Patterico's Pontifications

9/18/2020

Report: Trump Offered Assange Pardon in Return for Dirt on a Political Opponent

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 8:29 am



That doesn’t sound like the Donald Trump I know. Reuters:

A lawyer for Julian Assange told a London court on Friday that she was present when an ally of U.S. President Donald Trump offered to arrange a pardon for the WikiLeaks founder in return for information that would “benefit President Trump politically”.

(Period inside the quotation marks, Reuters. Inside.) So what, specifically, was offered?

She [Assange’s lawyer Jennifer Robinson] said Rohrabacher and an assistant offered to arrange a pardon for Assange in return for information about the hacking of Democratic emails before the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

“They stated that President Trump was aware of and had approved of them coming to meet with Mr Assange to discuss a proposal – and that they would have an audience with the President to discuss the matter on their return to Washington DC,” she said.

“The proposal put forward by Congressman Rohrabacher was that Mr. Assange identify the source for the 2016 election publications in return for some form of pardon, assurance or agreement, which would both benefit President Trump politically and prevent U.S. indictment and extradition,” Robinson said.

Trump fans, you can play your game about the librul media and the sourcing and how Rohrabacher was a rogue agent acting without authorization and the thing. Just go in the corner and keep your voices down. Adults are talking.

Before the frog was boiled, information suggesting that the president had explicitly offered to trade an exercise of his power for political purposes would have stunned the world. In fact, just such a revelation led to this president’s impeachment.

But since, we have learned that members of his party in the Senate will vote to keep him in office regardless of what he does, and he has piled atrocity upon atrocity, so that a staggering betrayal like this just seems like another day. Commute Roger Stone’s sentence so he won’t spill the beans about Trump’s communication with Wikileaks? Yawn. Command your troll of a U.S. Attorney to open an investigation into why your criminality was investigated, with the intent of releasing a “report” (which prosecutors who aren’t special counsels don’t do) just before the election? No big deal.

I’m told real frogs actually jump out as the temperature rises. The boiling frog thing is just a fable. We can still jump out, folks. We have 46 days.

87 Responses to “Report: Trump Offered Assange Pardon in Return for Dirt on a Political Opponent”

  1. Assange was the darling of the Democrats and the media until he exposed them. If he was exposing Trump and Republicans instead, he would’ve been out of jeopardy years ago.

    beer ‘n pretzels (25b6ed)

  2. At least Trump did this one right, using a loyal caporegime bound by omerta as a cutout to make the offer Assange couldn’t refuse.

    nk (1d9030)

  3. yes they only cared when the medias arrangement with the clinton campaign was unveiled, they piled up loads of pulitzers, on bradley manning and edward snowden, who defected to russia, like edward lee howard, not suspicious at all,

    bolivar de gris (7404b5)

  4. Assange was the darling of the Democrats and the media until he exposed them. If he was exposing Trump and Republicans instead, he would’ve been out of jeopardy years ago.

    If grandma had wheels, we could use her as a shopping cart.

    nk (1d9030)

  5. none dare call it treason, if treason doth prosper,

    https://legalinsurrection.com/2020/09/despite-opposition-at-un-u-s-to-snapback-sanctions-on-iran/

    bolivar de gris (7404b5)

  6. Trump fans, you can play your game about the librul media and the sourcing and how Rohrabacher was a rogue agent acting without authorization and the thing. Just go in the corner and keep your voices down.

    You should just put them in moderation.

    Adults are talking.

    That is an interesting sequence of words used to describe this situation.

    frosty (f27e97)

  7. “you can play your game about the librul media…”
    __ _

    Jerry Burnes
    @JerryBurnes_MT

    Just spoke with a rep of union hosting @JoeBiden today. They just received a timeline. Was surprised by the apparent Minnesota media blackout. Asked what the point of coming is if only national coverage.
    __ _

    ((DarkTechObserver))
    @DarkTechMonitor
    ·
    The Biden campaign only trusts the national news. You might not be sycophantic, and might report his negative comments on mining or coal if/when he makes them.
    __ _

    Rick Hartman
    @RhartmanI
    ·
    Very True, seems similar to the Pennsylvania Anthracite coal region events of Scranton, Moosic (last night ) and Old Forge. Nothing local in terms of press.
    __ _

    liBRuL MedIA
    _

    harkin (a7d74f)

  8. “You should just put them in moderation.”

