Skip to main content

Well, no. Made you look though, and there is some actual news behind the catchy misleading headline. According to the New York Times, Edward Snowden last summer retained attorney Plato Cacheris, a prominent expert in Espionage Act law, to investigate the possibility of reaching a plea agreement that might allow Snowden to return home without facing the likelihood of lengthy prison time. Cacharis has previously defended Aldrich Ames and Lawrence Franklin, among many others.

Apparently these negotiations went nowhere, despite Eric Holder's claim earlier this year that the Justice Department would indeed be open to a plea agreement in Snowden's case. Snowden himself has repeatedly made it clear that he would like to come home. If, as now seems to be the case, both sides think a plea is worth exploring, one can't help but wonder why Cacheris' negotiations died aborning.

Originally posted to PhilJD on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 07:06 AM PDT.

Also republished by Progressive Policy Zone.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Questions: (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PhilJD, Sun dog, mconvente, sviscusi

    1. Plea-ing out to anything accomplishes what at this point, for either side, besides Snowden coming back to the US? Even if it's a minor charge, it would feel like 'ok here's your medicine, now go play nice!' and SURELY would include a gag order, right?

    2. Does Putin let him go? I haven't followed Snowden's personal story enough and do not know if he still lives at the airport.

    3.  Cacheris is a lawyer first, and either didn't see enough chance of money and/or success and that's why he didn't take it (unless parties not interested in Snowden returning leaned on him). Probably Occam's Razor in this case, right?

    While you dream of Utopia, we're here on Earth, getting things done.

    by GoGoGoEverton on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 07:17:06 AM PDT

  •  What's the incentive for a deal? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    GoGoGoEverton, PhilJD

    Why would we want him to come to the U.S. so bad that he should be guaranteed not to be fully prosecuted?  

    When truth is only a matter of opinion, advantage goes to the liars.

    by Sun dog on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 07:17:09 AM PDT

    •  The possibility of learning what additional data (19+ / 0-)

      has been compromised as well as debriefing Snowden about just what the ongoing weaknesses in NSA security are would seem to be reasonable incentives.

      From a PR standpoint, the US could demonstrate maturity rather than vindictiveness by moving beyond a pointless, no-win vendetta against a "29-year old hacker."

      Fascism in the mirror is nearer than it appears.

      by PhilJD on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 07:30:16 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Doesn't make a lot of sense. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Drocedus

        It's hard to get the value of Snowden telling what he took  when he already given away all the information, can't verify that he ever knew what it was, and has every incentive to "forget" stuff out in order to minimize the magnitude of his crime.

        From a PR standpoint, the US could demonstrate maturity rather than vindictiveness by moving beyond a pointless, no-win vendetta against a "29-year old hacker."
        Meh.

        The dossier on my DKos activities during the Bush administration will be presented on February 3, 2014, with an appendix consisting an adjudication, dated "a long time ago", that I am Wrong.

        by Inland on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 07:53:05 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Prosecution isn't just "vindictiveness" (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        PhilJD, Inland, Drocedus, Catte Nappe

        They do have an interest in showing that there's a cost to leaking classified information beyond having to have a sit-down at the end of it all.  It becomes a pretty simple formula.  Leak classified information but sit on a piece of it and use that as a bargaining chip to avoid prosecution.  Personal feelings about Snowden aside, that's a pretty bad precedent to set.

        When truth is only a matter of opinion, advantage goes to the liars.

        by Sun dog on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 07:57:20 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  By definition, if there's a plea agreement, (13+ / 0-)

          there is prosecution. Imo, the true national interests of America are best served here if Holder declined to insist on a maximum sentence.

          Fascism in the mirror is nearer than it appears.

          by PhilJD on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 08:02:10 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  i agree on that, (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            PhilJD, Catte Nappe, poco, TheMomCat

            but the sticking point may well be pleading guilty to a crime that has as an element harm to the United States.  If I were representing Snowden I'd advocate for a nolo plea, even with some prison (364 days or something), versus a guilty plea and suspended sentence.  In contrast, I think the U.S. would insist on that, to preserve its legal position.

            and if I were the government, i'd want assurances that whatever supposed "poison pills" are out there, get returned.  If these are out of Snowden's hands, though, it'd be an awkward position to agree to a deal contingent on a third party NOT viewing it as a cause to release the poison pill, so I can see the deal breaking down on whether he has to use good faith efforts, best efforts, or what to get the return / disabling of the supposed poison pills.  From the DOJ's point of view, this may be more important than bringing Snowden back to the U.S.  I don't think leaving him hang out in Russia and going on RT now and again is helping Snowden's pr case, and the debate over the NSA program, as his defenders rightfully note, has transcended Snowden's personal story.  

