Petition With Over 1 Million Signatures Urges President Obama To Pardon Snowden (cnet.com) 273
An anonymous reader quotes a report from CNET: More than 1 million people signed onto a petition asking President Barack Obama to pardon Edward Snowden, proponents of the pardon said Friday. The campaign began in September, when Snowden, his attorney Ben Wizner from the ACLU, and other privacy activists announced they would formally petition Obama for a pardon. Snowden leaked classified NSA documents detailing surveillance programs run by the U.S. and its allies to journalists in 2013, kicking off a heated debate on whether Americans should be willing to sacrifice internet privacy to help the government protect the country from terrorist attacks. Obama and White House representatives have said repeatedly that Snowden must face the charges against him and that he'll be afforded a fair trial. In the U.S., a pardon is "an expression of the president's forgiveness and ordinarily is granted in recognition of the applicant's acceptance of responsibility for the crime and established good conduct for a significant period of time after conviction or completion of sentence," according to the Office of the Pardon Attorney. It does not signify innocence. Also on Friday, David Kaye urged Obama to consider a pardon for Snowden. Kaye, the special rapporteur to the United Nations Human Rights Council on the freedom of expression, said U.S. law doesn't allow Snowden to argue that his disclosures were made for the benefit of the public. The jury would merely be asked to decide whether Snowden stole government secrets and distributed them -- something Snowden himself concedes he did. In response to the petition, Edward Snowden tweeted: "Whether or not this President ends the war on whistleblowers, you've sent a message to history: I feared no one would care. I was wrong."
This will never happen, even if I want it to. (Score:5, Insightful)
Snowden embarrassed the Obama administration. As much as I think he should be pardoned and let back onto US soil, Obama won't do it. Trump certainly won't either.
Lets live in reality people.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I tend to agree. But with a million signatures, he can't exactly ignore it, either.
Re:This will never happen, even if I want it to. (Score:4, Insightful)
What else can they do besides say "aww, that's nice".
Re:This will never happen, even if I want it to. (Score:4, Insightful)
I tend to agree. But with a million signatures, he can't exactly ignore it, either.
Never underestimates the ability of a political to ignore an issue they don't want to address and redirect the topic.
Re: (Score:2)
... the ability of a political ...
Votes are the currency of politics. ~ © 2017 CaptainDork
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
No.
Fucking milennials -- have you never even heard of Nixon or Ford?
Re: (Score:2)
For Presidential pardons, no. There is history of this happening.
Re: (Score:2)
As others have said, no, but to elaborate, you don't even have to be accused. The President can say "Known Nutter is pardoned for any and all crimes that he ever may have committed."
Re: This will never happen, even if I want it to. (Score:4, Informative)
No, someone doesn't need to be convicted to be pardoned. President Nixon was never convicted (or even impeached) and he received a pardon from President Ford over the Watergate charges after he resigned.
There is an implicit admission of guilt in accepting a pardon. But my understanding is that you really have no choice in the matter as once a pardon is issued, it is valid from the perspective of the government whether you accept it or not (they will no longer attempt to prosecute or detain/punish you for the crimes you were pardoned over).
Re: (Score:3)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wilson You can refuse a presidential pardon and still be convicted.
The precise Supreme Court ruling is kind of interesting. The holding was that a judge cannot recognize a pardon unless it has been introduced into the court. The mere fact that a judge knows the pardon was granted isn't enough; someone has to actually bring it up in court. So, you can be prosecuted even if you've been pardoned, but all you have to do is to say "Hey judge, I've been pardoned" (more or less) and the judge will dismiss the case (with prejudice, I'd expect). But if you refuse to bring it up, th
Re: (Score:2)
As I recall, not only was he never convicted, he never admitted guilt (he simply "took responsibility"). In the face of numerous indictments and subpoenas and a hokey attempt to dodge them, Ford pardoned him and ended the entire affair.
In short Obama is full of shit, he doesn't WANT to pardon Snowden, he can do anything he wants.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
direct or indirect comparisons between the Obamas and great apes
'Great apes' is a common name for Hominidae, of which humans are a member. I, for one, am proud to be a hominid.