    – frosty

    Why stop there? I wouldn’t.

    Leviticus (efada1)

  9. Unreal. He needs to go.

    Time123 (ae9d89)

  10. “Assange was the darling of the Democrats and the media until he exposed them.”

    Assange was compromised by Russia in 2010.

    Davethulhu (b2f8af)

  11. Like Trump’s diddling Ms. Dorris, this scandal is already baked in.
    The story isn’t new. Trump-Rohrabacher deny that they conspired, so it’s hard to see it going further. It’s just one of many Trump corruptions that his supporters will ignore/downplay and his critics will play up.

    Paul Montagu (1fbb64)

  12. I can’t see how this will matter to the average Trump voter, either. Nothing seems to matter to the average Trump voter other than Trump getting elected, as far as I can tell.

    @1 This is objectively false. We know it is objectively false because we’ve been trying to get Assange extradited to us since 2010, so much so, in fact, that he hid in the Ecuadorian embassy for most of the last decade. Obama, a Democrat, was the president trying to have him extradited.

    Nic (896fdf)

  13. I’m still having trouble getting over the whole quotation marks inside a period thing. It’s giving me angina.

    JVW (ee64e4)

  14. we’ve been trying to get Assange extradited to us since 2010

    Yeah, because of the Chelsea Manning leak. Manning, who had his/her sentence commuted by Obama, was offered a Harvard fellowship and floated a run for Senate. In other words, feted, as Assange would’ve been instead of seeking refuge in Ecuador’s embassy, if only he had the right friends which comes with being on the right side.

    beer ‘n pretzels (25b6ed)

  15. Leviticus (efada1) — 9/18/2020 @ 9:30 am

    Why stop there? I wouldn’t.

    It is the easiest way to make a point or win an argument.

    frosty (f27e97)

  16. Patterico, you may want to update the post to reflect that lawyers for the US have accepted what she testified to as accurate. That kind of takes the ‘liberal media’ part out of it.

    Per the Daily Beast the lawyer (who was under oath at the time) said they specifically offered a pardon to state that Russia wasn’t the source. Lawyers representing the US accepted this testimony as accurate.

    Trump, and the rest of the current GOP leadership, really is corrupt to an unprecedented level.

    Robinson said the two Americans claimed to be emissaries from Washington and “wanted us to believe they were acting on behalf of the president.” The pair allegedly told Assange that they could help grant him a pardon in exchange for him revealing information about the source of the WikiLeaks information that proved it was not the Russians who hacked Democratic emails.

    After Robinson read her testimony in a London courtroom on Friday, lawyers representing the U.S. accepted the witness statement as accurate and confirmed they had no intention of cross-examining the claim. They did dispute, however, that President Donald Trump gave his blessing for the pardon offer.

    Time123 (f5cf77)

  17. It’s despicable that the anti-Tumpers support elder abuse. “Have you no sense of decency…”

    Horatio (67ad26)

  18. @14 Could you please explain how your logic works in this?

    It seems like you are saying that Obama, darling of the left, loved Manning so much that he charged them with a crime and threw them in jail. But because he loved them so much, he was trying to arrest and jail, but definitely would have loved, Julian Assange? Because that doesn’t make any sense.

    Or are you saying that if only Manning hadn’t done a crime harmful to the US and Assange hadn’t aided them in doing a crime harming the US, there-bye allegedly committing a crime in the US, then we wouldn’t have tried to charge him with a crime? And that if he hadn’t allegedly committed a crime which harmed the US than people wouldn’t be upset (and/or not upset) at him because he allegedly committed a crime harming the US? Because that doesn’t make any sense either. If Jeffrey Dahmer hadn’t killed and eaten people, I’m sure everyone would think he’s was a great guy.