            But, yeah, long prison sentence is stupid.  I don't think it'd really function as a deterrence, and the risk of it didn't really deter Snowden.

            Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

            by Loge on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 09:00:35 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Snowden, however, thought he'd successfully flee. (0+ / 0-)

              A long possible sentence wasn't a deterrent because he had discounted the chance of being sentenced with a plan to become a fugitive.

              The NEXT person would be deterred by a long sentence, and prospective is the perspective of deterrence.

              The dossier on my DKos activities during the Bush administration will be presented on February 3, 2014, with an appendix consisting an adjudication, dated "a long time ago", that I am Wrong.

              by Inland on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 09:12:35 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  i'm sure that's how the DOJ (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                PhilJD, Catte Nappe, TheMomCat, JesseCW

                thinks about it, but I think that doesn't understand the psychology of whistleblowers.   Snowden had a plan to flee, but he knew it wasn't a guarantee of success, and even now, it's still a significant sacrifice that's outweighed in his mind by the importance of having disclosed what he did.  

                While I do think the administration is right that the NSA program, as leaked, is not necessarily illegal based on how the 4th amendment has been construed to date, it doesn't not follow from that premise that no rational person could think it's illegal, much less not worthy of public debate.  I question the means by which Snowden did what he did, hence I do not think unilateral clemency is a good position, much less one I expect the DOJ to adopt in a million years, but I also don't think this case is the means by which one should deter other leaks.  Thinking that treats all such leaks as equal.  Mercy here isn't precedent for leaking operational details of somthing super confidential, and prosecution here need not be precedent for exposing bribery or  routine accessing of call content.  

                I'm sure some in the natsec establishment view this case as a cut and dried example of leaking classified data, as if that's all one need to know, but that's why political leadership should overrule them on big pucture stuff.  

                Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

                by Loge on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 09:55:07 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  That's backwards: (0+ / 0-)

                  Remember, the metadata program that is "worthy of public debate" is a miniscule part of the material disclosed, the full extent of which we may never know.  He is in the same position as Manning: that there is something in the document dump that is arguably illegal or shouldn't be secret doesn't justify the entire dump.  Snowden himself doesn't seem to have any idea what he's disclosed: like Manning, he's letting other people read the stuff first.

                  Any subjective belief that he may have had that ALL of his disclosures were justified is just plain wrong, and that's without the probable fact that even HE doesn't know what all he gave away.  A lack of remorse isn't a plus.  It's a minus.

                  If he really thinks that everything he did was a justified act of "whistleblowing", then the proper thing to do to deter future people who buy their own hype about what should be public is to make the punishment, if he's brought back, the maximum.   That way, anyone who discounts his chances of being caught by learning how NOT to be a fugitive will also learn just how bad it gets if he is caught, or at least make them try to edit their document dumps.

                  The dossier on my DKos activities during the Bush administration will be presented on February 3, 2014, with an appendix consisting an adjudication, dated "a long time ago", that I am Wrong.

                  by Inland on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 10:21:23 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  if they buy their own hype, (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    TheMomCat, CenPhx, JesseCW

                    then rational calculation is already out the window . . .

                    i don't think any of us know what it is that Snowden copied and Greenwald read.  Snowden's not a 4th amendment expert, but he was obviously troubled enough.  My point is there are issues involved in a plea negotiation that go well beyond arguing about unbridgeable gulfs in prison sentences.   One big difference with Manning, though, is Manning allegedly leaked stuff she didn't even read.  I still fault the military for putting her in that position, which is again why i think the question of guilt can be assessed somewhat harshly but the idea of a sentence should be lenient and individualized.  

                    Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

                    by Loge on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 10:33:57 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  But since anyone can claim any subjective belief (0+ / 0-)

                      the only rational action for a DOJ faced with someone professing a true belief in something that's patently not true to throw the book at them, just to deter other people from thinking that they can get away with the Golden Retriever Defense (empty head but good heart).  

                      So in the circumstance here, Snowden may have actually believed that there was something served by alerting the world to a previously-terminated program to listen in on Angela Merkel's calls.   Just as Jason Pollard was positively sure that there was something served by giving Israel nuke secrets, and on and on.   But if there is one thing that we should make sure that any government employee knows, it is that publicity isn't something they get to decide just by virtue of being well meaning.   We get the last call.  

