Holy Moly! Holder "sees striking a deal" with Snowden to return to USA. This is huge.

[99th_Monkey]

Last edited Tue Jul 7, 2015, 03:30 PM - Edit history (1)

Holder sees possible DOJ deal with Snowden
By Julian Hattem * 07/06/15 04:39 PM EDT * The Hill

Government leaker Edward Snowden may some day be able to strike a deal to return to the U.S. without jail time, according to former Attorney General Eric Holder. ~snip~

“I certainly think there could be a basis for a resolution that everybody could ultimately be satisfied with,” Holder said. “I think the possibility exists.” During the interview, Holder also appeared to go further toward praising Snowden’s actions than other members of the Obama administration have been willing to do.

“His actions spurred a necessary debate,” Holder told Yahoo News. “We are in a different place as a result of the Snowden disclosures.”

Snowden has been charged with multiple crimes for his 2013 leak of classified federal documents, including Espionage Act violations that could land him in jail for decades. Because of the nature of the charges, Snowden’s supporters say that he would not be able to fairly give his side of the story in court.

Snowden’s legal team has long been in discussions with Obama administration officials to potentially reduce those charges in exchange for Snowden’s return home, but those talks have so far failed to yield any progress.

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/246967-ex-ag-holder-possibility-exists-for-deal-with-edward-snowden

ON EDIT: Another more recent OP of mine - DoJ says "no deal" in the works re: Snowden
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026948786
http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/07/politics/eric-holder-edward-snowden/index.html

[avebury]

1. He would be foolish to return to the states. nt

[arely staircase]

2. he is foolish nt

[BillZBubb]

6. The only fools are his detractors.

[arely staircase]

7. he should stay on his russian beet farm nt

[BillZBubb]

11. As I said, the only fools are his detractors.

[MrMickeysMom]

109. Ignorant drive by's gotta drive, BillZ

[Darb]

138. Baloney.

He's a grandstander. and a teabag mole.

[Logical]

25. Ahh, how cute, a Snowden hater! nt

[840high]

40. I view him as a hero for the people.

[arely staircase]

44. depends on what people

Kremlin people?

[Chef Eric]

96. All people. nt

[AtheistCrusader]

125. aw, thats cute.

[BillZBubb]

5. Not if he had an ironclad settlement with the government.

I could see where he could plead guilty to some minor charges over his handling of documents. The justice department would agree that he would serve no jail time. Win win.

[Chan790]

14. He's going to have to give something to get that good of a deal.

I just don't know what he can give them...I doubt they want evidence/testimony against Assange when he's done such a great job of self-destruction. Don't think Snowden has the means or information to annihilate Wikileaks. Anybody he's dealing with would have worked from the assumption he would be flipped one day and would have insulated Snowden.

I just don't see his chit to get that good of a deal.

[99th_Monkey]

16. He's already given something, the TRUTH

and it has indeed helped us to be at least a little freer.

I can think of no more valuable "gift" to every American

[Chan790]

19. The truth is not a bargaining chip for a better deal from DoJ.

It just isn't. He committed a crime and if he wants a better deal, he's going to have to negotiate for it...and I don't see what he has to offer in trade, but I know whatever it is going to have to be big...and not good.

DoJ isn't going to go light on him for telling truths the government didn't want revealed.

[99th_Monkey]

24. In your view, should "the government" EVER admit it's been wrong, and change it's tune?

and if you want to talk about "breaking the law ... "the government" got caught committing
a crime themselves ... i.e. ILLEGALLY SPYING ON AMERICANS, because of an ethically motivated
whistle-blower.

In my view, that's a draw, Snowden doesn't still need to "give" any more.

[Chan790]

28. "Should" is irrelevant.

I'm saying they won't ever admit it...so he will need to give more unless he wants to live out his days on the run.

[99th_Monkey]

30. OK then. Forget the "should" ... riddle me this

DO governments EVER admit it's been wrong, and then do the right thing, finally?

I'll look fwd. your reply.

[Chan790]

33. Eventually perhaps...

but it never spares the martyrs and the righteously defiant entangled in the midst of it.

[99th_Monkey]

35. I try to never say never

Dan Ellsberg comes to mind.

Oh and how about that SC State Senate today, taking down that racist Confederate flag,
after now many years now?

[Chan790]

46. I'm just cynical.

I think he's too high-profile for the DoJ to ever cut him that kind of deal unless they can claim it's a victory for them because it got them something. I don't believe they will do it for the sake of being the right thing to do.

[Ed Suspicious]

52. I know it sounds naive but isn't a victory for us a victory for them? We are the government, I

thought. The purpose of our government for and by us should be doing right, within the framework of the Constitution, by us. This us vs them (government) paradigm should be plainly seen as wrong. We all win when the government follows the constitution.