    Or are you saying that Democrats love Manning so much that they lost in a Democratic primary by 75 points, which is proof of that love and so they would also obv. love Assange enough to also cause him to drastically and ignobly lose a primary for elective office in the US?

    Nic (896fdf)

  19. Time123 (f5cf77) — 9/18/2020 @ 10:25 am

    I think there’s another takeaway from that quote:

    Robinson said the two Americans claimed to be emissaries from Washington and “wanted us to believe they were acting on behalf of the president.”

    and

    lawyers representing the U.S. accepted the witness statement as accurate and confirmed they had no intention of cross-examining the claim. They did dispute, however, that President Donald Trump gave his blessing for the pardon offer.

    That is, the “claim” is that the emissaries “wanted us to believe they were acting on behalf of the president” which the lawyers accepted but they disputed “Trump gave his blessing for the pardon offer”.

    The matter being asserted in this quote goes to the intent of the emissaries not to the truth of the underlying claim that they were in fact acting on behalf of the president.

    frosty (f27e97)

  20. If this story is true, and I have no doubt it is, why is it coming out now? You can argue political opportunism or timing all day long, but the simple fact is that this information was not revealed until a lawyer for Assange (who is on trial in London) exposed it. Years after the fact, admittedly, but still factual, as the testimony was under oath.

    All this story really tells is that Trump was obsessed over the 2016 election. The reason why is that he himself couldn’t believe he won the electoral college. End of story. And he’s still fighting the last war. That is what cadets in military colleges are taught not to do.

    Trump is a complete failure, a total fraud. It’s time for the Republican party to admit that.

    Gawain's Ghost (b25cd1)

  21. The Daily Beast
    @thedailybeast

    Lawyers representing the U.S. at Julian Assange’s extradition trial have accepted the claim that the WikiLeaks founder was offered a presidential pardon on the condition that he would help cover up Russia’s involvement in hacking emails from the DNC
    __ _

    Gabriel Malor
    @gabrielmalor

    Note: headline is misleading, and you have to read eight paragraphs into the piece to find out that

    (1) The U.S. lawyers are “not contesting” that Rep. Rohrabacher made the offer (how could they know?); but also
    (2) The U.S. lawyers say Rohrabacher was lying.
    __ _

    Nathan Horuskii
    @horuskii
    ·
    Haha, this language could be boilerplate in every tweet “Note: headline is misleading, and you have to read eight paragraphs into the piece to find that out”
    __ _

    Jamin Grey Billed cap
    @JaminGrey

    And about 1/3rd of the time it should say:
    “…to find out the opposite actually occured.”
    _

    harkin (a7d74f)

  22. Frosty, you’re correct. I wasn’t trying to hide that. Only highlight that they’re accepting her statements as accurate.

    Time123 (f5cf77)

  23. In what way is this different from normal DOJ lawyers extending an offer of some level of immunity in exchange for truthful testimony? Doesn’t that happen every day? Don’t those lawyers work for the Attorney General and therefore the President?

    It’s a little stronger and more impressive than the technicalities of immunity, to be sure. But having seen the Flynn prosecution who wouldn’t want a guarantee from the top that trumps DOJ lawyers + Washington DC judges?

    Is there an accusation that Rep. Rohrabacher is suborning perjury?

    Ingot9455 (20adc8)

  24. one forgets that mark warner had a back channel to assange, who also worked for deripaska, who also employed jonathan winer, as well as christopher steele,

    https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2020/09/steelers-star-i-should-have-done-more-research-before-honoring-drive-by-shooter.php

    bolivar de gris (7404b5)

  25. HUH/2020

    mg (8cbc69)

  26. @25 from the lawyer’s letter, it doesn’t look like they were offering him a chance to testify in court in exchange for immunity, it looks like they were offering a quid pro quo where Assange gave Trump information and then the charges would get dropped.

    Nic (896fdf)

  27. Has Mr. Pouncey been called the other 4-letter “c” word yet?

    urbanleftbehind (60d344)

  28. I wonder why assange didn’t go for it?

    Time123 (f5cf77)

  29. @30

    I wonder why assange didn’t go for it?

