I'm not sure he would have a choice if asked to, nor would he be allowed to say anything else.
He still could be correct, but his status makes it hard to simply believe what he says outright.
He still could be correct, but his status makes it hard to simply believe what he says outright.
His answers to Williams’ questions are incredibly compelling and very fascinating. He explains in detail why he did exactly what he did, how he evades surveillance in Russia, why he won’t come home, among other issues. His one condition for returning home was a trial by jury, which DOJ wouldn’t give him.
He’s incredibly confident that he would be found innocent in a jury trial, pointing out that DOJ has had six years to dig up and leak anything they could find on him, and yet they haven’t. In addition, the programs he blew the whistle on were shut down after their disclosure, indicating that he was justified in bringing them to the public’s attention.
I can’t recommend actually listening to him enough instead of reading his words. He’s an incredible speaker who makes a very compelling argument around his current situation.
But yeah as far as a legal mechanism the jury can't say "well he met the requirements of public interest and the law says that means he's innocent / should go free".
Russia has a track record of intimidating or killing journalists and political activists and has an aggressive anti-spy program. It's really hard to believe the official narrative that a former NSA employee with technical skills and security clearance shows up in Russia and after he refused to cooperate they "didn't know what to do with him" so they left him alone. I find it hard to believe they don't have someone tracking him 24/7.
The US was fighting tooth and nail to get Snowden extradited in the early days of his escape. After that their strongest public statements have been encouraging him to "repatriate and defend himself in court" which they know he's not going to do.
The more likely scenario seems that the US and Russia are already getting what they want from Snowden or are perhaps simply negotiating the price of his return with the US acting like they don't care and Russia calling their bluff by letting him make public appearances.
US intelligence agencies generally hunting down every last spy or leaker is just not a thing historically. They have "given up" on such people to the extent that they don't take extra ordinary measures many many times in the past.
Russia has done the same, or at least did regularly during the cold war. Recent history is a bit different and difficult to compare though with Russia as the motivations and who is in charge of what security service do not all appear to be aligned for any given person.
The US doesn't win much besides PR by getting their hands on Snowden at this point. The things he revealed have already had their consequences. Similarly, on the Russian side, it doesn't cost them anything to harbor Snowden, but it does make for a flashy middle finger to the United States.
I'm fairly convinced (through a tin-foil hat sort of way) that Russia did something to steer Snowden into Russia. Hypothetically: Snowden's flight plan was rerouted into Russia after Snowden fled Hong Kong (when Hong Kong announced it was going to cooperate and extradite Snowden).
Snowden's ideal target to run to was Ecuador (who at the time, was hosting Julian Assange). The difficulty was routing a flight plan from Hong Kong to Ecuador without touching a US-controlled location. They routed the flight plan through Russia and... well... Russia probably wanted him. So Russia kept him.
You shouldn't be "pardoned" of a crime that you haven't been put on trial for yet.
------------
BTW: What do you feel about some other presidential pardons? Do you think it was fair for Joe Arpaio to be pardoned even after the courts found him guilty of a crime? There's nothing "fair" about pardons. A pardon is a way for the President to value-signal that certain crimes were worth it. In the case of Joe Arpaio, Trump reinforces his values.
Court is about being fair: Jury decides based on the evidence. And the court stays in session until the Jury is unanimous.
Given how the current President has used the pardoning system, I'm not exactly confident in it anymore.
The fact of the matter is: Arpaio demonstrates that some pardons can be "unfair". I don't think you can expect to get a system of "fairness" when pardons are in play. In contrast, I still personally have great confidence in the jury system.
Why mess with the golden goose? They just let Snowden do his thing, he doesn't have any useful intel for them as they are running the same types of programs.
You are correct that if Russia didn't like what he is saying he'd be in detention. They really like how he embarasses US.