Assange’s lawyer: White House offered pardon if Russian hacks covered up

In London court, attorney claims that congressman's visits were to broker deal.



Read the whole story

 

[Danrarbc]

I was reading this earlier.
Pardons are incredibly important for Governors and the POTUS to have in my opinion, but its hard to think of a system that avoids this type of abuse (other than an impeachment process that would hold them accountable, and perhaps undo a pardon that triggered it). Shame we have to design everything around the very worst actors.

One way to somewhat limit abuse would be to limit pardons to crimes that happened PRIOR to the current President/Governor taking office. Abuses could still happen especially if you get multiple Republicans in a row but it would mitigate it. The downside it means people genuinely deserving a pardon may need to wait longer. Then again most people genuinely deserving a pardon DO wait a long period of time.

Since no President has ever been successfully removed from office, it is reasonable to assume that the current process is completely broken and needs to be replaced,

It's clear the process is broken, but it's misleading to say "no president has ever been successfully removed from office." Nixon resigned, because they had the votes to remove him from office. I'd say that's a pretty good example of the impeachment process working as intended, even if they didn't get as far as the formality of holding the vote.

though that would take a Constitutional Amendment to achieve.

What constitutional amendment would that be?

Not only did the votes to convict not reach a 2/3 majority, they didn't even reach a simple majority. What constitutional amendment do you believe would have resulted in Trump being removed from office? Repealing the 17th would at least result in senators not worrying about losing reelection because of their votes, but it wouldn't solve the problem of partisanship.

The problem isn't simply that impeachment is broken. It's that the entire electoral system is broken.

Eliminate the electoral college and the Senate and implement ranked-choice voting for all offices -- that might solve the problem we've got of hyperpartisanship and the government being controlled by people who won a minority of the vote. But simply changing the rules for impeachment ain't gonna do it.

Thats right, remove the EC and make the citizens of 39 states irrelevant and let CA and NY make all the decisions for the rest of time.

Please explain how making everyone’s vote count the same makes votes irrelevant. States aren’t just a block that votes one way. There’s plenty of diehard Trump idiots here in California that don’t have their votes counted in out current, unequal system.

4.4 million people voted for Trump in California, about the same number as the smallest 16 states. Trump won 30 electoral votes from those 16 states - he got zero from the 4.4M in California. How many more votes could he have gotten in California alone if there was a point in campaigning there?

 

[adespoton]

I was reading this earlier.
Pardons are incredibly important for Governors and the POTUS to have in my opinion, but its hard to think of a system that avoids this type of abuse (other than an impeachment process that would hold them accountable, and perhaps undo a pardon that triggered it). Shame we have to design everything around the very worst actors.

One way to somewhat limit abuse would be to limit pardons to crimes that happened PRIOR to the current President/Governor taking office. Abuses could still happen especially if you get multiple Republicans in a row but it would mitigate it. The downside it means people genuinely deserving a pardon may need to wait longer. Then again most people genuinely deserving a pardon DO wait a long period of time.

Since no President has ever been successfully removed from office, it is reasonable to assume that the current process is completely broken and needs to be replaced,

It's clear the process is broken, but it's misleading to say "no president has ever been successfully removed from office." Nixon resigned, because they had the votes to remove him from office. I'd say that's a pretty good example of the impeachment process working as intended, even if they didn't get as far as the formality of holding the vote.

though that would take a Constitutional Amendment to achieve.

What constitutional amendment would that be?

Not only did the votes to convict not reach a 2/3 majority, they didn't even reach a simple majority. What constitutional amendment do you believe would have resulted in Trump being removed from office? Repealing the 17th would at least result in senators not worrying about losing reelection because of their votes, but it wouldn't solve the problem of partisanship.

The problem isn't simply that impeachment is broken. It's that the entire electoral system is broken.

Eliminate the electoral college and the Senate and implement ranked-choice voting for all offices -- that might solve the problem we've got of hyperpartisanship and the government being controlled by people who won a minority of the vote. But simply changing the rules for impeachment ain't gonna do it.

Thats right, remove the EC and make the citizens of 39 states irrelevant and let CA and NY make all the decisions for the rest of time.

Please explain how making everyone’s vote count the same makes votes irrelevant. States aren’t just a block that votes one way. There’s plenty of diehard Trump idiots here in California that don’t have their votes counted in out current, unequal system.

The entire idea behind the current system is that individual voters and even blocs of voters can be idiots, and so there needs to be a few checks to ensure vote results don't move too dramatically from the current status quo in a single election.

Unfortunately, as we've seen those checks can be abused even more than a single "one person, one vote" or STV system.

 

[King_V]

I was reading this earlier.
Pardons are incredibly important for Governors and the POTUS to have in my opinion, but its hard to think of a system that avoids this type of abuse (other than an impeachment process that would hold them accountable, and perhaps undo a pardon that triggered it). Shame we have to design everything around the very worst actors.

