will Trump give presidential pardons to Snowden, Assange and Manning

[chancy]

Hello Everyone:
I wonder if Trump will give Edward Snowden, Julian Assange and Bradley Manning who is now Chelsea Manning? In one of the talks of Trump he said Hillary Clinton was one of the people who created isis so if he knows that then it's time for presidential pardons for quite afew of the whisleblowers of the past few years!
What do you all think?
chancy

[Elementals]

I think your right. Time is time & right is might. That's a good, philosophical mental thread.

[Satori]

Posted by chancy (here)
Hello Everyone:
I wonder if Trump will give Edward Snowden, Julian Assange and Bradley Manning who is now Chelsea Manning? In one of the talks of Trump he said Hillary Clinton was one of the people who created isis so if he knows that then it's time for presidential pardons for quite afew of the whisleblowers of the past few years!
What do you all think?
chancy

Once in office he certainly will have the power to do so as to US citizens, Snowden and Manning, and only as to federal laws they may have violated. He will have no juridication over Assange. Also, as to Snowden and Manning, he will have no power to pardon violations of any laws of any State of the US, nor any violations of the laws of other nations. At a minimum, he should closely review the Snowden and Manning cases with a view towards a pardon, or not.

[A Voice from the Mountains]

I also think it's very, very likely.

Btw, for those who think Trump is against gay people or transsexuals, he actually let a transsexual compete in the Miss Universe pageant one year.

Donald Trump Has Words for Transgender Miss Universe Contestant

Donald Trump has fired back at Jenna Talackova, the Canadian transsexual beauty queen who mired his Miss Universe pageant in controversy, and her high-powered attorney who is demanding the beauty pageant be open to all contestants, even those born male.

"I think Jenna should focus on running up in Canada and seeing how she does in Canada and then, if she does well, she has a chance to become what many, many young women all over the world want to be and that's Miss Universe," Trump, whose company owns the Miss Universe and Miss USA pageants, said today on " Good Morning America." "That should be her focus."

Talackova, 23, was selected as one of 65 finalists in the 2012 Miss Universe Canada competition but was disqualified Friday because she was not a "naturally born female." The Vancouver-born Talackova was born a male but had sexual reassignment surgery at age 19.

Days after the disqualification drew worldwide headlines, the Trump organization Monday said it would not attempt to keep Talackova out of the competition.

"The Miss Universe Organization will allow Jenna Talackova to compete in the 2012 Miss Universe Canada pageant provided she meets the legal gender recognition requirements of Canada, and the standards established by other international competitions," Michael D. Cohen, Trump's executive vice president and special counsel, said in an email statement announcing the change.

But the change was not enough for Talackova and her attorney, Gloria Allred, who called the statement "confusing" in a high-profile news conference Tuesday in New York. Talackova wants pageant organizers to go further and drop eligibility rules she calls discriminatory.

"Mr. Trump, admit that you are wrong and get rid of your Trumped-up rule," Allred said during the news conference.

"I did not know that she had a lawyer and especially Gloria Allred," Trump said today. "In fact, had I known it was Gloria Allred, I probably would not have reversed my decision because, you know, Gloria is easy to beat."

"The fact is we went by the laws of the country and the laws are very clear and, based on that, about two days ago, we decided to let her compete," he said of his organization's decision.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headline...se-contestant/

[A Voice from the Mountains]

Posted by Satori (here)
Once in office he certainly will have the power to do so as to US citizens, Snowden and Manning, and only as to federal laws they may have violated. He will have no juridication over Assange. Also, as to Snowden and Manning, he will have no power to pardon violations of any laws of any State of the US, nor any violations of the laws of other nations. At a minimum, he should closely review the Snowden and Manning cases with a view towards a pardon, or not.

The language for the power to pardon reads as follows:

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

As someone who has studied constitutional history, I can tell you that a strict interpretation of this clause, in alignment with the original intent, would mean that this applies only to violations of US federal law, and that states could still pick up cases regardless of a federal pardon. However, this strict interpretation would have been more relevant to the 1790's than to today, as federal courts and laws are generally given priority over state courts and laws.

You don't have to be a US citizen to be pardoned. There simply has to be some impression that you have committed an "offense" against the United States. Foreign citizens are subject to US lawsuits, after all, or else Assange wouldn't have anything to worry about in the first place.

The accusations of rape in Sweden are discredited and obviously only being used as a means to extradite Assange to the US, and he knows this very well himself. If Trump gets in and the pressure for extradition is off, the US might not touch him, but remember, he's also released classified information from many other world governments besides the US.

