Donald Trump 'Offered Julian Assange a Pardon if He Denied Russia Link To Hack' (theguardian.com) 510
Donald Trump offered Julian Assange a pardon if he would say Russia was not involved in leaking Democratic party emails, a court in London has been told. From a report: The extraordinary claim was made at Westminster magistrates court before the opening next week of Assange's legal battle to block attempts to extradite him to the US. Assange's barrister, Edward Fitzgerald QC, referred to evidence alleging that the former US Republican congressman Dana Rohrabacher had been to see Assange, now 48, while he was still in the Ecuadorian embassy in August 2017. A statement from Assange's lawyer Jennifer Robinson shows "Mr Rohrabacher going to see Mr Assange and saying, on instructions from the president, he was offering a pardon or some other way out, if Mr Assange ... said Russia had nothing to do with the DNC leaks," Fitzgerald told Westminster magistrates court.
A series of emails that were highly embarrassing for the Democrats and Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign were hacked before being published by WikiLeaks in 2016. District Judge Vanessa Baraitser, who is hearing the case at Westminster, said the evidence is admissible. Assange is wanted in America to face 18 charges, including conspiring to commit computer intrusion, over the publication of US cables a decade ago. He could face up to 175 years in jail if found guilty. He is accused of working with the former US army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning to leak hundreds of thousands of classified documents.
A series of emails that were highly embarrassing for the Democrats and Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign were hacked before being published by WikiLeaks in 2016. District Judge Vanessa Baraitser, who is hearing the case at Westminster, said the evidence is admissible. Assange is wanted in America to face 18 charges, including conspiring to commit computer intrusion, over the publication of US cables a decade ago. He could face up to 175 years in jail if found guilty. He is accused of working with the former US army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning to leak hundreds of thousands of classified documents.
Criminal imbecile. (Score:2, Insightful)
He keeps committing obvious crimes but he gets away with it because Republicans continue to act as invertebrates by do absolutely nothing to check these blatant abuses of power. Instead they call the process partisan but nothing about upholding the law is supposed to be partisan.
Mod this troll if you want but nothing I've written is false.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I suspect more than a few Republicans are hoping, privately and quietly, that Trump doesn't win re-election. I suspect the same number probably hoped he wouldn't win in 2016. But they're trapped by their own base. Republican voters overwhelmingly support Trump, so woe to any GOP lawmaker that offers anything other than the mildest "golly, I wish he'd stop tweeting" criticism. But the coded message in "let the voters decide" is "please, voters, get rid of this lawless imbecile."
Re:Criminal imbecile. (Score:5, Insightful)
I suspect more than a few Republicans are hoping, privately and quietly, that Trump doesn't win re-election.
Of course they do because they are spineless self-centered cowards who care more about their jobs than they care about doing the right thing. This is exactly why they sabotaged and acquitted him in the senate trial because they are afraid of not getting reelected.
Re: (Score:3)
The Framers knew quite well what politicians are. Federalist #65 made it clear that there was every expectation that attempting to remove a President would have Congress and the wider polity divided between his supporters and his opponents. They made it damned hard to remove a President anyways. At the end of the day, they didn't want it too easy to remove a duly elected President.
Frankly, from my point of view, the great Westminister innovation of confidence is the better mechanism, but hey, when the Frame
Re:Criminal imbecile. (Score:5, Insightful)
Then why not vote to convict?
Because it suposedly subverts the will of the people who democratically elected him?
No, because they are cowards who want to get reelected and they know exposing his crimes would have a decrease their chances of getting reelected. It would expose that they have enabled him for so long, energize Democratic voters and put a damper on Republican voters.
They care more about themselves than doing what's right for the nation.
Re:Criminal imbecile. (Score:5, Insightful)
For a guy who is innocent he sure does put a lot of effort into covering up his perfectly legal not-crimes.
Re: (Score:2)
What they should have impeached him for was abusing his emergency powers to divert funds from military projects to his wall. While this was done "under color of law", there was no "emergency" that didn't already exist when he asked Congress for money and got less than he wanted.
And here's the pitch to Republicans: vote to acquit on this abuse of emergency powers to subvert the Constitution, and the next Democratic president will be able to do the same thing for climate change funding.