                      The dossier on my DKos activities during the Bush administration will be presented on February 3, 2014, with an appendix consisting an adjudication, dated "a long time ago", that I am Wrong.

                      by Inland on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 02:17:19 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  that supports the notion that (3+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        TheMomCat, PhilJD, JesseCW

                        the DOJ has a good case to insist on a guilty plea, but it does not justify "throw the book."  The golden retriever analogy doesn't apply - the leaker isn't dumb, the leaker values the incentives differently, to the degree that you'll never make the deterrence high enough, and doing so backfires in terms of appearing cruel and making it seem like no leak can ever be justified.  In other words, I think getting Edward Snowden to agree that he harmed the United States is a tougher lift than getting him to agree to an extra few years in prison.  Most people, also, lack the ability to discount future punishments rationally - failing to recognize that 25% chance of 20 years in prison is the same as 5 years, and overly optimistic they won't get caught.  it's punishing someone based on factors that don't relate to him, and a fool's errant to boot.  

                        Here, it's not "patently not true" that the NSA disclosures are troubling.  In my opinion, they're not illegal based on thoughtful deliberation.  Some here say it's patently obvious the NSA is breaking the law.  I don't agree with that either.  This is exactly the fallacy that nobody can distinguish among which leaks really are damaging -- Jonathan Pollard, fwiw sold them for money directly to a foreign government, and the notion of him as a Zionist martyr was invented after the fact.  The way the espionage act applies, however, the act of classifying something is a rebuttable presumption that it's "national defense information," but it's not definitive.  I think justice supports a guilty verdict with a suspended sentence, but I think Snowden might not even agree to that.  

                        I

                        Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

                        by Loge on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 02:47:13 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

        •   Snowden says he's already given it all away (0+ / 0-)

          so he's not even in the position to set a bad precedent of threatening to do worse unless he's given a deal.

          He's made a point of making sure that he can't reverse his actions.

          And his first choice was to be a fugitive.

          I don't see vindictive in this at all.

          The dossier on my DKos activities during the Bush administration will be presented on February 3, 2014, with an appendix consisting an adjudication, dated "a long time ago", that I am Wrong.

          by Inland on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 08:11:43 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  It hasn't all been published however. (8+ / 0-)

            In any case, why do you now, all of a sudden, put your faith in Snowden's absolute veracity? I don't doubt he's as capable of spin as any other public figure.

            Fascism in the mirror is nearer than it appears.

            by PhilJD on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 08:19:26 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Right. It hasn't all been published YET, and (0+ / 0-)

              therefore the amount of harm done by Snowden is still unknown and ongoing.  Hard to make a deal with that out there.

              And no, a deal doesn't require believing Snowden's past statements. It requires believing the ones he makes as part of his plea deal.  Prior inconsistent statements would make him unbelievable.

              So he's either given it all away, or says stuff that isn't true.  EIther way, tough to make a deal.

              The dossier on my DKos activities during the Bush administration will be presented on February 3, 2014, with an appendix consisting an adjudication, dated "a long time ago", that I am Wrong.

              by Inland on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 08:28:35 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Well, Inland has finally accepted that there is (9+ / 0-)

              in fact a huge NSA data storage facility in Utah.  Operational.  Existing.

              Baby steps...

              Clive is the man! Woooo! HAHAHAHAHA! Teh martyr weeps tonight...

              by JVolvo on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 10:24:11 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Heh. To think PhilJD pretended to not want pie (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                freakofsociety

                in this diary.  But there he is, reccing your comment.

                Which you correctly didn't address to me, because of course, I would ask you a) so there's a facility, so, and b) when did I deny an operational facility? (hint:before it was operational)

                Well, learning to not post to me and give me an opportunity to make you look bad is a baby step.  You might want to consider being right rather than avoidance as a means to keep me from embarrassing you, but....

                The dossier on my DKos activities during the Bush administration will be presented on February 3, 2014, with an appendix consisting an adjudication, dated "a long time ago", that I am Wrong.

                by Inland on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 02:48:33 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  So sad. You were claiming the data center was a (0+ / 0-)

                  "liberal myth" what, 8 weeks ago?

                  I had no need to "correctly" address to you, of course.  I've seen your spin on this since NSA abuse broke last summer: you, duhban and diggeR.  Ahh, those were the days..

                  No, wait!  I've seen your spin longer than that: you're one of the authoritarian hecklers in Jesselyn's posts going back much longer.  Punish Treason!!1

                  So, yeah.  That you finally accept the reality of the NSA data center
                  over 3 years after NSA announced it...not much reason to debate you "correctly."

                  PS Say hi to your only reccer, newly caffeinated potuswarrior fuh-reak.

                  Clive is the man! Woooo! HAHAHAHAHA! Teh martyr weeps tonight...

                  by JVolvo on Fri May 02, 2014 at 01:27:00 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

      •  Hahahaha! (10+ / 0-)
        From a PR standpoint, the US could demonstrate maturity rather than vindictiveness
        But how would that curry favor with anti-Snowden obsessives?