One way to somewhat limit abuse would be to limit pardons to crimes that happened PRIOR to the current President/Governor taking office. Abuses could still happen especially if you get multiple Republicans in a row but it would mitigate it. The downside it means people genuinely deserving a pardon may need to wait longer. Then again most people genuinely deserving a pardon DO wait a long period of time.

Since no President has ever been successfully removed from office, it is reasonable to assume that the current process is completely broken and needs to be replaced,

It's clear the process is broken, but it's misleading to say "no president has ever been successfully removed from office." Nixon resigned, because they had the votes to remove him from office. I'd say that's a pretty good example of the impeachment process working as intended, even if they didn't get as far as the formality of holding the vote.

though that would take a Constitutional Amendment to achieve.

What constitutional amendment would that be?

Not only did the votes to convict not reach a 2/3 majority, they didn't even reach a simple majority. What constitutional amendment do you believe would have resulted in Trump being removed from office? Repealing the 17th would at least result in senators not worrying about losing reelection because of their votes, but it wouldn't solve the problem of partisanship.

The problem isn't simply that impeachment is broken. It's that the entire electoral system is broken.

Eliminate the electoral college and the Senate and implement ranked-choice voting for all offices -- that might solve the problem we've got of hyperpartisanship and the government being controlled by people who won a minority of the vote. But simply changing the rules for impeachment ain't gonna do it.

Thats right, remove the EC and make the citizens of 39 states irrelevant and let CA and NY make all the decisions for the rest of time.

So, what you're saying is that land-area is being disenfranchised? And, of course, just like your feeble rebuttal to the tax chart, you're most definitely saying that you suck at math.

First - the total population of CA and NY combined is about 48 million. The US population is approximately 327 million.

In other words, you thing that by removing the privilege that the low population states have of having their votes count as much as 3-4 times as weighted as the votes of those in higher population states, that there is some kind of injustice going on?

States are IRRELEVANT. Land area is IRRELEVANT. PEOPLE are what count.

And, yet, you think the average person in Wyoming should have his vote carry as much weight as about 3-1/2 votes in New Jersey? THAT's fair to you?

Right . . take away that "right," and make all votes count EQUALLY, and you think, magically, somehow, only two states, with a total of 14.7% of the US population, are going to call all the shots?

Get your head out of your ass. Also, educate yourself:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wC42HgLA4k

The more intense parts that show how colossally stupid you and all the other Trumpies are when it comes to math and "OMG NY and CA ARE GOING TO HAVE TOTAL CONTROL" comes up about 3 minutes or so in.


(and, frankly, the country would probably be far better off if NY and CA made the decisions, but that violates your party orthodoxy. As does education, since at least the Karl Rove days)


EDIT: And before you start your whining, this video came out in 2011, so the population numbers are slightly different.

 

[Snark218]

I was reading this earlier.
Pardons are incredibly important for Governors and the POTUS to have in my opinion, but its hard to think of a system that avoids this type of abuse (other than an impeachment process that would hold them accountable, and perhaps undo a pardon that triggered it). Shame we have to design everything around the very worst actors.

One way to somewhat limit abuse would be to limit pardons to crimes that happened PRIOR to the current President/Governor taking office. Abuses could still happen especially if you get multiple Republicans in a row but it would mitigate it. The downside it means people genuinely deserving a pardon may need to wait longer. Then again most people genuinely deserving a pardon DO wait a long period of time.

Since no President has ever been successfully removed from office, it is reasonable to assume that the current process is completely broken and needs to be replaced,

It's clear the process is broken, but it's misleading to say "no president has ever been successfully removed from office." Nixon resigned, because they had the votes to remove him from office. I'd say that's a pretty good example of the impeachment process working as intended, even if they didn't get as far as the formality of holding the vote.

though that would take a Constitutional Amendment to achieve.

What constitutional amendment would that be?

Not only did the votes to convict not reach a 2/3 majority, they didn't even reach a simple majority. What constitutional amendment do you believe would have resulted in Trump being removed from office? Repealing the 17th would at least result in senators not worrying about losing reelection because of their votes, but it wouldn't solve the problem of partisanship.

The problem isn't simply that impeachment is broken. It's that the entire electoral system is broken.

Eliminate the electoral college and the Senate and implement ranked-choice voting for all offices -- that might solve the problem we've got of hyperpartisanship and the government being controlled by people who won a minority of the vote. But simply changing the rules for impeachment ain't gonna do it.

Thats right, remove the EC and make the citizens of 39 states irrelevant and let CA and NY make all the decisions for the rest of time.

I am, honestly and truly, okay with this.

 

[1Zach1]

I was reading this earlier.
Pardons are incredibly important for Governors and the POTUS to have in my opinion, but its hard to think of a system that avoids this type of abuse (other than an impeachment process that would hold them accountable, and perhaps undo a pardon that triggered it). Shame we have to design everything around the very worst actors.

One way to somewhat limit abuse would be to limit pardons to crimes that happened PRIOR to the current President/Governor taking office. Abuses could still happen especially if you get multiple Republicans in a row but it would mitigate it. The downside it means people genuinely deserving a pardon may need to wait longer. Then again most people genuinely deserving a pardon DO wait a long period of time.