    Time123 (f5cf77) — 9/18/2020 @ 11:33 am

    Because, if true, that would likely destroy wikileak. They exist to “leak” stuff so that the leakers can remain anonymous.

    whembly (c30c83)

  30. I’m still having trouble getting over the whole quotation marks inside a period thing. It’s giving me angina.

    I blame … well, you know who I blame.

    Dave (1bb933)

  31. @13

    I’m still having trouble getting over the whole quotation marks inside a period thing. It’s giving me angina.

    JVW (ee64e4) — 9/18/2020 @ 10:09 am

    Same.

    That, and now folks pushing that you only need ONE space after a period.

    NEIN! I will always be a ‘period followed by two spaces’ dude.

    whembly (c30c83)

  32. Also… I think this is an old news story repackaged again. (looks at the calendar… Nov 3rd is coming up quick!)

    https://theintercept.com/2018/02/14/dana-rohrabacher-trump-russia-wikileaks-julian-assange/
    Congressman Rohrabacer tried to brief Trump about this but John Kelly blocked him.

    whembly (c30c83)

  33. Alan Dershowitz wants you to know that this isn’t a problem.

    Dave (1bb933)

  34. @33, I admire your ambition. I just aspire to get most of the right punctuation on the page.

    Time123 (f5cf77)

  35. Period inside the quotation marks, Reuters. Inside.

    It’s done either way now.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  36. I guess Biden’s rep made a better offer, since the dirt they are delivering is on Trump.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  37. By delivering dirt do you mean “Sworn testimony in court that’s accepted by lawyers for the US”?

    Time123 (f5cf77)

  38. Before the frog was boiled, information suggesting that the president had explicitly offered to trade an exercise of his power for political purposes would have stunned the world. In fact, just such a revelation led to this president’s impeachment.

    So, a prosecutor cuts a deal with a felon to get the facts of a crime and this is “prosecutorial discretion.” A President cuts a deal with a felon to get the facts of a crime and this is the worst thing imaginable.

    Let’s look at what was said, and then look at how this is spun:

    She [Assange’s lawyer Jennifer Robinson] said Rohrabacher and an assistant offered to arrange a pardon for Assange in return for information about the hacking of Democratic emails before the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

    Assange has always said that his sources were not the Russians. Trump’s detractors have always said that the Wikileaks releases were provided by Putin (and therefore that Trump was somehow Putin’s puppet). Trump offers a pardon if Assange would come clean and out his sources — something Assange obviously would rather not do.

    This is spun as an evil plot to “get dirt on opponents” when NONE of this is about getting dirt on opponents. It’s just blatant spin.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  39. Seems more like Assange figures that Trump is a goner and hopes by his lawyer dissing Trump to get the pardon from Biden. So, by dishing Dirt on a Biden opponent he hopes to get a pardon. And he probably will.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  40. Or maybe Patterico is alleging that Trump’s surrogates were suborning perjury in exchange for a pardon. If so, that would be both terrible and stupid, as the perjury would be a crime, too. But if they are offering a pardon for the truth of the matter — and perhaps evidence to back up the proof like the name(s) of the leakers — how is this even objectionable? It’s what prosecutors do EVERY day.

    I just don’t get the spin at all. Isn’t getting the truth a good thing? Or is the existing narrative too precious?

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  41. In any event, please find mew the part of the lawyer’s statement that indicates how Trump was getting dirt on a political opponent, like it says it the BIG BOLD HEADLINE. And which opponent? Did Biden leak all that stuff? I don’t get it. If you can’t find it, please retract.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  42. The pardon was only on offer if Assange’s account of “the truth” accorded with Trump’s political needs.

    Dave (1bb933)

  43. Assange had already provided the dirt.

    Now they were trying to cover the trail.

    Dave (1bb933)

  44. I’m still having trouble getting over the whole quotation marks inside a period thing. It’s giving me angina.

    JVW (ee64e4) — 9/18/2020 @ 10:09 am

    Omg, I always forget the rule. Now I’m afraid that P was not just scolding Reuters but me too, and I really need to go through every post I’ve ever written to make sure I’ve done it correctly!

