Ex-Rep Confirms His Proposal Of A Pardon For Assange To Clear The Russians In The DNC Hack [Updated]

This week, many were surprised by the disclosure made by the lawyers for Wikileaks founder Julian Assange in London in the Westminster Magistrates’ Court. Edward Fitzgerald made a witness statement application for co-counsel Jennifer Robinson who shared information concerning ex-California representative Dana Rohrabacher. She claimed that he made Assange a startling offer: if he cleared the Russians as the source of the hacked emails at the Democratic National Committee, Rohrabacher could get a presidential pardon from President Donald Trump. Now Rohrabacher himself says that it is true and that he spoke of the plan with Trump White House Chief of Staff, though he did not speak of the plan with Trump himself. The timing is particularly unfortunate for the White House with a report that U.S. intelligence believes that Russia is again seeking to intervene in the election and appears to be intervening in favor of Trump. Update: A new story suggests that the Russians could also be helping Bernie Sanders.

Fitzgerald said that the statement 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.”

Such an offer would add a new allegation of the misuse of presidential power for personal or political benefit. The White House denied the story: “The president barely knows Dana Rohrabacher other than he’s an ex-congressman. He’s never spoken to him on this subject or almost any subject. It is a complete fabrication and a total lie. This is probably another never ending hoax and total lie from the DNC.”

Rohrabacher did visit Assange at the Ecuadoran embassy in London in August 2017. Rohrabacher claimed afterward that he had “earth-shattering” information from the meeting.

Rohrabacher confirmed with Yahoo News that he told Assange he would get him a Trump pardon deal. However, he also confirmed that he never spoke with Trump and indeed he was repeatedly rebuffed in his attempts to do so. He also said he would “petition” the president and not that he had a guarantee of such action: “I spoke to Julian Assange and told him if he would provide evidence about who gave WikiLeaks the emails I would petition the president to give him a pardon.” However, he added “He knew I could get to the president.”

The alleged quid pro quo pardon proposal is not new. The Wall Street Journal reported promoted on the proposed deal back in September 2017. Likewise, Rohrabacher told the Daily Caller afterward that “if [Assange] is going to give us a big favor, he would obviously have to be pardoned to leave the Ecuadoran embassy.” Some reports have stated that Assange continues to maintain that the material did not come from Russia.

While Rohrabacher did meet with Trump before the Assange meeting, he said that he was blocked after the meeting. He also said that he met with Chief of Staff John Kelly but again did not seem to make progress. He said that Kelly was courteous but “he knew this had to be handled with care,” Rohrabacher said he never heard back.

That falls short of the critical nexus needed to establish that the President or the White House was part of this effort. I do however have a significant concerns about the Kelly meeting. The White House has already been damaged by the use of Rudy Giuliani’s activities in the Ukraine in pushing such theories from the 2016 election. The President has a history of working through third parties even at counter purposes to his own Administration.

If a former or current member of Congress is flying around the world pitching such a pardon-based quid pro quo, I would think that the White House would do more than sit in courteous silence. Rohrabacher was suggesting that he could seal a deal for clearing the Russians in exchange for a presidential pardon. Yet, there is no evidence that the White House told him to stop or made an effort to prevent such representations from being made. It could be argued that such silence (particularly after the stories ran) amounts to tacit approval or acquiescence.

It is not uncommon for a possible witness to be offered benefits from cooperation, though this is usually done in terms of seeking the dropping or reduction of charges as opposed to a pardon. Indeed, such cooperation deals were discussed regarding Assange. Yet, a pardon in exchange for clearing the Russians is troubling on a number of levels.

Pardons generally are sought after the completion of criminal prosecutions and are not bargaining chips to induce cooperation. There is always the lingering hope for such clemency but I have never heard of a White House allowing pardons to be raised as an inducement for a statement or evidence. Moreover, the purpose of such a quid pro quo is highly disturbing. At the time, the United States was investigating Russian hacking. If Assange was going to cooperate, such cooperation needed to be raised with the Justice Department not the White House and certainly not through a former or current member of Congress. Of course, the intelligence agencies uniformly agreed that it was the Russians who hacked the emails.

It remains to be seen how this information will assist Assange in fighting extradition to the United States. As I discussed in an earlier column, the British court could deny extradition on the basis of Assange’s human rights and claim of being a journalist.

All of this can be rightfully considered by the court in deciding whether Assange will be extradited to the US. For example, in 2002 British hacker Gary McKinnon argued that he would be denied basic protections if extradited to the US. The case went all the way to the House of Lords and the European Court of Human Rights. In 2012, his extradition was denied by the home secretary at that time, Theresa May, on the basis that extradition “would be incompatible with Mr McKinnon’s human rights.”

This is a different angle for opposing extradition. The claim seems to be that Assange was being coerced to supply a statement and would now be punished for failing to play ball with Trump officials. That would seem less compelling than his claim that, if he is extradited, every investigative journalist could be extradited for such acts. The lack of a nexus to Trump or a green light from the White House undermines the value of the statement as a basis for denying extradition.

157 thoughts on “Ex-Rep Confirms His Proposal Of A Pardon For Assange To Clear The Russians In The DNC Hack [Updated]”

  1. Big day for actually reading the Mueller report. It details, exactly, how Assange and Russian intelligence are linked.

    And it’s also a big day pointing to how obsolete the impeachment process is in dealing with a president like Trump who is bringing out his obstruction A game. And bringing it out in a way begging to dealt with by criminal courts versus impeachment.

    First steps would include having a come to jesus about exactly what a president could be indicted for. Ditch the Justice Dept. guideline about not being able to indict sitting presidents.

    1. Obergruppen Fuhrer Mueller and his Gestapo did a job as significant as the Warren Report in its revelation of the pure evil of the Deep Deep State.

    2. “It details, exactly, how Assange and Russian intelligence are linked.”

      Why don’t you spell it out for us.

  2. The Committee to Protect Journalists writes: “The extradition of Julian Assange to the United States to stand trial for his groundbreaking work with WikiLeaks would deal a body blow to First Amendment rights and press freedom. The U.K. should deny this request,” said CPJ Deputy Executive Director Robert Mahoney in New York. “Using the draconian wartime powers of the Espionage Act against Assange undermines journalists’ rights and sets dangerous precedents that cast journalists and publishers as criminals.”

    There are many people who can forcefully argue your point that this prosecution doesn’t really mean much as far as free speech is concerned. Please allow one of them to speak up for both the rights of Assange and our rights as human beings.