Since no President has ever been successfully removed from office, it is reasonable to assume that the current process is completely broken and needs to be replaced,

It's clear the process is broken, but it's misleading to say "no president has ever been successfully removed from office." Nixon resigned, because they had the votes to remove him from office. I'd say that's a pretty good example of the impeachment process working as intended, even if they didn't get as far as the formality of holding the vote.

though that would take a Constitutional Amendment to achieve.

What constitutional amendment would that be?

Not only did the votes to convict not reach a 2/3 majority, they didn't even reach a simple majority. What constitutional amendment do you believe would have resulted in Trump being removed from office? Repealing the 17th would at least result in senators not worrying about losing reelection because of their votes, but it wouldn't solve the problem of partisanship.

The problem isn't simply that impeachment is broken. It's that the entire electoral system is broken.

Eliminate the electoral college and the Senate and implement ranked-choice voting for all offices -- that might solve the problem we've got of hyperpartisanship and the government being controlled by people who won a minority of the vote. But simply changing the rules for impeachment ain't gonna do it.

Thats right, remove the EC and make the citizens of 39 states irrelevant and let CA and NY make all the decisions for the rest of time.

I am, honestly and truly, okay with this.

There are also several proposed EC solutions that don't straight up remove the EC while moving to fix the giant issues with the current system.

 

[King_V]

Huh, there seems to be ONE consistent down-vote in my posts in this thread.

I am starting to think that maybe soulice simply does NOT like having facts shoved in front of his/her face. It tends to disrupt his/her belief system, I guess.

 

[Faceless Man]

Since no President has ever been successfully removed from office, it is reasonable to assume that the current process is completely broken and needs to be replaced,

It's clear the process is broken, but it's misleading to say "no president has ever been successfully removed from office." Nixon resigned, because they had the votes to remove him from office. I'd say that's a pretty good example of the impeachment process working as intended, even if they didn't get as far as the formality of holding the vote.

though that would take a Constitutional Amendment to achieve.

What constitutional amendment would that be?

Not only did the votes to convict not reach a 2/3 majority, they didn't even reach a simple majority. What constitutional amendment do you believe would have resulted in Trump being removed from office? Repealing the 17th would at least result in senators not worrying about losing reelection because of their votes, but it wouldn't solve the problem of partisanship.

The problem isn't simply that impeachment is broken. It's that the entire electoral system is broken.

Eliminate the electoral college and the Senate and implement ranked-choice voting for all offices -- that might solve the problem we've got of hyperpartisanship and the government being controlled by people who won a minority of the vote. But simply changing the rules for impeachment ain't gonna do it.

Thats right, remove the EC and make the citizens of 39 states irrelevant and let CA and NY make all the decisions for the rest of time.

I am, honestly and truly, okay with this.

There are also several proposed EC solutions that don't straight up remove the EC while moving to fix the giant issues with the current system.

Going back to assigning EC members proportionally based on the actual results, instead of "all or nothing" would be a start. But that wasn't as...lucrative...when it came to election-time pork barreling.

 

[Walt French]

Julian Assange conspiring with bad actors at the highest levels of the US government to disseminate false and propagandistic intel would be a suitably absurd conclusion to his story in public life.

We can do better.

Better being more absurd, that is. Such as Trump's Press Secretary saying that Trump hardly knew Rohrabacher and this whole story is probably the DNC working with Assange to discredit Trump.

I thought gaslighting was supposed to be subtle. Claiming Assange is conspiring with the very Democratic National Committee that he savaged by being the Russians' conduit for their cyberwarfare, is just looney-tunes.

 

[nivedita]

And Illid, you realize most of Trump’s pardons were nonviolent people of color too, and he worked for the First Step Act to undo Biden and Bloomberg’s racist laws too, and make people getting out of prison eligible for Pell Grants too right? I’m sure you don’t know this because Ars and most media sees fit to push stupid things like this that will be corrected next week instead of that. I guarantee it will be corrected, maybe not on Ars though, that he wanted to know who actually hacked the DNC. Whether you agree or not, offering a pardon for proof of who did isn’t a bad thing IMO. Especially since the FBI wasn’t allowed to even look at the servers in question.
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/201 ... -education

Look, you sound like you’re trying to make the claim that some of the most educated and intelligent people are collectively brainwashed. It’d be wise of you to stop, take a breath and consider for a moment that you may actually be wrong.

If you currently lack the capability of self-reflection, then I’d advise that you peddle your misinformation elsewhere. That doesn’t tend to take root here.

Actually yeah, I’m saying you are a bit misinformed to say the least. I didn’t say you are the most intelligent and educated. I said you should be. Sometimes the smartest people are the most out of touch, in their own little circle jerk echo chambers. You obviously didn’t even try to learn anything from what I posted or look into any of the easily discovered facts I posted.

I didn’t bother to go through your list because your “facts” failed on the first sentence. There’s only been one person of color pardoned by Trump: Former Boxer, Jack Johnson. And that was after Mr. Johnson had already died.