    Dana (292df6)

  45. Obama gave cash
    Americans took it
    in the azz

    mg (8cbc69)

  46. “Omg, I always forget the rule. Now I’m afraid that P was not just scolding Reuters but me too, and I really need to go through every post I’ve ever written to make sure I’ve done it correctly!”

    It feels wrong, especially when you’re not quoting a whole sentence.

    Davethulhu (b2f8af)

  47. @49 I agree.

    norcal (a5428a)

  48. Or maybe Patterico is alleging that Trump’s surrogates were suborning perjury in exchange for a pardon. If so, that would be both terrible and stupid, as the perjury would be a crime, too. But if they are offering a pardon for the truth of the matter — and perhaps evidence to back up the proof like the name(s) of the leakers — how is this even objectionable? It’s what prosecutors do EVERY day.

    I just don’t get the spin at all. Isn’t getting the truth a good thing? Or is the existing narrative too precious?

    Kevin M (ab1c11) — 9/18/2020 @ 1:01 pm

    Why do you assume they cared if it was true? That isn’t snark. I can’t think of anything the Trump administration has done, or said, that would lead me to believe that was their goal.

    A prosecutor doing it with oversight and per an established process is a different thing entirely.

    For instance if Cumo (or any Dem governor) offered to issue a pardon to Trumps accountants if they were willing to reveal (not necessarily under oath) that Trump was laundering Russian money it would be an abuse over power. Just like it would if they announced they were opening an investigation into that that wasn’t based on a proper predicate.

    Time123 (f5cf77)

  49. 49.

    That’s what elipses are for…

    Gryph (f63000)

  50. he has piled atrocity upon atrocity, so that a staggering betrayal like this just seems like another day

    Atrocity and betrayal? In 1985 DEA agent Kiki Camarena was tortured and murdered. There’s convincing evidence this was related to CIA operations with Mexican drug cartels that involved high level officials in Mexico and the US. At least more convincing evidence than Trump being a Russian mole who increased sanctions on Russia and is now trying to cover his tracks. Does anyone even know about Camarena or did it fade into the past to be replaced by concerns over reports, communications, and leaks?

    frosty (f27e97)

  51. 51. Plea deals are offered on a regular basis in state and magistrate-level criminal prosecutions, a fact which I’ve often questioned the ethics behind.

    What boggles me is the idea that Trump is somehow unique in attempting this kind of backroom dealing; politicians gon’ politique, after all. That this would be brought up this late in the campaign season just reeks of desperation.

    Gryph (f63000)

  52. frosty @53-
    There’s convincing evidence……

    Where? Please provide a link. Thanks.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  53. That this would be brought up this late in the campaign season just reeks of desperation.

    It was brought up at an extradition hearing in London which was postponed from an earlier date due to the pandemic. I doubt they timed it to the US election.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  54. 56. How recent was this extradition hearing, and did Pat learn this from some privileged source, or from a news wire? (Oh look! REUTERS!)

    Maybe Reuters would have posted this to the wire had the hearing taken place on its originally scheduled day. I dunno. But it does reek of desperation to me, and I don’t even like Trump.

    Gryph (f63000)

  55. How many ways can you say “Trump is a bad person” before people who agree with you get sick of hearing it ad infinitum?

    Gryph (f63000)

  56. @57 It looks like the hearing was today, but in London, so 6-9 hrs ahead of us. Plenty of time to make the US news.

    Nic (896fdf)

  57. Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 9/18/2020 @ 2:39 pm

    Where? Please provide a link. Thanks.

    Does anyone even know about Camarena or did it fade[ed] into the past

    I like the selective quote though; let’s try

    There’s convincing evidence … At least more convincing evidence than Trump being a Russian mole who increased sanctions on Russia and is now trying to cover his tracks.