    JT, you used to be against torture. I helped you on the matter once so you could speak out against it. Why have you seemingly been willing to ignore the torture of Assange and the legal implications of that torture to his trial, along with what that trial will mean for us all? Honestly, you seem like such a different person from when you began doing this blog.

    1. “Please allow one of them to speak up for both the rights of Assange and our rights as human beings.”

      If Assange did not break the law, Assange will not be penalized. If Assange possesses some type of mitigating evidence, it’s just about time he revealed it.

      “…our rights as human beings.”

      American citizens have rights under the U.S. Constitution.

      There is no code, statute, law or fundamental law with any degree of force or effect that provides “…our rights as human beings.”

      Perhaps it’s the Code of the Infinity.

      Perhaps it’s the Ether Code.

      Perhaps it’s the Human Being Code, Volume I.

      Perhaps it’s more hysteria and incoherence.

      Oh, no, I see where you’re going – it’s the Karl Marx Code of the Communist Manifesto.

      “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”

      Make everyone immutably equal (as if that’s possible, who would collect the trash?).

      To Hades with freedom.

      Share the wealth.

      Share the misery; by brute force; by barbarous dictatorship.

  3. Liberal media outlets are using the report to already cast doubt on the legitimacy of Trump’s re-election, should he win again in November.

    Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), the ranking member of the House intelligence committee, was at the Feb. 13 intelligence briefing that Democrats leaked to the New York Times, and he calls the report “idiotic.”

  4. “Rohrabacher confirmed with Yahoo News that he told Assange he would get him a Trump pardon deal. However, he also confirmed that he never spoke with Trump and indeed he was repeatedly rebuffed in his attempts to do so. He also said he would “petition” the president and not that he had a guarantee of such action: “I spoke to Julian Assange and told him if he would provide evidence about who gave WikiLeaks the emails I would petition the president to give him a pardon.” However, he added “He knew I could get to the president.””

    1. So how is this an abuse of power? He didn’t speak with Trump. Did not hear from Gen Kelly. No one appears to have told him to do this.
    2. Did Rohrabacher request that Assange compose or tell the truth?
    3. It is true that Assange would need a pardon to move freely
    4. It is reasonable to assume that the White House would want to know if there was evidence that the material used by Wikileaks was an inside job or a hack by any party. Why wouldn’t journalists or other politicians want such information?
    5. Law enforcement offer deals in exchange for information. If this information involved one of the many coup attempts on President Trump, his administration would want it. The critical issue is whether they were just waiting to see if Assange had proof it was an inside leak, were they encouraging Assange to compose instead of present evidence, and was the Administration involved at all?

    There are several key points. Does Assange have evidence for the source of Wikileaks material? After all, Russia or any other foreign actor could have used an intermediary, even if that person was a plant in the DNC. It could be both an inside job leak, as well as orchestrated by Russia. Would Assange give up his source? Would Assange compose or tell the truth? If he provided evidence, could that evidence be verified? Perhaps the Administration either wanted nothing to do with it, or they withheld judgement until and unless Rohrabacher presented proof. I imagine the intelligence community would very badly want such proof. One is to recall that the DNC did not submit their servers to the FBI. They simply declared them hacked. That should bother more people.

    We do not want to encourage anyone to lie. But we should all want the truth. I have mixed feelings about Assange. Is he a whistleblower, a publisher, a hacker, or did he damage national security? Only a trial could tell at this point, and he refuses to stand trial. That indicates, to me at least, that he believes he broke our laws.

    While I want to know some uncomfortable truths revealed by Wikileaks, I do not support hacking. I do not think that Trump should pardon Assange unless he falls under the category of publisher or whistleblower.

  5. Meanwhile, Joseph Maguire, head of intelligence, briefed the House Intel Committee on Russia’s efforts to help Trump cheat, again, which he is required by law to do. Next, that syncophantic toadie, Devin Nunes, ran like the little bitch he is, straight to King Donald of the Order of Bone Spurs, and ratted on Maguire, who was promptly fired. How dare he tell the truth, if the truth hurts King Donald? It wasn’t just that Maguire disclosed to the Intel Committee how Russia was working to help King Donald cheat again, what really pissed off Trump was the fact that Adam Schiff was there because he is a member of the Committee. Magure was replaced with the ambassador to Germany, whose only qualification for the job is he has just as brown a nose as Devin Nunes, and no sense of decency or patriotism. He will withhold or lie about further information American intel gathers about Russian cheating.

    If this doesn’t scare the pants off you, nothing will. And, as inevitably will happen, when patriotic members of the intel community leak information to the Intel Committee, members of Congress and/or the press, you’ll hear Trump News Network, using the name “Fox News”, scream about the “deep state”. The “deep state” are those patriots who love America and see Trump for the cheater, loser, liar and unqualified piece of dirt that he really is.

        1. A good question might be: Why would Russia want to help reelect Donald Trump? So that America could continue to do well?

          Both Gallup and Rasmussen polls now show highest levels of voter satisfaction that country is going in right direction in some 15 years. Barack Obama never had these poll numbers. They liked him personally but never felt the country was going in the right direction.

          So WHY would Putin would want Trump reelected to keep the country going in the right direction? Trump is far tougher on Russia, and the U.S. is far stronger economically and militarily under Trump. It doesn’t even make sense.

          1. I explained this. They didn’t “Want” to elect either one. they wanted:

            a) to taint both candidates so that either one would be compromised to some degree, and weakened by the loser exacting revenge misemploying state assets against the winner, possibly. that one worked out great for them!

            b) discrediting the electoral process as such, a big long term strategy they obviously still pursue

            c) deepening the divides between opposing factions

            Textbook influence operations stuff. Didnt really matter which one won, the way they played it. Very smart.

            Another analogy, to some degree: big corporations often are donating to BOTH candidates at once.

    1. Ambassador Grenell is more than qualified to hold the position. What were Susan Rice’s qualifications to become Obama’s National Security Advisor? Look it up. What were Ben Rhodes qualifications to become Obama’s Deputy National Security Advisor? He had a Masters of Fine Arts degree in Fiction writing.