[-none]

53. Try to convince our owners of that.

Too many people in our government are bought and paid for, to make sure we are fed the proper fear mongering to control us, for Snowden to come home and expect to walk around loose for very long.
If he does come home, I expect he will be suicided with in a year.

[99th_Monkey]

61. +100 my sentiments exactly nt

[99th_Monkey]

60. No, they'll do it (if they do) because they've been shamed into it

by world opinion in the international community, for starters.

As the article quotes Holder saying, "“His actions spurred a necessary debate, We are in a different place as a result of the Snowden disclosures.” Holder is really just stating the obvious here, that it's time to "move on", as Obama loves saying.

The Right Livelihood Award, a Swedish-based alternative to the Nobel Prize
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/dec/01/nsa-whistlebloewer-edward-snowden-wins-swedish-human-rights-award

The Sam Adams Award
http://rt.com/news/snowden-award-wikileaks-video-093/

Standing Ovation by Swedish Parliament
http://www.voicesofliberty.com/article/snowden-receives-award-and-standing-ovation-from-swedish-parliament/

Snowden Nominated for Nobel Peace Prize
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2014/01/29/268421741/edward-snowden-is-nominated-for-the-nobel-peace-prize

[Adrahil]

23. How about the exposure of legal and legitimate...

... foreign intelligence operations?

[arely staircase]

37. Not getting into this. It is old. nt

[LittleBlue]

3. A terrible blow to the NSA lovers

[arely staircase]

8. please elaborate

club fed is starting to look better than Russia it would seem.

[LittleBlue]

21. They were adamant that Snowden's revelations were old and wouldn't accomplish anything

“His actions spurred a necessary debate,” Holder told Yahoo News. “We are in a different place as a result of the Snowden disclosures.”

Must be rough as an NSA lover these days

[NanceGreggs]

107. Are there "NSA lovers" on DU?

Name them.

[LittleBlue]

108. The anti Snowden mouth foamers

Here are a few
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024640825

[NanceGreggs]

110. That's what I thought.

Anyone who doesn't worship Snowden is an "NSA lover".

Black-and-white thinking is clearly not a sign of intelligence. In fact, it is quite the opposite. It's like insisting that anyone who says they don't like chocolate ice cream means they obviously LOVE vanilla.

It is unfortunate that such thinking has taken hold here. But quite apparently it has.

[LittleBlue]

111. Most of the ones on this site attacking Snowden do so

to avoid questions about the NSA. The vast majority have had the good sense to slink away and not show their faces in these threads after conclusively being proven wrong.

If a Democrat weren't in the White House, they'd suddenly develop skepticism. They deserve absolutely everything they're getting. Whats that saying about hit dogs hollering?

[NanceGreggs]

112. Like I said ...

... black-and-white thinking is not a sign of intelligence.

[LittleBlue]

113. Even on gay marriage and abortion rights?

Interesting. Should I reevaluate my unwavering support for both? Too much black-and-white thinking? Nah

[NanceGreggs]

114. At this point ...

... I have absolutely no idea what you're on about.

Nor do I wish to know.

[LittleBlue]

115. That's what I thought

Run along

[ronnie624]

120. You just had your ass handed to you, that's all. n/t

[NanceGreggs]

121. Yeah.

I had my "ass handed to me" by someone who thinks that anyone who isn't a Snowden worshipper is an "NSA lover".

I repeat: Black-and-white thinking is not a sign of intelligence. In fact, it is the complete opposite.

And that applies to all who actually embrace it.

[ronnie624]

123. In my opinion, those 'liberals' and 'progressives'

who do not speak, in earnest, against the dismantling of our democracy through draconian legislation, secrecy, surveillance and endless war for resources, are actually abetting its destruction.

There's you some more "Black-and-white thinking".

[NanceGreggs]

124. And thanks for providing another example ...

... of said thinking - as though any further examples were necessary.

But I appreciate the effort to make my point for me.

[Darb]

139. Don't you know Nance....

they are listening in to all our calls and reading all our emails. All trillion of them.

[LeftOfWest]

154. Yes.

[Marr]

150. You might want to think about proof reading.

Putting statements like, 'black-and-white thinking is not a sign of intelligence' right next to 'oh yeah, so anyone who doesn't worship Snowden is an "NSA lover"...

That's just comedic.

[NanceGreggs]

151. What's comedic ...

... is that you didn't "get" the fact that the "anyone who doesn't worship Snowden is an NSA lover" was so obviously a comment on LittleBlue's thinking, not mine.

She/he demonstrated that thinking amply when I asked who the "NSA lovers" were, and his/her response was "the anti Snowden mouth foamers".

In other words, they immediately eqauted being an "NSA lover" with anyone who is "anti-Snowden".

Get it now? I thought this was pretty simple stuff.

Instead of admonishing me to mind my "proofreading" (which, by the way is one word, not two - so you might want to take your own advice) you might want to brush-up on your reading comprehension skills.