[Satori]

Posted by bsbray (here)

Posted by Satori (here)
Once in office he certainly will have the power to do so as to US citizens, Snowden and Manning, and only as to federal laws they may have violated. He will have no juridication over Assange. Also, as to Snowden and Manning, he will have no power to pardon violations of any laws of any State of the US, nor any violations of the laws of other nations. At a minimum, he should closely review the Snowden and Manning cases with a view towards a pardon, or not.

The language for the power to pardon reads as follows:

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

As someone who has studied constitutional history, I can tell you that a strict interpretation of this clause, in alignment with the original intent, would mean that this applies only to violations of US federal law, and that states could still pick up cases regardless of a federal pardon. However, this strict interpretation would have been more relevant to the 1790's than to today, as federal courts and laws are generally given priority over state courts and laws.

You don't have to be a US citizen to be pardoned. There simply has to be some impression that you have committed an "offense" against the United States. Foreign citizens are subject to US lawsuits, after all, or else Assange wouldn't have anything to worry about in the first place.

The accusations of rape in Sweden are discredited and obviously only being used as a means to extradite Assange to the US, and he knows this very well himself. If Trump gets in and the pressure for extradition is off, the US might not touch him, but remember, he's also released classified information from many other world governments besides the US.

The only edit I would make to my post, and which I was in fact returning to this thread to edit when I saw your post, is where I say the POTUS has no jurisdiction over Assange. I should have said "may not have" jurisdiction over Assange to pardon him. I have not researched the question of the power of the POTUS to pardon a person who is not a US citizen for violations of federal law. The power may exist. But it's recognition would exist only by virtue of federal courts' interpretation of the clause in article II that you quote. In any event, Trump cannot pardon anyone, citizen or not, for violations of any law of any State in the US, or for violations of the laws of other nations.

[A Voice from the Mountains]

Posted by Satori (here)
In any event, Trump cannot pardon anyone, citizen or not, for violations of any law of any State in the US, or for violations of the laws of other nations.

I really don't think that argument would hold up in court. It's a very dated interpretation of the Constitution as referring strictly to the federal government and not applying to state governments beyond what is explicitly stated. That goes to the 10th amendment issue. The judicial branch in particular has totally eroded states' rights, as far as state courts standing up to federal courts. That just doesn't happen anymore. It hasn't since the 1800's as far as I'm aware.

I don't see why this would be relevant anyway though since what Assange did, releasing classified info, would be breaking federal law.

[Operator]

It won't be that simple ...

Once Trump is in the belly of the beast his 'public' statementents and opnions will be 'straightened' by obscure forces.
I guess he might use his power to improve their situations and get them to safer locations but they will never be completely free again.

As long as any whistleblower has dirt on somebody else or on the system they are potentially dangerous to the status quo and will be
removed as discrete as possible from this world. A dead man's switch unfortunately works 2 ways: once activated the protection by it
no longer is effective. I hope Julian Assange didn't play his ultimate card yet.

[Cidersomerset]

Is Trump about to help pardon Assange? Shock calls after WikiLeaks release Clinton e-mails

DONALD Trump has been controversially called on to help ensure WikiLeaks
founder Julian Assange gets a pardon after the release of the damaging Hillary
Clinton e-mails.

By Vickiie Oliphant

PUBLISHED: 01:27, Thu, Nov 10, 2016 | UPDATED: 08:57, Thu, Nov 10, 2016


http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/...-election-2016

====================================================
====================================================




'He deserves a full Presidential pardon': Pauline Hanson calls for the release
of 'Australian hero' Julian Assange 'as soon as possible'
Pauline Hanson has called for Julian Assange, 45, to be pardoned
Assange has been hiding at the Ecuadorean embassy in London since 2012
Wikileaks published secret military files and he fears extradition to the US

By Rachel Eddie For Daily Mail Australia

Published: 03:57, 10 November 2016 | Updated: 10:05, 10 November 2016

Read More....


Senator Hanson (pictured) called Mr Assange a 'political prisoner' and 'Australian hero'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz4PbTLRxkp
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

====================================================


Pauline Hanson Calls For Release Of 'Australian Hero' Julian Assange

The One Nation leader says the WikiLeaks founder deserves a Trump pardon.
10/11/2016 12:25 PM AEDT | Updated 9 hours ago

http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/201...ge-released-n/

[Satori]

Posted by bsbray (here)

Posted by Satori (here)
In any event, Trump cannot pardon anyone, citizen or not, for violations of any law of any State in the US, or for violations of the laws of other nations.

I really don't think that argument would hold up in court. It's a very dated interpretation of the Constitution as referring strictly to the federal government and not applying to state governments beyond what is explicitly stated. That goes to the 10th amendment issue. The judicial branch in particular has totally eroded states' rights, as far as state courts standing up to federal courts. That just doesn't happen anymore. It hasn't since the 1800's as far as I'm aware.