By the way, I wasn’t saying I was the most intelligent nor well educated. I was pointing out that you were trying to make the claim that collectively Ars readers are brainwashed into disliking Trump. I’m stating that’s a tenuous and intellectually dangerous position to take.

You're forgetting Dinesh D'Souza /s

 

[Thad Boyd]

Huh, there seems to be ONE consistent down-vote in my posts in this thread.

I am starting to think that maybe soulice simply does NOT like having facts shoved in front of his/her face. It tends to disrupt his/her belief system, I guess.

My "Imagine that being your hobby" post also attracted a single downvote.

Don't know why anyone would downvote that, unless they were offended by my insulting their hobby.

 

[cmgangrel]

Votes > Tactical Ponies. Though, tactical ponies definitely have their place.

That place is post page 10, at the bottom of a well

According to some posters that is....

 

[Snark218]

And Illid, you realize most of Trump’s pardons were nonviolent people of color too, and he worked for the First Step Act to undo Biden and Bloomberg’s racist laws too, and make people getting out of prison eligible for Pell Grants too right? I’m sure you don’t know this because Ars and most media sees fit to push stupid things like this that will be corrected next week instead of that. I guarantee it will be corrected, maybe not on Ars though, that he wanted to know who actually hacked the DNC. Whether you agree or not, offering a pardon for proof of who did isn’t a bad thing IMO. Especially since the FBI wasn’t allowed to even look at the servers in question.
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/201 ... -education

Look, you sound like you’re trying to make the claim that some of the most educated and intelligent people are collectively brainwashed. It’d be wise of you to stop, take a breath and consider for a moment that you may actually be wrong.

If you currently lack the capability of self-reflection, then I’d advise that you peddle your misinformation elsewhere. That doesn’t tend to take root here.

Actually yeah, I’m saying you are a bit misinformed to say the least. I didn’t say you are the most intelligent and educated. I said you should be. Sometimes the smartest people are the most out of touch, in their own little circle jerk echo chambers. You obviously didn’t even try to learn anything from what I posted or look into any of the easily discovered facts I posted.

I didn’t bother to go through your list because your “facts” failed on the first sentence. There’s only been one person of color pardoned by Trump: Former Boxer, Jack Johnson. And that was after Mr. Johnson had already died.

By the way, I wasn’t saying I was the most intelligent nor well educated. I was pointing out that you were trying to make the claim that collectively Ars readers are brainwashed into disliking Trump. I’m stating that’s a tenuous and intellectually dangerous position to take.

You're forgetting Dinesh D'Souza /s

In fairness, so has everyone.

 

[cynyc2]

Thanks Arsians, for reading the troll bullshit, downvoting into oblivion, so that I don't have too!

 

[Asvarduil]

Vote Blue No Matter Who.

Well, unless they're secretly very very red - then it's a maybe *coughbloombergh*

Yeah, I didn't watch the latest debate, but I heard [NPR] that Bloomberg had a hard time.

Unfortunately, the analyses I've read all agree that it doesn't seem like Democrats are all that united behind much of anyone, which only means good things for Trump and the Dark Era of Trump-fuckery in which we all live.

 

[Asvarduil]

Thanks Arsians, for reading the troll bullshit, downvoting into oblivion, so that I don't have too!

Glad to be of service.

If they start getting too uppity, they'll start receiving ponies. We're well after Page 10.

 

[Judelexan]

Thanks Arsians, for reading the troll bullshit, downvoting into oblivion, so that I don't have too!

Glad to be of service.

If they start getting too uppity, they'll start receiving ponies. We're well after Page 10.

Weapons hot, awaiting further instruction.

 

[Greggles2K]

Guys, if you're going to brigade, try to a be a little less obvious about it.

Christ, fucking rookies.

They come out for any story involving Assange, Bezos or Musk.

 

[Thad Boyd]

Vote Blue No Matter Who.

Well, unless they're secretly very very red - then it's a maybe *coughbloombergh*

Yeah, I didn't watch the latest debate, but I heard [NPR] that Bloomberg had a hard time.

Unfortunately, the analyses I've read all agree that it doesn't seem like Democrats are all that united behind much of anyone, which only means good things for Trump and the Dark Era of Trump-fuckery in which we all live.

Keep in mind only two states have voted and one of them was a clusterfuck. And the news media love a horse-race narrative.

While it's true that support is fragmented at this time and the odds of a contested convention are greater than they've ever been (under the current primary system, which was introduced in 1972), it's also true that the vast majority of primary votes haven't been cast yet. It's quite possible that the race narrows and voters unite behind a single candidate who goes on to the convention with an outright majority (most likely Sanders, but it's still possible it could end up being somebody else).

 

[Statistical]

Vote Blue No Matter Who.

Well, unless they're secretly very very red - then it's a maybe *coughbloombergh*

Yeah, I didn't watch the latest debate, but I heard [NPR] that Bloomberg had a hard time.

Unfortunately, the analyses I've read all agree that it doesn't seem like Democrats are all that united behind much of anyone, which only means good things for Trump and the Dark Era of Trump-fuckery in which we all live.

