Eric Holder Says DoJ Could Strike Deal With Snowden; Current AG Takes Hard Line 194
cold fjord writes with the report at Yahoo that Former Attorney General Eric Holder said today that a "possibility exists" for the Justice Department to cut a deal with ... Edward Snowden that would allow him to return to the United States ... Holder said "we are in a different place as a result of the Snowden disclosures" and that "his actions spurred a necessary debate" that prompted President Obama and Congress to change policies ... "I certainly think there could be a basis for a resolution that everybody could ultimately be satisfied with. I think the possibility exists."
A representative of current Attorney General Loretta Lynch, though, said that there has been no change in the government's position ("This is an ongoing case so I am not going to get into specific details but I can say our position regarding bringing Edward Snowden back to the United States to face charges has not changed."), Holder's musings aside. As the article points out, too, "any suggestion of leniency toward Snowden would likely run into strong political opposition in Congress as well as fierce resistance from hard-liners in the intelligence community."
What Eric Holder says is irrelevant (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Eric Holder does have some legitimacy in the "Too Big to Jail" arena, so the idea of not prosecuting isn't completely foreign to him .
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/07/06/eric-holder-returns-law-firm-lobbies-big-banks/
Re: (Score:2)
That involves people with lots of money, who also have a bunch of friends with lots of money.
Snowden has neither, therefore he must face the death penalty.
Re: (Score:2)
if you base it on what had happened to others who had brought up wrongdoings of the government... odds are he wouldn't get a fair trial, and would be lucky to see life outside of prison if he were to come back.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What Eric Holder says is irrelevant (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Snowden would be crazy to ever return to the U.S. again. Any deal they offered would be rescinded or "modified" the second he was in U.S. custody.
Re: (Score:2)
tl/dr; He can never come home.
Re: (Score:2)
Return for trial and sentencing, Obama pardons him last day in office.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't need to be convicted, tried, indicted, or even suspected to receive a presidential pardon. They're kind of like magic. See Ford and Nixon.
I'm hoping Obama does issue him a pardon. I understand why he can't do it now, but last day? Come on, definitely. Leave office with some dignity Mr. Pres.
Re: (Score:2)
He'd do it now if he wanted to. With everything else he has gotten away with, what is this in the scheme of things.
The problem is exactly what NotDrWho stated. This president hates whistleblowers (at least that call out stuff done when he was president) with a passion.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/... [washingtonpost.com]
Re:What Eric Holder says is irrelevant (Score:5, Insightful)
Obama pardons him last day in office
LOL. Obama *HATES* leakers. He has an even bigger hate-on for leakers than Bush ever did. Shit, this is a President that forced down the presidential plane of the President of Bolivia because he thought Snowden MIGHT be on board. Does that sound like the kind of guy who's just going to up and say "Hey Edward, no harm, no foul--we're all good!"?
Re: (Score:2)
I even wonder what the status of any deal would be over the course of an administration change. Let's say Obama and AG Lynch do a 180 and decide to grant Snowden a deal: Return to the US, sit in on some Oval office and congressional meetings regarding everything that took place, and no charges will be filed. For the sake of argument, let's say Snowden accepts the deal and returns to the US. Now, the 2016 elections take place and new President takes office. How bound would this new President (and his AG
Re: (Score:2)
Title 18, part V, chapter 601 of US code. If he had a real grant of immunity from the Attorney General, there's nothing a future AG could do about it.
As the AC says, though, the better option is a presidential pardon. Those are magic. Can't do shit, and you don't need to be convicted, tried, indicted, charged, or even suspected to receive one.
Now, that would only cover things he's already done. If I were Snowden, I would be very wary about ever living in the US again. Obviously get immunity or a pardon so y
Re: (Score:2)
What other nations information did he compromise?
There is no way to guarantee they won't be able to charge him somewhere with something.
Re: (Score:2)
He also revealed that their (most cases anyhow) intelligence agencies were in on the spying.
Re: (Score:2)
Not even close to good enough. They would just send him to a random ally who also had information compromised and have him jailed or killer there.
Snowden's best bet is to completely disappear and watch his back.
