Do you mean: is it possible that the Post is correct that Snowden should not be pardoned? Yes, that's possible. There are reasonable arguments to be advanced against a pardon. IMHO these arguments are wrong, but as I said in my blog post, reasonable people can disagree.
But even if one suspends disbelief and concedes for the sake of argument that Snowden should not be pardoned (is that what you meant?) that in no way excuses what the Post did. The Post is not an disinterested observer here, it is an active participant in the events, at best a co-conspirator, and at worst the actual culpable party. The editorial is entirely self-serving, and worse (because this is supposed to be a newspaper) it doesn't acknowledge that it is entirely self-serving. And it is self-serving at the expense of a man who (and there can be no reasonable dispute over this) has taken great personal risk to bring wrong-doing by the government to light.
So no, I don't see any possibility of any kind of redemption here. There are only two possibilities: either the release of the information was a crime that should be punished, or it was not. If the former, then the Post is at least as culpable as Snowden if not more so, and it needs to turn over the people who made the decision to publish for prosecution (or at least advance an argument as to why they should not be prosecuted while Snowden should be -- I can't wait to hear that argument), and it probably needs to close its doors like the News of the World did. On the assumption that releasing the Snowden documents was illegal, what the Post did was much worse than what NoW did.