I don't see why this would be relevant anyway though since what Assange did, releasing classified info, would be breaking federal law.

With all respect bsbray, you could not be more incorrect in your view that what I said will not hold up in court. In fact, that is exactly what the federal courts have held, and would hold today, in connection with the scope and breath of the POTUS's pardon power under the US Constitution: it only applies to federal laws and has no application to violations of State laws or the laws of other nations.

As to State laws, the pardon power is to some extent a 10th Amendment issue (and maybe even a 9th amend issue), in that powers not delegated to the federal government, i. e, the "United States", are reserved to the states or to the people. One of the powers not delegated to the POTUS is the power to pardon for violations of State laws. That power rests with the executive of each State in the Union--the Governor--where it should be under our republican form of government.

Similarly, the POTUS has no power to pardon anyone for violations of the laws of other nations. First and foremost, the US Constitution does not apply to other nations. Ergo, they are not bound to its limitations and disabilities (duties) and receive none of its benefits (rights). (To be clear, the US Constitution is not the source of our rights and it did not create them. Rather, it recognizes our God-given rights and is designed to preserve and protect them. But as a student of Constitutional history you no doubt know that.) Any pardon by the POTUS for a violation of another nation's laws is a nullity and would not be recognized by the nation(s) in question. Nations deal with a pardon-type issue by either not entering into extradition treaties or not extraditing someone to another nation if there is an extradition treaty; witness Assange and Snowden. That is a nations way of "pardoning" someone by not extraditing him or her.

Consider for a moment, could any American reasonably and correctly conclude that Putin has the power to pardon a US citizen for violation of a US federal law? Would we in the US honor such a pardon? I think not. In fact, I know not.

[A Voice from the Mountains]

Can you cite for me a single court case where state law prosecuted someone for something that a president had pardoned?

I'll be waiting.

[Satori]

Posted by bsbray (here)
Can you cite for me a single court case where state law prosecuted someone for something that a president had pardoned?

I'll be waiting.

You've completely misapprehended what I said. No where did I say that a state has prosecuted a person for violation of a state law after that person was pardoned by the POTUS for violation of federal law. I said that the POTUS has no Constitutional power to pardon violations of state laws and that states are free to prosecute for violation of state laws, even after the POTUS has pardoned a person for violation of federal law. Whether any state has actually done that is beyond the scope of anything I said.

But, I would not be surprised if a state has prosecuted someone after a pardon by the POTUS for violation of federal law. What comes to mind is the investment and securities scandals of the 70s and 80s in the US.

[A Voice from the Mountains]

What is your experience in law again, Satori?

I'm just asking since, like I said, I have actually studied Constitutional law, and I have no idea where you are coming up with this stuff.

[Satori]

Posted by bsbray (here)
What is your experience in law again, Satori?

I'm just asking since, like I said, I have actually studied Constitutional law, and I have no idea where you are coming up with this stuff.

I wondered when you would ask me that. I graduated from the University of San Francisco School of Law in 1980. I have been a trial lawyer for over 36 years. I am licensed in several jurisdictions, including the United States Supreme Court. I have handled numerous cases arising under the US Constitution. (I am also a student of Constitutional history.)

Here's one case along the lines of the challenge you put to me: Carlesi v. New York, 233 U.S. 51 (1914) There the state prosecuted a violation of the states forgery laws after the defendant was pardoned or received clemency for violation of the analogous federal law.

I've said my piece on this subject and I am done. I wish you well.

[A Voice from the Mountains]

Good. I'm actually very happy to see that and I'm happy to have been wrong about it.

What I was taught was basically that state courts had no sovereignty in the face of federal court decisions, and this does seem to be the popular perception. I'm sure you remember when the federal courts struck down state challenges to Obamacare by ridiculously claiming that the states had no authority to challenge the law. This is the kind of thing I'm talking about. You have no chance in a joke system like that.

I'm aware that the original intent of the Constitution was along the lines of what you're arguing and I'm glad that there are people who are still keeping this tradition alive.


Cheers.

[Satori]

Cheers to you too!

[Cidersomerset]

A H talking about possible pardoning Julian Assange and related topics..

JULIAN ASSANGE WIKILEAKS BREAKING NEWS: President
Trump Might Pardon Julian Assange To Win In 2020

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=9aTL8AkRTsI

Published on 10 Nov 2016
My name is H. A. Goodman and I’m an author, columnist, and journalist www.hagoodman.com
H A GOODMAN ON RT CROSS TALK https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RvZVJ...
Democrats Deserve President Trump For Creating A Cult Following Around Hillary And Cheating Bernie