Re:What Eric Holder says is irrelevant (Score:5, Insightful)
Darth Vader: I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further. ...
Re: (Score:2)
What about a Presidential pardon?
Maybe if we elect Bernie Sanders (or POSSIBLY Rand Paul). He sure isn't getting one from anyone else in the near future.
Oh, really? (Score:5, Insightful)
So, which policies did they actually change? And were any of the changes for the better?
Frankly, I can't think of any off the top of my head....
Re:Oh, really? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Oh, really? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That is unless you are claiming that Snowden is affiliated with al Qaeda or Isis? Is that your claim? If so, what is the evidence?
Calm your knee, that's not [necessarily] what was meant by that comment. Guess you could read it either way, but I don't think it necessarily has that content. I think the point was that it's easier to attack someone in Snowden's position outside of the courts, because it avoids many uncomfortable questions. Snowden has done a bunch of interviews, people know what he's like. You can't torture him and fill him full of drugs and then put him on the stand like they did with Saddam. Putting him in court would b
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't they just recently have to alter their data collection policies, because Congress wasn't able to pass the law to extend the current practices? Yes, they're still collecting data, and you might not feel the changes are sufficient, but there have been changes in policy.
My recollection is that now they're not allowed to collect all of our data and then get a warrant to officially use it. Instead, they have to get a warrant to gather the data from phone companies in the first place. Or something alon
Re: (Score:2)
That's not the only thing Snowden did. He also publicized actions (legal in the US) against other countries. If he'd limited himself to revealing NSA operations in the US, I'd be completely in favor of him.
What kind of "deal" - he has nothing to offer? (Score:2, Insightful)
People get into the "hero" vs. "traitor" camps, but actually he looks like a bit of both.
Hero for revealing the illegal activities of the NSA and its stooges both inside and outside the USA.
Traitor for (allegedly) revealing information about agents, assets etc. active in "hostile" countries.
If he'd kept back the latter, he *might* have had a chance of bargaining his way back into the US, (if he wants to come; discuss).
Unfortunately, it was probably a requirement of Putin giving him shelter in Russia, despit
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
It's funny how the "hero" part is backed by now undeniable evidence, while the evidence for the "traitor" part seems to be more hypothetical and imaginary?
Re:What kind of "deal" - he has nothing to offer? (Score:4)
Every country with intelligence agencies, including the US, has "illegals" -- that is, spies who do not have diplomatic cover. Valerie Plame is one of the most famous examples, and the operation that pinned down Osama bin Laden's location and cut the power to the neighborhood almost certainly were operating without diplomatic cover.
Most intelligence agency employees of any country aren't in immediate danger and have mostly office jobs, but there are at least a few doing things that can land them in jail if only by being present in another country using false identification.
Deal (Score:5, Insightful)
The only reasonable deal would be for the US government to drop all charges, award Edward Snowden the highest national honours and hire him as a consultant to help them gain useful intelligence without the immoral and illegal practices that were revealed. At the same time, everyone directly responsible for any of the fundamental breaches of human rights committed should be put to trial, as should everyone who had the power to stop it but did not.
Anything less would be an insult to Edward Snowden and a huge missed opportunity for all victims of data theft by the American government, in the U.S. and elsewhere.
Re: (Score:2)
The only reasonable deal would be for the US government to drop all charges, award Edward Snowden the highest national honours and hire him as a consultant to help them gain useful intelligence without the immoral and illegal practices that were revealed. At the same time, everyone directly responsible for any of the fundamental breaches of human rights committed should be put to trial, as should everyone who had the power to stop it but did not.
@@ . . . . yeah, that might happen . . .
Anything less would be an insult to Edward Snowden ...
Is he playing the part of the ever humble Julian Assange now?
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
No shit there would be strong opposition (Score:5, Insightful)
Snowden might belong in a prison cell for some of the things he's done but that "hardline opposition" definitely deserves life in prison at minimum for what they've done.
Who cares what an "ex" Attorney general says? (Score:2)
I cared what he thought when he was able to effect anything. Now he's just another jerk on the street... like you or me or that guy over there picking his nose.