      1. Regarding Above:

        This ‘Anonymous’ is an aggressive ignoramus. Susan Rices whole career was devoted to foreign policy. Here’s just one paragraph from Rice’s Wikipedia bio:

        Rice served in the Clinton administration in various capacities: at the National Security Council (NSC) from 1993 to 1997; as director for international organizations and peacekeeping from 1993 to 1995; and as special assistant to the president and senior director for African affairs from 1995 to 1997

        Wikipedia goes on to say that Rice was foreign policy expert at the Brookings institute before joining the Obama Administration.

        1. Thank you Seth. I accept the compliment. The “aggressive” part, anyway.

          Wikipedia is known lefty propaganda crap. Not a valid source of accurate information.

          Now defend Ben Rhodes’ qualifications to go from fiction writer to steering National Security….and be sure to include the fact that his brother ran the CBS News Division.

          1. “Wikipedia is known lefty propaganda crap. Not a valid source of accurate information.”


              1. Oh, I have. And I do. You need to do yours.

                What Wikipedia provides should be cross-checked, but there are often some very good references.

                    1. But you actually answered the question! OMG. I facetiously asked “Were you expecting a gold star?” Then you seriously respond with, “Nope” !!! omg hahahahaha please stop making me laugh hahaha.

                1. Wiki is definitely useful.

                  It does have a lot of gamesmanship going into the formation of the text, but they way they handle it is pretty transparent, so it can be taken into account.

                  I use it every day as a starting point,. learn tons from it.

                  I would say that wiki is sometimes leftist, but, that is not because of the system architecture,

                  that is because leftists are generally more effective at swarming open resources than socalled right wingers, whose personalities are often less interested in current events, establishing favorable narratives, and joint cooperation for advancement of group interests.

          2. Anonymous, if you’re saying Wikipedia fabricated Rice’s bio, then you’re not even a serious commenter.

        2. Now defend Susan Rice going on all the airwaves and intentionally lying about Benghazi. Why did the National Security Advisor go out and lie to the American people over and over again? Where was the Secretary of State? It was her job to go out and explain/defend the handling of Benghazi, not Susan Rice’s.

        3. Seth:

          #1 Calling Anonymous stupid does not address his or her point. You have been the victim of name calling, and you have dished it out, too. It would be super if people could just talk.
          #2 Susan Rice being a director for African affairs and international organizations does not specifically qualify her to be a Deputy National Security Adviser. She left a bad taste in our mouths when she lied on camera about Benghazi. I have heard “foreign policy experts” say some pretty ridiculous things.
          #3 The point is that people without careers in security get appointed to the job under multiple presidents.

          1. Karen, you’re stupid too if you think Wikipedia fabricated Rice’s bio. Her credentials in foreign policy have been well known for years.

            1. Rices father was an academic and Federal Reserve Governor. She was raised in Washington, went to Stanford and won a Rhodes scholarship.

              From Wikipedia:
              Rice was born in Washington, D.C.,[4] to Emmett J. Rice (1919–2011), a Cornell University economics professor and the second black governor of the Federal Reserve System,[4] and education policy scholar Lois Rice (née Dickson), who helped design the federal Pell Grant subsidy system and who joined the Brookings Institution in 1992.[5] Her maternal grandparents were Jamaican.[6] Her parents divorced when Rice was ten years of age.[7]

              1. Seth:

                Which one of your statements about Rice uniquely qualified her to be Deputy NSA?

                Her father’s academic history?
                Her father’s service in the Federal Reserve?
                Her residence in Washington?
                The fact she went to Stanford?

                None of these have anything whatsoever ever to with being a Deputy National Security Advisor. You must understand that there is a long history of appointing people without specific security experience into this position, from many presidents. As much as you deny and complain, none of Susan Rice’s CV qualified her specifically to be Deputy NSA. She was qualified for some government post, sure, but there is nothing that jumps off the page of her CV that makes her supremely qualified to represent the nation’s interest in such a post. It also does not mean that she would burn the building down. It does not mean she is a bad person, or unintelligent. It means she was appointed to a position that could not have been predicted from her CV.

                The point was made, and proven, that people get posted to many such jobs without specific and lengthy expertise in the field. It is the purview of each President to appoint whom he or she likes to this cabinet position.

            2. Seth said, “Karen, you’re stupid too if you think Wikipedia fabricated Rice’s bio.”

              Where did I say that I thought Wikipedia fabricated Rice’s bio? Answer: nowhere. My comment about her qualifications were based upon what you wrote. This reflects poorly upon your argument.

          2. Karen, Rice did not lie about Benghazi. She repeated what the CIA told her were the known facts.

            1. That ‘blasphemous’ film Rice cited in her original statement really caused riots.

              1. Seth: Judicial Watch obtained emails to Susan Rice that proved they knew it was a lie at the time.

                This was years ago. Didn’t you read about it?

            2. Rice did not lie about Benghazi? Try again. She lied about it being a “spontaneous” attack as a result of an insulting “video.” And here’s the thing: the CIA initial analysis never said the attacks were the spontaneous uprising as a result of a hurtful video. Rice and Obama and Hillary said that. And they all told that blatant lie repeatedly. Obama was running for reelection at the time. Remember that part?

            3. Did Susan Rice know she was lying at the time about Benghazi, or was she shoved out front to be the unwitting sacrificial lamb?

              1996 – as Clinton’s NSC senior director for African Affairs (which you listed as her bona fides) – she advised Bill Clinton to refuse Sudan’s offer to turn over Bin Ladin before he orchestrated the Twin Towers 9/11 terror attack that killed thousands of Americans. Oops. Not a good mark for her.

              Judicial Watch obtained her emails that prove she was told to lie about the video. She falsely blamed an American filmmaker for a terror attack on international tv.


              Her history of lying:


              “On “PBS NewsHour” on March 22, anchor Judy Woodruff introduced the interview by telling viewers she asked Rice about whether Trump and his transition officials “may have been swept up in surveillance of foreigners at the end of the Obama administration.”

              Rice protested: “I know nothing about this. I was surprised to see reports from Chairman Nunes on that count today.”…

              Eli Lake at Bloomberg News reported on April 3 that President Trump’s lawyers discovered it was former President Obama’s national security adviser Susan Rice who allegedly “requested the identities of U.S. persons in raw intelligence reports on dozens of occasions that connect to the Donald Trump transition and campaign.””

              1. “Newly obtained emails on Benghazi show then-U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice was coached by a key White House aide to lie and ignore the facts known and reported on the ground to make the administration look good.”

