Is Trump about to help pardon Assange? (Snowden and maybe manning too ?)

originally posted by: uncommitted

Oh, 'military sources' doesn't mean 'all of Washington' now does it?

Are you unsure what "Just one of many easily found examples through a simple Google search" means?

originally posted by: Kryties
a reply to: ms898

The particular poster you are replying to has made his actual thoughts on the Assange issue quite clear in his posts. He believes Assange did the wrong thing by exposing and whistleblowing and deserves punishment.

Not in those words, but his intent is quite clear. Nothing else explains the deliberate obtuseness and obvious anger driving his posts.

You could have just named me, I'm not shy. You are calling me obtuse for disagreeing with you and suggesting that the american president cannot give a pardon to someone who (at this moment in time) does not have any criminal charges held against them by the american government. I think that's fairly obvious but it seems not.

I have no anger in me, but I also can't see why Assange is such a hero figure. I'm struggling to think who has been indicted, arrested or anyone in a particular senior position who has been forced out of their job as a result of anything published by wikileaks - I must be wrong I guess, just strange that no names spring to mind.

It's true that wikileaks has caused a lot of embarrassment to various parts of the american government, but then again any tabloid rag you could name has been doing the same for decades and I wouldn't call their owners heroes either.

originally posted by: MysterX
a reply to: Kryties

Beat me to it Kryties...thanks for saving me the pointless effort.

Adding anything more would be redundant..except i think we're now witnessing nothing approaching any real sentiment or dearly held or cherished beliefs being shared, but rather the spitting of feathers and the spluttering on sour grapes.

Pretty childish, standard foot stomping as can be clearly discerned from the generally pathetic tone of the some of the posting around here.

Yep. I am going to refrain from pandering to it from here on. There is a plethora of evidence to support our case, while they provide no more than conjecture and guessing mixed with obtuseness and a dash of nastiness.

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: uncommitted

Oh, 'military sources' doesn't mean 'all of Washington' now does it?

Are you unsure what "Just one of many easily found examples through a simple Google search" means?

You chose the quote, I assumed it was the most definitive you could find, if you had something that was specific and named names of people who are in a position to officially make such proclamations you would have made sure to use it.

originally posted by: uncommitted

You are calling me obtuse for disagreeing with you and suggesting that the american president cannot give a pardon to someone who (at this moment in time) does not have any criminal charges held against them by the american government. I think that's fairly obvious but it seems not.

You must have missed this post disproving that:

originally posted by: CatandtheHatchet
FYI

US Pardon

The Justice Department requires that anyone requesting a pardon wait five years after conviction or release prior to receiving a pardon. A presidential pardon may be granted at any time, however, and as when Ford pardoned Nixon, the pardoned person need not yet have been convicted or even formally charged with a crime.

originally posted by: Kryties

Guess that just means he milked you for all you're worth too. Milked.

originally posted by: uncommitted

You chose the quote, I assumed it was the most definitive you could find,

It was literally the first result in the list.

Never assume.

I'm off now, please review all the evidence again before making any further posts.

originally posted by: Kryties

US Pardon

The Justice Department requires that anyone requesting a pardon wait five years after conviction or release prior to receiving a pardon. A presidential pardon may be granted at any time, however, and as when Ford pardoned Nixon, the pardoned person need not yet have been convicted or even formally charged with a crime.

Let me bold this first sentence for you that you quoted.

originally posted by: imjack

Let me bold this first sentence for you that you quoted.

Changing the bolded part means nothing. The original bolded part is the answer to the claim.

Nice try though, but you failed dismally.

Now if you haven't got anything USEFUL to add I'll be ignoring anything you say from now on - unless it actually adds to the conversation rather than just ignoring everything and yelling your opinion as truth.

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: imjack

Let me bold this first sentence for you that you quoted.

Umm... thanks?

Any actual thoughts on what the link, or the bolded part in particular, says? Please explain why it doesn't totally debunk the claim that someone without a formal charge cannot be pardoned?

Can't?

Didn't think so.

They must wait 5 years from the 'conviction'.

He has a lot of waiting to do, considering he has not been convicted yet. Your response lacks literacy. You literally cannot read this from the last post and need it spelled out?

a reply to: imjack

Pity you're ignoring this part:

A presidential pardon may be granted at any time

I know it totally blows your nonsense out of the water but facts are facts you know.

On the off-chance that you are misinterpreting that sentence, it's not referring just to Presidential pardons just for other Presidents - that was merely an example.