Re:Alleged (Score:4, Insightful)
Other than the times when he announces publicly the illegal things he's doing. You Trump cultists are in so deep, you can't even acknowledge reality any more. I'm guessing you'd tell me that dogs meow and cats bark if Dear Orange Leader told you to.
Re:Alleged (Score:5, Funny)
There's no basis for any of it. Other than the times when he announces publicly the illegal things he's doing. You Trump cultists are in so deep, you can't even acknowledge reality any more. I'm guessing you'd tell me that dogs meow and cats bark if Dear Orange Leader told you to.
But I found anecodotal evidence that supports that dogs meow [youtube.com] and cats bark [youtube.com]. See? Trump is never wrong!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Hey Moron (Score:4, Interesting)
2. Moron. I didn't say that this was illegal, I was referring to the parent's contention that there's no basis for Trump having done anything illegal, ever, which again, is obviously false. He's done many illegal things just while in office, and has publicly admitted to them.
"Confident" is **not** "conclusive" (Score:3)
You seem to be conflating the Russians buying $50,000 (?) worth of Facebook ads and posting memes with the Hillary/DNC email leaks. I think the CIA established the former but not the latter. That the email leaks to Wikileaks are still unattributed.
Nope. The CIA said conclusively that the Russians did it.
Wrong, and your own citation proves you wrong. It says "was confident that the Russian government directed".
"Confident" is **not** "conclusive". As I said, there are various likely suspects. Russia being at the top of the list. But still merely suspects.
Re:Alleged (Score:5, Insightful)
Biden announced publicly that he forced Ukraine to do his bidding by withholding aid, exactly what the Dems accused Trump of.
This is called motherfucking... D - I - P - L - O - M - A - C - Y. Every president has a right to use carrots and sticks to get their way. Every goddamn one.
Nobody is crying foul because they think Trump does not have the right to use diplomacy to get his way. Nobody is crying foul because they think Trump does not have the right to fire people.
Actual issue at hand is substantial evidence suggesting Trump used power of his office to corruptly advantage himself personally in the next presidential election. There is no evidence Biden acted for any reason other than furthering US policy objectives when he made his threat.
What is publically known is a timeline showing active investigation into Biden's sons employer at the time Biden made his threat of withholding loan guarantees. Even if you assume the worst about Biden's motives there is not even a known credible pretext to explain what his motive could have been.
Now if the above turns out to be wrong and Biden did act explicitly to help out his son rather than further US policy interests then fucking impeach that motherfucker too because then it would be exactly what the Dems accused Trump of.
There's a right way and a wrong way to go about it (Score:3)
When you do it in such a way that is blatantly, obviously for your benefit, such that any good that comes out of it is purely coincidental, that's also the wrong way.
Re: Criminal imbecile. (Score:3, Interesting)
As long as the whole mess of them breaks down into a slurry that can be easily power washed down the drain before Trumps second term is over, it's all good.
Unfortunately some of those fucks will probably prevail and stay in power indefinitely.
Re:Criminal imbecile. (Score:5, Informative)
You mean like HRC wiping her hidden shitter server and smashing her phones with a hammer like a mobster trying to hide from the cops?
That woman has been raked over the coals endlessly and still Republican controlled committees failed to find any wrongdoing whatsoever after 14 investigations.
This of course is all whataboutism and the issue we are talking about is the blatant criminality of current POTUS.
From TFA (Score:5, Informative)
The same official said Kelly did not convey Rohrabacher’s message to Trump, who was unaware of the details of the proposed deal.
Re:From TFA (Score:5, Interesting)
That is a rather important detail. Also it is being suggested as if there is some implication that the claim would be false. A connection to Russia is not established and either confirming or denying such a connection via a highly credible witness such as Assange would be valuable, doing so at the mere cost of not punishing someone serving the cause of democracy and justice would be a double win.
Re:From TFA (Score:5, Insightful)
Also from TFA
It's only inconsistent if you assume the President only works through official channels. Kelly telling Rohrabacher to go through regular intelligence channels is the way Kelly wanted the White House to run. Trump likes to play things like an episode of The Apprentice -- playing people off against each other. That's not how official channels work.