                “The Rhodes email was not part of the 100 pages of emails released by the (Obama) administration last May, and we can see why. As we noted at the time, that email package showed a successive pattern of edits with White House involvement designed to remove any hint of terrorist involvement to fit the administration’s campaign narrative that the war on terror was over and won.”


              2. There about 5 days between the attack on the Benghazi compound and Susan Rice’s appearances on the Sunday talk shows.
                At that point, it was pretty clear to those in the Obama Administration that this pre-planned attack was far different than “the video” demonstrations in other MidEastern country.
                As National Security advisor, I doubt that it was difficult for Rice to figure out what had happened by the time she did the Sunday talk show circuit, trying to sell “the video story”.
                I think that was the smokescreen, the “talking points”, of Been Rhoades.
                Not inaccurate information Rice was given by the CIA.
                Another odd statement by Rice was her comment that Bo Bergdahl served “with honor and distinction”.
                Those descriptions are not commonly used for soldiers who desert in a combat zone.

                1. ‘Served with honor and distinction’ was the worst. Deeply insulting. Tells us all we need to know about Susan Rice.

                  And Susan Rice, like Hillary Clinton, like Joe Biden, and so many others in the corrupt Barack Obama administration are liars and frauds who have been propped up by the corrupt left leaning Mainstream Media dum dums who protect them all. Period. Otherwise? They would have all be exposed. From Barack Obama on down the line. But Democrats are a protected class.

                  Truth? Joe Biden is a bad person. They all know it in the media. He is corrupt. His family has cashed in on his office for decades. He is greedy. His family is greedy. Biden is dumb as a rock. He is not ever going to be president. The media know it. Biden knows it. Obama knows it. We all know it. Enough of the charade. Go home Joe. You are an embarrassment.

                  Susan Rice is a known liar. It’s about time some of the frauds in the press start asking Barack Obama some questions about his corrupt administration. Fat chance that’ll ever happen.

    2. Don’t you get it? They’re going to be helping both candidates again. They’re going to be spreading around their influence operations to taint ALL the viable candidates. However they can. They will easily recruit Sanders radical people some of whom apparently are Joe Stalin fans. But of course they’re going to taint the elections by trying to help whomever.

      Maybe 2 years from now the Donald will be pulling a Hillary, if he loses, calling Sanders a Russian bot, and won’t shut up about it, trying to get his stay-behinds to smear him, etc etc. See how that works? I have explained this ten times over the past year or two and it sails over your heads, apparently.

      If you like America and actually appreciate the institutions of elections themselves, then you have to grant that your horse may not win. If you attack the winner too strongly, then you impeach the races themselves, not the winners.

      Now, I’m sure there’s people, not just Russians but especially those inside the “DEEP STATE,” who don’t like elections at all. That was the way with the Turkish derin devlet; they didn’t like elections, because guys like Erdogan might win and then use the much hated “populism” to trim the privileges of the bureaucracy. Indeed, that is the very thing that’s happened with Trump, in a nutshell, which is why organizations like the “World Economic Forum” seem to love perpetual bureaucrats like Wang Qishan of the Chinese communist party, but they all seem to hate Trump! Generally, the globa oligarchs hate elections whatsoever, and will encourage any amount of election meddling and internal retribution schemes like the Russia hoax to amplify the ennui which regular citizens may have with electoral politics altogether.

      And their man Bloomberg is trying to ride to the rescue, to derail a popular left candidate in Bernie. Or even better would be if they broker the convention against him, in which case the left-leaning Americans will be as utterly saddened and dismayed as Trump supporters have been.

      The key thing for global plutocrats is KEEP BUREAUCRATS IN CHARGE NO MATTER WHAT! The flavor does not matter. Any bureaucracy is preferable to a strong leader with a mandate from the people.

    3. Natacha screams: “He will withhold or lie about further information American intel gathers about Russian cheating.”

      Baseless fearmongering.

      But you know who DID do that — lie and withhold information from Congress?Disgraced former Obama FBI director James Comey. He withheld from Congress any information, held NO required briefings to the Gang of Eight, on their covert operation Crossfire Hurricane where they illegally spied on Trump’s presidential campaign. Imagine that. It was the Obama administration who did exactly what you are suggesting here Natacha.

      1. We’ll find out about additional information on Russian interference down the road, unless the new Toadie tries to prevent American Intel from monitoring Russia’s interference, which I fully look for them to do. Trump HAS to cheat, again, to keep his smelly ass in our White House.

        When you change the subject to attack Comey or anyone else, you’re doing the Kellyanne Pivot.

        1. The subject of Russian interference has everything to do with James Comey and everyone else mentioned.

        2. There is a trend of the Democrat Party accusing Republicans of what they, themselves, are guilty of. Clapper was an example.


      TDS is derived from formidable threats to the artificial status, unmerited veneration, monetary benefits and financial entitlements of dependent parasitic malingerers, and the legality of fetal murder. After the failures of the empty-suit communisty organizer, Obongo, President Trump has reinvigorated and reestablished an environment in which capable, ethical and ambitious people may “…pursue happiness…” in their preferred brand of free enterprise. By contrast, dependent parasites who require a host to feed are in jeopardy of losing their means of support (i.e. taxpayers/other people). Why don’t you spend your time and energy getting a job or starting a business rather than caterwauling about what is actually your own personal failure?

      “A change is as good as a rest.”

      – English Proverb

      Alternatively, why don’t you consider relocation to the country you came from, or a similar ——-, to engage in “…the pursuit of happiness” of your choice. That could get dicey, huh? I mean some countries’ leaders frown on leeching, perversion, subversion, treason and murder.

      “I smelled somethin’ cookin’ they was cookin’ me!”

      – The Cadets, 1956

      “Don’t Worry, Be Happy!”

      – Bobby McFerrin, 1988

      1. No, George, true TDS is starry-eyed worship of a fat, failed businessman with a bad comb-over and fake tan who panders to White Supremacy, who cheated to get into the U.S. White House with the help of a hostile foreign government because of his pathological narcissistic need for attention, adulation, praise and power. This sick excuse for a human is also on his third marriage, he chronically lies, has a reputation for cheating in every aspect of his life, including draft-dodging by falsely claiming nonexistent bone spurs, cheating on all 3 (so far) of his wives, cheating contractors, business partners, and who has bankrupted 6 or 7 businesses (so far). He’s also a racist who calls South Americans “rapists, murderers, criminals, breeders, vermin and animals”, and cages young children to punish their parents for seeking a better life and escaping violence and poverty. He is also a bully, brags about assaulting women sexually, has no real friends, and his only self-made success was as a television performer, pretending to be a self-made billionaire who goes around firing people. He’s been successfully sued for racial discrimination in housing, and has been involved in thousands of lawsuits, mostly for cheating contractors and suppliers. He is petty, vindictive and unprofessional, engaging in childish name-calling when he doesn’t get his way. He is beholden to Russians because no bank will loan him any money, and he has no respect for America, its values, Congress or the rule of law. He fires anyone who doesn’t kow tow to him. He is the laughingstock of real world leaders. Worshiping this piece of garbage can only be explained as a form of mental illness.