[Marr]

156. Oh, I realize you were insulting someone again.

My point is that your insult was self-contradictory. You accused someone of engaging in black and white thinking while doing it yourself, painting the two positions as either 'Snowden worshipper' or 'NSA lover'.

That is literally the exact same thing you're complaining about. If you think it's unfair to reduce the pro-domestic spying arguments to 'NSA lover', then don't reduce the anti-domestic spying arguments to 'Snowden worship'.

[NanceGreggs]

157. Take this argument up with ...

... the poster who, when asked who the "NSA lovers" here are, responded that it's the anti-Snowden posters.

Ergo, "NSA lover" = "anti-Snowden".

Apparently no thought was given - and rarely has been here - to the fact that one can be against Snowden's actions without being an "NSA lover", being pro-domestic spying, or a defender of the NSA.

Black-and-white thinking. It's rampant on DU now, and has been for a while.

[Marr]

158. I'm taking it up with you.

You're making the exact same kind of statement with that 'Snowden worshippers' comment. How someone can bemoan 'black and white thinking' while talking about 'Snowden worshippers' and not choke on hypocrisy is beyond me.

But you know what? Let's not even pretend the two sides here are equal but opposite. One side has consistently defended the NSA and domestic spying. Yes, they spent a long time insisting that it wasn't happening at all, but they have since been defending these programs, saying the info Snowden brought to light was 'old news', nothing to be alarmed about, etc. Holder himself says otherwise now.

One side has been proved wrong in recent months, so a denunciation like 'Snowden worshipper' carries a bit more baggage than one like 'NSA lover' at this point, imho.

[NanceGreggs]

159. Oh, I see.

It's the term "worshippers" you have a problem with.

Well, that's really too bad. Obama supporters have been called "worshippers" here for years. I didn't see you objecting to the terminology then.

The fact remains that when someone is asked who the NSA lovers are, and their response is that it's the anti-Snowden people, the black-and-white thinking is there for all to see - in (you'll pardon the pun) black-and-white.

[Marr]

160. Not exactly.

It's the use of the term 'worshippers' while you're berating other for 'black and white thinking'.

[Logical]

27. LOL, don't feel so bad, many were totally wrong about Snowden! nt

[PoliticAverse]

4. "former", "think", "possibility", "may", "some day". n/t

[BillZBubb]

9. Coming from a high ranking official, those words are pretty powerful.

It is a lot more positive than "never", "no way".

[NanceGreggs]

129. Holder is no longer ...

... "a high ranking official"; he is a private citizen.

And in what universe are the words former, think, possibility, may, some day categorized as "powerful"?

[NV Whino]

10. Holder holds zero cred with me.

And what the hell would he have to do with it anyway?

[BillZBubb]

12. I'm sure Holder is just torn up to hear this.

[NV Whino]

39. He's probably shaking in his boots.

[pscot]

13. Beware of ex Attorney Generals

bearing gifts. And stay out of small planes.

[cherokeeprogressive]

15. Holder has no authority to strike a deal with anyone.

[enough]

17. +1 (nt)

[MADem]

47. Oh, don't go ruining the fun by stating the obvious, now!!

Way too many people are overly invested in a guy who is NO LONGER the Attorney General magically striking a "deal" that will bring Saint Ed home, flying in on his magic laptop, or something!

[ronnie624]

122. No one is invested in any such thing.

They are merely commenting on a news item. Your hatred of anything that reflects poorly on the establishment, clouds your judgment, apparently. There's no logic in your ridicule.

[MADem]

140. Oh boy....the "hatred" word!!

Pro tip--it's not a synonym for "disagreement."

And then, unleash the "name calling!" Because I don't agree with you, I have clouded judgment and lack logic!!

Oooooooooh!!!!!!



Check your mirror, there, buddy!

Name calling--the first sign of a failed argument!

You have one of those REAL nice days, now!!!

[ronnie624]

148. It was your post I spoke of.

Ever the victim, poor thing.

[MADem]

149. Who's a victim? You're the one getting all "personal" here.

I point out your behavior, that's all.

You continue to characterize.

Lather, rinse, repeat.

[treestar]

99. He didn't say he did

If he is still Attorney General he does

[MFrohike]

18. Huh

I didn't know he was CEO of JP Morgan.

[elias49]

20. Good for Holder. Good for Snowden.

Of course it all remains to be seen. If something is worked out, there will be some disappointed folks here on DU. You know who you are.

[MADem]

48. How in happy Hades is Holder supposed to 'do' anything? He's a PRIVATE CITIZEN.

Good grief, DU gets all excited about silly stuff. Pull the string--Holder is Out of Government. That's like expecting George Bush or Bill Clinton to issue an executive order because, well, they USED to have that gig.

Holder has no authority to do diddly when it comes to Putin's pal.

[elias49]

54. Putin's pal. St Ed.

Yep. One of those people I was referring to.