Re: This will never happen, even if I want it to. (Score:2, Informative)
Obama already ignored it when he just enacted new data sharing rules with the NSA and the "16" other agencies, extending the problem even more.
Re: This will never happen, even if I want it to. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
They have been working on this data sharing project for years.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
This is more likely a response to Russia's actions during the election.
So, NOW Obama reacts to Russian hacking?
What about when the Russians hacked the White House itself [cnn.com]? Obama did nothing.
What about when China hacked the entire OPM database of cleared government workers [washingtonpost.com]? Obama did nothing.
What about when Russia had penetrated the entire State Department network [cnn.com]? Obama did nothing. (So given Obama's fecklessness, Hillary actually did have a reason to run a separate email system - but she didn't run it securely and it was probably hacked by everyone: Hillary Clinton’s [nytimes.com]
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
[...] with a million signatures, he can't exactly ignore it [...]
From the "delivery letter" [pardonsnowden.org], the first sentence (emphasis mine): "Dear President Obama, We are hereby delivering signatures from 1,101,252 people across the world who ask that you use your presidential authority to pardon Edward Snowden."
Not only they are just 1 million people (when the population of USA is 300 times more) but -some/all?- they are not even USA citizens (i, a Greek, could had signed it - or even Osama Bin Laden...)!
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
"Dear President Obama, We are hereby delivering signatures from 1,101,252 people across the world who ask that you use your presidential authority to pardon Edward Snowden.
How many were Russian signatures? They might want to send him back to do more work.
"He can't exactly ignore it." (Score:4, Informative)
Sure he can!
It's a busy time right now! Right? RIGHT?
And even so, it's simple enough to say "No.", couched in suitably political terms.
You know what I'm talking about.
At this time *EVIL RUSSIA! EVIL RUSSIA!* we don't have enough information *EVIL RUSSIA! EVIL RUSSIA!* on the situation to make us comfortable pardoning him for stealing secrets and giving them to EVIL RUSSIA!
Basically, what would have happened to him, had he come home is he would have become Bradley/Chelsea Manning Mark 2.
He'd have been dumped in a prison. Rotted for a while. Then announced that he'd decided to cut his dick off and live as a woman. Turning him into a complete laughingstock meme and totally detracting from what actually happened.
I think Snowden likes his cock and balls right where they are...
Re: (Score:2)
Re:"He can't exactly ignore it." (Score:5, Interesting)
Also I wonder if Putin will rescind Snowden's amnesty. Putin only did it to embarrass Obama. But for his new pal Trump he might very well hand him over. "As a sign of improving relations between our two nations, we are returning this criminal to you that you may serve justice." Snowden needs that pardon, PDQ.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:This will never happen, even if I want it to. (Score:5, Informative)
Petition wasn't representative of the will of the majority.
Re: (Score:2)
Neither was Mr. Trump being elected.
Re: (Score:2)
Trump was elected by a majority of the Electoral College. Those are the people that elect the president of the US. Voters simply choose which Electors to send.
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that one side won would seem to refute that notion.
At least you're including both sides with the 'they didn't know what they were voting for' canard, rather than just attacking Leave. But it's still based on nutpicking - finding odd people and pretending they are somehow representative of the whole. But you could do that anywhere on any issue - ask enough Americans and you'll
Re: (Score:2)
I saw one poll that showed 5% of people who voted for Obama believe he's the anti-Christ. Also, something like 5% of Hillary voters believe she was involved in child sex trafficking at that pizza place. You can find a handful of nutters who believe just about anything you can imagine.
Re:This will never happen, even if I want it to. (Score:5, Informative)
They didn't ignore it, it was debated in Parliament on the 5th of September 2016, and a response was issued - the petition, set up before the referendum by a pro-Brexit campaigner, was used post-referendum by anti-Brexit campaigners to try and retroactively change the rules of the referendum, throwing the result out. Which you can't do.
The demands of the petition might not have been carried out, but it was NOT ignored.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
That's because a legal, well publicized vote on the FUTURE of your country was held and then was certified. Then the looser started to cry and wanted a do-over. That's not how it works in real life, time to grow up and get out of your parents basement and get a job.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That's exactly how it DOES work in many EU states, especially when the ruling class doesn't like the outcome of a referendum: for example the referenda in Ireland about the EU "constitution" was done over to get an other outcome, and the outcomes of referenda in The Netherlands about the same and about the treaty with the Ukraine were more or less ignored.