        1. Natacha — any thoughts on why Russia has *apparently* interfered in every election lately….BUT for the 2018 midterms? You know, the election that put the Democrats back in control of the House? Thoughts?

        2. President Donald J. Trump IS the real world leader, you d—–s! What reality are you floundering in? Were you drafted? President Donald J. Trump has whooped every NUTCHACHA-world leader’s a–! Whatever will you do when President Trump abrogates and expunges wholly unconstitutional “Affirmative Action Privilege” and “Generational Welfare,” etc., by executive order? Frightening, huh? You’ll have to revert to historical methodology: Begging on the street corner for “Alms for the Poor,” petitioning for local charity or promising to “…love, cherish and obey…”your husband as you “submit” to him. Ooooooooo! That natural and “reality” thing is a rough ride, huh? Being a ward of the state and the taxpayer is more your speed. There’s nothing like being a “fake,” artificial person and construct of communism, right?

  6. The absolute genius of the Russian operations to undermine the election is revealed by three years of the Democrat insider faction maintaining such a bogus narrative and milking it for all it was worth, so that so many people have lost confidence in the FBI. And the momentary bump to system legitimacy of the unexpected Trump electoral win, has been mitigated, by the dismay people have felt watching the valid election winner face persistent insubordination and sabotage based on this flimsy underlying excuse.

    Of course if Hillary had won, then Trump might have spent 3 years whining about the Russians giving her the pee pee dossier or her colluding with the Russians. so you see, how utterly successful the Russian interference methods were.

    In Chess this is called a “forked attack.” Combined with a gambit. Either way, if the adversary takes the bait, disaster awaits.


    The most beneficial thing Hillary could have done for her country, is to concede the narrow win, and NOT whine about it for years, to tell her cheerleaders to STAND DOWN, and to have them focus on forward looking legislation to help Americans and to engage Trump on the issues instead of with the bogus and false hoax narrative.

    By them harping on this thing so long, even until today, they have magnified the effect of the Russian operations.

    The net effect is that we all understand, that is all of Trump supporters, and all of the Bernie bros who also felt screwed, the Jill Steins and Tulsi Gabbards, the net effect on us is that we understand the elections mean less than we think they do. Because if you win maybe the other candidate just sabotages you until kingdom comes in spite of it.

    This dynamic was fully understood by the German jurist Carl Schmitt who wrote about the dynamic in “Crisis of Parliamentary Democracies”

      1. I agree on the face of it, that the precedent of “Pentagon Papers” should be applied to Assange and cut him loose.

        Of course, they won’t allow it!

        Maybe Assange should get this thing over, and maybe the jury will let him skate. But if not, preserve his issues for appeal, and then win the appeal and then he could be out in a couple years.

        1. “Maybe Assange should get this thing over, and…”

          IMO, no. The U.S. should never get its hands on him…, though it has its ways — even if he isn’t extradited.

          But you’re right about the U.S. not permitting him to go free: “…they won’t allow it.”

          1. Im just thinking like a defense lawyer for Assange., Being cooped up in the Ecuadorian embassy was bad, they’re ruining his health in custody now, he might actually do better in jail and win on appeal. The Pentagon Papers precedent is deeply important to the American media system, and they can’t just confine it to major newspapers.

            It’s like licensing journalists. That is not allowed here, it would gut the first amendment. They have to either credit Assange as a journalist or not.

            Now they’re trying to bag him on other stuff, compare the indictment and the superseding indictments, but, I still think that his case would have a good long term chance of winning on appeal

            Also, the jury might just give him a pass. I know i know, probably not, federal juries are known to produce the desired results! Stone is a case in point.

            Finally, don’t worry too much about them whacking him or him ending up like Epstein. They could have got him already, and, what he’s going through now may just ruin his health to the point of death anyhow.

            He might be ok. Even if they stick him in Florence ADX, where they stick a lot of political prisoners. It’s hard time, but safer than other cruddy jails. People have done time there and made it out, even political prisoners.

            The key thing for Assange as a person is not to knuckle under and explicitly reveal his source. Though I feel that he did imply that it was Seth Rich. But, in context, understandable. And, implying is different than revealing it. If he does that, then his goose is cooked, nobody will care what happens to him. He’s staked his whole life on not cracking under that pressure, jail or not.

            In this respect, one has to admire Assange for his integrity protecting his sources. I predict he will not crack. He may be convicted, he may die, but he will not crack. Personally I admire his guts, big time.

  7. Wow! This article is awesome. It’s about time someone wrote a sequel to 1984.

    The great question that perplexed progressives throughout much of the 21st century was how to completely untether us from the past, thereby for the first time in history truly liberating ourselves from our moorings and ushering in a new age of gender freedom, radical equality, and ethnic equity.

    1. “The great question that perplexed progressives throughout much of the 21st century was how to completely…” [nullify, abrogate and expunge in perpetuity the Constitution and Bill of Rights] (paraphrased).

      – Joseph Mussomeli

      Comrade Abraham Lincoln eliminated classes from American society and put the Marxists on their progressive path to American and world domination.

      Communists (i.e. liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats) are direct and mortal enemies of the Constitution and America.

      Karl Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto 59 years after the adoption of the Constitution because none of the principles of the Communist Manifesto were in the Constitution. Had the principles of the Communist Manifesto been in the Constitution, Karl Marx would have had no reason to write the Communist Manifesto. The principles of the Communist Manifesto were not in the Constitution then and the principles of the Communist Manifesto are not in the Constitution now.

      “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”

      – Edmund Burke

      The only redress of constitutional grievances is impeachment and conviction of most of the judicial branch, with emphasis on the Supreme Court. The attendant requirement for a 2/3 majority assures that corrective action will never be accomplished.

      Americans “…fiddle while Rome burns.”

