Trump says he is considering pardon for leaker Edward Snowden

[Ireland32]

13 hours ago, Antonymous said:

Exposing illegal American spying was a great service to the world.

 

Whatever you think of Trump is irrelevant. A pardon would be a feather in any President's cap.

Or a Bribe , you know Snowden has dirt on Mr.PPgate

Edited August 17, 2020 by Ireland32

[KarenBravo]

6 hours ago, Pattaya Spotter said:

But this is the same electorate that elected Barack Obama twice...were they dumb and gullible then too?

I don'blame anyone for supporting Trump over HRC. Back then he was an outsider and unknown.

Now we know who he is, what he's done and what he intends in the future, then you would have to be a morn to vote for him again. He's dismantling your country one slice at a time.

 i guess the USA isn't so "exceptional" after all......

[pacovl46]

22 hours ago, mtls2005 said:

Precisely why I wouldn’t trust Trump’s pardon, if it came to be, if I was Snowden!

Edited August 17, 2020 by pacovl46

[thaibeachlovers]

22 hours ago, stevenl said:

He doesn't have any principles except doing what he thinks is best for Donald Trump.

Many a good deed has been done for the wrong reason. I couldn't care less what Trump's reasons for the pardon are as long as Snowden gets pardoned.

Hopefully Trump will give up on Assange as well.

[xylophone]

2 hours ago, pacovl46 said:

Precisely why I wouldn’t trust Trump’s pardon, if it came to be, if I was Snowden!

How could you trust him when he tells thousands of lies and really doesn't have any integrity, let alone intelligence. The the old saying, "I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him comes to mind" and now that he has becomes obese, that saying holds more credence!!

[xylophone]

14 hours ago, Pattaya Spotter said:

And your snarky questions confirm what many already know about your side of the political spectrum as well.

The "snarky" questions as you put it, were bona fide questions that brought into question the intelligence of trump, and as yet have not been answered successfully, but you should look at publishing them as they would surely rank up there amongst some of the best fairy tales ever written.

 

As for me, I am on no side of the political spectrum, more a "centrist" but just hate the way that trump has ruined the once good name of America, through consistent lying, stealing from charities, cronyism, collusion, feminist and racism, nepotism and more, and of course in his own words "I only hire the best" and quite a few of them are serving jail time or have been convicted of crimes.

 

Not a good look for the "good ol US of A". 

[Pattaya Spotter]

15 hours ago, alex8912 said:

What a silly post. So you are saying legal American immigrants are not American??  The statement made was America has the most Nobel awards, and you spent time digging up that link ( that I did not read) to make a claim that statement is false?? What is wrong here? Are legal immigrants in the United States not American in your book of links? So silly!

Yeah...Karen kinda stepped in it with this one...trying to be a little too clever by half.

Edited August 18, 2020 by Pattaya Spotter

[mtls2005]

President Trump says he will be issuing a pardon tomorrow for someone “very, very important,” but it would not be Michael Flynn or Edward Snowden, per the pool traveling with him.

 

Can't wait.

 

 

[Pattaya Spotter]

11 hours ago, KarenBravo said:

I don'blame anyone for supporting Trump over HRC. Back then he was an outsider and unknown.

Now we know who he is, what he's done and what he intends in the future, then you would have to be a morn to vote for him again. He's dismantling your country one slice at a time.

 i guess the USA isn't so "exceptional" after all......

You can't step back now...you called Americans "dumb" when they elected him the FIRST time! 

[Phoenix Rising]

2 minutes ago, Pattaya Spotter said:

You can't step back now...you called Americans "dumb" when they elected him the FIRST time! 

You joined on August 3rd 2020 so how do you know??

[Pattaya Spotter]

4 hours ago, pacovl46 said:

Precisely why I wouldn’t trust Trump’s pardon, if it came to be, if I was Snowden!

An agreement not to prosecute, signed by any United State's attorney (but preferably by the AG or other high Justice Department official), would be sufficient for Snowdon to safely return to the U.S. A presidential pardon would then be unnecessary.

Edited August 18, 2020 by Pattaya Spotter
Clarity

[Pattaya Spotter]

6 minutes ago, mtls2005 said:

President Trump says he will be issuing a pardon tomorrow for someone “very, very important,” but it would not be Michael Flynn or Edward Snowden, per the pool traveling with him.

 

Can't wait.

 

 

Maybe Obama for election interference in the 2016 campaign or Clinton for her email server embrolio. 

[bendejo]

9 minutes ago, mtls2005 said:

President Trump says he will be issuing a pardon tomorrow for someone “very, very important,” but it would not be Michael Flynn or Edward Snowden, per the pool traveling with him.

 

Can't wait.

The usual "tune in tomorrow to see what happens" rubbish.