Re: (Score:3)
Or, to put it another way, when the people who really wield the power don't get their way, there will be more referenda until the people fall into line. In this case, those wealthy people were tired of the EU rules getting in their way, so they wanted the UK out of the EU.
[Why does my spellchecker think that "referenda" isn't a valid spelling?]
Re: This will never happen, even if I want it to. (Score:4, Insightful)
so that they can pretend to be virtuously progressive
That's not the goal; that's the means
.
Re: (Score:2)
The difference is your bias.
Re:This will never happen, even if I want it to. (Score:5, Interesting)
The chance of him pardoning the most famous one....? Z E R O
Re:This will never happen, even if I want it to. (Score:4, Informative)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't understand how Obama could pardon Snowden if he has not actually been convicted of anything to be pardoned for.
Pardons don't work that way. Ford pardoned Nixon, who was never even charged. A Presidential pardon can read "So-and-so is pardoned for any and all crimes they may have committed between the dates of forever ago and now." It's an immensely powerful tool, which is why people are always so critical of abuse of it.
Re: (Score:2)
Lets live in reality people.
And that reality is not all laws make sense and everyone always has some type of self-serving agenda. We need to realize we can't correct other people. We can only correct ourselves and hope we inspire others to do the same.
Re: (Score:3)
Snowden embarrassed the Obama administration. As much as I think he should be pardoned and let back onto US soil, Obama won't do it. Trump certainly won't either.
What makes you say Trump won't pardon Snowden?
I oppose Trump in almost every way imaginable, but I do think it's very possible he would pardon Snowden.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:This will never happen, even if I want it to. (Score:5, Interesting)
"Letting traitors go free" won't play well to the "tough on crime" Republican crowd.
I didn't think protectionism and cozying up to Russia would play well with Republicans either.
Re: (Score:2)
"Letting traitors go free" won't play well to the "tough on crime" Republican crowd.
I didn't think protectionism and cozying up to Russia would play well with Republicans either.
My thoughts, exactly.
Re: (Score:2)
I support both Trump and Snowden, but Trump has never had nice things to say about Snowden. Trump is definitely in the "law & order, fuck traitors" camp. Putin gave Snowden asylum to embarrass Obama. I would not be at all shocked if Putin, as a show of good faith in the improving relations between the US and Russia, returned Snowden to his new pal Trump. Snowden needs that pardon from Obama or he's fucked.
Re:This will never happen, even if I want it to. (Score:5, Interesting)
Odds are that Snowden had at least some contact with Russian intelligence agencies and also had the chance to learn a couple of things about them. And here I doubt that they'll make the same mistake US agencies did.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Snowden embarrassed the Obama administration. As much as I think he should be pardoned and let back onto US soil, Obama won't do it. Trump certainly won't either.
Lets live in reality people.
After reviewing all of the "insightful" moderated posts, I was saddened that this tidbit was one of the best. Talk about shallow insight. *sigh* The lack of "funny" posts was also evidence of the departure of the wits of yore.
Also did a bunch of searches for rational argument for or against the pardon, using a bunch of keywords. Only one feint anywhere near the actual topic. Yeah, I admit Nixon's pardon really broke the mold and invalidated any notion of rules or precedents limiting presidential pardons. St
Probably won't happen. (Score:2)
I signed the petition. (Score:3)
Re:I signed the petition. (Score:5, Insightful)
I signed the petition. An agency of my government was breaking the public trust, lying to legislators, and breaking the law. It was Mr. Snowden's duty to report this, and it is a travesty to take away his life for defending his country against itself.
It wasn't his duty, as he was a contractor. Contractors do not swear the Oath of Service to the US Government, although all of its direct employees are required to. That difference means that he is not shielded by whistle-blower laws.
But the numerous Federal employees in the know – I agree – had a duty to report on the illegal activities, but chose not to. None of them are in exile, nor hanging from the end of a rope, nor even had a finger shaken at them. Instead, they have been protected by their organization. Not a good precedent, but look at history and you'll see that it rhymes.