It is a primary. Nobody is supposed to be united right now. In the general election is the time for unity as a party. Right now may the best man/woman win.

 

[Stuart Frasier]

And Illid, you realize most of Trump’s pardons were nonviolent people of color too, and he worked for the First Step Act to undo Biden and Bloomberg’s racist laws too, and make people getting out of prison eligible for Pell Grants too right? I’m sure you don’t know this because Ars and most media sees fit to push stupid things like this that will be corrected next week instead of that. I guarantee it will be corrected, maybe not on Ars though, that he wanted to know who actually hacked the DNC. Whether you agree or not, offering a pardon for proof of who did isn’t a bad thing IMO. Especially since the FBI wasn’t allowed to even look at the servers in question.
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/201 ... -education

Look, you sound like you’re trying to make the claim that some of the most educated and intelligent people are collectively brainwashed. It’d be wise of you to stop, take a breath and consider for a moment that you may actually be wrong.

If you currently lack the capability of self-reflection, then I’d advise that you peddle your misinformation elsewhere. That doesn’t tend to take root here.

Actually yeah, I’m saying you are a bit misinformed to say the least. I didn’t say you are the most intelligent and educated. I said you should be. Sometimes the smartest people are the most out of touch, in their own little circle jerk echo chambers. You obviously didn’t even try to learn anything from what I posted or look into any of the easily discovered facts I posted.

I didn’t bother to go through your list because your “facts” failed on the first sentence. There’s only been one person of color pardoned by Trump: Former Boxer, Jack Johnson. And that was after Mr. Johnson had already died.

By the way, I wasn’t saying I was the most intelligent nor well educated. I was pointing out that you were trying to make the claim that collectively Ars readers are brainwashed into disliking Trump. I’m stating that’s a tenuous and intellectually dangerous position to take.

You're forgetting Dinesh D'Souza /s

Somehow, D'Ouche has convinced himself he won't be up against the wall when the revolution he's working for comes.

 

[tygorn]

So now you’re admitting, the whole premise of this article is false. That Assange was denying it was Russia the whole time, but somehow Trump offered him a pardon if he would just say what he was saying the whole time? That only works on the stupid or uniformed, or worse, the misinformed, as this article tried to make people reading it.

Are you really this fucking dense? Should I draw a flowchart for you with big red crayons to better help you understand? I'll try and use words for you one last time.

Assange's lawyer has stated that a member of the US government acting on Trump's behalf offered a potential pardon for his cooperation.

Dana Rohrabacher has verified this statement, that this offer was made, though left it vague whether the White House had knowledge of the offer at the time.

These are the basic, indisputable facts. Everything else is an aside.

Maybe next time wait until all the facts are out before attacking a fellow Ars reader?

Read this updated story and realize Trump never offered Assange a pardon. Let alone offered a pardon to lie about Russian involvement. Considering Assange had already been saying (more hinting) that Russia was not the source well before this meeting with the Congressmen ever took place..

https://meincmagazine.com/tech-policy/202 ... or-assange

 

[Judelexan]

So now you’re admitting, the whole premise of this article is false. That Assange was denying it was Russia the whole time, but somehow Trump offered him a pardon if he would just say what he was saying the whole time? That only works on the stupid or uniformed, or worse, the misinformed, as this article tried to make people reading it.

Are you really this fucking dense? Should I draw a flowchart for you with big red crayons to better help you understand? I'll try and use words for you one last time.

Assange's lawyer has stated that a member of the US government acting on Trump's behalf offered a potential pardon for his cooperation.

Dana Rohrabacher has verified this statement, that this offer was made, though left it vague whether the White House had knowledge of the offer at the time.

These are the basic, indisputable facts. Everything else is an aside.

Maybe next time wait until all the facts are out before attacking a fellow Ars reader?

Read this updated story and realize Trump never offered Assange a pardon. Let alone offered a pardon to lie about Russian involvement. Considering Assange had already been saying (more hinting) that Russia was not the source well before this meeting with the Congressmen ever took place..

https://meincmagazine.com/tech-policy/202 ... or-assange

Jesus, it's like a broken record with you people. Go back 5 pages and catch up, we're not rehashing this for a 4th fucking time.

And that guy is far from a "fellow Arsian" and you likely aren't either. You guys really suck at this. Stay in school kids.

 

[Stuart Frasier]

So now you’re admitting, the whole premise of this article is false. That Assange was denying it was Russia the whole time, but somehow Trump offered him a pardon if he would just say what he was saying the whole time? That only works on the stupid or uniformed, or worse, the misinformed, as this article tried to make people reading it.

Are you really this fucking dense? Should I draw a flowchart for you with big red crayons to better help you understand? I'll try and use words for you one last time.

Assange's lawyer has stated that a member of the US government acting on Trump's behalf offered a potential pardon for his cooperation.

Dana Rohrabacher has verified this statement, that this offer was made, though left it vague whether the White House had knowledge of the offer at the time.

These are the basic, indisputable facts. Everything else is an aside.

Maybe next time wait until all the facts are out before attacking a fellow Ars reader?