 

 

[xylophone]

4 hours ago, pacovl46 said:

Precisely why I wouldn’t trust Trump’s pardon, if it came to be, if I was Snowden!

So trump says Snowden is a spy and has caused great damage to the US??? But now wants to pardon him.......the answer is simple, in that trump doesn't want to be usurped as the person who has done most damage to the US, so a pardon is necessary.

 

Either that, or what little remaining scrambled grey matter trump has is failing fast. 

 

 

[Morch]

21 hours ago, Pattaya Spotter said:

There are thousands of grand juries around the country investigating all sorts of things every day...nothing unusual about that. Again, the DOJ memo is just an opinion...not law. If Mueller had any evidence of crimes, he could have brought charges (like he did for others). The Democrat state prosecutors in NYC may or may not eventually get the President's tax returns (that's still to be decided by the courts)...and if they do so what?

 

And again, your post is opinion, not fact. What you claim Muller could or could not have done does not quite correspond to information (that is, facts) on these matters, presented in numerous topics, articles and news reports since. Same goes for Trump's tax returns nonsense defense - if it ain't a big deal, what's the issue with releasing them like other candidates and presidents did? Guess Trump & Co. don't see it as a "so what" thing at all, given the energy invested in thwarting such efforts.

[Morch]

19 hours ago, Pattaya Spotter said:

So I see you are in the same catagory as "Phoenix Rising," unable to have a productive conversation on politics without resorting to school yard name calling. It's a shame that there doesn't seem to be a minimum age for joining the Forum. Ignored in future.

 

Trump supporters upset about "school yard name calling". Too funny. To paraphrase another president, "it's not school yard name calling if the president does it".

[Morch]

19 hours ago, Pattaya Spotter said:

What's your point...that foreign born immigrants aren't Americans...sounds pretty Trumpian to me.

 

No, Trumpian would be checking if any such Nobel Prize winners hold Left Wing views or ever expressed something negative about Trump, then question their being American, and opining they ought to go back to the countries they came from.

[Morch]

21 hours ago, Pattaya Spotter said:

You may call him whatever you like, however, calling someone a "criminal" or saying they have committed "crimes" has a specific meaning, and in this context is misleading unless it's specifically stated as an opinion.

 

Oh, you mean like them "lock her up" chants? Or maybe the Birther thing? Or Snowden is a spy that out to be executed...?

[Morch]

19 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

Joined August 3rd . . . welcome to ThaiVisa, Pattaya Spotter.     I'm enjoying your posts.

 

 

 

You would.

But rather obviously, more of a welcome back, in this case.

[Tippaporn]

17 hours ago, xylophone said:

I hope this answered your questions.

 

No, but it gave me a good laugh at your terrible attempts to answer them........surely you couldn't keep a straight face when doing so, but it does confirm what many others on here know about trump and his supporters!!!

As an answer to Pattaya Spotter this is an epic fail.  It's an epic fail because rather than actually debate the points with him, which you obviously couldn't because you didn't, your only fallback was to personally deride your debating opponent as an attempt to still hold your head up high and claim debate victory (you lost miserably).  LOL

 

BTW, I'm shocked Pattaya Spotter gave you a response since it's obvious that your post was merely baiting.  In other words, the only acceptable answers to your questions, to you, would have been one's confirming your bias.  Well, that didn't happen.  LOL  So again, since you had no counter to intelligent, unbiased answers your only response option was to pi$$ on Pattaya Spotter's character.  The shame.  LOL

[Pattaya Spotter]

42 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

And again, your post is opinion, not fact. What you claim Muller could or could not have done does not quite correspond to information (that is, facts) on these matters, presented in numerous topics, articles and news reports since. Same goes for Trump's tax returns nonsense defense - if it ain't a big deal, what's the issue with releasing them like other candidates and presidents did? Guess Trump & Co. don't see it as a "so what" thing at all, given the energy invested in thwarting such efforts.

Many Democrat Party commentators and fellow travelers in the media and elsewhere argued Robert Mueller could pursue criminal charges as the DOJ memo is only a legal opinion...not law. As for the President's tax returns...maybe because as a private citizen (before becoming our president) he, like I would presume 99.99 percent of his fellow citizens, prefers and expects his tax returns to be private documents. (If you are so interested in other people's tax returns, maybe you should start the trend by posting your's here for all to see.) As for other candidates and presidents releasing their returns, that is their choice. There is no law requiring such disclosure and the American people didn't seem to hold it against Donald Trump as they elected him president. Other candidates, for the most part, were career politicians not businessmen and the disclosure of their tax returns and details of their financial position would not put them at a competitive disadvantage in their everyday business affairs. This explains the effort to keep them private as well. (As well as the fun of seeing these Democrat Party prosecutors and Nancy's House comittees chasing their tails trying to get the returns.)