[NanceGreggs]

22. Yeah, this is HUGH all right - not to mention SERIES!!!

How on earth did you get the phrase "Holder 'striking a deal' with Snowden" out of THAT article?

In what capacity would Holder be striking a deal with anyone? He's no longer the AG - uh, you know that, right?

According to the article, Holder also said nothing about Snowden "returning to the US with no jail time".

[99th_Monkey]

29. U ask "How on earth did you get the phrase "Holder 'striking a deal' with Snowden" out of THAT article?"

according to the article itself, to which you refer, it says "Government leaker Edward Snowden may some day be able to strike a deal to return to the U.S. without jail time, according to former Attorney General Eric Holder."

That's the article's very first sentence, it's written by Julian Hattem. You'll need to ask him
how he "got that" from his own article, except that would be even weirder than asking me.

[NanceGreggs]

32. Only one BIG problem with that ...

... it's not a quote from Holder. It is the writer's "take" on what was said, with no actual quote from Holder to that effect. Had Holder actually SAID what the writer is attributing to him, you can be damned sure he would have included the direct quote in the article - because it would be news to everyone, especially the DoJ.

Holder states that, “I certainly think there could be a basis for a resolution that everybody could ultimately be satisfied with. I think the possibility exists.” How that leads the writer to believe that translates to "no jail time" is anybody's guess.

Even if you thought it was a quote, how did YOU get the notion that Holder himself was striking a deal with Snowden?

Again, I ask: In what capacity would Holder be striking a deal with anyone? He is no longer with the DoJ, and is now a private citizen. So how do you suppose HE could be 'striking' any deals with Snowden?

[99th_Monkey]

57. As I've already said, I was quoting FROM the article itself, period.

If you are offended or upset about that, too bad.

[markpkessinger]

68. The quote in your title omits a key word . . .

. . . that is, the word 'sees,' which appears in the title of the article itself. By omitting that word, your title seems to say that Holder (is) striking a deal with Snowden. If you amended your title to include 'sees,' it would address the issue folks are taking with your title.

[99th_Monkey]

70. OK, I like that suggestion. So be it. nt

[markpkessinger]

78. Cheers! n/t

[NanceGreggs]

74. And you were attributing a quote to Holden that he never stated ...

... something that was obvious from the article itself.

You still haven't explained how you think Holder could "strike a deal" with Snowden. Did you not know that he's no longer with the DoJ, nor in a position to do so?

I am neither offended nor upset. But if you're going to attribute statements to people who never made them, you can expect having that pointed out to you.

[99th_Monkey]

75. I think your snark got away from you

Please see:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6948451
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6948457

and

"sees striking a deal"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6946205

Happy now?

[NanceGreggs]

83. My happiness has nothing to do with it.

You still haven't answered as to how you thought Holder was in a position to strike a deal.

Had you known he wasn't, you would have noticed the error in your title. But you didn't.

Were you unaware that Holder is no longer with the D of J?

[99th_Monkey]

85. My title does NOT say Holder is still AG

show me where I have EVER said that, and then we'll actually
have something like a real conversation here.

Please stop insinuating that I have said something i never said
in the first place.

[NanceGreggs]

97. What started this discussion ...

... was your original thread title, which was: "Holder "striking a deal" with Snowden to return to USA."

I asked you to explain how Holder could strike a deal, being as he has no capacity to do so. In fact, I asked you the question four times, and you never answered the direct question. Ergo, I assumed that perhaps you didn't know that Holder was no longer the AG - which would also explain why you didn't notice that your thread title couldn't possibly be correct.

As for insinuating that someone said something they never said, you might want to point me to where I insinuated that you stated something you never said.

I never stated that you said Holder was still AG, did I? I simply asked you, several times, to explain how the title "Holder "striking a deal" with Snowden to return to USA" could possibly be accurate, given Holder's current private citizen status.

It seems that if you knew Holder wasn't in a position to strike any such deal, you would have (a) said so immediately, which would have (b) prompted you to revisit your title and correct it.

Instead, you kept defending your original title as accurate, and offered no explanation as to how it could be so.

Pretty simple stuff.

[99th_Monkey]

98. This is just silly.

I've already changed the title, to make it clear that Holder "sees" possibility of striking
a deal, as I have already pointed out a bunch.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6949465

Holder didn't leave his AG post under a cloud, so I think it is reasonable to believe he may
have some influence on things still, if he wants to. I did state that in reply to another
poster here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6946518

Yes that is a big if. FYI, I'm no fan of Holders, and never have been one to trust him much.

As of several hours ago, this whole discussion has been rendered moot by the current
AG's office, who has flatly denied that any "deal" for Snowden is in the works; so now
it's a tempest in a teapot. I think I already provided that link to you as well.

I did know that the Snowden thing easily gets some peoples panties in a bunch, but
frankly I grossly underestimated the extent of it, and was a bit taken aback by all the
nit-picking it generated.