        "Assume man to be man and his relationship to the world to be a human one: then you can exchange love only for love, trust for trust" -- Karl Marx

        by Cassiodorus on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 01:16:34 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  PS hope this diary stays clean of pie. (9+ / 0-)

    You did a great job of bringing up an interesting discussion point(s) and hope the convo stays that way. Tip'd/rec'd.

    While you dream of Utopia, we're here on Earth, getting things done.

    by GoGoGoEverton on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 07:18:27 AM PDT

    •  LOL! Anyone want to place a bet on that? (17+ / 0-)

      I'm not taking any bets. Just askin'....

      "I always thought if you worked hard enough and tried hard enough, things would work out. I was wrong." --Katharine Graham

      by bobswern on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 07:22:53 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Thanks! One point I haven't noticed elsewhere (13+ / 0-)

      is that both sides have now expressed interest in a deal. I thought that was worth noting.

      Fascism in the mirror is nearer than it appears.

      by PhilJD on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 07:32:41 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Nope, the deadthreaders are here, PhilJD uprating (0+ / 0-)

      them.  They hate interesting discussion.

      The dossier on my DKos activities during the Bush administration will be presented on February 3, 2014, with an appendix consisting an adjudication, dated "a long time ago", that I am Wrong.

      by Inland on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 02:50:17 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Thanks, dude posting in a dead-thread. (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        angel d, TheMomCat, kharma, CenPhx, JesseCW

        It's difficult to take dead-threaders complaining about dead-threading seriously.

        Even more so when an in-denial dead-threader tries to pretend he values interesting discussions more than the unnamed dead-threaders he's whining about.

        In fact, if anyone's doing the type of dead-thread instigating you decry, it's you.

        It's Phil's diary, he can tip who he wants, which for many diarists includes everyone not posting douchebag comments.

        Which might explain why your comments aren't getting tipped by the diarist, while others, even GGGE's, are.




        Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ Garcia

        by DeadHead on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 04:47:16 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  You have nothing but meta at death. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          GoGoGoEverton, freakofsociety

          I don't think you grasp just how you personify the issue.  Heck, you called your one sentence snoticism to GGGE as "participating".  Most people would call that something else.

          Enjoy your stay in your safe place.  I'm going to go where you fear to tread, and enjoy your absence.

          The dossier on my DKos activities during the Bush administration will be presented on February 3, 2014, with an appendix consisting an adjudication, dated "a long time ago", that I am Wrong.

          by Inland on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 05:18:44 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Says the person calling out the diarist... (4+ / 1-)
            Recommended by:
            TheMomCat, kharma, JesseCW, cville townie
            Hidden by:
            freakofsociety

            because of what comments he rec'd — meta, in other words — in.......a dead thread!

            Tell me, do you ever NOT lie about shit?

            THIS is what I said to GGGE regarding "participation"...

            Actually...

            My support of, and participation in, Phil's diaries isn't out of the ordinary.

            Your "pie prevention/identification patrolling" in them, not to mention your support of this diarist in general, however, is.

            Kudos for turning over a new leaf, though.

            And welcome to Utopia.

            :)

            by DeadHead on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 01:18:47 PM PDT

            You are, by far, the most dishonest person on DailyKos.

            Be proud.




            Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ Garcia

            by DeadHead on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 08:27:16 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Actually, says the person with substantive comment (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              freakofsociety

              in the live thread.  See, that's the difference: you are nothing but deadthread and meta, so you see everyone you goad into a meta comment in a deadthread to be as bad as you.

              And being as bad as you is a point of pride.

              But it's not true.  I had numerous substantive, non-pie posts.  You haven't had one, not in this diary, and maybe not in ANY diary for a long time.

              That's the difference, dude.  You're not only worthless, but have no other purpose but to drag every person down to your level.

              And I don't have to point out that my point about PhilJD was right on: he said he didn't want pie, but uprated it anyway.   He wanted his diary to be a place where deadthreaders felt safe.

              And I guess you ARE safe, in the sense that you have your two recs.   As long as you stay in your deadthread cage, you can get away with being the WPODK for a long time, and can scratch your psychic itch every once and a while with insulting all the posters who are superior to you in every metric except trolling.

              Your mom must be proud.

              The dossier on my DKos activities during the Bush administration will be presented on February 3, 2014, with an appendix consisting an adjudication, dated "a long time ago", that I am Wrong.

              by Inland on Thu May 01, 2014 at 09:15:49 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Who's doing the "blathering" now, Inland? (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                TheMomCat, poligirl, triv33

                Like I said, as your opinion of me gets worse, my credibility gets better.

                Thank you.