    If you want to debate it you can do your own research.

    frosty (f27e97)

  58. Gryph @57-
    How recent was this extradition hearing….
    Today, Friday:

    A lawyer for Julian Assange told a London court on Friday that she was present when an ally of U.S. President Donald Trump offered to arrange a pardon for the WikiLeaks founder in return for information that would “benefit President Trump politically”.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  59. Gryph @ 58-
    How many ways can you say “Trump is a bad person” before people who agree with you get sick of hearing it ad infinitum?
    Let me count the ways……pretty much to infinity.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  60. Rohrabacher was an Orange County, California ‘Reaganite’ [source, Anne Applebaum, WaPo.] You know, a fellow traveler w/that Hollywood CIC fella caught secretly trading arms for hostages.

    Adults have spoken: loud and clear. Conservative ideologues have been Bill Buckley’d out of relevance in the GOP.

    Glorious.

    Gee, isn’t too bad Biden quit his run in 1988, too. What with so many conservative ideologue-types willing to abandon their principles, betray their party, overlook his patterns of plagiarism and fabrications and openly embrace, support and vote for Biden simply because they’re no longer relevant and JoeyBee is not Trump. America could have been spared the evil, sinister hell of the Bush-Quayle years, the Dukakas ‘tank trap’, Crazy Ross and all things Clinton-Gore. 😉

    Remember what Winner Trump and humiliated Loser Romney dined on in Manhattan?

    Frog legs.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  61. DCSCA (797bc0) — 9/18/2020 @ 3:35 pm

    There are so many ironic, funny, and ridiculous things about this election cycle. Somewhere in the top 100 is that Trump hasn’t had to recycle any of the gaffes that sunk Biden’s earlier runs. Each day brings a new bounty.

    frosty (f27e97)

  62. frosty @61-
    I was more interested in the reference to Camarena, I have never believed Trump was a Russian troll, which is why I edited it out of my question. The CIA reference is pretty thin gruel.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  63. What does Kiki Camarena have to do with anything except as a swipe at Reagan not ever a friend of Russia?

    nk (1d9030)

  64. @65. “Scranton versus Park Avenue” is Plagiarist JoeyBee’s latest hand grenade dropped down his pajamas.
    A: Trump lived on Manhattan’s Fifth Avenue, not Park Avenue.
    B: Biden got a helluva lot more $ donations to his campaign from Park Avenue residents and corporations than from Scranton residents.
    C: My late grandmother was born in Scranton, Pennsylvania; Biden left when he was 10; hasn’t lived in Scranton for 67 years.
    D: The blue collar poor mouth routine doesn’t wash; when Biden was elected to the Senate in 1972, his salary was $42,500/yr. In today’s $, adjusted for inflation, that’s over $250,000/yr., ‘more than four times the median HH income’ [source, CNS.com] And his salary rose during his Senate and VP years.
    E. And, of course, he’s an idiot.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  65. When discussing Biden’s plagiarism, don’t overlook his tendency to assault women – even in front of the camera. Unwanted kisses, nuzzles, and shoulder rubs. Even to young girls.

    But he’s so…principled.

    Hoi Polloi (dc4124)

  66. The pardon was only on offer if Assange’s account of “the truth” accorded with Trump’s political needs.

    Says who? Assange’s lawyer? In actual testimony with actual cross-examination? How such conjecture goes uncontested is amazing.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  67. What happened to

    Helsinki!

    No strawberries for you, Comrade Captain Trump! Borscht!

    Different directive from раздел дезинформации (Razdel Dezinformatsii), eh, Comrade DCSCA? The point then was to make Trump look weak; the point now that he has been proven to be weak to keep him in power?

    nk (1d9030)

  68. I can’t think of anything the Trump administration has done, or said, that would lead me to believe that was their goal.

    Just because it matches your prejudices does not make anything about that statement true. Starting with them being agents of Trump. As I said: spin.

    And again, which opponent did the lawyer identify? Or even allude to? In the quotes provides she did not make any such claim, nor did she suggest that her client was being asked to lie. I guess it’s possible that he demurred because he could not back up his prior assertions, which Trump partisans might still believe. And I’m sure that when he gets the pardon from Biden, he’ll accuse Trump very publicly of being behind the whole plot. I’ve read my Orwell.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  69. >a prosecutor cuts a deal with a felon to get the facts of a crime and this is “prosecutorial discretion.”

    Sure. So why was Rohrbacher even involved?