Fair Enough (Score:2)
If there is a credible witness out there who would know it is certainly Julian Assange. It would be nice to wrap up both issues with a bow.
Re: (Score:3)
If there is a credible witness out there who would know it is certainly Julian Assange. It would be nice to wrap up both issues with a bow.
True. Just imagine how credible Julian would be in this case. I mean the guy has been hiding in the Ecuadorian embassy for years to avoid US prosecution and I know all my doubts about Russia would fade into oblivion if he made such a statement and then was granted a pardon by Trump. I would never think that such an admission from Assange was due to any sort of coercion. That would wrap up everything so nicely for Trump... I mean... for the US citizens and of course the world.
Some other sources (Score:5, Informative)
https://www.businessinsider.com/julian-assange-trial-offered-pardon-deny-russia-2016-dnc-hack-2020-2
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-election/trump-julian-assange-wikileaks-pardon-russia-us-election-court-a9345081.html
https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/president-trump-offered-assange-pardon-20200220-p542hl.html
and even Boing Boing: https://boingboing.net/2020/02... [boingboing.net]
Re: (Score:3)
For now those "multiple source" aren't really independent. They're all reporting the same *court proceedings*; the actual claims come from the attorneys of Julian Assange, a notorious provocateur and, not to put too fine a point on it, liar.
The thing is, Assange's attorneys hinted that they have evidence to back this claim up.
So there's really two interpretations here which fit the facts about equally well. This *could* be a fabrication that is cleverly designed to exploit our preconceptions of Donald Trum
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Some other sources (Score:5, Informative)
The fact that you wish it were false is not an indication of worse veracity. Your side is the one making outrageous claims here, the burden of proof is on you.
Re: (Score:2)
Why is it outrageous? It seems completely consistent with how Trump behaves.
Re:Some other sources (Score:4, Funny)
So Assange says he did not get it from Russia. He got it from a middle man. That's an easy play to make.
My question is, if all American intelligence sources say it was Russia, why would you believe Assange over them? Do you not trust America? Who is your allegiance too, then?
Re:Some other sources (Score:5, Interesting)
For fucks sake, Assange's lawyer said it in an open courtroom. Unless your claiming that the reporters in that courtroom got together and fabricated the lawyer's statement, your accusation is just plain bizarre.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You are watching. Americans are watching Fox News.
You have no idea how much half of America loves watching Fox News. That's their source of truth. It is their bible.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You have no idea how much half of America loves watching Fox News. That's their source of truth. It is their bible.
Choosing a comfortable lie over an uncomfortable truth is how we slide into decay.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps I didn't want anyone to think I was part of BlueWave 2018?
Honestly I didn't give myself the name, so I didn't have a lot of choice in the logic of it.
(mods: feel free to mark this whole thread as off-topic)
Re: Had enough yet? (Score:5, Informative)
VP. `8D
.
j88.. . `88. d8' j88.. . `88. d8'
888888D. `Y88P'. 888888D. `Y88P'
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
That's their source of truth. It is their bible.
but it says Bibble.
Re: (Score:2)
That's their source of truth. It is their bible.
You have no idea how much most of America loves their bible. It's their source of truth.
Re:Had enough yet? (Score:4, Insightful)
You'd think? But I don't see how one can get from the words of Jesus Christ, to what we're seeing out here.
Which tells me that it's not that the Bible is a source of truth, but rather, that the Bible is, for most Americans, a source of common self-definition, a source of tradition. But as a source of truth, or even, on the lower end of the scale, a source of values, -- it is clearly neither.
Re:Had enough yet? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: Had enough yet? (Score:4, Interesting)
There are many who resort to "scripture is truth" as their one and only logical tool
That's true, yet largely irrelevant. I'm an atheist, and I'm not american. During my many visits to the USA I've had quite a few discussions with deeply religious right-wing people in the south. I've also had many discussions with left-wing atheists in the north. Of the two, the former have by far been more civil, honest, and open to dialogue than the latter. Obviously atheism does not have any dogma or scripture, yet the secular dogmas and scriptures which many atheists cling to tend to be far more harmful than their religious equivalents.
Re: (Score:3)
Hmmm... Who did you bribe to get that user ID? Still, I'd give you a mod point if I ever had one. You'd just have to announce in public that Putin had no connection to your getting all those zeros.
