Eric Holder now says Edward Snowden performed a public service.

[Androidpk]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/30/politics/axe-files-axelrod-eric-holder/index.html

[Jarvan]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/30/politics/axe-files-axelrod-eric-holder/index.html

This... is idiotic.

[Androidpk]

This... is idiotic.

I think being offered a fair trial is a win win for everyone.

[Wrathbringer]

the guy is a patriot. More of a patriot than any soldier today.

[time4fun]

What Snowden did was whistleblowing- he held the government accountable for its illegal activities. In many countries, that would come with immunity from prosecution. And it should. Trying to send him to prison is retaliation plain and simple.

[Wrathbringer]

What Snowden did was whistleblowing- he held the government accountable for its illegal activities. In many countries, that would come with immunity from prosecution. And it should. Trying to send him to prison is retaliation plain and simple.

Holy crap I agree with something you posted. Think I'll buy a lottery ticket today.

[Androidpk]

What Snowden did was whistleblowing- he held the government accountable for its illegal activities. In many countries, that would come with immunity from prosecution. And it should. Trying to send him to prison is retaliation plain and simple.

As much as I admire Snowden he still broke the law. With that being said though you would think he would be covered by whistleblower protection laws but from what I understand is that because he was a contractor and not an actual employee of the federal government he didn't fall under the umbrella of those laws. Hence why he did what he did. He himself has always maintained that if the federal government guaranteed him a fair trial, and Chelsea Manning his ass, he'd come back to the US.

[time4fun]

As much as I admire Snowden he still broke the law. With that being said though you would think he would be covered by whistleblower protection laws but from what I understand is that because he was a contractor and not an actual employee of the federal government he didn't fall under the umbrella of those laws. Hence why he did what he did. He himself has always maintained that if the federal government guaranteed him a fair trial, and Chelsea Manning his ass, he'd come back to the US.

Sort of. It's one giant loophole mess. The Espionage Act doesn't have whistle blower protections, and existing Federal protections don't apply to classified information leaks. Even if Obama's EO had applied to contractors, it wouldn't have protected Snowden from prosecution. Ultimately, there's nothing that prevents the US Government from prosecuting (which is the ultimate form of retaliation)- even if you go through the proper channels.

Just ask Thomas Drake.

[Jarvan]

I think of whistleblowing as... telling the feds that your company is dumping toxic waste into Lake Erie.

Not stealing classified info and leaking it to the world.

[kutter]

I am still really conflicted about what he did. At what point do the ends justify the means and who gets to decide?

Some of the people I work with find my viewpoint about the law somewhat infuriating but I believe, like Scalia said, the law says what it says and it does not say what it does not say. It is the task of judges and juries to muddle about in the grey areas, not investigators and prosecutors. From that viewpoint he violated the law, so he deserves a fair trial for it and let the outcome be what it will be. His fleeing the country does him no good, it only makes him look less likable/innocent and will make it harder should be ever come back.

[Jarvan]

I am still really conflicted about what he did. At what point do the ends justify the means and who gets to decide?

Some of the people I work with find my viewpoint about the law somewhat infuriating but I believe, like Scalia said, the law says what it says and it does not say what it does not say. It is the task of judges and juries to muddle about in the grey areas, not investigators and prosecutors. From that viewpoint he violated the law, so he deserves a fair trial for it and let the outcome be what it will be. His fleeing the country does him no good, it only makes him look less likable/innocent and will make it harder should be ever come back.

It's kinda like the guy who steals a loaf of bread to feed his starving family.

It's a crime... but you can understand why he did it. Doesn't make it not a crime though.

[Enuch]

It's kinda like the guy who steals a loaf of bread to feed his starving family.

It's a crime... but you can understand why he did it. Doesn't make it not a crime though.

Well to complete this analogy you also have to remember that prior to stealing the bread he would have signed a non-disclosure agreement stating that he would not steal the bread and that by stealing the bread would be open to significant actions to include imprisonment.

[Drew]

I view Snowden as a patriot, I hope President Hiltrump gives him an unconditional pardon.

[~Rocktar~]

I am pretty surprised that Obama hasn't already pardoned him. Of course, government openness, legal restraint and abiding the constitution are antithesis to Liberals. So much for the "Most open administration in history."

[Tgo01]

Doesn't he have to be convicted before he can be pardoned?

[~Rocktar~]

Technically yeah, I suppose it would be a granting of amnesty or some such but most people just refer to it all as being pardoned like Ford did for Nixon.

[time4fun]

I am pretty surprised that Obama hasn't already pardoned him. Of course, government openness, legal restraint and abiding the constitution are antithesis to Liberals. So much for the "Most open administration in history."