Re: I signed the petition. (Score:2, Insightful)
It was his duty as a citizen.
Re:I signed the petition. (Score:4, Insightful)
Sometimes my country sucks.
Re: (Score:2)
Did you actually sign the petition, writing down also your address so that it could be verified that you are a citizen and didn't double-sign?
Or did you click a button labeled "Sign" along with a bunch of non-US citizens?
More likely he'll be assasinated (Score:2)
The chance that Obama will send a sniper or drone is much more likely. He and Hillary are trying to heat up the cold war with Russia for a long time now, so this might be a nice attempt to further it even more. Especially because Putin can't let something like that go because he will be looked at as weak if he does.
Re: (Score:2)
There's only 5 more days in his term of office, so if he's going to pull this fantasy attack of yours (sneaking a sniper into Russia to assassinate a public figure? you've got to be kidding!), he'd better get cracking!!
Obama already said he can't pardon him... (Score:3)
... (or won't) after all he hasn't been to a trial yet, just accused [arstechnica.com]. That might be true or not, but he already spoke about it on November. He wont pardon him.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Its entirely possible that he was neither lying nor misinformed, but that the prevailing legal opinions on the matter may have changed since the last Presidential pardon of an unconvicted person and his legal counsel thought such a pardon was legally unsafe...
Re: (Score:2)
Fine - here is an alternate scenario...
The document signed by the President giving the pardon includes the proper legalese for: "Hey, we came to an agreement - and he plead guilty to everything and he is all cool with that, with the agreement the second page of the document admitting his guilt is the Presidential Pardon."
Re: (Score:3)
It's been done before, an accusation is all that's required.
Snowden cannot be considered a whistleblower (Score:3, Insightful)
Or maybe you're a fascist. (Score:2)
You mean spying on the electronic communications of every person on the planet, even allies? There is no justification for that. You cannot turn on the news without a deluge of "Russia hacked the election" propaganda, but just what do you suppose the USG does with all the information captured by the NSA, if not use it to influence foreign nations? This is the same government that has overthrown two democracies, just under Obama.
Re: (Score:2)
The Obama administration played critical roles in destabilizing/overthrowing the governments of Egypt, Libya, Syria, and Ukraine. Only Ukraine would I call a "democracy."
Re: (Score:2)
Trump will pardon him on Day 1 (Score:4, Funny)
The entire Trump administration is a perfect Bizarro world. Anti-school as sec of ed, anti-vaxxer running vaccine study, etc... I don't think it's even possible that Snowden doesn't get a pardon on Jan 22. It'll be part of the new US-Russian intelligence partnership.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Trump's secretary of education isn't anti-school, she might be a poor choice as her attempts to improve schooling have done the opposite, but she isn't trying to make the schools worse.
As for an anti-vaxxer running a vaccine study, if you want to prove something works, get someone honest who believes it doesn't to study it. I have no idea if RFK will be honest about the results, but having someone who is against vaccines study it is more likely to be convincing if he is.
Nerd Logic versus Human Logic (Score:3, Insightful)
but having someone who is against vaccines study it is more likely to be convincing if he is.
Nice theory.
The reality is that most people don't have brains that work like that.
The cognitive load required to abandon years of passionately held conspiracy theory is really high. It is so much easier to decide that the person was compromised by bribes, threats or even stupidity - that sort of rationalization is ideally suited to the logic of conspiracy that fuels the belief in the first place.
Its what happened when physics professor, MacArthur genius-grant fellow and high-profile climate change denier R
Re: (Score:3)
She's anti-public school, so distinction without an elitist difference. Interesting that Dems that never GAF about Arne Duncan (who also loves charters) are now upset that the SoE supports privatization. Who knows, maybe they'll even shed a tear the first time Trump drones an entire extended family to death at a wedding.
Except that's exactly what charters do: make education worse by removing protections for teach
Re:Trump will pardon him on Day 1 (Score:4, Informative)
Having Kennedy run a study on the autism-vaccine link is like having Daniel Shenton (president of the flat earth society) run a study on weather or not the earth is a spheroid, or Bill Kaysing (if he were still alive) running an investigation into whether the moon landings in the 60s and 70s were a hoax.
