Edward Snowden made a calm, compelling case for clemency last night. He's a patriot.

[JDPriestly]

180. He would argue, and I would agree, that he acted to protect the Constitution.

The jury pool has been prejudiced. The many fools (mostly not lawyers) who voiced their outrage at Snowden have sullied the jury pool beyond hope. He cannot get a fair trial. A trial would be a travesty.

Kerry is a lawyer and should have known better. Same for Obama. Even when the facts are obvious, you do not try and convict a person in press announcements. Not if you are a responsible authority.

And Kerry, Obama and all the politicians who condemn Snowden have not thought about the questionable constitutionality of the NSA's surveillance of Americans. They have acted as judge and jury. You would not like it if they did that to you because they thought something you did was illegal. A person has a right, under our Constitution to a fair trial. Again, what is most important? Revenge or our Constitution?

It takes discipline, self-discipline to respect human rights guaranteed by our Constitution. Apparently our leaders do not have the caution and self-discipline they need to have in this respect.

I can understand the frustration of our government in the face of Snowden's revelations about foreign surveillance. But they should have restrained the NSA from its excessive domestic surveillance. If law enforcement needs to get a warrant and place websites under surveillance, they should do it. Same for telephone and other electronic records. But it should be done as the Constitution requires on a case by case, person by person determination of probable cause.