Anyways, I wonder why he still keeps with the story that Mr. Snowden should have contacted his superiors first before going public. We all know what would have happened in that case (i.e nothing); why does he answer like we are stupid?
Snowden never intended to go to Russia (it's the fault of the US that that happened). And as far as I know there's no proof that he revealed anything to the Russian government. In fact, he claims to no longer have the documents (he deleted them after giving them to journalists).
I hope you can do better than "He is a liar!", because given what he did and why he did it - the benefit of the doubt is deserved.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/18/world/snowden-says-he-took...
http://www.infoplease.com/us/government/presidential-pardons...
He's going to anyway, why not flex your muscles before Trump undoes essentially Obama's entire "legacy?" To quote Trump, "what does [he] have to lose?"
You neglected to mention Marc Rich, poster boy for a "bought and paid for pardon". His crimes:
In 1983 Rich and partner Pincus Green were indicted on 65 criminal counts, including income tax evasion, wire fraud, racketeering, and trading with Iran during the oil embargo (at a time when Iranian revolutionaries were still holding American citizens hostage).
Who pardoned him? None other than Democrat Bill Clinton. As Wikipedia summarizes it:
On January 20, 2001, hours before leaving office, U.S. President Bill Clinton granted Rich a highly controversial presidential pardon. Several of Clinton's strongest supporters distanced themselves from the decision. Former President Jimmy Carter, a fellow Democrat, said, "I don't think there is any doubt that some of the factors in his pardon were attributable to his large gifts. In my opinion, that was disgraceful." Clinton himself later expressed regret for issuing the pardon, saying that "it wasn't worth the damage to my reputation."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Rich#U.S._indictment_and_...