                :)




                Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ Garcia

                by DeadHead on Thu May 01, 2014 at 04:43:32 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Heh. And everytime you say your credibility gets (0+ / 0-)

                  better, and it probably does with the six other deadthreaders you rely on, you immediately say that YOU DON"T CARE WHAT I THINK AND SO THERE.

                  Because you can't even be consistent in your tired, pathetic attempts to make yourself a winner after I beat you like a drum for your inability to be anything better than a deadthreader obsessed with meta bullshit.  So...why don't you find another dead thread and hide a little better, mmmmmkay?

                  The dossier on my DKos activities during the Bush administration will be presented on February 3, 2014, with an appendix consisting an adjudication, dated "a long time ago", that I am Wrong.

                  by Inland on Thu May 01, 2014 at 05:26:46 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  One sure sign... (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    TheMomCat

                    A person has lost the argument is when they're the only one running around bragging about how resoundingly they won it.

                    In your mind, you're a winner. That's all that counts.

                    So, congratulations!

                    Enjoy your celebration party, you're both the guest of honor AND the (only) attendee.




                    Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ Garcia

                    by DeadHead on Thu May 01, 2014 at 07:15:13 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

            •  Hred for insult (0+ / 0-)

              N/T

              I love president Obama!!!

              by freakofsociety on Thu May 01, 2014 at 10:47:51 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  How is this a dead thread? (6+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        PhilJD, TheMomCat, DeadHead, kharma, CenPhx, JesseCW

        I read this diary when it first posted but then worked all day, coming back to check new commentary.

        Am I too late?

        If so, it's Phil's fault.

        •  The world of some users here (6+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          PhilJD, angel d, DeadHead, kharma, CenPhx, JesseCW

          revolves around DK. They think ours should, too.

          I chuckled when I saw the comment about "dead threaders," like this diary was four days old.

          Sometimes when I check my comments, I find replies that aren't just hours old but days. Depending on the comment, I rec it and sometimes reply. But to call out people for posting and recommending a diary that was just posted this morning is nonsense. Ignore this one, he's annoyed because his comments weren't being recommended. Poor dear.


          "Information is power. But like all power there are those who want to keep it for themselves" Aaron Swartz, 1986 - 2013
          TheStarsHollowGazette.com

          by TheMomCat on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 05:56:02 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yep. And Inland actually thinks... (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            TheMomCat, kharma, JesseCW, angel d

            He was contributing something worthwhile, until he was "run off" by those meanie dead-threaders, who remain nameless, of course.

            He never lights meta matches, and never posts comments in diaries that are a few hours old.

            He's above all that.

            Amazingly, he seems to think he's actually fooling people.




            Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ Garcia

            by DeadHead on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 08:37:40 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I don't see you arguing with my points. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              freakofsociety

              I suppose you are going to say it's not worth your time....you're too busy policing the meta and generally barking at passing cars.

              But it's because you don't know the issues well enough to know what's worthwhile and what's not.   All you care about is a safe place for your shtick.  Actually posting something substantive to me in a place that's not safe for you leads to people essentially laughing at you derisively.  I've seen it before.  

              Too bad this is a political blog and not purposed for people scratching some sort of psychic itch.  You'd fit in better.

              The dossier on my DKos activities during the Bush administration will be presented on February 3, 2014, with an appendix consisting an adjudication, dated "a long time ago", that I am Wrong.

              by Inland on Thu May 01, 2014 at 09:21:49 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  You haven't got much in the way of "points" (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                DeadHead, triv33, angel d

                just a generalized right-wing devotion to right-wing politicians.

                Why people continue to treat you with civility when you're here for no purpose but to serve power willingly is absolutely beyond me.

                "If anybody is wondering about Tom’s qualifications, Tom is the only member of both the cable television and the wireless industry hall of fame. So he’s like the Jim Brown of telecom, or the Bo Jackson of telecom.” President Obama

                by JesseCW on Thu May 01, 2014 at 10:21:41 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  That's a deadthread classic right there. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  freakofsociety
                  a) You haven't got much, and you'll have to take my word for it because I'm so cool.

                  b) You're all about generalized devotion to right wing politicians, and by "generalized" I mean don't ask me who or what I'm talking about because I won't be able to tell you.

                  c) All I really have is a pathetic plea to my clique to treat you rudely.

                  Seriously, is that the best a deadthreader can do?  A bunch of excuses why he's unwilling to even try to debate me combined with a plea for his clique to be rude to me?

                  Why....yes.  It is the best you've got.  