You can't pardon someone who hasn't been convicted. That's sort of the core concept.

And yeah, liberals are totally anti transparency and constitution. That's actually the first paragraph of the handbook.

I mean, remember the pro-secrecy changes to the Presidential Records Act that Obama passed? Oh no wait, that was Bush. Obama revoked those.

Though, of course, we all remember when Bush created the Open Government Directive and Open Government Partnership progra- oh no wait, that was Obama.

Well, I mean, in fairness there was that time Bush created the "presumption of disclosure" rule for FOIA..oh no, wait Bush actually went in the opposite direction. Obama created that rule to move things back towards transparency.

But, in all seriousness, the GOP deserves a lot of credit for the "Maximum Responsible Disclosure" standar- no, that was Clinton. Bush got rid of it, and the Obama brought it back.

No, no, wait- remember when Bush pushed through the toughest declassification programs we had ever see- no, shit. That was Clinton. Bush got rid of those programs in 2003, and Obama brought them back- declassifying something like 10 million records.

Obama doesn't have a perfect record on transparency by any means *cough*SSP*cough*, but a bunch of bullshit platitudes about how conservatives are the government transparency advocates while liberals look to obfuscate the government are meaningless and run counter to fact.

[Tgo01]

a bunch of bullshit platitudes about how conservatives are the government transparency advocates while liberals look to obfuscate the government are meaningless and run counter to fact.

You really should see someone about this strawman tendency you have going for you. It can't at all be healthy.

[Gnomad]

You can't pardon someone who hasn't been convicted. That's sort of the core concept.
uh presidents pardon turkeys all the time, why don't you show me the conviction record of those turkeys? hm? yeah that's what i thought, LIEbral.

check and mate.

[Tgo01]

uh presidents pardon turkeys all the time, why don't you show me the conviction record of those turkeys? hm? yeah that's what i thought, LIEbral.

check and mate.

They were convicted of being delicious.

[Warriorbird]

I can certain question some of Snowden's decisions but I have a hard time faulting somebody for pointing out that his agency routinely violates the 4th amendment and the federal laws they claim to uphold. I think if the Coast Guard had been doing similar kutter would be similarly conflicted.


You really should see someone about this strawman tendency you have going for you. It can't at all be healthy.

Because you totally critique your party frequently even though they stand for comparatively little of your central beliefs on government.

[Tgo01]

Because you totally critique your party frequently even though they stand for comparatively little of your central beliefs on government.

And the strawmans keep pouring in.

[Androidpk]

Technically yeah, I suppose it would be a granting of amnesty or some such but most people just refer to it all as being pardoned like Ford did for Nixon.

I never expected Obama to give him amnesty or a pardon. Hell I never expected someone like Holder to say what he said here. This is a huge difference from what they were saying before.

As for Snowden's actions I could speculate for days but I ultimately think he did the right thing. The American people had a right to know about these surveillance programs. The rules for removing classified material from government possession is a clear cut crime though and for that he should have a trial here in the US and granted all due rights for fair legal representation, treatment, ect ect. While fleeing the US marks a mark against him in my book I can't say I blame him. Look at how Chelsey Manning was treated.

[Androidpk]

And the strawmans keep pouring in.

They warned us about the Strawman Industrial Complex but we didn't listen.

[Warriorbird]

And the strawmans keep pouring in.

Once again we're in this land of you critique the Democrats and people point out the Republicans are awful and then you critique the Democrats. Eventually you'll be confronted on this and go "OMG the Democrats should be more liberal." or "STRAW MANNNNNNN!"

This is somehow supposed to make us support Republicans.

I'm still gonna have to vote based on Supreme Court Justice selection.

[kutter]

I'm still gonna have to vote based on Supreme Court Justice selection.

Sadly this is my driving choice as well. And while I do not relish the thought of voting for Trump, in all that I have seen, he is more likely to appoint a Justice that will not be an activist on the bench and will be closer to Scalia than Sotomoyar.

[Warriorbird]

Sadly this is my driving choice as well. And while I do not relish the thought of voting for Trump, in all that I have seen, he is more likely to appoint a Justice that will not be an activist on the bench and will be closer to Scalia than Sotomoyar.

They're all basically activists now. Quite understandable looking for somebody who'll put conservative justices in, however, given your views.

[Tgo01]

This is somehow supposed to make us support Republicans.

Do you own stock in a company that makes straw or something? Because this is getting kind of ridiculous now.

[Warriorbird]

Do you own stock in a company that makes straw or something? Because this is getting kind of ridiculous now.