Live and learn.

[NanceGreggs]

104. Well, if you consider ...

... having attributed a quote to Holder that wasn't a quote, or having not realized that Holder couldn't be 'striking a deal' with Snowden as nit-picking, that's up to you.

As for this now being a moot point, the article you originally linked to contains a statement from Justice Department spokeswoman Melanie Newman, who stated that: “This is an ongoing case, so I am not going to get into specific details. But I can say our position regarding bringing Edward Snowden back to the United States to face charges has not changed."

So the D of J's unchanged and unwavering position was made clear, yet again, yesterday - the same day the article you linked to was published - and was contained in the article itself. So the "whole discussion was rendered moot" at the same time you were insisting that Holder was "striking a deal" with Snowden to return to USA. This is huge!"

Did you actually read the article before you declared it "HUGE"? It doesn't seem that you did. If you had, you might have noticed that Newman's statement was contained therein, and that Holder could not possibly have been "striking a deal" with anyone.

The D of J has never denied that a "deal could be reached" whereby Snowden could return to the US. The sticking point is that Snowden, through his lawyers, has stipulated that no jail time be part of that deal - a condition that the D of J has staunchly refused to agree to.

In future, you really should try to read an article in its entirety, and understand what it is actually saying, before you post links to it and declare it HUGE!!!

Live and learn, indeed.

[99th_Monkey]

117. I did read the article, but admittedly misinterpreted it. Sue me, Alert me, whatever

I initially sincerely thought it was a legitemate trial balloon for an amicable resolution to
this whole Snowden affair., which I think is a blight on our national honor, and an embarrassment
to US as a nation.

Who else would be in a better position to do that but Holder?

THAT is what I thought was huge. If that wasn't apparent to you several posts ago, I don't
know what else to say at this point.

I'm done.

[NanceGreggs]

118. What was apparent ...

... is that you were "done" several posts ago.

[99th_Monkey]

119. That wasn't a fork

it was a heartless attack on my integrity.

Sorry, no cigar.

[MADem]

49. He can strike a deal today if he'd like--it doesn't take a former AG to figure that out.

It will involve going directly to jail and not passing go, of course.

This article is nothing more than clickbait without authority. And of course, it's THE HILL, too, and they're notorious for "plenty of nothing" articles. Dig down into the piece, and that becomes obvious.

[elias49]

56. I love the 'clickbait' lament

from those who rise to grab the big, juicy worm on first cast!

[MADem]

141. That's why you're chasing me round this thread telling me how you don't like my opinion, mmmmhhh?

indeed!

Whoever smelt it, dealt it, there, buddy!

[elias49]

143. Bwahaha.

You give yourself too much credit.

[MADem]

146. And here you are, again...not caring, of course!

Bwahaha, indeed!

[elias49]

147. Look closer Mad...it's been you following ME.

I'm finished with this 'stupid'. You can go elsewhere now.
BTW, Assange should also be freed to go about his life.
But that's another story. C U.

[flamingdem]

26. Newsflash: Holder throws

a microscopic bone to the believers.

[randome]

45. That's 'The Believers', please. Capitalization is important.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]

[flamingdem]

81. Snowden or bust!

I think "good luck with that" is what Holder was thinking as he hurried away from the questioner.

[jeff47]

31. It would be huge if he was still attorney general. (nt)

[99th_Monkey]

34. OK, I am assuming he's just might have a weentsy-bit of influence with Obama

and AG Loretta Lynch.

[840high]

41. I bet he does.

[PoliticAverse]

43. He had the ability to make this happen when he was Attorney General. He didn't. n/t

[jeff47]

55. Yet he did not use that influence while he was Attorney General. (nt)

[realFedUp]

36. Goodnt

[City Lights]

38. He is working for a firm lobbying for banks.

When does he have time for this?

[Aerows]

42. Were I Edward Snowden I would say

in the words of Judge Judy:

[Eric J in MN]

50. The first article on this doesn't say "without jail time"

That was added by "The Hill."

First article, Yahoo! News:
https://www.yahoo.com/politics/eric-holder-the-justice-department-could-strike-123393663066.html

Former Attorney General Eric Holder said today that a “possibility exists” for the Justice Department to cut a deal with former NSA contractor Edward Snowden that would allow him to return to the United States from Moscow.

Second article, The Hill:
http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/246967-ex-ag-holder-possibility-exists-for-deal-with-edward-snowden

Government leaker Edward Snowden may some day be able to strike a deal to return to the U.S. without jail time, according to former Attorney General Eric Holder.

====

The Hill invented the "without jail time" part.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

51. Huge for Snowden.

Not really for the rest of us. After all, the only thing Snowden has to deal with is promising not to make public anything else he's still got. Nothing against him, but I'd rather have absolutely everything public.

[deurbano]

58. "His actions spurred a necessary debate. We are in a different place as a result of Snowden's

disclosures."