                  The dossier on my DKos activities during the Bush administration will be presented on February 3, 2014, with an appendix consisting an adjudication, dated "a long time ago", that I am Wrong.

                  by Inland on Thu May 01, 2014 at 10:58:00 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  Yes. (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                TheMomCat, angel d
                I suppose you are going to say it's not worth your time....
                That's exactly what I'm going to say. You're a time sink. You argue the same crap over and over again. You've been debunked countless times.
                you're too busy policing the meta and generally barking at passing cars.
                In your view, that of a bullshitter.
                But it's because you don't know the issues well enough to know what's worthwhile and what's not.
                As opposed to you, who knows the issues well enough to be utterly destroyed every time you talk about them, by a variety of different people who actually decide to waste their time with you.
                All you care about is a safe place for your shtick.
                Right. I should be more like you, who, being the brave soul you are, boldly goes into any diary that's critical of the administration or speaks out against the surveillance abuses you support, and makes a laughing stock out of himself.
                Actually posting something substantive to me in a place that's not safe for you leads to people essentially laughing at you derisively. I've seen it before.
                Suuuure you have. The only people "laughing at me derisively" are you and the two other people who rec your comments. I'm okay with that.
                Too bad this is a political blog and not purposed for people scratching some sort of psychic itch. You'd fit in better.
                Which is why you've spent so many comments in this diary trying to scratch your own itch, whereas I'm merely responding to whatever bullshit you and the other dead-threaders-in-denial are continuing to serve up.

                And you're trying waaaay too hard, Inland.

                Bon voyage.




                Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ Garcia

                by DeadHead on Thu May 01, 2014 at 11:23:21 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Addendum: (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  angel d, TheMomCat

                  As of this comment, you've posted 30 comments in this diary, 22 of which were meta in a dead thread.

                  Your highest rec'd comment, which received 12, was this meta comment in a dead thread.

                  Of the other (21) meta comments in a dead thread:

                  (5) had 0 recs
                  (4) had 1 rec
                  (1) had 2 recs
                  (6) had 3 recs
                  (5) had 4 recs

                  I wonder if all those recs are by the same people?

                  Of your 8 "substantive" comments, 5 received zero recs. The other three received 1, 2, and 2, respectively.

                  Which is why I place so little value in your opinion. You're as guilty, if not more, than those you criticize.

                  Bye bye.




                  Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ Garcia

                  by DeadHead on Fri May 02, 2014 at 12:06:28 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

  •  It must have been a slow news day (10+ / 0-)

    for that to be resurrected. It's been known for awhile that Holder had put the kabbash on any pre-arranged agreement.

    The news of the non-starter offer was reported back in January. It's been the government position all along, that for Snowden to return he would have to plead guilty first.

    U.S. Willing to Hold Talks if Snowden Pleads Guilty


    "Information is power. But like all power there are those who want to keep it for themselves" Aaron Swartz, 1986 - 2013
    TheStarsHollowGazette.com

    by TheMomCat on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 07:22:45 AM PDT

    •  Offers and counter offers (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Inland, JVolvo, angel d, TheMomCat, poligirl

      And "pleads guilty to what" would seem to be a rich source of negotiation, along with "what consequences for that plea"

      “Texas is a so-called red state, but you’ve got 10 million Democrats here in Texas. And …, there are a whole lot of people here in Texas who need us, and who need us to fight for them.” President Obama

      by Catte Nappe on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 09:11:31 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  There are no offers or counter offers (6+ / 0-)

        There us only an ultimatum from Holder that for any discussion of a deal, Snowden would have to plead guilty to the charges first.

        Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said Thursday that the United States was willing to discuss how the criminal case against Edward J. Snowden would be handled, but only if Mr. Snowden pleaded guilty first.

        Mr. Holder, speaking at a question-and-answer event at the University of Virginia, did not specify the guilty pleas the Justice Department would expect before it would open talks with Mr. Snowden’s lawyers.

        I would suppose that if he didn't like the deal, he could withdraw his plea and go to trial but that would leave the door open for the government to pile on more charges, as they did with the Aaron Swartz case,

        Right now, what is known about the charges is that he has been charges with three felony counts, two of which are under the 1917 Espionage Act

        That may have changed since June of last year.

        It pretty much sounds to me that there will be no talks about the "consequences of the plea" until the guilty plea is entered.


        "Information is power. But like all power there are those who want to keep it for themselves" Aaron Swartz, 1986 - 2013
        TheStarsHollowGazette.com

        by TheMomCat on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 01:05:01 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Again - "guilty of what" is a negotiating point (0+ / 0-)

          Your most recent link is several months old. The article linked in the diary points to some jockeying and negotiation on what he might be willing to plead guilty to.

          “Texas is a so-called red state, but you’ve got 10 million Democrats here in Texas. And …, there are a whole lot of people here in Texas who need us, and who need us to fight for them.” President Obama

          by Catte Nappe on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 05:15:00 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  That is all we know about the charges. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            DeadHead, ek hornbeck

            We don't know if DOJ has added more, or for that matter, if they are even talking. None of that is confirmed, it's mere speculation based on anonymous sources but we don't know when, or where, those talks took place.