Read this updated story and realize Trump never offered Assange a pardon. Let alone offered a pardon to lie about Russian involvement. Considering Assange had already been saying (more hinting) that Russia was not the source well before this meeting with the Congressmen ever took place..

https://meincmagazine.com/tech-policy/202 ... or-assange

Jesus, it's like a broken record with you people. Go back 5 pages and catch up, we're not rehashing this for a 4th fucking time.

And that guy is far from a "fellow Arsian" and you likely aren't either. You guys really suck at this. Stay in school kids.

As if a squid cloud of attempted plausible deniability from Dana fucking Rohrabacher somehow discredits the original story.

 

[Judelexan]

Why is this even on ArtTechnica? I come to this site for insight into technology not #fakenews

What a compelling perspective, please GO ON.

 

[ilidd]

And Illid, you realize most of Trump’s pardons were nonviolent people of color too, and he worked for the First Step Act to undo Biden and Bloomberg’s racist laws too, and make people getting out of prison eligible for Pell Grants too right? I’m sure you don’t know this because Ars and most media sees fit to push stupid things like this that will be corrected next week instead of that. I guarantee it will be corrected, maybe not on Ars though, that he wanted to know who actually hacked the DNC. Whether you agree or not, offering a pardon for proof of who did isn’t a bad thing IMO. Especially since the FBI wasn’t allowed to even look at the servers in question.
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/201 ... -education

Look, you sound like you’re trying to make the claim that some of the most educated and intelligent people are collectively brainwashed. It’d be wise of you to stop, take a breath and consider for a moment that you may actually be wrong.

If you currently lack the capability of self-reflection, then I’d advise that you peddle your misinformation elsewhere. That doesn’t tend to take root here.

Actually yeah, I’m saying you are a bit misinformed to say the least. I didn’t say you are the most intelligent and educated. I said you should be. Sometimes the smartest people are the most out of touch, in their own little circle jerk echo chambers. You obviously didn’t even try to learn anything from what I posted or look into any of the easily discovered facts I posted.

I didn’t bother to go through your list because your “facts” failed on the first sentence. There’s only been one person of color pardoned by Trump: Former Boxer, Jack Johnson. And that was after Mr. Johnson had already died.

By the way, I wasn’t saying I was the most intelligent nor well educated. I was pointing out that you were trying to make the claim that collectively Ars readers are brainwashed into disliking Trump. I’m stating that’s a tenuous and intellectually dangerous position to take.

You're forgetting Dinesh D'Souza /s

I was trying to, yes.

 

[DarthSlack]

For all of those who are promoting the idea that Trump didn't make the offer, just remember that Donald Trump has lied 16,241 times since taking office.

Oh, and that number is a month out of date.....

 

[Renzatic]

And here's a post by someone who got one too many wedgies in high school.

 

[rmgoat]

In August of 2017, then-Congressman Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.) visited Julian Assange at the Ecuadoran Embassy in London. Rohrabacher told The Wall Street Journal that he was trying to broker a deal between Assange and the White House that would allow Wikileaks' Julian Assange to leave the embassy and be granted a pardon or similar clemency by the Trump administration—in exchange for information proving that the Russian government had not been the source of Democratic Party emails published by WikiLeaks.

Wait, what?

In 2017, Assange was wanted by the Swedish authorities to answer questions about rape charges, and the British authorities for failure to appear in court. The US did not publically make extradition claims until after his arrest in 2019. It's entirely possible that Britain or Sweden would acceede to a request from the US for clemency, but by no means guaranteed or even particularly likely.

At best, Assange claimed that the Swedish charges were trumped up at the request of the US, and that was his basis for not wanting to be extradited to Sweden (because the US would kidnap him enroute, or something). If the US publically discarded their allegedly secret plans to extradite him... all that would do is remove his only professed claim for not going to Sweden. It would have done nothing at all about facing arrest in both Britain and Sweden.

How would that have helped him?

Assange's giving a statement that Russia's GRU didn't give Wikileaks the information wouldn't help much as it's already established that the GRU used a made up person "Guccifer 2.0" as a cutout to channel the DNC info to Wikileaks. Assange has already denied the GRU directly provided the data.

Sweden's on again off again extradition attempts are kind of a complex story as seen below.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v ... _Authority

 

[rmgoat]

Wait, dont say the rich...the top 2% already pay 48% of all income taxes. That leaves you and me footing the bill that we cant afford.

Oh noes they pay 48% of the FEDERAL INCOME taxes (and a much smaller share of ALL taxes) how will they ever handle that horrible burden with only >99% of the wealth.

Irrelevant. They are paying the bulk of income taxes. But I guess the fact that most of them started a company, worked 15-18 hour days for decades to build cant reap the benefits of that labor? Got it. Loved Bloombergs response to Bernie " I earned it" and he did.

Fun fact. Bloomberg's current effective tax rate after his charitable deductions is likely around 10% - he hasn't revealed his actual rate after deductions. That's quite a bit lower than the rate my household pays.