Having ANYONE run a meta-study on what is , essentially, established science to try and find proof that it is not - and damaging national and world health in the process - is not just irresponsible but downright dangerous.
Oh, and DeVos basically wants to defund public schools by shifting as many dollars as possible to vouchers for people to use at privately-run schools, with essentially no oversight. Whether she intends to make public schools worse or not is somewhat irrelevant when her goal is to eliminate their source of funding.
Re: (Score:2)
Surely you jest (about the pardon).
Re:Trump will have him killed on Day 1 (Score:2)
Fair enough - that's just as likely I suppose. Either way - a new era of US-Russian cooperation will begin. ;-)
Double standards? (Score:5, Insightful)
Throughout the entire Obama presidency, the administration has been absolutely paranoid about leaks and has cracked down on whistleblowers like no other administration in history.
Over the past few months, all this "Russian hacking" stuff has been dominating the mainstream media. In story after story, especially from sites like WaPo, reporters are always quoting "anonymous sources in government" or unnamed "intelligence officials" as their sources. These "sources" have obviously leaked numerous details of classified intelligence reports to the media, yet the Obama administration exhibits absolutely no concern whatsoever about these particular leaks.
If Snowden is a criminal for leaking classified information to the media, why isn't there a full scale government investigation to identify the people who are leaking this classified "Russian hacking" stuff to the media? Do we have any laws left which are enforced in a fair & uniform manner? A government which makes it a practice of enforcing laws arbitrarily is an illegitimate government.
So the Office of the Pardon Attorney lies as well (Score:5, Insightful)
In the U.S., a pardon is "an expression of the president's forgiveness and ordinarily is granted in recognition of the applicant's acceptance of responsibility for the crime and established good conduct for a significant period of time after conviction or completion of sentence," according to the Office of the Pardon Attorney"
There is NOTHING in the Constitution that says anything resembling this. And the most famous pardon in recent history - Nixon - contained none of these elements. Nixon was never convicted of anything, never admitted to anything, was never sentenced, nor was there any so-called "significant period of time after conviction or completion of sentence."
And the government wonders why there's a fake news problem? They should look in the mirror - they're the source of a lot of it.
Re: (Score:2)
And the government wonders why there's a fake news problem?
They don't, of course, but good post.
Re: (Score:2)
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."
This is an outright lie. Not surprising, given the number of lies this administration has made, after promising the most transparent government in history. The Office is doing their best to back this position with word games, rather than clearly (do I dare use the word "transparently") state that a pardon is possible without any trial whatsoever?
Obama is a failure as a president. Under him, the US went from the #1 world power to #3, despite still having the
Re: (Score:2)
I think you give Russia and China more credit than they're due. Russia has an economy smaller than Spain's, and if China did what you suggest their economy would collapse, too.
That said I agree Obama has been an unmitigated disaster on foreign policy. When the state department is running missile launchers through Libya to jihadis in Iraq which wind up in the hands of Taliban fighters in Afghanistan and shoot down our own helicopters, and then the Pentagon is bombing the same people in Syria that State is ar
Re: (Score:2)
The size of the economy is secondary. Russia can roll over three Baltic countries in 3 days, and NATO - which includes the US - can't do crap to prevent it (search for the RAND study). And let's face it Russia invaded and annexed part of Poland - a NATO ally - and the US and the rest of NATO took it up the ass. The NATO allies have a much larger total economy than Russia. And yet they were powerless.
As for China, watch what's happening in the South China Sea and how it affects the global economy [cnbc.com].
As with R
Obama wont pardon him (Score:4, Insightful)
Obama has always been a part of the problem, not part of the solution. There's no way he's going to pardon anyone who attempted to undermine the system that keeps him rich.
Over a million people are wrong (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Do you believe in our intelligence community? Big fan of the CIA and the NSA, are ya? Those 3 letter agencies were four letter words on Slashdot before they mumbled something about Trump being bad.