             As the article itself states "no agreement appears imminent, and government officials said the negotiations remained at an early stage."

            It doesn't appear that the DOJ has changed its position that there will be no talks about the "consequences of the plea" until the guilty plea is entered.

            You may, of course, draw your own conclusions.

            I have no idea why the NYT published this. It doesn't really tell us anything we don't already know.


            "Information is power. But like all power there are those who want to keep it for themselves" Aaron Swartz, 1986 - 2013
            TheStarsHollowGazette.com

            by TheMomCat on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 06:11:31 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  Scapegoating is all the rage. (7+ / 0-)
  •  torturer gets asylum in USA - who gave it? (18+ / 0-)

    man who exposed CIA torture in jail, people who did the torture on book tours

    now we learn about this guy from WA Post

    He had run Afghan intelligence operations in Kandahar after the U.S.-led invasion in 2001 and later served as head of the spy service’s detention and interrogation branch. After 2009, his whereabouts were unknown.

    Because of his reputation for brutality, Gulalai was someone both sides of the war wanted gone. The Taliban tried at least twice to kill him. Despite Gulalai’s ties to the CIA and Afghan President Hamid Karzai, United Nations officials and U.S. coalition partners sought to rein him in or have him removed.

    Today, Gulalai lives in a pink two-story house in Southern California, on a street of stucco homes on the outskirts of Los Angeles.

    How he managed to land in the United States remains murky. Afghan officials and former Gulalai colleagues said that his U.S. connections — and mounting concern about his safety — account for his extraordinary accommodation

    Mystery surrounds move of Afghan ‘torturer in chief’ to U.S. amid allegations of spy agency abuse

    CIA says that they didn't bring him here ....

    who did?

    another secret that "citizens" can not know

  •  Implicit assumption of USG bad faith not warranted (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Drocedus, Sun dog

    The situation is consistent with talks ongoing, or talks taking place in good faith and, as so often happens, no agreement being reached.

    The implicit assumption that the USG isn't willing to discuss a deal in good faith isn't justified.

    IMO, the time for Snowden to ask for a deal was before it was clear that his first choice, asylum in a sympathetic country, wasn't available.  Instead, he gave away all his info, got stuck in Russia, engaged in a PR campaign, and now that all his cards are played, looks for a deal that isn't going to be a good one for him.

    The dossier on my DKos activities during the Bush administration will be presented on February 3, 2014, with an appendix consisting an adjudication, dated "a long time ago", that I am Wrong.

    by Inland on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 08:24:29 AM PDT

  •  Long on speculation (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Inland, Drocedus

    short on facts.

    Interesting -- though not unexpected -- that Snowden would retain a lawyer to work out a way he could return to the US.

    As to why no agreement was ever reached? Well, that's the speculative part.

    Whether Putin would let him leave? Also speculative.

    What bargaining chips Snowden has or doesn't have? Speculative.

    The only meat we can chew on is that he retained a lawyer and a plea agreement was not reached.

    "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

    by raptavio on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 08:28:47 AM PDT

    •  "The sun will rise tomorrow" is also speculation. (11+ / 0-)

      Fascism in the mirror is nearer than it appears.

      by PhilJD on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 08:35:38 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  No it isn't. (0+ / 0-)

        Not unless you turn "speculation" into a word devoid of useful meaning -- which I suppose is a useful tactic for the sophist, but not a useful tactic for the realist.

        Don't be that guy, Phil. You've got a good brain in your head. Turning a couple of salient facts into a pile of speculations that are then accepted as truth is the way of the right-wing fringe. Not the reality based community.

        "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

        by raptavio on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 08:44:02 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I ventured no opinion at all, despite your (11+ / 0-)

          contention to the contrary, about the possible reasons why no agreement has been reached. Snowden is not under arrest in Russia, nor has he been charged with a crime under Russian law. I don't doubt that Putin has the authority to detain him rather than allow his return to the US... but why would he?

          As far as "bargaining chips," why would Holder express any interest at all in exploring an agreement if he didn't believe US interests might be best served by that?

          Fascism in the mirror is nearer than it appears.

          by PhilJD on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 08:53:43 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Well, there are a number of things (0+ / 0-)

            not the least of which is the appearance of maintaining the rule of law and consequences for those who committed the crimes Snowden committed -- regardless of what additional tidbits he may or may not have.

            And not to quibble but... well, I'll quibble.