And as Warren Buffett said it's crazy that his secretary's marginal tax rate is higher than his.

 

[rmgoat]

And I am ok with killing the ACA. I did not get to keep my plan or docotr and now pay 4 times as much in premiums to fund others. FOUR times, from $600 a month to $2300 a month, for a weaker plan because the company (who worked with Obama to set them up) siad they had to "meet requirements".

Killing ACA means going back to a system even more unregulated than before. And healthcare was already failing under its own weight. Killing ACA means tens of millions of uninsured. The return of plans that cover nothing. The return to medical bankruptcy rates of the 00s. And the return to hundreds of healthcare providers going under every year.

Many of those chose not to use it, and MOST, on bronze plans, could not because Obama's deal with the insurance providers made premiums low or 0, but copays and deductibles were through the roof.

Universal healthcare is failing in countries it is touted in, just do the research like i have and worked for a Swedish company for 8 years and say it first hand. Then you get nuts like Sanders who tout Denmark, well guess what...The Danish health care model is weighted toward preventative and catastrophic care, not the daily maintenance of preventable diseases. There is no blank check for prescriptions; Danes pay for them out of pocket, along with dentistry and physical therapy.
Countries with 5 million up to 46 million people are all having trouble paying for their models, they have started to filer out or put last in line those with bad health issues. They deny service when budgets are exceeded and they can only continue them by raising taxes yet again, when they are already in the 60% plus range.
We have 350 million people here and 51% do not pay any income tax, so how do we fund it. Wait, dont say the rich...the top 2% already pay 48% of all income taxes. That leaves you and me footing the bill that we cant afford.

ACA didn't intend on this many subsidies being handed out for low income people - Medicaid expansion was supposed to be rolled out to cover this portion of the market. Republicans fought that.

Universal healthcare isn't failing in multiple countries. That's just plain a lie.

You make contradicting statements about Danish care. Danes pay $40 for a vial of insulin (not $144). Physical therapy is also cheaper in Denmark. Though it's true most countries don't include dental.

It's a lie that countries are having trouble paying for their models. They aren't moving people to the back of lines because they use healthcare. And the rich haven't paid their fair share of US taxes since the 80s.

Oh and Bernie wants to tax anyone over $29k a year to pay his healthcare bill, you cool with that?

$200-$400 per month in taxes is a better deal than premiums, out of pocket expenses and copays. So hell yeah.

PS: Deprioritizing people that actively strain the system by consuming substances that damage their own health already happens in the US.

As a Canadian who live part of the year in the US, my provincial income tax times the percent of the budget spent on health care means I spend about $500 a month for the government run healthcare. Another $200 a month for the 20% of drugs the government plan does not cover, dental and out of country care, chiropractic, physio, (above what the government plan pays). Sort of like the plans in the US that cover Medicare Part B costs.

EVERYONE is covered even if you don't make enough to pay tax.

 

[rmgoat]

Obi Wan was wrong...

Vote out the Republican Scum in November!

I'm already seeing signs that Democrat man babies are going to do the same exact BS if they don't get Bernie or Warren as a nominee. Same shit as 2016. Rinse and repeat. This country deserves to turn into a dictatorship as the people in this country seem to be incapable of acting like an adult.
I've said it before and I will say it again. I would love to have a car with all the bells and whistles I want on it. But as a adult I have to factor costs, feature, and everything else when I shop around for a car. This can frequently mean compromising my wants and expectations to settle on something that isn't everything I want but is something I can live with. Its called being a god damn adult and something I think there are a lot of starry eyed Democrats and Independents need to come to terms with. Priority one. Get Trump the hell out of the White House. Priority two. Everything else.
The damage has already been done. It is going to take 2 generations to clean up what that shit stain has done to this country. The list is too long to go into here.
If he gets another 4 what do you think this shit show is going to do with the knowledge that a majority (or almost majority) of the US is OK with the crap he's pulled over the last 4 years? We can see what happened when he got a get out of jail free card for impeachment. Pardons all over the place. He is going to burn this country to the ground with 4 more. But whatever. I've lost any faith in the people of the United States. I've come to believe that the movie Idiocracy was a documentary.

Interesting. You got downvoted because of true statements about the current democrat membership, then you pull the same "priority one, get Trump out of the white house" which your readers apparently didnt see since they had already down voted you.
200 years from now history will show that Obama's changes started the decline of the US and turned it into a dole state.

No, it will show how a Trump re-election will start the decline of the US and turned it into a authoritarian fascist police state.

 

[rmgoat]

Vote Blue No Matter Who.

Well, unless they're secretly very very red - then it's a maybe *coughbloombergh*

I see Bloomberg as a pragmatist rather than a partisan, that's a problem because the system as it is currently favors people who cater to the more extreme ends of their party. And those people want zero sum solutions, my way or no way. This makes it difficult for anyone to be a centrist and cooperate for the best interests of the country, not the narrow interests of a particular section of their party.