So why else do you post a bunch of nonsense about Democrats if the Republican Party isn't any better and you wish the Democratic Party were more liberal?

[Tgo01]

So why else do you post a bunch of nonsense about Democrats if the Republican Party isn't any better and you wish the Democratic Party were more liberal?

I post a "bunch of nonsense" about shit that I find nonsensical. If that happens to come from Republicans then I'll say so. If it happens to come from Democrats then I'll say so. It just so happens that Democrats have a tendency to piss me off more than Republicans, this election cycle even more so with everyone acting like Trump is the literal embodiment of Satan himself and actually need a "safe space" because they see "Vote for Trump" on their college campus and feel threatened.

[Warriorbird]

I post a "bunch of nonsense" about shit that I find nonsensical. If that happens to come from Republicans then I'll say so. If it happens to come from Democrats then I'll say so. It just so happens that Democrats have a tendency to piss me off more than Republicans, this election cycle even more so with everyone acting like Trump is the literal embodiment of Satan himself and actually need a "safe space" because they see "Vote for Trump" on their college campus and feel threatened.

So what's good about Trump?

[Tgo01]

So what's good about Trump?

He isn't Hillary. That's literally good enough for me.

[Warriorbird]

He isn't Hillary. That's literally good enough for me.

So what if I told you he was Hillary? What would you say to that?

[Tgo01]

So what if I told you he was Hillary? What would you say to that?

I would be very confused and the world would probably explode.

[Warriorbird]

I would be very confused and the world would probably explode.

Trump is Hillary!

http://i.imgur.com/1v1inGq.jpg

Thank one of my students.

[kutter]

They're all basically activists now. Quite understandable looking for somebody who'll put conservative justices in, however, given your views.

I would disagree that they are all activist. Case and point, Scalia, Alito, and Thomas chose to recognize that Affordable Care Act state exchanges lawsuit was in fact a poorly crafted law that should be refereed back to the drafters for a correction. Intent does not matter if the mistake is a result of how the law is written. Maybe the bill was meant the way the Administration claims, and maybe it wasn't, either way, the way to fix is to refer it back to Congress and let them craft a fix and have it go through the proper process of passing a law. Not to say, 'well nothing will get done in Congress and some of us think this was the intent of the crafters of the law.' There was enough evidence to suggest that it was at least possible that the intent was to bully the states into compliance.

In instances where a law conflicts with another law, then the court must make an interpretation in that instance, but that was not one of them. Frankly I thought the whole reason Justices had a lifetime appointment was so they could take politics out of it, but clearly that is not the case. It makes me sad to think the experiment is coming to and end and that maybe the people buying all the guns are not as batshit crazy as I might have initially thought.

[kutter]

Trump is Hillary!

http://i.imgur.com/1v1inGq.jpg

Thank one of my students.

Thanks a lot WB, I was going to go to dinner but not so hungry now!

[Warriorbird]

I would disagree that they are all activist. Case and point, Scalia, Alito, and Thomas chose to recognize that Affordable Care Act state exchanges lawsuit was in fact a poorly crafted law that should be refereed back to the drafters for a correction. Intent does not matter if the mistake is a result of how the law is written. Maybe the bill was meant the way the Administration claims, and maybe it wasn't, either way, the way to fix is to refer it back to Congress and let them craft a fix and have it go through the proper process of passing a law. Not to say, 'well nothing will get done in Congress and some of us think this was the intent of the crafters of the law.' There was enough evidence to suggest that it was at least possible that the intent was to bully the states into compliance.

In instances where a law conflicts with another law, then the court must make an interpretation in that instance, but that was not one of them. Frankly I thought the whole reason Justices had a lifetime appointment was so they could take politics out of it, but clearly that is not the case. It makes me sad to think the experiment is coming to and end and that maybe the people buying all the guns are not as batshit crazy as I might have initially thought.

Scalia and Thomas both went activist in a certain "non binding" case and several other times as well. Alito went activist against Westboro Baptist Church even though I have a complete appreciation of his decision from moral principles (ugh, Phelpses). It's just something judges pretend to follow now.

I understand voting for your party's candidate to get judges from your party though and can respect it. I'm doing it myself because I detest Hillary.


Thanks a lot WB, I was going to go to dinner but not so hungry now!

My student got me with the claim that he was showing the next President of the United States.

[kutter]

Scalia and Thomas both went activist in a certain "non binding" case and several other times as well. Alito went activist against Westboro Baptist Church even though I have a complete appreciation of his decision from moral principles (ugh, Phelpses). It's just something judges pretend to follow now.