      America is in a condition of hysteria, incoherence, chaos, anarchy and rebellion.

      President Abraham Lincoln seized power, neutralized the legislative and judicial branches and ruled by executive order and proclamation to “Save the Union.”

      President Donald Trump must now seize power, neutralize the legislative and judicial branches and rule by executive order and proclamation to “Save the Republic.”

  8. “I didn’t shoot anybody, no sir . . . I’m just a patsy.”

    – Lee Harvey Oswald

    Assange is lucky.

    The Deep Deep State did not want anyone to hear the truth from Lee Harvey Oswald so they sent Jack Ruby to shoot Oswald in the basement of a police station.

  9. What else is new with you guys, of course it’s a “deep state” plot. No, let me guess, it’s the intel agencies who let Hillary lose so they could spring all this on poor old Donnie. Maybe a Chinese hoax. It’s the damn Ukainines. No, no, no…I got it, it’s Obama plotting to come back for his third term. It’s part of Bernie’s plan to have us all march on May Day. Maybe Nancy prayed for all of this. Everybody but everybody is lying about Trump and the Russians, it’s all a plot I tell ya.

    1. It clearly was a plot as detailed by Strzok and Page. You read the emails and then there’s this:

      “The day after Trump’s surprising win on Nov. 9, 2016, the FBI counterintelligence team engaged in a new mission, bluntly described in another string of emails prompted by another news leak.

      “We need ALL of their names to scrub, and we should give them ours for the same purpose,” Strzok emailed Page on Nov. 10, 2016, citing a Daily Beast article about some of former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort’s allegedly unsavory ties overseas.

      “Andy didn’t get any others,” Page wrote back, apparently indicating McCabe didn’t have names to add to the “scrub.”

      “That’s what Bill said,” Strzok wrote back, apparently referring to then-FBI chief of counterintelligence William Priestap. “I suggested we need to exchange our entire lists as we each have potential derogatory CI info the other doesn’t.” CI is short for confidential informants.

      It’s an extraordinary exchange, if for no other reason than this: The very day after Trump wins the presidency, some top FBI officials are involved in the sort of gum-shoeing normally reserved for field agents, and their goal is to find derogatory information about someone who had worked for the president-elect.”


      1. “#coup has started. First of many steps. #rebellion. #impeachment will follow ultimately. #lawyers.”

        – Mark S. Zaid, January 30, 2017

        ”[Trump is] not ever going to become president, right? Right?!”

        – Lisa Page to Peter Strzok

        “No. No he won’t. We’ll stop it.”

        – Peter Strzok to Lisa Page

        “POTUS (Obama) wants to know everything we’re doing.”

        – Lisa Page to Peter Strzok, September 2, 2016

        The Obama Coup D’etat in America is the most egregious abuse of power and the most prodigious scandal in American political history.

        The co-conspirators are:

        Bill Taylor, Eric Ciaramella, Rosenstein, Mueller/Team, Andrew Weissmann, Comey,

        Christopher Wray, McCabe, Strozk, Page, Laycock, Kadzic, Yates, Baker, Bruce Ohr,

        Nellie Ohr, Priestap, Kortan, Campbell, Sir Richard Dearlove, Steele, Simpson,

        Joseph Mifsud, Alexander Downer, Stefan “The Walrus” Halper, Azra Turk, Kerry,

        Hillary, Huma, Mills, Brennan, Gina Haspel, Clapper, Lerner, Farkas, Power, Lynch,

        Rice, Jarrett, Holder, Brazile, Sessions (patsy), Nadler, Schiff, Pelosi, Obama et al.

      2. I bet there where burger flippers somewhere bemoaning tRump as a candidate, how did we survive that? As if no one is allowed to have opinions. Just like This is a Turd, do not assume the rest of the world has has as little integrity as you do.

    2. Very good FishWings! It would appear from this post that you may have moved into the bargaining stage of your recovery. It’s okay if you slip back into anger or denial, but this is progress nonetheless. Remember, we’re here for you as you enter the depression stage and will welcome you once you’ve accepted the truth. It’s a difficult process, but be proud of your hard work.

    3. Fishy — you are correct. It was a Deep State plot. And now they are at it again. Russia wants to help Trump get reelected!!! Ask yourself Fishy, why wouldn’t Russia want to help Bernie get elected POTUS? Isn’t that more plausible?

        1. Of course. Bernie the Commie would be the one who “actually understands” Russia. But why would Bernie want to “undermine the Kremlin” ??

          1. “It should come as no surprise, therefore, that those who understand Putin’s kleptocratic system – such the leader of the Russian opposition, Alexei Navalny – are now rooting for Sanders. It is only by undermining that system, not competing with it, that the US can truly weaken Putin’s authoritarian grip, and make way for a new democratic movement to flourish in Russia.” -Guardian

        2. One way for Russia to undermine the US would be to help get Bernie elected and watch as Bernie and his policies destroy the US economy.

          1. “One way for Russia to undermine the US would be to help get Bernie elected and watch as Bernie and his policies destroy the US economy.”

            Baseless fear.

            1. “We are now in a full-blown national security crisis. By trying to prevent the flow of intelligence to Congress, Trump is abetting a Russian covert operation to keep him in office for Moscow’s interests, not America’s.” tweet by former Obama CIA director John O. Brennan Feb 20, 2020

              Baseless fear?

              Absolutely. It’s baseless fearmongering. Until they show us the proof.

            2. ‘We are now in a full-blown national security crisis. By trying to prevent the flow of intelligence to Congress, Trump is abetting a Russian covert operation to keep him in office for Moscow’s interests, not America’s.’ tweet Feb 20 by former Obama CIA director John O. Brennan.

              Baseless fear.

              Show us the proof this time. Instead of more vague fearmongering propaganda.

    4. Fishhead, ever eager to support any false narrative advanced by those he believes are now his friends

      One day he too will be on the wrong receiving end of a manufactured fiction, perhaps.

      And so he like others conflates the issue of general Russian mischief, versus the more narrow and specific and relevant question of the source of the DNC leaks. Which was most likely a DNC staffer who downloaded onto memory sticks, not some guy in Romania who sucked the massive gob of info across telephone wires like sucking a golf ball through a garden hose.

  10. From The Yahoo Link In Turley’s Column:

    White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham immediately denounced the claim about a pardon discussion with Assange as a “complete fabrication,” adding that the president “barely knows Dana Rohrabacher” and has “never spoken to him on this subject or almost any subject.”

