At a London pretrial hearing in the extradition case of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange on Wednesday, the court was informed that Assange will be calling a witness with explosive testimony. According to Assange’s legal team, that witness will report that Assange was approached while in exile and offered a pardon by the U.S. government if he would claim that Russia was not involved in the theft and release of documents from the Democratic National Committee during the 2016 election.
The visitor bringing this offer, according to Assange’s attorney, was former California Congressman Dana Rohrabacher. But the claim is also that Rohrabacher was there on behalf of Donald Trump, to let Assange walk if he would only say that Russia was not involved.
Offering Assange a pass to say that Russia wasn’t involved seems more than a little odd, because that was what Assange was claiming all along. He was perfectly willing to help cover up his sources among Russian intelligence and to go along with theories that put the blame at someone else’s door—other nations, rival Democrats, Hillary Clinton, deliberately laying a snare for Trump. Why offer Assange something as huge as a pardon for what he was already doing on his own?
On the other hand, the Rohrabacher connection is very real. It wasn’t just House Republican leader Kevin McCarthy’s famous claim, “There’s two people I think Putin pays: Rohrabacher and Trump.” It was that consistently pro-Russia Rohrabacher suggested a deal that appeared to be exactly what Assange is now claiming.
In 2017, The Wall Street Journal reported that the Republican representative had attempted to broker a deal with Assange: Assange would get a pardon, and in return, the paper said, he would “probably present a computer drive or other data-storage device that Mr. Rohrabacher said would exonerate Russia.”
According to the Journal’s reporting, Rohrabacher said, “He would get nothing, obviously, if what he gave us was not proof.” If Assange provided something and it failed to satisfy Trump’s need for proof that someone else was behind the hacking, the fact that a pardon didn’t come through seems reasonable. And since Russia definitely did do it, it’s hard to see what kind of proof Assange might have offered. There’s even the chance—in those days, before Attorney General William Barr wiped away the Mueller report and Senate Republicans made it clear that Trump was free to do as he pleased—that there might have been some concern over just how obvious it was to be handing Assange a pass.
But The Wall Street Journal emphatically reported in 2017 that Rohrabacher did propose such a deal. The only thing that’s missing is the definitive proof that Trump was behind that offer. Which makes this April 2019 post from journalist Marcy Wheeler particularly interesting. In running through Trump’s written responses to Robert Mueller’s special counsel team, she noted one question where the response was … a little off.
Question: Did you have any discussions prior to January 20, 2017, regarding a potential pardon or other action to benefit Julian Assange? If yes, describe who you had the discussion(s) with, when, and the content of the discussion(s).
Trump: I do not recall having had any discussion during the campaign regarding a pardon or action to benefit Julian Assange.
These “I do not recall”-type answers were the sort of response Trump gave to almost everything. However, in this case he qualified it by saying “during the campaign.” Which leaves out the period between the election and the inauguration. Rohrabacher’s efforts were still underway in September 2017, but it’s not clear when they began.
That also neatly dodges a period in December 2016 when, The Atlantic reports, WikiLeaks was sending messages to Donald Trump Jr. saying things like, “Hi Don. Hope you’re doing well! In relation to Mr. Assange: Obama/Clinton placed pressure on Sweden, UK and Australia (his home country) to illicitly go after Mr. Assange. It would be real easy and helpful for your dad to suggest that Australia appoint Assange ambassador to [Washington,] DC.”
It’s starting to seem that Assange’s extradition hearing might be a don’t-miss event.