Edited August 18, 2020 by Pattaya Spotter

[Phoenix Rising]

33 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

 LOL  So again, since you had no counter to intelligent, unbiased answers your only response option was to pi$$ on Pattaya Spotter's character.

What is it with you trump fans and golden showers??

[Morch]

1 minute ago, Pattaya Spotter said:

Many Democrat Party commentators and fellow travelers in the media and elsewhere argued Robert Mueller could pursue criminal charges as the DOJ memo is only a legal opinion...not law. As for the President's tax returns...maybe because as a private citizen (before becoming our president) he, like I would presume 99.99 percent of his fellow citizens, prefers and expects his tax returns to be private documents. (If you are so interested in other people's tax returns, maybe you should start the trend by posting your's here for all to see.) As for other candidates and presidents releasing their returns, that is their choice. There is no law requiring such disclosure and the American people didn't seem to hold it against Donald Trump as they elected him president. Other candidates, for the most part, were career politicians not businessmen and the disclosure of their tax returns and details of their financial position would not put them at a competitive disadvantage in their everyday business affairs. This explains the effort to keep them private as well. (As well as the fun of having these Democrat Party prosecutors and Nancy's House comittees chasing their tails trying to get the returns.)

 

So now you suddenly care about opinions of "Democrat Party commentators and fellow travelers in the media" (whatever that means)? Cute. Same reply, what they wish for and what is are two different things. That their view was this or that, doesn't imply it was fact based, or relevant to the conditions at hand.

 

While I can appreciate that Trump wishes to keep the actual details (as opposed to bragging rights) about his financial matters and situation, the "private citizen" defense is nonsense, at least since stepping into the political arena, never mind since becoming the President. As for the "no law" bit, sure - and no one claimed otherwise. And yet, practically all candidates in recent times made their financial issues transparent. That Trump supporters do not with to concede that the public interest, when it comes to a President potentially embroiled in conflict of interests issues, and having many financial dealings abroad is to display such transparency is quite telling.

 

The he's-just-trolling nonsense defense is dully noted. Thought a President would have better things to do, but eh.

[stevenl]

26 minutes ago, Pattaya Spotter said:

Many Democrat Party commentators and fellow travelers in the media and elsewhere argued Robert Mueller could pursue criminal charges as the DOJ memo is only a legal opinion...not law. As for the President's tax returns...maybe because as a private citizen (before becoming our president) he, like I would presume 99.99 percent of his fellow citizens, prefers and expects his tax returns to be private documents. (If you are so interested in other people's tax returns, maybe you should start the trend by posting your's here for all to see.) As for other candidates and presidents releasing their returns, that is their choice. There is no law requiring such disclosure and the American people didn't seem to hold it against Donald Trump as they elected him president. Other candidates, for the most part, were career politicians not businessmen and the disclosure of their tax returns and details of their financial position would not put them at a competitive disadvantage in their everyday business affairs. This explains the effort to keep them private as well. (As well as the fun of seeing these Democrat Party prosecutors and Nancy's House comittees chasing their tails trying to get the returns.)

Muller is not a prosecutor, he could not pursue anything.

 

That would be up to the DoJ, and their position is clear.

[Pattaya Spotter]

22 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

So now you suddenly care about opinions of "Democrat Party commentators and fellow travelers in the media" (whatever that means)? Cute. Same reply, what they wish for and what is are two different things. That their view was this or that, doesn't imply it was fact based, or relevant to the conditions at hand.

 

While I can appreciate that Trump wishes to keep the actual details (as opposed to bragging rights) about his financial matters and situation, the "private citizen" defense is nonsense, at least since stepping into the political arena, never mind since becoming the President. As for the "no law" bit, sure - and no one claimed otherwise. And yet, practically all candidates in recent times made their financial issues transparent. That Trump supporters do not with to concede that the public interest, when it comes to a President potentially embroiled in conflict of interests issues, and having many financial dealings abroad is to display such transparency is quite telling.

 

The he's-just-trolling nonsense defense is dully noted. Thought a President would have better things to do, but eh.

I'll try to respond but it may be difficult due to the bad grammar and syntax in your post. I will repeat, and do you agree, that the DOJ legal memo on prosecuting sitting presidents is just that, an opinion and not a statement of law?

 

How is the "private citizen" defense nonsense as that's precisely what he was before becoming president? And how does becoming a candidate for public office, and now the president, change this? As the Democrat Party never tires of reminding us..."No president is above the law,"...well no president is below the law either and required to do things the law does not require. As I said, any candidate is free to release their tax returns, school transcripts, Facebook timeline, Tinder profile, and anything else they think might help them win election. They are also free not to disclose them.