So why do I give a flying fuck what he has to say now? Useless.
Re: (Score:2)
If you think that the people who hold office are the ones with the power, then I have a red and a blue pill for you to choose from.
Re: (Score:2)
If you think that the people who hold office are the ones with the power, then I have a red and a blue pill for you to choose from.
And no matter which one you take, you wake up drugged and sore.
Re: (Score:3)
I am not Bill Cosby.
Re: (Score:2)
hey, hey, hey! watch it, there!
Re: (Score:3)
The president could pardon Snowden in a heartbeat if he wanted to. That the administration takes this tone is because they're told to by the head of it.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. Holder may be a smart, reasonable man but he is not able to act that way when in a position of "power". He may very well be more influential now in certain ways than he was while in office. We can't know how influential he was with Obama, but clearly we can see that he wasn't very influential as far as Snowden is concerned.
Re: (Score:2)
I just don't think his opinions are newsworthy anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
They are very newsworthy. Now we get to find out where he disagrees with the administration and how influential he really was. He clearly disagrees strongly with the President on this issue and this will put pressure on him. He did not wait long to "step out of line".
Re: (Score:2)
bullshit.
Re: (Score:2)
Okay... you seem to know all about it... guess we'll just have to take your word... for what is :-)
Or we could think and reason. Attorney General is a far more powerful position than whatever lawyer job he's doing now. And really, I think he's just carrying water for the administration here.
Re: (Score:2)
His influence as a lobbyist is every bit as powerful
Sorry, I'm not willing to take your word for it.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't have to. Events speak for themselves...
There are no such events.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, if you choose to ignore the sociopathic desire for wealth/power and the kind of people these positions draw.
So what? Merely having sociopathic desire for wealth and power, which really is normal behavior for anyone who actually can achieve wealth and power, doesn't imply that one is running the Department of Justice.
You are just illustrating the power of faith..
Says the person who has yet to provide even a shred of evidence in support of their assertions. Here's my reasoning, we are comparing a person actually running the Department of Justice, with full control of day to day activities (including the FBI which is the largest and most powerful federal-level
Re: (Score:2)
sure... he got a puff piece in "national law journal"... clearly he's the next emperor of the galaxy.
Re: (Score:2)
No no, you're right... he got a puff piece in the national law journal... so really he's even more powerful than if were the AG even though no one knows about the other lawyers that get those puff pieces written about them because when push comes to shove it doesn't matter.
You want to prove me wrong? Show me any kind of track record of these guys saying SOMEONE is relevant and then that being backed up by them being able to do something.
And government officials don't count. They have to be relevant as priva
Re: (Score:2)
You're right... someone that loses their position in high government office actually gets more powerful.
Everyone knows that.
Can you please fuck off... you're wasting my time with your idiocy.
Re: (Score:2)
as to your presumptions of superiority... since those are apparently based on little more than your personal shame... I'm going to just laugh at that comment and move on.
As to your evidence that I'm ignorant... *laughs*... Sure sure... 1+1=5... whatever you say.
Re: (Score:2)
You are intentionally evading the nature of the business they are in, and choose to underestimate/wave off the influence that particular company has over the DOJ.
I think that's a good call. You know who has a lot more influence over the DOJ than a lobbyist? The Attorney General.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, well, since he serves the lobbyist
Sorry, I'm not willing to take your word for it. I'm not willing to merely assume that there are "events". Where's your evidence?
Re: (Score:2)
In the newspapers... I really don't care what you believe. I will not argue with the faithful.
Once again, no evidence is provided for your assertions, including the new but empty assertion that I am part of "the faithful". Just in this thread, I counted 17 such condescending yet empty replies. Don't you have something better to do with your time?
Re: (Score:2)
If you refuse to see what's in front of you
What's in front of me? This sounds like another pointless evangelist Christian sell. I disagree only because I'm ignoring God's voice or something.