"His actions spurred a necessary debate."

From the guy who was Attorney General when the Snowden situation unfolded, this is a pretty significant admission. I wonder if he'll be forced to "clarify" the truth out of it.

[99th_Monkey]

62. Interesting point

If Holder has thought -- all along, while AG -- that what Snowden did was helpful in some way, then that is huge, and this is just a peek under all the subterfuge.

Thanks for your thoughts on this.

[rtracey]

59. Not sure about the title

I am not sure the title of this article is "correct"... notice the " " around "striking a deal". Holder is no longer the AG, so he would have as much power now as Roberto Gonzalas.

[99th_Monkey]

64. Unlike Gonzalas, Holder served honorably, with distinction and is well-respected

especially in the very DC/WH circles that are most in a position to engineer a shift in US policy
on the Snowden thing.

So that bucket cold water you're trying to throw on the OP is empty.

As for the title, I was quoting the article not Holder, for which I do not apologize. I do it
often without any issues, and it's not a violation of DU rules as far as I know. If you really
think it's so egregious, then flag away.

[rtracey]

79. Stop your idiocy

I was basically stating a fact that AG Holder.... NOT BEING AG ANYMORE, has about as much power to offer a deal the Gonzalas. Jump off your high horse......and actually notice the response below...... and maybe check into this.....

http://www.salon.com/2015/07/07/why_eric_holders_new_job_is_an_insult_to_the_american_public/

[99th_Monkey]

82. Thank you Captain Obvious. Holder's not current AG? Really.

Show me where I have EVER said he was, and then we can
maybe start to have a meaningful exchange.

Projecting that "high horse" much?

[rtracey]

87. wow...nevermind

you don't see the connecting points..... here is the title of the article on the MAIN PAGE of DU....Holy Moly! Holder "striking a deal" with Snowden to return to USA. This is huge.

so you are jumping on people when they say how is a former AG striking a deal, or even making one.....the point was made by others too. The title of the article is misleading..... thats that was said....

[99th_Monkey]

89. The title was only "misleading" to those who still think Holder is AG

and I assume that doesn't include you.

Who was "misled" pray tell?

[rtracey]

90. look at the comments

ok well...
63. Striking a deal? Epic title fail. ...
10. Holder holds zero cred with me. And what the hell would he have to do with it anyway?
15. Holder has no authority to strike a deal with anyone.
68. The quote in your title omits a key word.that is, the word 'sees,' which appears in the title of the article itself. By omitting that word, your title seems to say that Holder (is) striking a deal with Snowden

83. My happiness has nothing to do with it.
You still haven't answered as to how you thought Holder was in a position to strike a deal.
Had you known he wasn't, you would have noticed the error in your title. But you didn't.
Were you unaware that Holder is no longer with the D of J?

31. It would be huge if he was still attorney general. (nt)
67. Holder is no longer AG . . .. . . so this is pure speculation in any case.

So my point is and I see you followed # 68 advice.....THE ORIGINAL TITLE ON THE FRONT PAGE SAYS...Holy Moly! Holder "striking a deal"[ with Snowden to return to USA. This is huge.

misleading... Holder is NOT striking a deal.....ok Im done with this.....

[99th_Monkey]

91. I changed the title to Holder "SEES striking deal" quoting the linked article

Which I admit IS an improvement, which was made because someone actually had
a helpful suggestion, rather than attacking me with an attitude.

I responded to all the comments you list here. For the life of me, I don't see WTF
you are still complaining about.

What? Are you insisting that I take the whole OP down, make changes, or .. ?

What?

ON EDIT: Please note that I also posted an OP on this related story
CNN: "DOJ: No change in stance on Snowden despite Holder remarks"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026948786

[rtracey]

103. you are creating the mountain from a molehill

My original comment was about the title of the OP only.......I am not sure the title of this article is "correct"... notice the " " around "striking a deal". Holder is no longer the AG, so he would have as much power now as Roberto Gonzalas. You started by saying the cold water bucket I am trying to throw was empty. When you read the title before it was changed, it sounded and (still does on the main page) like Eric Holder was making a deal with Snowden.....as you can see, I was stating he has not the power too do so because he is no longer the AG, and would have as much power to do so as Gonzalas. You are taking it farther then it needed to go, and my last post showed others felt the same about the title....

[n2doc]

63. Striking a deal?

Epic title fail.

[TheNutcracker]

65. He is creating a smokescreen to shield his current return to law group, that lobbies for Big Banks

The whole occupy, and recession, and MERS can be tracked to this firm. So here Holder goes.

This is the big news...and it's truly shameful!

[99th_Monkey]

69. I don't doubt that your assessment is somewhat accurate,

yet Holder just might still have some sway in the very DC/WH circles that are most in a position to engineer a shift in US policy on this.

I'm no Holder fan, far from it.