To me it goes back to freedom, which is basically annoying because it requires so much work. Per my sig (even with the Slashdot distortion), freedom is about meaningful choice, which has to be based on reality and on doing enough work to figure out what the facts are. Much easier for some people to just accept wha
Re:Had enough yet? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Had enough yet? (Score:4, Insightful)
Trumps pardons are to help the wealthy and connected, plus a few others of poor people to give a sheen of authenticity to the bulk of the pardons of the wealthy friends and donors.
Blagovich was pardoned because he was on the apprentice (bet he's happy he was on that show). It's amazing how far the GOP had tossed their integrity and values down the drain. The GOP doesn't have a leg to stand on the next time a Clinton pardons his donors because Trump just normalized pardoning donors, friends and political activists.
Oh well, so much for integrity.
Re: (Score:3)
Half? Hardly. 24-28% Tops.
The Rabid electorate on either side is less than 30% of the population. In fact their votes mean almost nothing as they can't win anything alone. It's the other 40% of voters that matter, they're the ones that elect everyone.
Fun Fact: Hitler was voted into office with about 30% of the votes. He then formed a minority-government and the rest is history. Hence 30% of the voters being utterly evil and deranged is quite enough to cause the largest imaginable catastrophe.
Re: Had enough yet? (Score:3)
If you think that the 30% of Germans who voted for Hitler were "utterly evil and deranged", you don't understand a damn thing about humans.
Re: (Score:3)
Nope, I do. But I am willing to call people "evil and deranged" when they are, even if they are "ordinary" people. Because all that vote this way are willing to do as much violence or have it done in their name as is needed to reach their goals and anybody not with them is against them and a fair target. That is evil. It is banal, stupid, ordinary evil, but that does not make it any better. But I guess that very idea is beyond you.
Re: Had enough yet? (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, your argument still stands ... if you have some kind of magical power to determine that one of the other parties would have resulted in a better outcome. Of course, you do not. For all we know, had the communists been elected there may have been even more death and destruction. What percentage of people led to the the formation of the USSR, exactly? How about Mao's China? Or maybe you'd prefer a more recent example? I believe Chavez got something like 55% of the vote. Are those 55% evil because they voted for starvation and economic ruin?
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately most of the voting public is NOT watching...
Re:Had enough yet? (Score:4, Interesting)
Fortunately, you are wrong. Americans are scared, and paying attention. The sleeping giant has woken up, and the ruling elites are the ones who are scared.
You are just another person pushing the "it's hopeless" narrative. It is emphatically not hopeless. We, the people have been here before, as in the gilded age, or the age of robber barons. We have always triumphed, and smacked the powerful back down, often for several generations.
Re:Had enough yet? (Score:5, Insightful)
I hope you're right, but at this point the polls show remarkable support for criminality. I really don't see how the average fox/breitbart consumer is going to get any real information on which to make their decisions.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Had enough yet? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Had enough yet? (Score:4, Insightful)
Populism has two possible outcomes. Tyranny being one, but historically, populism in America has led to substantive reforms. As with the robber baron era leading to anti-trust legislation, or the gilded age leading to social programs.
Re: (Score:3)
I count the robber baron era as '75 to the turn of the century, when the first big labor union push happened. Unions won substantive reforms of workplace safety, child labor, and overtime. Government focused on anti-trust. The gilded age is later, after World War I, and ended with the great depression, which led to a seperate set of reforms, and social programs.
Re:Had enough yet? (Score:5, Insightful)
By ruling elites I mean both. Republican insiders are the Harlem Globetrotters, Democratic insiders are the Washington Generals. Bad cop, good cop strategy, played on the American people. The only winners are the rich.
Re:Mind the gap (Score:5, Insightful)
Bernie is one of the only ones fighting for anything besides preserving his own power and the system that created it. Buttered eggs is a Manchurian candidate created by committee. Biden is a senile creep who wants to kill medicare and social security. Klobuchar is just another corporate tool. Warren is... well she might be alright, but she has surrounded herself with Clinton advisers, and they have been sabotaging her in order to hurt her and Bernie. Look how she cratered after following their advice and attacking Bernie.