I understand voting for your party's candidate to get judges from your party though and can respect it. I'm doing it myself because I detest Hillary.



My student got me with the claim that he was showing the next President of the United States.

I have to say though, it is a decent photoshop job.

[Androidpk]

Scalia and Thomas both went activist in a certain "non binding" case and several other times as well. Alito went activist against Westboro Baptist Church even though I have a complete appreciation of his decision from moral principles (ugh, Phelpses). It's just something judges pretend to follow now.

I understand voting for your party's candidate to get judges from your party though and can respect it. I'm doing it myself because I detest Hillary.



My student got me with the claim that he was showing the next President of the United States.


I find it hilarious you actually trust Hillary enough to let her pick judges. How fucking are gullible are you?

[Warriorbird]

I find it hilarious you actually trust Hillary enough to let her pick judges. How fucking are gullible are you?

I would rather have Hillary pick judges than Donald Trump pick judges. It's as simple as that. It's the heart of the race for me.

Liberal judges are way more likely to rule the way I'd like on social issues. In order to pander to the base for a second term I'm quite sure she'll pick that way.

[Androidpk]

I would rather have Hillary pick judges than Donald Trump pick judges. It's as simple as that. It's the heart of the race for me.

And what are you going to do when she's indicted?

[time4fun]

And what are you going to do when she's indicted?

The same thing he did when she was indicted over Benghazi.

[Androidpk]

The same thing he did when she was indicted over Benghazi.

She wasn't indicted over Benghazi. She went before a congressional committee. There wasn't a sitting grand jury then.

[Latrinsorm]

I would disagree that they are all activist. Case and point, Scalia, Alito, and Thomas chose to recognize that Affordable Care Act state exchanges lawsuit was in fact a poorly crafted law that should be refereed back to the drafters for a correction. Intent does not matter if the mistake is a result of how the law is written. Maybe the bill was meant the way the Administration claims, and maybe it wasn't, either way, the way to fix is to refer it back to Congress and let them craft a fix and have it go through the proper process of passing a law. Not to say, 'well nothing will get done in Congress and some of us think this was the intent of the crafters of the law.' There was enough evidence to suggest that it was at least possible that the intent was to bully the states into compliance.

In instances where a law conflicts with another law, then the court must make an interpretation in that instance, but that was not one of them. Frankly I thought the whole reason Justices had a lifetime appointment was so they could take politics out of it, but clearly that is not the case. It makes me sad to think the experiment is coming to and end and that maybe the people buying all the guns are not as batshit crazy as I might have initially thought.If it makes you feel better, activist Supreme Court judges have been around for almost as long as there has been a Supreme Court. Thomas Jefferson had a lot of typically colorful things to say on this topic when said judges didn't go his way (such bias was of course also typical for him).

[Warriorbird]

And what are you going to do when she's indicted?

There's a fuzzy headed master of vaguery who'll slot in if that happens.

I tend to lean conservative on gun rights but there isn't a single other social issue I agree with Republicans on. I think abortion should be legal, I think the Voting Rights Act of 1965 should still exist, I believe that climate change is occurring, I think gay people ought to be able to do/marry who they want if they're consenting adults, I think affirmative action has reasons to stay around, I think my Dream Act students should be able to stay in America, and I don't think Muslims need to wear a special star on their chest. There's no real choice there. Hillary is creepy/amoral but she's a Democrat. Trump is creepy/amoral and a Republican.

[Androidpk]

So she occasionally uses Democrat talking points. That doesn't make her a democrat. War hawk? Wall Street? Money in politics? She's all for that Republican BS and fools keep on buying the lie that she's for the Democrats.

[Warriorbird]

So she occasionally uses Democrat talking points. That doesn't make her a democrat. War hawk? Wall Street? Money in politics? She's all for that Republican BS and fools keep on buying the lie that she's for the Democrats.

I think she'll cynically pick judges to further her brand and score points with her party. Same with Trump. I hardly see him cleaning up Wall Street.

(And to be clear once more...my primary vote was for Sanders and I would support him if Hillary gets removed. He has miles of flaws too though.)

[GS4Pirate]

So she occasionally uses Democrat talking points. That doesn't make her a democrat. War hawk? Wall Street? Money in politics? She's all for that Republican BS and fools keep on buying the lie that she's for the Democrats.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGtkpA7luUE

[Androidpk]

I think she'll cynically pick judges to further her brand and score points with her party. Same with Trump. I hardly see him cleaning up Wall Street.

(And to be clear once more...my primary vote was for Sanders and I would support him if Hillary gets removed. He has miles of flaws too though.)

.......