Re: (Score:2)
You prefer to believe a guy who would stand on the beach, and tell the crowd that because of the drought, water must be rationed, and you would be there all nodding approvingly and applauding. Anybody mentions desalinate or recycle, and he'll be shouted down as a simplistic lunatic
Note that you have yet to indicate that my hypothetical stance is wrong. If desalination and recycling of water is indeed so bad and realistic options for this situation (which let me remind you is highly dependent on pre-condtions that you have failed to say a thing about) that anyone who does propose them is a genuine simplistic lunatic, then I would in the right. So I could be wrong or right, but one can't tell from the simplistic and contrived scenario you set up.
Are you so unaware of precedence and history (all 6000 years of it)?
Of course not. And I would point out tha
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, thank you! I always did love people who cop out with the 'simplistic' angle.
The thing is, that works here. Your argument up to a couple posts ago was that the people that you maybe disagreed with had opposing viewpoints merely because of a variety of mental biases and failures while continuing to not provide evidence or reasoning for your opinions. At least, we've gotten past that point.
Now you are comparing the thread to a dispute about desalinization where we are attempting, very hypothetically, to shout down dissent for practical alternatives to the Way We've Always Done This
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, he and the company still have powerful influence over the department.
Again, I disagree. Here, the problem is that there are lots of lobbyist organizations and only one Department of Justice. The lobbyists routinely work at cross purposes because their clients have conflicting goals and strategies. That dilutes their power. The head of the DoJ doesn't have that dilution of power.
Why would you think they don't? The new person is no different, just another paid actor.
Even so, you are claiming that a powerful federal level office is weaker than one of many lobbying positions. It simply is not true. The lobbyist doesn't have day-to-day control of the DoJ. They don't
Re: (Score:2)
The DOJ is where the diluted power concentrates, through their selected agreed upon puppet
You are claiming much more than that. You are claiming that one of many supposed puppet masters is greater than a puppet with very considerable power. I don't buy it and I've already explained why.
Let's try this analogy. The US President is elected by the US populace. In a more tangible way than above, the US President is the puppet of the electorate (we have very concrete means by which the electorate controls who is president). But that doesn't make them less powerful than an average voter.
And frank
hard-liners in the intelligence community? (Score:2)
Those bastards need to be sent to prison.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah... (Score:3)
like anyone is going to trust that deal....
Despite The Need (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe it is time to shut down the CIA, NSA and FBI completely and start new agencies that are required to follow much stricter and very public oversight.
That sounds like a bad idea to me. Sort of like saying, "I feel like my operating system has become bloated, so let's build a new one from scratch." Sure it sounds great, and you might solve some of your problems, but you're going to have to re-solve a lot of the same old problems, and you'll also introduce more new problems.
So you have $1000 in fines as well as $150 a week times 104 weeks for the counseling which all flows back to the county's bank account. This type of thing is happening commonly in our legal system.
I agree that this is a huge problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe it is time to shut down the CIA, NSA and FBI completely
The president felt it was time in the early 60's; we can see how well that went.
Re: Despite The Need (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
They're only pretending to have changed anything (Score:4, Interesting)
because of Snowden. They didn't stop collecting bulk data, they just changed the legal ownership of that data which has no effect on anyone's rights. It's all technical changes.
Also, if I were Snowden I'd consider staying away no matter what he's offered. Corrupt Russian intelligence doesn't have the MOTIVE to off him that American leaders do.
Re: (Score:3)
They didn't stop collecting bulk data, they just changed the legal ownership of that data which has no effect on anyone's rights.
The data is phone bills. I'm pretty sure the phone companies already owned them. The change is that the intelligence agencies won't get a copy of them but instead will have to go through a process to get them.
Re: (Score:2)
The real significance of that is that the NSA isn't allowed to data-mine without limit. I'm fine with having a formal process to get small numbers of records at a time.
who cares? (Score:3)
Political opposition in Congress is relevant. Fierce resistance from the "intelligence community" is irrelevant; government employees may advise Congress and the president, but they have no business "resisting" political decisions.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
'but they have no business "resisting" political decisions'
They do have means, motive, and opportunity.
Hard line (Score:3)
No matter the sincerity, or lack of it, from the "current administration" or any previous one, when negotiations are on-going with an entity that believes it holds all the cards (yet needs finds itself 'negotiating'), it will demand no concessions and maintain a hard line while implying that some kind of compromise is possible. Germany and Greece.