Re: (Score:3)
We're on the same page here. Bernie (and more importantly, the movement he has inspired) is the antidote to the problem I mentioned.
I have voted democratic in every election since I was able to, but I have never given any candidates anything until now. Bernie gets $5 here and there, just went and added it up and it's over $200 from me and my wife at this point. Not a huge sum, not trying to brag. Just saying, Bernie has inspired me like no other candidate in my life time.
Re: (Score:3)
Hahaha, nice! You started out like "Oh no, we don't use violence here!" and ended with "Sure happy when it happens though, and if you don't stop opposing us, it's our only option."
Don't try to lie. I fucking nailed it. You're an authoritarian who believes violence is justified whenever you're losing. I mean, democracy is supposed to be the peaceful method of transitioning power but your side has made it clear, if you can't win at the ballot box you'll bring out the ammo box.
You LOATHE freedom. Your type wan
Re: (Score:3)
Well, you seeeee, when you add up all the other cookie cutter candidates we've padded the field with, it's obvious that the AKSHUAL majority of democrats want a moderate centrist to restore things to the perfect state they were in, way back in 2015. So really, Bernie is anti-democratic and he's the one stealing this primary! We're just correcting an error when we stage a contested convention and hand the nom to our hand picked candidate in the second round.
Pay no attention to that billionaire Republican beh
And voting is anonymous (Score:2)
November 3rd, Americans. Literally everyone else is watching.
And fortunately for *everyone* involved, voting is anonymous.
Re:And voting is anonymous (Score:5, Insightful)
November 3rd, Americans. Literally everyone else is watching.
And fortunately for *everyone* involved, voting is anonymous.
It would have been interesting to see the results if voting had been anonymous in the House/Senate Impeachment Inquiry/Trial ...
Re:And voting is anonymous (Score:4, Insightful)
While I agree it may have been interesting, as I have very little doubt that there was not a small number of people who voted as they did simply because they did not want to risk facing pressure for disagreeing with what they expected may be a majority of their party, I also understand the reason that the vote was not anonymous... and that is because these people are elected representatives, and it is only proper that they be held accountable by the people for the positions that they represent. The fact that there is no way to hold them accountable to the people who vote for them while simultaneously protecting them from retribution for disagreeing with their party is unfortunately irrelevant.
All that we know is that there was at least one person in senate who was willing to be accountable for disagreeing with his expected response. It is, quite frankly, quite a courageous thing to do. Probably political suicide, but still pretty damn gutsy.
Re:And voting is anonymous (Score:5, Interesting)
I was listening to The Thomas Jefferson Hour [jeffersonhour.com] on PBS the other day and Clay Jenkinson, the first-person interpreter, speculated that the Founding Fathers never foresaw that our political system would become a hyper-partisan, two-party system and that if they had they would have designed the Impeachment process much differently to ensure a fair(er) non-partisan process. Members of Congress swear to uphold and defend the Constitution while representing all the people of their districts. They're not suppose to put Party over everything first.
Re:And voting is anonymous (Score:4, Informative)
Sounds like he hasn't read any of the Federalist Papers on the subject. The founders recognized that impeachment of the President is so inherently political an act that it can't be anything else. They felt the President shouldn't be removed from office unless all teh various factions in Congress agree. The system is working pretty much exactly the way they intended.
Re: (Score:3)
I was listening to The Thomas Jefferson Hour [jeffersonhour.com] on PBS the other day and Clay Jenkinson, the first-person interpreter, speculated that the Founding Fathers never foresaw that our political system would become a hyper-partisan
Well, You're pretty much identifying your woeful stupidity if you are quoting someone, as if they are smart themselves, as saying "the Founding Fathers never foresaw that our political system would become a hyper-partisan."
My God, Thomas Jefferson's own Vice President, Alexander Hamilton was shot dead over a political argument with Aaron Burr.
Now, we can certainly disagree over policy matters and our politicians may act petty towards themselves but I'm not ignorant enough to believe the level of animosity
Re: (Score:3)
From the outside looking in, the weird thing was the Senators announcing their verdict before the trial and refusing to allow evidence.
Re: (Score:3)
Times change. Used to be you could be John McCain and be called a maverick for occasionally disagreeing with your party, and become a presidential nominee even. Then the clock moved on and suddenly McCain was called a RINO, whereas the Republican candidate who got elected in no way represents any traditional or historical Republican ideologies.
