Actually I posted links with citations.
. We are talking about whether a clemency request should be granted at this time.
It shouldn't be. He was sentenced to life. That's what he should serve.
Your unlinked “links” had no citation but appeared to be lifted out of a Wikipedia article. Yes. I’ve tracked it down here:
The money quote “Some commentators identified this interview as a blatant violation of the plea agreement” is cited to one, yes ONE, opinion piece by Joseph C. Goulden, a writer of spy books, but not specially qualified to be clinching authority on this matter.
So, your “links with citations” is basically an empty set consisting of one unauthoritative authority.
To my statement “We are talking about whether a clemency request should be granted at this time” you replied:
“It shouldn’t be. He was sentenced to life. That’s what he should serve.”
When you’re losing the argument, change the topic. We’re not talking about clemency. We’re talking about Lurker’s g-d like power to decide there are some folks who don’t even deserve a discussion of clemency.
Think about your statement. It’s a tautology. Clemency means considering mitigating or other circumstances why a sentence, once imposed, should be reconsidered and shortened or otherwise ameliorated. Your statement says if you’re sentenced, you must not be entitled to clemency. Ergo, no one who is sentenced should even bother asking for clemency. The whole thing with presidents and governors granting clemency must be abolished. In your world, anyway.
I don’t know, nor do I inquire about your beliefs, but, I am compelled to say: “how very un-Christian of you” especially at this time of year.