I keep coming back to this thread like a sore tooth.

If the pardon was because the President believed the guy was innocent or that the punishment didn’t fit the crime, that’s one thing. But if so, wasn’t there an officer (Marine?) who was hammered for using a cell phone to pass on information about an impending attack because he couldn’t get through any other way? It seems to me that that would have been a far more deserving case.

If, however, it was just intended to be a dig at BJ Clinton’s wife I don’t see the justice in it. Some time ago (when I was in kindergarten, IIRC) I learned that two wrongs don’t make a right. If this guy did a wrong thing the fact that someone else did an even worse thing and got away with it is utterly immaterial. Such miscarriages occur all the time and there’s literally no way to absolutely prevent them. Our criminal “justice” system is subject to many serious flaws, but issuing a pardon just to make a political point would only weaken the system further.

Still, Trump allowed Saucier to serve his full prison sentence. He was released in September and returned to the Vermont home he shared with his wife Sadie and their two-year-old daughter.

The pardon allows removal of his ankle bracelet and clearing of his record.

Seems to me he did his time for the crime and seems to be a good bet that he can be a good citizen.

Now contrast that with pardons given by Obama upon his exit, and Hillary being given a free pass.

Justice was served, he committed a crime plead guilty and served his time.
The pardon does not give him that time back for which he spent in prison the first year of his daughters life.

Edited to add:
“While in prison, the family's cars were repossessed and his home is in foreclosure.”

Sounds like a very justifiable pardon to me.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: kimber1911,

quote:

Originally posted by BamaJeepster:

quote:

Originally posted by Ronin1069:
Ummm...why is this a good thing?

He was a machinist working in the engine room; he took pictures of the propulsion system.

He attempted to hide the evidence.

Why should he be pardoned? With the way some in our military play fast-and-lose with classified info, I'm having a hard time finding any sympathy for this guy.

See my post above. Is there any evidence the photo damaged national security?

If not, then you can't enforce a law for low level people and have separate laws for high level people.

Either the laws apply equally or they need to be taken off the books.

Ideally, they would be applied equally. This guy was briefed, he knew the rules so he should be punished. But, if you are not holding everyone in the system to that standard, then it's selective prosecution and should be done away with.

If it did do damage to National Security, it would be too late. Im certain he knew better. He served a year so I bet he knows better now. But yes, whats good for the goose. And it would give me great pleasure to see most of the obama people pay for their deeds.

I disagree with this man being pardoned. Great, he served out his prison term, but he still broke the law and violated the standards for controlling classified material. To start, why did he have a camera inside the engine room?

We don't 'equally' enforce the law, by excusing the little guys violation because you can't catch the big fish. You put in the work and fry them both. This isn't 'selective prosecution' because Hillary got away with it; just means she's smart enough to not make easy mistakes, or the system surrounding her was too corrupt to trust.

quote:

Originally posted by domcintosh:
I disagree with this man being pardoned. Great, he served out his prison term, but he still broke the law and violated the standards for controlling classified material. To start, why did he have a camera inside the engine room?

We don't 'equally' enforce the law, by excusing the little guys violation because you can't catch the big fish. You put in the work and fry them both. This isn't 'selective prosecution' because Hillary got away with it; just means she's smart enough to not make easy mistakes, or the system surrounding her was too corrupt to trust.

Said the Trump-hating Hillary voter, hmmm?

I spent lots of time in engine rooms on nuclear powered US Navy ships. I wouldn't even have dreamed of taking pictures in the engine room - or for that matter, anywhere on the inside of the ship. The Navy had a way of convincing me confidential meant just that.

quote:

Originally posted by PASig:

quote:

Originally posted by domcintosh:
I disagree with this man being pardoned. Great, he served out his prison term, but he still broke the law and violated the standards for controlling classified material. To start, why did he have a camera inside the engine room?

We don't 'equally' enforce the law, by excusing the little guys violation because you can't catch the big fish. You put in the work and fry them both. This isn't 'selective prosecution' because Hillary got away with it; just means she's smart enough to not make easy mistakes, or the system surrounding her was too corrupt to trust.

Said the Trump-hating Hillary voter, hmmm?

No. Says the Naval Submarine Officer with eleven years of service, processing and safe guarding classified material from the minor "for official use only" to the stringent "special compartmentalized information." Either the standards for controlling classified material matter, or there is a weak political maneuver of a petty individual.

I disagree with the carnival barker pardoning an Enlisted Submariner for taking pictures of the engine room, and your response is to imply I was okay with that harridan's use of private server to process her government emails? An untold number of which have been properly marked as classified upon review.

I didn't vote at the top of the ticket, because neither one of them were worth it and the cost benefit comparison between the two was null.

The "Carnival Barker" allowed Saucier to serve his full prison sentence.

I am guessing the never Trumper just did not like the ankle bracelet being removed.

Was the punishment not enough?

Was his sentence a bit harsh due to political climate when he was sentenced?

quote:

Originally posted by kimber1911:
Still, Trump allowed Saucier to serve his full prison sentence. He was released in September and returned to the Vermont home he shared with his wife Sadie and their two-year-old daughter.