            If, as now seems to be the case, both sides think a plea is worth exploring, one can't help but wonder why Cacheris' negotiations died aborning.
            Sometimes opinions are ventured by implication. I read that, particularly in the context of your second paragraph, as an implication of some form of malfeasance on the part of the government. If it truly was not your intent to imply any such thing, then fine, I misread you.

            "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

            by raptavio on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 08:58:12 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  oh, also too, (0+ / 0-)
            "The sun will rise tomorrow" is also speculation
            is an incredibly facile statement that implies that any such 'speculation' engaged in within this thread is drawing the obvious conclusion that can be readily relied upon.

            "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

            by raptavio on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 08:59:48 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Just a possibility: (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            raptavio, aimeehs
            I don't doubt that Putin has the authority to detain him rather than allow his return to the US... but why would he?
            The Russian government has had contact with Snowden that it rather the US not know about.  Like an extensive debriefing; Russia would not want the US to know either the questions it asked or the answers Snowden gave.

            The dossier on my DKos activities during the Bush administration will be presented on February 3, 2014, with an appendix consisting an adjudication, dated "a long time ago", that I am Wrong.

            by Inland on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 09:08:51 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Yet (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JVolvo, poligirl

      No plea agreement has been reached yet. The entire article makes it clear the conversation is ongoing.

      “Texas is a so-called red state, but you’ve got 10 million Democrats here in Texas. And …, there are a whole lot of people here in Texas who need us, and who need us to fight for them.” President Obama

      by Catte Nappe on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 09:13:19 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  that pledge of open transparent government (13+ / 0-)

    by the Obama administration......

    The Supreme Court heard arguments today over whether public employee who testify under subpoena at public corruption trials should be protected by the First Amendment.

    The position of President Barack Obama’s administration appears to be that they should not be protected.

    Unfortunately, the Obama administration believes it must have the power to retaliate and dissuade employees from engaging in speech that might embarrass or reflect poorly on the government.
    http://dissenter.firedoglake.com/...
    •  That post from FDL has some substantial errors (5+ / 0-)

      For one thing, it seems to give the impression the admin is party to the case, and it isn't. Furthermore, the admin's amica brief supported the terminated employee's free speech rights.

      “Texas is a so-called red state, but you’ve got 10 million Democrats here in Texas. And …, there are a whole lot of people here in Texas who need us, and who need us to fight for them.” President Obama

      by Catte Nappe on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 11:26:59 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I watch the ABC series "The Asset" (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PhilJD

    How Aldrich Ames , got ratted out by Soviet mole  , who was under Ames care

  •  The story doesn't suggest it "died aborning" (0+ / 0-)

    It indicates negotiations are still underway.

    “Texas is a so-called red state, but you’ve got 10 million Democrats here in Texas. And …, there are a whole lot of people here in Texas who need us, and who need us to fight for them.” President Obama

    by Catte Nappe on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 09:06:00 AM PDT

    •  I read "remained at an early stage" (6+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TheMomCat, poligirl, JVolvo, angel d, triv33, CenPhx

      as a way of saying "haven't been formally called off." Any negotiations that haven't advanced beyond an early stage after nearly a year aren't truly ongoing at all.

      Fascism in the mirror is nearer than it appears.

      by PhilJD on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 09:11:26 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Too many ideas floating in that aricle (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        PhilJD, poligirl

        What Snowden can bring to the table, what Snowden would accept (something less than a felony?), what hte lawyer has managed to get for other cases, however dissimilar in detail they might be, etc.

        If I had to say, I'd guess this little pop of a story is a floater to see what public responses might be to any deal.

        “Texas is a so-called red state, but you’ve got 10 million Democrats here in Texas. And …, there are a whole lot of people here in Texas who need us, and who need us to fight for them.” President Obama

        by Catte Nappe on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 09:18:35 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Snowden wouldn't reveal negotiation or strategies (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Catte Nappe

          I suppose one could say that's somewhat ironic, but it's for the best.  Neither will the USG.  

          The dossier on my DKos activities during the Bush administration will be presented on February 3, 2014, with an appendix consisting an adjudication, dated "a long time ago", that I am Wrong.

          by Inland on Thu May 01, 2014 at 10:14:00 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Negotiate? (11+ / 0-)

    We can't negotiate with people who embarrass #TeamBlue!! We can only negotiate with giant banks who broke the law and wrecked the economy....

    Tyrion Lannister: "It's not easy being drunk all the time. Everyone would do it if it were easy."

    by psychodrew on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 09:58:17 AM PDT

  •  Simple Answer (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Nada Lemming, DeadHead, angel d, CenPhx

    Anyone on the government side who says that they want a plea deal is lying.

    6/24/05: Charlie the Tuna Creator Dies En lieu of flowers, please bring mayonnaise, chopped celery and paprika.

    by LunkHead on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 12:00:36 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site