 

I'm amazed, but not surprised, that you can still bring up the "foreign financial dealings and conflicts of interest" canard with a straight face. What with Mueller's two year investigation (in which even he admitted found bupkis) and numerous of Nancy's House minions like Jerry Nadler and Devin Nunes focusing their keen intellects on overturning an American election and finding nothing as well. 

Edited August 18, 2020 by Pattaya Spotter
Spelling

[Morch]

13 minutes ago, Pattaya Spotter said:

I'll try to respond but it may be difficult due to the bad grammar and syntax in your post. I will repeat, and do you agree, that the DOJ legal memo on prosecuting sitting presidents is just that, an opinion and not a statement of law?

 

How is the "private citizen" defense nonsense as that's precisely what he was before becoming president? And how does becoming a candidate for public office, and now the president, change this? As the Democrat Party never tires of reminding us..."No president is above the law,"...well no president is below the law either and required to do things the law does not require. As I said, any candidate is free to release their tax returns, school transcripts, Facebook timeline, Tinder profile, and anything else they think might help them win election. They are also free not to disclose them.

 

I'm amazed, but not surprised, that you can still bring up the "foreign financial dealings and conflicts of interest" canard with a straight face. What with Mueller's two year investigation (in which even he admitted found bupkis) and numerous of Nancy's House minions like Jerry Nadler and Devin Nunes focusing their keen intellects on overturning an American election and finding nothing as well. 

 

I'm not at all surprised that you'd go about "grammar and syntax". Ignoring forum netiquette, and the fact that Trump himself doesn't really have the "best words" shouldn't phase you one bit.

 

You could repeat and try to impose your framework on the discussion and this exchange, but again - I'm not bound to your "yes or no" nonsense. Answering your loaded "questions" is a choice.

 

If Trump is always a "private citizen", regardless of the public office he holds, then there's no meaning to your whole line of defense. It basically amounts to Trump-is-exempt-regardless-of-anything. If you wish to claim that there's no difference between holders of public office/posts and "private citizens" I guess you're in for a rude awakening.

 

For unclear reasons, Trump supporters seem to feel that despite Trump potential problematic financial issues, conflict of interests and whatnot, transparency is not what's best for the national interest. The weak reasoning offered as deflection doesn't really make this any clearer.

 

And no, you trying to lump together Mueller's investigation with the tax returns issue and Trump's standing potential conflict of interests issues is bogus and misleading. It is a fact that Trump did not fully divest himself from his business. It is a fact that his various businesses (and those of family members, even the ones acting in official capacity in his administration) represent potential conflicts of interests. These were not the subject matter of Mueller's investigation.

[Pattaya Spotter]

9 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

I'm not at all surprised that you'd go about "grammar and syntax". Ignoring forum netiquette, and the fact that Trump himself doesn't really have the "best words" shouldn't phase you one bit.

 

You could repeat and try to impose your framework on the discussion and this exchange, but again - I'm not bound to your "yes or no" nonsense. Answering your loaded "questions" is a choice.

 

If Trump is always a "private citizen", regardless of the public office he holds, then there's no meaning to your whole line of defense. It basically amounts to Trump-is-exempt-regardless-of-anything. If you wish to claim that there's no difference between holders of public office/posts and "private citizens" I guess you're in for a rude awakening.

 

For unclear reasons, Trump supporters seem to feel that despite Trump potential problematic financial issues, conflict of interests and whatnot, transparency is not what's best for the national interest. The weak reasoning offered as deflection doesn't really make this any clearer.

 

And no, you trying to lump together Mueller's investigation with the tax returns issue and Trump's standing potential conflict of interests issues is bogus and misleading. It is a fact that Trump did not fully divest himself from his business. It is a fact that his various businesses (and those of family members, even the ones acting in official capacity in his administration) represent potential conflicts of interests. These were not the subject matter of Mueller's investigation.

Maybe you should bring all your multiple "facts" on President Trump's violations of law and ethics to the attention of Robert Mueller and Nancy Pelosi and her House committees...apparently they all missed everything you have discovered.

[Morch]

8 minutes ago, Pattaya Spotter said:

Maybe you should bring all your multiple "facts" on President Trump's violations of law and ethics to the attention of Robert Mueller and Nancy Pelosi and her House committees...apparently they all missed everything you have discovered.

 

Yawn. Maybe you should reply to what I've actually posted.

[mtls2005]

Are we still talking about a pardon for snowden?

 

 

[Pattaya Spotter]

3 hours ago, mtls2005 said:

Are we still talking about a pardon for snowden?

 

 

Well not much to talk about now until he does it (if it should happen). Personally, I don't think Trump will issue Snowdon a pardon...I mean why would he? There is no benefit for him politically or to the US intelligence community (who would be vehemently against it.