    Rohrabacher said that not only did talk of a Trump pardon take place during his meeting, but he also followed up by calling then White House chief of staff John Kelly to discuss the proposal. He did not, however, ever speak to Trump about it, he said. 

    “I spoke to Julian Assange and told him if he would provide evidence about who gave WikiLeaks the emails I would petition the president to give him a pardon,” Rohrabacher said. “He knew I could get to the president.”

    This all looks absolutely incriminating! The White House makes this clumsy denial that Trump knows Rohrabacher when their meeting is a matter of record.  

    A scheme to pardon Assange seems to fit right in with Trump’s persistent denials of Russian interference and the entire Quid Pro Quo matter.  In fact it’s hard to imagine why this sub-plot was not brought out during the impeachment drive.

    Yesterday, as Turley notes, Trump fired his National Intelligence Director after learning that Congress was warned Russia has every intention of interfering in this year’s election.  Said Diector is being replaced by a man widely referred to as a political hack.

    It is so obvious Trump colludes with Russia that only the blindest of stooges can deny at this point.  Nothing could be more obvious.

    1. This all looks absolutely incriminating!

      Paint Chips,
      I see Lucy has teed up another go for you at the football. Of course it looks absolutely incriminating. After 3 years of allegations intended to look absolutely incriminating, every allegation has been proven to be absolute bullsh!t.

      The fact you haven’t connected the dots demonstrates you have either no capacity for reasoning your way to alternative conclusions, or a blinding desire for an outcome that you should know is beyond the current reality. The former is a physical limitation and the latter is mental. Either way, you’ve earned your new name until proven otherwise.

      1. Gas bag Olly, Rohrabacher seems to admit the whole plot and it’s well-established that Trump knows him. There’s nothing more to debate.

        1. if Rohrbacher’s admitted it fine but that doesn’t establish that Trump approved of the initiative

          Moreover, if you understand that the government story about the source of the DNC stolen emails being a hack and not a leak is false, then, one can understand why these actors were persisting in attempts to try and get Assange to reveal and explicitly verify the source.

          Again, the bottom line with this hoax is that certain FBI cheerleaders for Hillary, were engaged in an unconstitutional and nefarious plan to sabotage Trump from the beginning. If you can’t admit that to yourself then nothing makes sense except Orange man bad!

        2. [insert alleged name here] seems to admit the whole plot…There’s nothing more to debate.

          So Paint Chips Charlie Brown it is. Actually that’s not fair to Charlie Brown. At least he would utter good grief, acknowledging his failure to recognize he had been manipulated again. You on the other hand can’t even fathom the possibility. But then again, like Charlie Brown, you’re going to trust Lucy, (your sources) for of every one of your embarrassing face plants, to provide you 5 cent psychiatric counseling.

          For you, there is nothing more to debate. Damn!

    2. the only problem for the theory of your insult Natch, is THAT THE RUSSIANS DID NOT GIVE THAT INFO TO WIKILEAKS, IT WAS A LEAK NOT A HACK


      you can also, at any time, stop CONFLATING TWO DIFFERENT THINGS:

      a) did the Russians interfere with election? Of course,. They are always trying to do that. They try and “help” and thereby implicate and taint BOTH candidates if they can. And oh, they sure did a lot with the phony pee pee dossier they gave Hillary not just some FB ads for Trump

      b) who was the source of the DNC emails published by Wikileaks? Was it “The Russians” as various US intel agencies have disingenuously claimed, some cipher named “Guccifer” who’s supposedly in Romania, whatever the notion is, who sucked the info from the DNC computers .like sucking a golf ball through a garden hose; or was it a person INSIDE THE DNC WITH PHYSICAL ACCESS TO DNC WORKSTATIONS who downloaded onto a memory sticks the leaked info. That’s what Binney’s analysis proved. But nobody in the fake lying US mass media gives any credit to Binney. Well, hardly anybody:


      So bottom line,. people have been trying to get out the truth for years now about this, and only Assange could prove it. Of course he is solid, so he wont reveal the source, Rohrbacher’s attempt was futile and hamfisted, certainly not authorized by Trump, but bottom line, Assange has already implicated that he got it from SETH RICH.

        1. DUDE was ROGER STONE in possession of the DNC emails? How?

          Are you suggesting Seth Rich gave them to Roger Stone? I don’t think that’s likely.

          I think what’s likely is that Seth Rich leaked them to Wiki under his own power.

          Or maybe it was another DNC staffer and not poor Seth Rich who was murdered by thieves who forgot to take his wallet. But it couldnt have been some guy in Romania. It was a download from a DNC workstation not an over the internet hack .That is just a BS government lie. Disinformation.

          Stone is a propagandist not a spy.

          Of course, if it happened that way, one can see why the government would not be charging him with doing such a thing, rather, a bunch of other stuff, since the real story would essentially refute their fake story about it coming from “Guccifer” or whomever, overseas

          1. Kurtz, that’s the reason prosecutors wanted to burn Stone with that long sentence.

            1. I never really thought of that. I should have entertained that possibility. For once Seth Peter the very first time, you have made me feel dumb!

              Yes I suppose it’s possible. Do you have references to others who have speculated about that?

  11. Here is what was heard: ” Pardon my hardon! I never promised you a Rose garden.”

  12. JT, Did you know that even the NYTimes and the Guardian as well as Amnesty International, The Intercept and Journalists w/o Borders (only to name a few) say that this case will, in fact, quash free speech around the world?

    Would you be willing to allow someone such as Nils Melzer who has certified that Assange has been and currently is being tortured, can read all the languages involved in his case and thus has been able to read documents in their original language, write something which will show that statement to be misinformed? Please, if you do chose someone as a guest writer, make it a person who has accurate information about this case and understands what has actually been happening to Assange and the implication of it.

    Here is the headline from the The Guardian: “The US case against the WikiLeaks founder is an assault on press freedom and the public’s right to know” The Guardian

    Headline from the NYTimes: *Julian Assange’s Indictment Aims at the Heart of the First Amendment”

    Amnesty International: “Authorities in the USA must drop the espionage and all other charges against Julian Assange that relate to his publishing activities as part of his work with Wikileaks. The US government’s unrelenting pursuit of Julian Assange for having published disclosed documents that included possible war crimes committed by the US military is nothing short of a full-scale assault on the right to freedom of expression.”