Huge numbers! (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The war on whistleblowers will never end (Score:2)
It is akin to the war on snitches. You can argue that unlike a snitch, a whistleblower maintains allegiance to the larger kinship; but the kinship of power will always regard them as snitches and treat them accordingly. Whenever any authority says they are in favor of whistleblowers, it's as big a lie as "we support affordable housing". The two problems are not without their similarities, as many common people also say they want affordable housing--until they become owners who rely on increasing property
Re: (Score:2)
Whenever any authority says they are in favor of whistleblowers, it's as big a lie as "we support affordable housing".
No, they're not lying. The government is very in favor of whistleblowers who snitch to the government. They think whistleblowers who snitch on the government can get fucked though.
Re:Pardon is only the fist step. (Score:5, Insightful)
The guy deserves an apology.
And the Presidential Medal of Freedom. He, not Obama's second in command whose medal is about as warranted as Obama's Nobel Prize.
Re:Pardon is only the fist step. (Score:5, Insightful)
The guy deserves an apology.
And the Presidential Medal of Freedom.
Yes, but note that Obama said, "... for the last time in my term as President ...", when honoring Joe Biden for a lifetime of public service.
I'd be happy with just a pardon for Snowden, as he deserves it, and that would allow him freedom to travel home. Withholding a pardon only prevents him from returning to the country whose citizens he was trying to protect, and forces him to remain living in a "non-ally" foreign nation.
A pardon is the only logical resolution––a lifetime of exile could alter the allegiance of any human.
Pardons (Score:4, Informative)
Why would you repeat such an obvious untruth? Given that this subject comes up every time any such story is published, I have a hard time believing that you have never been exposed to it before. Nevertheless it apparently needs to be explained, you can be pardoned at any time at the President's discretion, whether or not you have been convicted. Those of us who are old enough will remember when this happened to Richard Nixon. [wikipedia.org]
Re:Pardons (Score:4, Insightful)
RICHARD NIXON WAS EMPEACH
Nixon was not impeached. The House voted to began impeachment proceedings. Nixon resigned and was pardoned before they happened.
Re: Can't be done (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:2)
Again? I'm already on that list for liking Wikileaks on Facebook.
Re:People apparently forget how the system works.. (Score:5, Informative)
> Now, THEREFORE, I, GERALD R. FORD, President of the United States, pursuant to the pardon power conferred upon me by Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, have granted and by these presents do grant a full, free, and absolute pardon unto Richard Nixon for all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 20, 1969 through August 9, 1974.
Strange, so the US forgot how the systems work too for some time, it seems.
Re:People apparently forget how the system works.. (Score:5, Informative)
So, yes, Obama can pardon Snowden.
Re: (Score:2)
Not going to happen. Administration does not want to pardon for blanket offenses, only to learn that something really dangerous leaked, and just hasn't shown up.
Obama wants a trial with evidence, and if that shows nothing more than what we have seen, it is a crapshoot at best, but possible.
And Trumpster Fire will probably put him in a Russian gulag, so time ran out.
You idiots arguing the pedantry of possibilities ignore context and reality. And in reality, the only reason Obama has to pardon Snowden is poki
Re: (Score:2)
Re:People apparently forget how the system works.. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
For a lawyer, you'd think he should know the law better than that.
I strongly suspect he "couldn't" because of some personal convictions on the matter more than because of what he was legally allowed to do.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I can tell you why... Because the USA has been meddling in internal affairs of other countries for decades if not centuries. This did include toppling elected governments (Check what happened in Chile in 1973 or in Iran in 1953 for example). So a lot of people will see this 'controversy' as the USA getting a taste of their own medicine.
Re:Slashdot silence on Trump & Russia. (Score:4, Interesting)
Those of us with memories also know that Hillary as secretary of state took credit for parts of the Arab Spring and was trying to take credit for the Libya uprising until it went south. This was so prominent at her time in the State Department that Putin even accused her of interfering in Russian affairs and organizing protests after a parliament election.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12... [nytimes.com]
If Russia was involved in the US election, it was likely retaliation for that. People who remember that don't worry that their involvement was to help trump but assume it was little more than to defeat Clinton who has been accused or similar crap.
Re: (Score:2)
It might help if anyone knew about the petition. This is the first time I've heard of it.