The pardon allows removal of his ankle bracelet and clearing of his record.

Seems to me he did his time for the crime and seems to be a good bet that he can be a good citizen.

Now contrast that with pardons given by Obama upon his exit, and Hillary being given a free pass.

Justice was served, he committed a crime plead guilty and served his time.
The pardon does not give him that time back for which he spent in prison the first year of his daughters life.

Sounds like a very justifiable pardon to me.

I agree. He made a mistake and a year is very harsh punishment for what he did if you look at the facts of the case. Hell, there are Navy officers killing people due to negligence and they won't ever see jail time for it. You don't think the "different spanks for different ranks" concept doesn't apply in this case?

A felony makes it a life long sentence. Dude will be riding on the back of a trash truck for the rest of his life. That's ridiculous and the pardon is definitely warranted. Let him move on with his life.

I don't know how big of infraction the submariner's is. While it could appear to be a harmless selfie, what's in the background could mean much. Strange if these photos are now public that they contain protected intelligence. How did that happen.

Possibly only one poster in thread knows how cases like this are normally handled, and how often prosecution among enlisted men occurs. Few here know what kind of training and warnings sailors are given and how clearly they should know this shit doesn't fly.

Rules are rules and sometimes an example must be made. His case has been used as a comparison to Shillary's crimes extensively, and maybe that helps to put hers' in perspective.

This case may also help keep her crimes in the spotlight and may be the reason behind the pardon. I don't like to make this accusation without more info, but this could be popular action by DT. That he's caved to small actions that can make him and his party more popular in elections. If that is the reason behind it, I hope the positives to this action outweigh the negatives.

This action likely improves morale more than it dilutes protecting secrets.

Not following, what are the negatives to the pardon?

quote:

Originally posted by kimber1911:
Not following, what are the negatives to the pardon?

Implies to all that rules don't have to be followed or aren't as strict.

He should not have been prosecuted to begin with. This mistake should have been handled with non-judicial punishment at the unit level and that sailor should still be serving. The President righted an overreaching prosecution. What Hillary did was far more egregious and deserving of prosecution.

quote:

Originally posted by pbslinger:

quote:

Originally posted by kimber1911:
Not following, what are the negatives to the pardon?

Implies to all that rules don't have to be followed or aren't as strict.

Or "undoes" an injustice.

quote:

Originally posted by smschulz:

quote:

Originally posted by pbslinger:

quote:

Originally posted by kimber1911:
Not following, what are the negatives to the pardon?

Implies to all that rules don't have to be followed or aren't as strict.

Or "undoes" an injustice.

We have an 11 year sub commander posting the sentence was just.

quote:

Originally posted by pbslinger:

We have an 11 year sub commander posting the sentence was just.

We have a Never Trumper who has and would criticize every action taken by Trump.

I had a security clearance for 10 years and attended all the briefings and classes on handling classified data. The pic contained the lowest level classification and had zero effect on national security. Making that exemplary sailor a felon for life while not prosecuting others for far worse is a travesty that needed to be addressed. It was not a matter of “two wrongs”.

quote:

Originally posted by BamaJeepster:

quote:

Originally posted by pbslinger:

We have an 11 year sub commander posting the sentence was just.

We have a Never Trumper who has and would criticize every action taken by Trump.

I had a security clearance for 10 years and attended all the briefings and classes on handling classified data. The pic contained the lowest level classification and had zero effect on national security. Making that exemplary sailor a felon for life while not prosecuting others for far worse is a travesty that needed to be addressed. It was not a matter of “two wrongs”.

Being essentially unaware of rules and incidence of prosecution regarding secret keeping, I hope you are right that the pardon is correct and justified.

quote:

Originally posted by domcintosh:
I disagree with the carnival barker pardoning an Enlisted Submariner for taking pictures of the engine room...

You can take that shit elsewhere. You're blind as a bat. You cannot see what the President has done for this nation.
Never again do I want to see this shit from you. You know where you are and you know our attitudes towards the President.
Your desire for Hillary Clinton to be POTUS shows that you're nowhere near as bright as you obviously think yourself to be.

You are in the wrong forum, parner. It's as a simple as that. You need to go some place where your stupid ilk can share their stupid opinions. Go wallow in your ignorance, elsewhere.

quote:

Originally posted by BamaJeepster:

quote:

Originally posted by pbslinger:

We have an 11 year sub commander posting the sentence was just.

We have a Never Trumper who has and would criticize every action taken by Trump.

I had a security clearance for 10 years and attended all the briefings and classes on handling classified data. The pic contained the lowest level classification and had zero effect on national security.

You left out that it was also unintentional. He didn't take this picture for the intent of espionage, or even dissemination to a wider audience. In the civilian world this would have amounted to next to nothing.

quote:

Originally posted by AirmanJeff:
You left out that it was also unintentional. He didn't take this picture for the intent of espionage, or even dissemination to a wider audience. In the civilian world this would have amounted to next to nothing.

Exactly. Good point.