    >A President cuts a deal with a felon to get the facts of a crime and this is the worst thing imaginable.

    There is absolutely no basis for believing that the President is trying to get the facts of the crime. Trump has been in the public eye for more than a generation, and he’s been President for three years, and his entire public career has been a continuing display of an utter lack of concern for facts and truth combined with a real interest in figuring out how he can persuade people with self-serving lies.

    aphrael (4c4719)

  70. BTW, unless punctuation is part of the quote, it goes outside the quotation marks. The “everything inside the quotation marks” rule is in the same category as “be in your seats when the bell rings, children” rule. Schoolchildren write the way their teachers want them to, adults write the way they want to be understood.

    nk (1d9030)

  71. A prosecutor doing it with oversight and per an established process is a different thing entirely.

    Why? A president or governor is given constitutional power — plenary power — to pardon. Prosecutors have no such constitutional authority. Why is it an abuse of power for a governor to do under his innate authority what a prosecutor does under mere procedure? To do so to get the facts of a crime — a crime in which NONE of his opponents will be charged, but he himself might be cleared — would seem to be an excellent use of the pardon. Far better than the usual payback for campaign donations or ward healing.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  72. Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 9/18/2020 @ 3:45 pm

    If you’re interested you can watch The Last Narc on Prime. If you don’t have Prime it’ll be harder to research. But that documentary covers sworn witness testimony that was accepted by lawyers representing the US as well as the lead agent and other officials that have no reason to lie.

    The CIA reference is pretty thin gruel.

    I said

    At least more convincing evidence than …

    I didn’t say thick gruel.

    frosty (f27e97)

  73. There is absolutely no basis for believing that the President is trying to get the facts of the crime. Why not, if he believes — as Assange has repeatedly said — that his opponents’ charges and narrative is completely wrong? I see the entire opposition to this as a defense of that narrative and a maintenance of those political accusations.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  74. BTW, I have never believed the Russian-hack narrative. Assange has never struck me as a Trump partisan, and the things he DID publish were entirely true — no one has claimed they were not. They just embarrassed the hell out of Hillary and the Democrats. That Podesta, the hackee, is now calling for resisting a lawful election by any means neccesary reinforces my belief.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  75. @71. To?

    What happened AT Helsinki is what mattered.

    Remember who shot J.R.?

    Ratings matter.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  76. R.I.P. RUTH BADER GINBURG.

    Amazing woman.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  77. Trump Luck, kids.

    Let’s see who Trump nominates to replace Ginsburg. And see how many bloviating, “principled” conservative ideologues return to the Trump fold to get that SOCTUS seat.

    Let’s see if McConnell holds off on any thin on this – a vote or otherwise- until after the election. too.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  78. That Podesta, the hackee, is now calling for resisting a lawful election by any means neccesary (sic) reinforces my belief.

    If you are referring his participation in the Transition Integrity Project, that was role playing. Otherwise, please provide a link to his call for resistance.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  79. I have a post about RBG; comment there.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  80. RBG’s life story is really an amazing one for every American from all points of the compass to admire.

    She’s having dinner and listening to opera w/Scalia tonight.

    Affectionately said: “What a broad.”

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  81. nk (1d9030) — 9/18/2020 @ 3:54 pm

    What does Kiki Camarena have to do with anything except as a swipe at Reagan not ever a friend of Russia?

    It wasn’t a shot at Reagan, although I’m ok with. In that context it would be more a shot at Bush I if you know the details.

    My thinking was that if your hand is sore from clutching the pearls over this latest daily example of atrocity and betrayal maybe you should consider a larger perspective.

    frosty (f27e97)

  82. 52.

    That’s what elipses are for…
    Gryph (f63000) — 9/18/2020 @ 2:27 pm

    Elipses make it even worse. There’s nothing you can do with them that seems right. Inside the quotation marks feels inaccurate without brackets. Bracketing them is ridiculously clunky. And outside the quotation marks identifies you as a certifiable lunatic.

    lurker (d8c5bc)

  83. Kevin, stop trying to make sense. You will upset the children.

    1DaveMac (b2b831)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.3502 secs.