Why the hell would he return? (Score:2)
Why should he return? Let's even assume for the moment and for shits and giggles that the government would be honest for a change with its promises and even grant him full amnesty. Would you wanna come to a country where the media and even some of its officials spent the better part of the last decade telling every redneck that it would be a blessing for 'murrica if you were killed, preferably painfully? Where you can't even really rely on police and other legal forces to defend you if you were attacked by
Re: (Score:2)
Before anyone comments on my source, it was the first timeline I saw, get over it
Re: (Score:2)
That's the part that bothers you? Really?
Re: Why the hell would he return? (Score:2)
I didn't specifically disagree with any of the rest of what you said
Intelligence community? (Score:2)
Meaning, a hateful violent response from people whose sense of power is threatened by the truth.
Time Served (Score:2)
I'm wondering if he could make a case for time served in Russia as part of his prison sentence?
I mean Russian Exile isn't prison, but it's no cake walk either I don't doubt.
Perhaps a way to save face. Sit in Russia awhile, come back to the US, get "convicted" of something like the inappropriate use of government IT assets with the equivalent of a NDA...
Admiral Ackbar say -- "It's a trap!" (Score:2)
Seriously, I wouldn't trust ANYTHING from Holden, this (or probably) any administration. Snowden publicly and undeniably exposed, humiliated and embarrassed (rightfully so) the US govt -- there's no way in h-ll this would end well for him.
Hardliners in the Intelligence Community (Score:2)
The IC is comprised almost entirely of hard liners, and they hate Snowden. Vehemently. He's viewed as a traitor, like a family member airing dirty laundry in public. They will cite potential or actual damage as a rationale for why his actions were wrong, and they probably believe that, but it doesn't matter to them whether those are outweighed by the public's need to know. Indeed, they're paid not to think about the public's need to know at all. The real sin is that he broke ranks and made them look ba
Re: (Score:1)
You got that right! [nationallawjournal.com] He's one of the worst!
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
And the voters who elected him, and the constitution that allowed him to be elected, and the founding fathers who should have seen this coming but did nothing to stop it!
Re:Case of "voce populo" while out of office? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Suppose the winds change direction, those in charge offer Snowden a deal, and he accepts it. The problem here is that the winds could change again and Snowden could find himself in the US and suddenly a wanted man again. There's also the possibility that he is officially pardoned of any wrongdoing, but unofficially his life is made a living hell - if not simply ended.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:FTFY (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There's already constitutional processes in place for removing offending parties from the executive and legislative branches
You mean the one where politicians decide if they're going to hold other politicians accountable? Yeah, that works as well as the bullshit that is Internal Affairs where the police decide if they're going to charge themselves with a crime.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So a Senator's career is dependent on exactly how the Supreme Court rules? Laws are not always clearly constitutional or unconstitutional, and we have the court system to sort that out. I don't want the court system being biased in a decision by which politicians are thrown out of office.
Re:FTFY (Score:5, Informative)
Fun fact: as of 2006, the US navy doesn't own any battleships anymore. It's all about the carriers, baby! I mean, I guess they could try and lug in a museum boat like the U.S.S. North Carolina, or something...
Re: FTFY (Score:2)
Other fun fact, both the Potomac and the Anacostia are to shallow for a battleship or really anything with any fire power. A small and unloaded destroyer can make it at high-high tide via towing. But then it would have no fuel or armament to actually you know fire.
The shallow draft is why the Navy Yard in DC never really built ships like the original intention for the yard.
Re: FTFY (Score:4)
The Potomac is 24ft deep at the mouth. The USS Wisconsin, which is the closest battleship to the Potomac, has a draft of 36ft. However it would be worth noting that DC is likely within the firing range of the mark 7 guns of an Iowa battleship located in limited parts of Chesapeake Bay. I'm not sure if those parts of the bay have sufficient depth for the battleship.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not in range. The Cheasapeake is a little over a 28 miles from DC from the closest point at Shady Side, MD. Max range of an Iowa class gun battery is 20 miles. The best it could do is shell Largo, MD.