[LanternWaste]

66. Seems the only two types of people in the world are NSA Apologists or Snowden Fanboys

It often seems the only two types of people in the world are NSA Apologists or Snowden Fanboys with no room at all in between the two extremes for context, nuance or subtlety... according to intractable, dogmatic halfwits, anyways.

[markpkessinger]

67. Holder is no longer AG . . .

. . . so this is pure speculation in any case.

Personally, I think the only "deal" Snowden should accept is a full, complete and unconditional pardon by the President. But I'm not holding m6y breath.

[99th_Monkey]

72. I never said Holder is still AG.

But I agree with your sentiments as to what would be ideal, and the
remote chances of that happening.

But you know what, I'm getting the feeling that some important shifts
of priorities and thinking may be going on behind the curtain, and this
is a trial balloon of some kind. Let's hope.

[msanthrope]

71. It's called a federal plea deal in exchange for his testimony.

Chelsea Manning at least had the guts to turn it down.

[joanbarnes]

73. Uh oh! How can these people be trusted?

[DawgHouse]

76. It's a trap.

[MADem]

142. Thread winner....no matter what side of the whole Snowden debate one lands on!!! nt

[Demeter]

77. This is BS, plain and simple

A "false flag" with no subtlety whatsoever.

[Helen Borg]

80. Don't trust them Ed!

[99th_Monkey]

84. I'm inclined to agree with you

I just watched movie "A Most Wanted Man" last night, which
makes your point quite well.

[randome]

86. Enough weasel words in that one sentence to make a boogle! (Yes, I looked it up!)

"...certainly think there could be a basis for a resolution that everybody could ultimately..."
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Birds are territorial creatures.
The lyrics to the songbird's melodious trill go something like this:
"Stay out of my territory or I'll PECK YOUR GODDAMNED EYES OUT!"[/center][/font][hr]

[senz]

88. Be very, very careful Mr. Snowden.

Even IF Holder were sincere, I don't think Edward Snowden can be safe here.

[brooklynite]

95. Right! How can you trust a guy like President Obama?

[senz]

100. First, Holder does not represent the President.

Second, even if Obama did give his word, Snowden would still be vulnerable to all the crazies who hate him. He would not be safe here.

[brooklynite]

105. So you're saying President Obama doesn't control the Government...

...that's not much of an improvement.

[senz]

126. No, I'm saying Holder doesn't work for Obama, and Obama cannot control all the crazies in the U.S.

And the attempt to turn everything into an insult against Obama, leads to illogical conclusions. We're not playing "ad hominem" here, sorry.

[NanceGreggs]

106. "Even if Holder were sincere ..."

... it wouldn't mean a damned thing. Holder is no longer the AG; he is a private citizen, with no powers to "strike a deal" with Snowden, or anyone else.

I can't believe how many posters here are swallowing this story whole.

[senz]

127. Yes, the story is rather preposterous, isn't it?

[on point]

92. No Deal. Full and complete presidential pardon followed by Medal of Freedom

for defending the country and constitution. Nothing less.

[99th_Monkey]

93. I actually tend to agree with you & others who've expressed similar concerns. nt

[brooklynite]

94. As with the Greek Government...

...he's not in a particularly strong negotiating position...

[fadedrose]

101. let's get'em back

Maybe he'll bring us some hacked Russian files, and teach us how to hack files..

[99th_Monkey]

102. Current AG has already nixed this trial balloon by Holder

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/07/politics/eric-holder-edward-snowden/index.html

It only took DoJ a matter of 24 hours to put a stop to Holder's
speculation that Snowden might be able return without jail time.

Oh well. It was fun to dream.

[fadedrose]

116. Doesn't he have to have a trial?

If he offers something they want, they can get around the new AG.

What about a presidential pardon? Do they give those only when they're leaving office, or can it be done anytime?

[99th_Monkey]

131. It's all pretty much moot apparently, since DoJ has said "no change in position"

It didn't take them long to walk back Holder's speculative remarks.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/07/politics/eric-holder-edward-snowden/index.html

[fadedrose]

132. I was thinking about the rich guy who Clinton pardoned

who wasn't permitted into the US....his wife was a big contributor...

All they'd have to do is allow him to come back, charge him, pay bond, and let it dangle till Obama's last day, and he could pardon him after they find out everything they need to know about hacking..

A name just came to me - was it Mark Rich?

[99th_Monkey]

133. Sorry, I don't recall the Clinton/Mark Rich thing,

but that does sound like one way it could be handled, but DoJ/WH are not
sounding very conciliatory, in wake of Holder's speculation.

Personally, I'm part of the "Give Snowden a freaking Medal, no jail time" crowd,
which is why I got so excited about Holder's comments. But given DoJ's roll-back
I'm not holding my breath.

[NanceGreggs]

128. Can you provide a link ...

Last edited Wed Jul 8, 2015, 03:54 AM - Edit history (1)

... to "Holder's speculation that Snowden might be able return without jail time"?

