Tough Call: Julian Assange Offers Proof of the Falsity of the Russian Collusion Storyline -- for a Pardon

Actually, I don't think is that tough a call. We make deals with criminals every day if they can offer evidence in a more significant case.

Proof for a pardon, he says.

Given that we're right not pondering whether or not the President conspired with an enemy nation to #HackTheElection, I'd say that this offer does indeed qualify as a "more significant case."

The trouble is this: When he says "evidence," what type of evidence does he mean? Merely suggestive evidence, with some accompanying argumentation as to why you should take X conclusion based on Y evidence?

Or dispositive, that-resolves-it evidence?

The latter is worth a pardon; the former is not.

Now, no one has to make this decision blindly; the usual procedure, assuming Law & Order isn't lying to me, is that a witness seeking immunity will make a "proffer" of what evidence he has to present and prosecutors (or the AG, or president) will make a determination based on that proffer. And if his proffer overstates what he has and he doesn't actually deliver the proffered goods, the deal is off.

Still, this would be very controversial. I think the prog left media and the NeverTrumpers don't want any evidence that their cherished narrative is wrong.

I do. We should know one way or the other. The media has trumped this up into a national crisis, and if resolving a national crisis, one way or the other, involves a pardon for lawbreaker, so be it.

Hell, I think Obama was even thinking about pardoning this guy for no reason anyway.

And also: I don't even think a pardon will really keep Assange out of jail. Because he'll do the same shit next month, and then you can file an indictment against him based on his fresh lawbreaking.