 

[rmgoat]

I was reading this earlier.
Pardons are incredibly important for Governors and the POTUS to have in my opinion, but its hard to think of a system that avoids this type of abuse (other than an impeachment process that would hold them accountable, and perhaps undo a pardon that triggered it). Shame we have to design everything around the very worst actors.

One way to somewhat limit abuse would be to limit pardons to crimes that happened PRIOR to the current President/Governor taking office. Abuses could still happen especially if you get multiple Republicans in a row but it would mitigate it. The downside it means people genuinely deserving a pardon may need to wait longer. Then again most people genuinely deserving a pardon DO wait a long period of time.

Since no President has ever been successfully removed from office, it is reasonable to assume that the current process is completely broken and needs to be replaced,

It's clear the process is broken, but it's misleading to say "no president has ever been successfully removed from office." Nixon resigned, because they had the votes to remove him from office. I'd say that's a pretty good example of the impeachment process working as intended, even if they didn't get as far as the formality of holding the vote.

though that would take a Constitutional Amendment to achieve.

What constitutional amendment would that be?

Not only did the votes to convict not reach a 2/3 majority, they didn't even reach a simple majority. What constitutional amendment do you believe would have resulted in Trump being removed from office? Repealing the 17th would at least result in senators not worrying about losing reelection because of their votes, but it wouldn't solve the problem of partisanship.

The problem isn't simply that impeachment is broken. It's that the entire electoral system is broken.

Eliminate the electoral college and the Senate and implement ranked-choice voting for all offices -- that might solve the problem we've got of hyperpartisanship and the government being controlled by people who won a minority of the vote. But simply changing the rules for impeachment ain't gonna do it.

Thats right, remove the EC and make the citizens of 39 states irrelevant and let CA and NY make all the decisions for the rest of time.

I am, honestly and truly, okay with this.

I really hope this is sarcasm. If not this is the reason that the center of the US thinks the coastal states see them as 'fly over country', to be denigrated and their concerns ignored. The GOP has fostered this belief to their benefit. Wyoming gets one rep but two senators, as do Alaska, Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota. Of course so do Delaware and Vermont.

 

[fafalone]

No possible way you can believe Trump is guilty on this.

We all know the only acceptable standard for proof is,

1) Trump personally says he did it,

2) Trump agrees it's a crime, and

3) Trump agrees he should be punished for it.


The burden of proof has clearly not been met.

 

[dogbot]

Trollface...

BBC report on government stats was the source, but hey, whatever.

Of course it was.

That's why it's still so easily, prominently available to back up your posts.

But what's that? It's not? Oh.

There are several reports of public opinion polls where a load of smelly old, red-faced Daily Mail reader types said that's what they think should happen but once again, there's no reports of it actually happening.

So, you see the difference? I suspect you don't, can't...

And that is because you made it up and the BBC never reported on such a thing.

 

[Deleted member 276317]

I guess you replace your DNI if his underlings dare talk to congress.

Keep pretending this isn't the most dangerous, corrupt president the nation's had.

 

[Baron von Robber]

I was reading this earlier.
Pardons are incredibly important for Governors and the POTUS to have in my opinion, but its hard to think of a system that avoids this type of abuse (other than an impeachment process that would hold them accountable, and perhaps undo a pardon that triggered it). Shame we have to design everything around the very worst actors.

One way to somewhat limit abuse would be to limit pardons to crimes that happened PRIOR to the current President/Governor taking office. Abuses could still happen especially if you get multiple Republicans in a row but it would mitigate it. The downside it means people genuinely deserving a pardon may need to wait longer. Then again most people genuinely deserving a pardon DO wait a long period of time.

Since no President has ever been successfully removed from office, it is reasonable to assume that the current process is completely broken and needs to be replaced,

It's clear the process is broken, but it's misleading to say "no president has ever been successfully removed from office." Nixon resigned, because they had the votes to remove him from office. I'd say that's a pretty good example of the impeachment process working as intended, even if they didn't get as far as the formality of holding the vote.

though that would take a Constitutional Amendment to achieve.

What constitutional amendment would that be?

Not only did the votes to convict not reach a 2/3 majority, they didn't even reach a simple majority. What constitutional amendment do you believe would have resulted in Trump being removed from office? Repealing the 17th would at least result in senators not worrying about losing reelection because of their votes, but it wouldn't solve the problem of partisanship.

The problem isn't simply that impeachment is broken. It's that the entire electoral system is broken.

Eliminate the electoral college and the Senate and implement ranked-choice voting for all offices -- that might solve the problem we've got of hyperpartisanship and the government being controlled by people who won a minority of the vote. But simply changing the rules for impeachment ain't gonna do it.

Thats right, remove the EC and make the citizens of 39 states irrelevant and let CA and NY make all the decisions for the rest of time.

I am, honestly and truly, okay with this.

Even without the EC, there is still the Senate. 1 state = 2 votes regardless of population.

 

[Danrarbc]

Even without the EC, there is still the Senate. 1 state = 2 votes regardless of population.

Kinda insane that it wasn't also proportional. But we all know why it wasn't.

House seat count divided by 4 would give you a proportional Senate near 100 seats but ‾\_(ツ)_/‾