Re: (Score:2)
Except in caucuses.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Assange, long ago, confirmed that his source for the DNC emails were not Russian:
https://www.usatoday.com/story... [usatoday.com]
Yes, but Trump has repeatedly demonstrated that he believes he can say one thing, then later say something completely different and expect people to believe his truth du jour is the ultimate truth. Why wouldn't he expect others to do the same, especially when it benefits him?
Re: (Score:3)
Um... Every single person running for President has done that on many issues. Do you know anything about politics?
Re: (Score:3)
Assange, long ago, confirmed that his source for the DNC emails were not Russian:
https://www.usatoday.com/story... [usatoday.com]
Yes, but Trump has repeatedly demonstrated that he believes he can say one thing, then later say something completely different and expect people to believe his truth du jour is the ultimate truth. Why wouldn't he expect others to do the same, especially when it benefits him?
To be fair, his deranged supporters are completely fine with that. They probably do not even notice.
Re: (Score:2)
Since it was on Hannity's show Trump should be aware of it.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Had enough yet? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
The question of course is how would Assange even know where the information came from.
It's absurd to even suggest that he could even know where the information originated or who was involved unless he ran the operation himself. The thing is, when you take information from anonymous sources you can't know where it came from.
His claim that he knew where it did not come from was just an outright fabrication Unless he was claiming to have run the phishing operation himself there is literally no way he could hav
People aren't better off because of Trump (Score:4, Insightful)
There's a good video on the subject here [youtube.com] and a pretty well known comic about it here [duckduckgo.com].
Re:Had enough yet? (Score:4, Informative)
Yeah, but I assumed we all knew that deficits are only incredibly, earth-shatteringly important when they are moderately increased by Democrats, not when they are utterly clobbered by Republicans?
I lean (R) but have to admit it's a pretty silly dynamic. "OMG Obama is spending us into poverty, buy gold and get ready for the death of the US!!!!", meanwhile "Oh, sure he's spending more but Trump knows deficits don't matter".
At this point it's pretty obvious there is no reason behind anything, it's all about Your Team and My Team. It similarly cracks me up when Democrats are so shocked, SHOCKED I say, that the Republicans would literally seat a new Supreme Court Justice the day before the election if they could. Of course they would, Merrick Garland wasn't really about any reasonable "let the people speak" motive, it was of course pure politics. Durr.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
November 3rd, Americans. Literally everyone else is watching.
Watching what?
This is another setup, nothing more. A politically motivated hit piece. They keep trying, and missing.
Remember the "Access Hollywood" tape? That was a set up too. They all acted like it was a surprise, but if you look back to the weeks before that they where setting up the #metoo thing so they could release the tape and do as much damage as they could.
Then the Russian collusion thing that didn't' work out, all based on what was a pretty poor frame job that started as a surveillance warran
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, it's not like there is any evidence that Trump would use his pardon power to reward people that did something he likes.
Oh wait, have you seen the news ?
Welcome to dictatorship, where friends of the dictator get to ignore the rules..
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Turnip - 19 pardons, seven commutations (fact checked - while your incorrect - close enough I'm not going to quibble).
Obama - Pardoned 64, 209 sentence commutations. On this one you're off by 500% - I think in this case you're an idiot.
Bush Jr. - 200
Clinton - 475 total
Bush Sr. - 75 pardons and three commutations.
Reagan - 406
While Clinton has the lead, Obama isn't much of an outlier from the previous three Repub presidents.
As for the Retardicgans versus Dummicrats - they are both bad, agreed. Just one actu
Pardons [Re:Had enough yet?] (Score:5, Informative)
I'm so fucking tired of this shit. Trump has pardoned 22 people. Obama was something like 1700.
In fact, Obama pardoned 212 people. Turns out that Obama granted fewer pardons than all but two presidents: George W. Bush and George H.W. Bush. The pardon record is held by FDR, who issued 2,819 pardons.
You may be confusing "pardon" with "clemency". (Clemency is usually in the form of a reduction of sentence, usually to time served.) The Obama administration had an initiative set up by his administration to shorten prison terms for nonviolent federal inmates convicted of drug crimes. Even in clemency, though, though FDR still holds the record.