Exactly when did Holder "speculate" any such thing?

The article you have now linked to states that Melanie Newman, a spokeswoman for the Justice Department, said Tuesday that Snowden is still expected to face charges if he ever returns to the United States, and adds the quote from Newman: "This is an ongoing case so I am not going to get into specific details," she said, "but I can say our position regarding bringing Edward Snowden back to the United States to face charges has not changed."

Oddly enough, that is the exact quote cited in the original article you linked to, which was published on Monday.

Ergo, your statement that "it only took DoJ a matter of 24 hours to put a stop to Holder's speculation" is doubly ludicrous. The DoJ, via Newman, did not wait 24 hours to make their position perfectly clear. And Holder never "speculated" that Snowden might return to the US without jail time.

It is now blatantly obvious that you are attempting to mislead by insisting that Holder stated something he never said, along with misrepresenting the timing of the DoJ's response.

[99th_Monkey]

130. 22 Hours between The Hill article and the CNN article

7/6/15 at 4:39 PM <-- date/time original article re: Holders speculating about "no jail time"
http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/246967-ex-ag-holder-possibility-exists-for-deal-with-edward-snowden

7/7/15 at 2:36 PM ET <-- date/time of CNN article stating DoJ has "not changed it's position"
http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/07/politics/eric-holder-edward-snowden/index.html

[NanceGreggs]

134. Try using at least a modicum of common sense ...

You wrote:

"It only took DoJ a matter of 24 hours to put a stop to Holder's speculation that Snowden might be able return without jail time."

Holder does not "speculate" that "Snowden might be able to return without jail time" in either article you've linked to. Holder did not say a word about "jail time" - Not. One. Word.

Ergo, your first claim is false on its face.

Your second claim, that it took the DoJ "a matter of 24 hours to stop Holder's (alleged) speculation", is also false. There is a quote from Melanie Newman, a spokeswoman for the Justice Department, which appears in the first article linked to, which was published on Monday.

"This is an ongoing case so I am not going to get into specific details, but I can say our position regarding bringing Edward Snowden back to the United States to face charges has not changed."

The exact same quote appears in the second article linked to, which was published 22 hours later.

It is obvious that the DoJ did not wait a day to state their position - given that they stated their position in the article published on Monday - which means the statement was already a day old when it was referenced in the article published on Tuesday.

The fact that there were 22 hours between the articles is irrelevant, given that the stated position of the DoJ was contained in the article published in the same article which (falsely) alleges that Holder had made any statement whatsoever about "jail time". Again, READ the article you linked to - there is not a single quote from Holder about the topic of jail time anywhere.

At this point, I have to assume that you are either being deliberately misleading, deliberately obtuse, or that you lack the necessary skills to comprehend what you read.

[99th_Monkey]

136. I'm through with your hateful attacks. Welcome to my ignore list. nt

[NanceGreggs]

137. It's always telling ...

... when someone characterizes the facts being pointed out to them as "hateful attacks".

I will continue to point out actual "facts" in response to fact-less posts - be they yours, or anyone else's. If you don't see them, it is of no consequence - because others here will.

[elias49]

144. You're way too invested in hatred. Evidence your endless pursuit of Snowden

and his supporters. Healthy people avoid things that make them angry or adamant.
I advise that you find a happier hobby than detraction!

[NanceGreggs]

145. The discussion had nothing to do with ...

... the merits of Snowden's case, nor Holder's opinion.

It had to do with attributing a statement to Holder that he never made, and then stating that the DoJ waited 24 hours to state their position, when in fact their position was stated on the same day, and is quoted in the same article as the Holder interview.

There seem to be a lot of reading comprehension problems going around here. If you actually read the entire exchange between myself and the OP, you would immediately be aware that I said nothing untoward about Snowden, his situation, or his supporters.

If you consider it "detraction" to point out when someone is misrepresenting the facts - and deliberately doing so - that's your problem.

[LeftOfWest]

153. Well said.

[FiveGoodMen]

135. This is bull.

He's no longer in office.

He was never any damned good.

He will never do anything good.

Snowden's got to be smarter than that.

We should be, too.

[NanceGreggs]

152. I'm sure Snowden is smarter than this ...

... in that I'm sure he knows the difference between an actual quote from Holder (or anyone else) and what the writer of an article tries to imply someone said.

From the article: Government leaker Edward Snowden may some day be able to strike a deal to return to the U.S. without jail time, according to former Attorney General Eric Holder

No quotation marks, because Holder never said word one about "jail time". Read the article - no quotes from Holder about Snowden "returning to the US without jail time". Not even close.

"Snowden's got to be smarter than that. We should be, too."

Yeah, we should be - but you can see how many here have bought into this non-existent quote anyway.

[B Calm]

155. I'd prefer he stays overseas.