|
Theresa May is probably fuming that she can't get credit for turfing a certain bogus asylum seeker out of Britain. The power to "unpardon" theoretically exists, but I don't think, with the Senate and SCOTUS almost evenly split, Trump is going to push it. The best case scenario is that that presidential power will have limits put on it. The worst case is impeachment.
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2017 23:01
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 09:18 |
|
|
tadashi posted:Their case is that Snowden will not be pardoned because he fled. A pardon typically requires acknowledgement on behalf of the pardoned that a crime was committed (which was an important wrinkle when the British Parliament discussed posthumous pardons for sodomy). So even if Obama wanted to pardon Snowden, he probably wouldn't be able to.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2017 23:06
|
|
|
awesmoe posted:Where? It last came up when Bush pardoned then unpardoned Isaac Toussie, but he had legal advice that he could revoke Clinton's pardons (probably hinging on US v. Wilson) if he wanted.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2017 23:10
|
|
|
JUICY HAMBUGAR posted:Nixon was pardoned before being convicted or admitting guilt, so it's doable. Ford privately believed that Nixon's acceptance of the pardon implied an acceptance of guilt, and he does have Burdick v. United States to back him up.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2017 23:18
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Looking at both of those, the only legal basis I can see to unpardon anyone is if the next President is able to intercept the paperwork before it's delivered to the pardonee (which Bush managed to do, since it was his own paperwork). I would be ... surprised ... if Obama's people didn't make sure any last-minute pardons or commutations got delivered to the right people before Trump took office. Yeah. There are some aspects of pardon power that are untested but nobody wants to test. Then again, the British government are fighting (and losing) a case that may severely limit the Royal Prerogative, and there's no way Trump isn't less stupid than Theresa May, so…
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2017 23:24
|
|
|
The Iron Rose posted:Her leaks literally caused a financial crisis in Iceland. There's a pretty big loving difference between releasing evidence of illegal behaviour and dumping hundreds of thousands of diplomatic cables that caused a shitton of problems with our allies. How was Manning in a position to do corporate espionage when she was in military intelligence? Also, it's not like banks around the world were in crisis in late 2008 or anything.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2017 01:18
|
|
|
It doesn't matter. As soon as Assange steps outside of the embassy, he'll be arrested by the Metropolitan Police and put on the next flight to Stockholm. I would not be surprised if they're doubling the patrol now.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2017 01:45
|
|
|
NotJustANumber99 posted:I thought they stopped doing that as it was costing millions of quid for some guys to stand around doing nothing? But yeah I don't really understand the Assange stuff with this, the US haven't even asked for him officially have they? I'm pretty well informed on all this. Assange is a clinical narcissist. Even so, there's an arrest warrant out for Assange and the Met are obliged to execute it and follow on actionable intelligence.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2017 02:37
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:In a fair world, there could be no question of a commutation because she would have been convicted of aiding the enemy and given the death penalty. gr8 b8 m8 i r8 8/8
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2017 12:04
|
|
|
AARO posted:He hasn't been charged with anything in Sweden. He is merely wanted for questioning. The entire reason for his refusal to go there has been because they will not agree to non-extradition with the US. Congratulations for reading justice4assange.com. 1) He is not wanted for questioning; he is wanted for arrest. Swedish criminal procedure requires an arrest prior to the charge being made. The British courts not only agreed the warrant was valid, but also that the actions alleged were rape under British law. 2) The Swedish government cannot constitutionally guarantee non-extradition, as it would be an executive overreach into an independent judiciary. Regardless, any extradition request served to Sweden whilst he is in Swedish custody requires both the consent of the UK and Sweden. Honestly, think about it: if the US wanted to extradite Assange, why didn't they send the request straight to the UK, instead of using the Swedes accuse him of a crime that is notoriously hard to prosecute, especially when the UK is happier to extradite based on political offences than Sweden?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2017 20:20
|
|
|
AARO posted:This is obviously also a plot to smear him. This guy exposes the most powerful Government in the world of war and other crimes. Do you not think they are out to get him? Must be a hell of a smear if his defence counsel doesn't contest the alleged actions happening, but rather the lawfulness of those actions.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2017 20:33
|
|
|
Just remember Ollie North got a high-paying job on Fox News. So Manning won't find it too hard to find a media job.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2017 21:11
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 09:18 |
|
|
hakimashou posted:Should have thought about that before betraying her country. Even if she goes back to prison, there's this little thing called the Eighth Amendment…
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2017 23:11
|
|