Trump has pardoned 25 people in 8 years (and issued clemency to a handful more).
Re:Pardons [Re:Had enough yet?] (Score:5, Insightful)
But the more relevant question is: of the people Obama pardoned, how many were tied to his (sometimes illegal) behaviour?
Re: Pardons [Re:Had enough yet?] (Score:3)
More to the point, how many of them did Obama know personally?
Re: Pardons [Re:Had enough yet?] (Score:5, Funny)
Three years, not eight. Trump hasn't even served a full term yet. Try to get your facts right.
Trump pardoned zero people in the five years preceding his inauguration, plus 25 people in his three years as president. Total, 25 in eight years.
Re:Had enough yet? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm so fucking tired of this shit. Trump has pardoned 22 people. Obama was something like 1700. You guys need to go fuck yourselves. All of you. Democrats are fucking idiots.
Talking points Trump cult members regurgitate are often irrelevant distractions having no substantive relationship to the issue at hand.
This is a good example. He only pardoned xx when someone else did yyyy therefore he is innocent/TDS/you just hate him...blah blah blah. When in reality numbers are not the issue and never have been. Motives are at issue not raw counts.
Sad that so many people lack the ability or desire to seek out evidence contradicting their world views. Cowards so afraid of the spectre of cognitive dissonance they will do or say anything to make it go away even if everything they spout is total nonsense.
Re: Trump is a creation of Bill Clinton (Score:3)
You're equating lying under oath about sexual dalliance with undermining the American election process by pressuring foreign leaders. Admittedly, "high crimes and misdemeanors" is vague. But the fact that you equate those two things says something about your judgment.
Re: (Score:3)
“It was a very short abrupt conversation, he was not in a good mood, and he just said, ‘I want nothing. I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo. Tell Zelensky to do the right thing,’ something to that effect. So I typed out a text to ambassador Taylor and my reason for telling him this was not to defend what the president was saying, not to opine on whether the president was being truthful or untruthful, but simply to relay I’ve gone as far as I can go. This is the final word that I heard from the president the United States.” -- Gordon Sondland
The look on that scumbag liar Adam Schiff's face as his own star witness derailed his narrative was one of the very few moments that made the impeachment hearings worth watching. I doubt the people insulting you now are even aware of it.
Anyway thanks for your post, I'm sure it will be underrated.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Had enough yet? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's "hearsay", genius.
Re: (Score:3)
If that's you're idea of communism, I'd hate to see your idea of capitalism.
Oh, wait. Here it is!
Re: (Score:2)
did the messenger schedule this court date? (Score:3)
Your assertion is that this event was timed to distract from some supposed misstep by the DNC. You are saying that a court date with documents presented by lawyers under oath was programmed to help democrats. Who made the call to Assange's lawyers? Was it the boss at CNN or the Washington Post? Did they fax the documents over with lines scripted for the lawyers to read in court to the judge?
Quite the conspiracy theory there.
For a
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, but now that orange pastry is attempting to get Barr to "clean house" at the Justice Dept. The investigators must be getting close to real meat. Right now there is a case in the Supreme Court to get Deutsche Bank to release their information on the pastry's dealings. They are expected to rule in June after oral argument in May (I think). This is what has the pastry really scared because DB was known for laundering Russian money and the pastry is up to his hip boots in it.
Re: If you believe this you are dumb (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
You really are stupid... you know that?
They are called opinions specifically because they do not have to backed up by sources or evidence.
Now if he wants to make a statement of fact... then you can ask for sources and evidence to not be an idiot.
But according to you... having an opinion makes one an idiot... which makes you an idiot too... because it is impossible for someone to not hold at least one opinion that cannot be backed up with sources and evidence.
Welcome to accepting the fact that you are an idi
Re: (Score:2)
People do not care about the truth or freedom of speech or its protection.
Years of history and voting records prove it. People only get pissed off when they are not being advantaged by things.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Be that as it may, he should *not* pardon him in return for a political favor.
Do you actually want the answer? (Score:3)
Because the hearing the claim was made at was to block Assange's extradition to the United States.
The implication is that Assange will not receive a fair trial at the hands of a politicized USDOJ.