilst imprisoned.

[https://www.politico.com/story/2011/04/obama-says-manning-
br...](https://www.politico.com/story/2011/04/obama-says-manning-broke-the-
law-053601)

[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/mar/12/bradley-
mannin...](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/mar/12/bradley-manning-
cruel-inhuman-treatment-un)

She was reimprisoned _after her pardon_ , where she was subjected again to
inhumane treatment, and attempted suicide a third time as a result.

~~~
learc83
Why didn’t they kill her?

If you know enough about the CIA to be absolutely certain they will murder
Snowden, then surely you know what line he crossed that Chelsea Manning
didn’t?

You might also want to point out that the torture was solitary confinement for
all but 1 hour per day, which I’m no fan of, but just to be clear it wasn’t
torture in the water boarding or toenail removal sense.

~~~
sneak
That’s the thing: it doesn’t need to be “absolutely certain” to be sufficient
risk to effectively bar him from ever re-entering (or even venturing too far
out of the current protection detail that keeps him alive).

Even “pretty likely to be assassinated upon entry” would be enough to keep
most reasonable or prudent people away forever.

Solitary confinement for extended periods of time causes permanent, physical
damage to the human brain and psyche. If you have no experience with it or
those who have so suffered, I don’t think you have even a remote shred of
justification or qualification to speak of it the way that you have.

As I have personally witnessed the intense, permanent damage caused by such
things, I entirely refuse to engage with your casual dismissal, which is
extraordinarily offensive to me.

~~~
learc83
You seemed pretty sure. But ok if he’s “pretty likely to murdered ”, then you
must have some numbers to back that up? How many leakers have been murdered,
and how many haven’t?

What was the probability that Chelsea Manning was going to be murdered? And
how was it calculated?

edit in response to your edit which included this:

>As I have personally witnessed the intense, permanent damage caused by such
things, I entirely refuse to engage with your casual dismissal, which is
extraordinarily offensive to me.

So you're just going to toss out unsubstantiated claims and then retreat under
the pretense of being extraordinary offended?

Torture has a generally accepted meaning and most people (and our legal
system) don’t think that a single occupancy prison cell with an hour of human
contact per day fits that meaning. The studies supporting psychological damage
are generally talking about months of near total isolation, which is not what
Chelsea Manning experienced.

------
djsumdog
I honestly care more about Julian Assange. His own government turned their
back on him.

Snowden has been quite the show, enough so that I'm seriously wondering if
he's actually a spook. His entire story is weird. He holds a six figure salary
as an NSA contractor, suddenly has a moral compass, somehow downloads a bunch
of top secret stuff while working remotely from Hawaii, leaks documents that
are mostly redacted and missing critical information about compromised
hardware, and is believed by the world wide media unilaterally without
question. Then his smoking hot girlfriend says she wants to go join him. No
one has found him yet while he does video conferencing using Google Hangouts.

By contrast, Julian Assange was trapped in an Ecuadorian embassy for years.
He's been though hell and his origination has leaked much more crucial
information.

~~~
dannyw
Snowden went to Russia. Julian Assange couldn’t physically get out of a FVRY
nation.