    Reporters w/o Borders: “Assange’s extradition to the US would “threaten the work of all journalists”

    Assange had already said Russia was not the source of the leak 10 months before this offer. He did not take this offer because wikileaks protects sources. He has paid dearly for that stance.

    If you go to Nils Melzer’s and wikileaks twitter I think you may be surprised because you will find information there which is mostly hidden from us in the US.

  13. Uh, Assange said years ago that the Russians had nothing to do with the leak. He’s still being persecuted. Some deal. Turley is looking mighty dumb.

    1. In all the quotes from the former Congressman, nowhere did I see where it was said that if Assange eliminated Russia from blame for the hacks of the DNC emails, he would get a pardon. What I did see is that Assange was asked to disclose “where the leaks came from.” BIB difference.
      And, nowhere did I see Pres. Trump being involved.
      This is an old story, now being brought out of the closet to once again make it look like Trump will pardon anyone who will help him get re-elected.
      The timing is particularly interesting, since it comes just after the Democrat debate that was a disaster for them.

      1. That was my takeaway as well. JT buries the lede to get people salivating and roughly 3 paragraphs in we learn Assange allegedly has information that proves where the DNC hack comes from and it isn’t Russia. I suspect it will prove a lot of things that the DNC and the Left would rather leave unknown.

  14. Your blog reads more like Playboy with fat ugly old women with lots of mileage on them and bad makeup.

    You are desperate for web traffic as a connoisseur of cheap tricks.

    How the mighty have fallen. Doing lines of cocaine would at least give you your desired hits without involving innocent bystanders.

  15. Plus, do the “date” thing here. The Assange Interview is APRIL 2017. Rohrbacher says in the Prof.’s article that he met with Assange in AUGUST 2017.

    This is AFTER Assange done said that it was not Russia that gave him the info from the DNC server. That is why this story is bullsh*t.

    If you curious about Roger Stone, that is in the interview also.
    [JULIAN ASSANGE] OK, Roger Stone, I’ve never communicated with the guy, and he’s never communicated with me, other than very recently to say, “What are you doing, saying that we have communicated? Please explain,” because as far as all our records are concerned, we haven’t. He has simply brilliantly inserted himself into this equation. Now, remember, Stone was pushed out in 2015 from the Trump campaign. When WikiLeaks was engaged in its publications exposing interference in the primary process at the DNC, that was the biggest thing on the political radar for that time period. And so, Stone, having nowhere to be, decided to suggest that he had communications with us.

    But let’s look at his predictions. He predicted that our publications were going to be about the Clinton Foundation. He was wrong. All his other predictions, where they’re accurate, are statements that we made them public. We said we had information about Hillary Clinton, that we were going to publish it, etc. So, when you hear Adam Schiff saying, oh, that Roger Stone said that there’s—that WikiLeaks publications are coming, we were saying—I was saying on TV interviews that we had publications that were coming that were about Hillary Clinton. So, Stone predicted that we were going to publish on October 4. We didn’t publish on October 4. That was our 10-year anniversary, etc. Literally, there’s no predictions that he has made in relation to us, that have come true, that have not been public.

    So, I think, you know, you have to admire the chutzpah of how he has played on Democratic desires to see a connection, and has exploited that in order to sell his books and in order to gain prominence. I mean, it’s very impressive. He just simply lays out a piece of bait that he understands that the Democratically aligned press will leap forward slavishly and put that hook in their mouth—

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  16. From a long interview with Julian Assange,April 12. 2017:
    AMY GOODMAN: Did Russia leak the documents, either the DNC documents or the John Podesta emails, to WikiLeaks?

    JULIAN ASSANGE: We have said quite clearly that our source is not a member of any state, including the Russian government. Now, if you look at these statements by James Comey, James Clapper, going back a couple of months, statements by Barack Obama, they all are harmonious with our description. Now, what—what the U.S. investigation by James Comey seems to be trying to say, at least in public, is that they perceive that there was some Russian hacking, or at least some hacking from somewhere, of the DNC, other institutions in the United States. In fact, the allegations are that several thousands of people were hacked in those operations.

    AMY GOODMAN: But how do you know—how do you know it’s not Russia? How do you know it’s not a state actor, since you usually say you don’t know who gives you documents?

    JULIAN ASSANGE: We look very closely at our publications. We tend to come to a good understanding of them. And so, we’re not willing to go into details about our source, because it might describe the sort of person they are, the sort of jurisdiction that they’re in, which could put them at risk. But we have said clearly that our source is not a member of the Russian state. And even the U.S. government is not suggesting that our source is a member of the Russian state.

    And what appears to be going on is that there have been observations of hacking of thousands of people or attempted hacking of thousands of people. That’s quite normal in intelligence gathering activity before an election. Presumably, that’s been carried out by many states. I would be surprised if that doesn’t include Russia. And over here, there’s the publications of WikiLeaks. And what there isn’t is something in between the middle. So, there’s an allegation that, well, if there’s been hacking here, and there’s publication over here, then these must be directly, causally, intentionally related. But so far, there’s no evidence for that.

    The whole transcript is at the link, plus the video of the interview.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

    1. the bizarre thing in America is that far left outfits are often more credible in their reporting than the supposed mainstream news, which steadfastly adheres to any false narrative floated against Russia whatsoever

      Not that Russia doesnt meddle; yes it does. But the specific question of the source of the wikileaks is the pertinent issue not the general reality that they like other nations, engage in espionage.

  17. What actual impartial evidence is there that the Russians hacked the DNC &/or Podesta’s computers? The FBI was not allowed to examine the computers. Only evidence was from a company hired by Hillary et al.

    The intelligence agencies where part of the Russia Trump Collusion Hoax. Why should Am6believe what they said?

    1. Rod:
      “The intelligence agencies where part of the Russia Trump Collusion Hoax. Why should Am6believe what they said?”
      It’s like the transfiguration with the Dims and their apparatchiks in the intelligence community — an article of faith. They don’t need no stinking proof and ’cause they don’t we don’t either.

    2. Yes Rod very suspicious that the FBI always seizes hard drives and other hardware for garden variety information crimes but in this most serious of cases, they couldn’t be bothered with their SOPs and took some third party’s word for it!

    3. Exactly Rod. We’re to believe the FBI will professionally conduct no-knock raids for process crimes, but will be duped by a Jedi mind-trick over an alleged Russian hacking operation of the DNC.

Comments are closed.