Anyway, no more replying to nonsense from me. Come up with something original and not easily debunkable and I'll consider replying to it.

originally posted by: Kryties
a reply to: imjack

Pity you're ignoring this part:

A presidential pardon may be granted at any time

I know it totally blows your nonsense out of the water but facts are facts you know.

On the off-chance that you are misinterpreting that sentence, it's not referring just to Presidential pardons just for other Presidents - that was merely an example.

No, I'm scoffing at you missing the irony in the sentence before that. You would think I read it considering I quoted it.

Now when things are presented, what normally takes precedence? What is said first, or last? Or is your point you can ignore whatever half better suits your argument?

a reply to: imjack

Goodnight. Please feel free to peruse that link to your hearts content and may I suggest also viewing the reference link at the bottom of the page that goes into more detail about Presidential pardons.

Those links answer all your questions in great detail.

a reply to: Kryties

The only pity is I read the whole thing and not just the end like you.

originally posted by: imjack
a reply to: Kryties

The only pity is I read the whole thing and not just the end like you.

And quite very obviously completely misinterpreted it, or you are just deliberately being obtuse - which seems to be a running theme with some posters in this thread.

Please, in great detail, explain why that link proves that Presidential pardons cannot be given to people without formal convictions or charges. I will be very interested to see how you twist the definition to suit your argument.

Any more one liners or deflections will be completely ignored and treated as if you don't have a satisfactory answer.

Until then, I shall get some sleep. Good luck.

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: imjack
a reply to: Kryties

The only pity is I read the whole thing and not just the end like you.

And quite very obviously completely misinterpreted it, or you are just deliberately being obtuse - which seems to be a running theme with some posters in this thread.

Please, in great detail, explain why that link proves that Presidential pardons cannot be given to people without formal convictions or charges. I will be very interested to see how you twist the definition to suit your argument.

Any more one liners or deflections will be completely ignored and treated as if you don't have a satisfactory answer.

Until then, I shall get some sleep. Good luck.

The president can pardon anyone at anytime.

Too bad it is unfortunate that said person cannot APPLY for a pardon without waiting the 5 year period. It is also too bad that this is from the point of Conviction and he has not been convicted.

originally posted by: imjack

The president can pardon anyone at anytime.

Too bad it is unfortunate that said person cannot APPLY for a pardon without waiting the 5 year period.

Nobody said ANYTHING about Assange applying for a pardon - only that Trump should give him one. Feel free to read through the whole thread again and discover you're completely wrong about whats being discussed here.

Given also that nobody said anything about Assange applying for a pardon, we can now strike the first part of that quote and go back to the original second part which clearly states:

A presidential pardon may be granted at any time, however, and as when Ford pardoned Nixon, the pardoned person need not yet have been convicted or even formally charged with a crime.

Glad we finally cleared that up.

Please now admit you were wrong?

originally posted by: Kryties

Nobody said ANYTHING about Assange applying for a pardon - only that Trump should give him one.

And is this how Pardons work?

Hint: No.

All pardons are applied for. "Granting" the pardon is approving it. This process is the same 5 year period no matter what.

originally posted by: imjack

And is this how Pardons work?

Hint: No.

All pardons are applied for. "Granting" the pardon is approving it. This process is the same 5 year period no matter what.

Sigh.

Sorry, you're dead wrong for the reasons that have been pointed out multiple times including in the post directly above your last one.

I'm not going to argue in circles like you clearly want to when the evidence is clear.

Have a nice day.

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: imjack

And is this how Pardons work?

Hint: No.

All pardons are applied for. "Granting" the pardon is approving it. This process is the same 5 year period no matter what.

Sigh.

Sorry, you're dead wrong for the reasons that have been pointed out multiple times including in the post directly above your last one.

I'm not going to argue in circles like you clearly want to when the evidence is clear.

Have a nice day.

In your dreams.

a pardon can be rejected, and must be affirmatively accepted to be officially recognized by the courts.

A waiver of any portion of the waiting period is rarely granted. Why do you think Ford is the only well known example?


Further more, the purpose of the waiting period is "to demonstrate they can live as productive, law-abiding citizens," so naturally Assange would fail this, as he has continued to hack servers and release information.

Giving him a pardon right after committing the supposed 'crime' several times in a row, would just show our justice department means nothing, and further taint the idea of the pardon.

I'm not saying he won't receive one, or even will wait 5 years, but people are kidding themselves if they think this is happening soon.