If you've got an unproven, wacky conspiracy theory you would like to float, try CNN. Chances are, the "journalists" there will take it. So long as it targets a Republican, of course.
On today's New Day, CNN legal analyst Elie Honig floated the possibility that President Trump might be making a deal with Giuliani to grant him a pardon in return for Rudy's silence on Trump's ostensible misdeeds. Honig, of course, offered no evidence in support of his slimy suggestion.
CNN's Laura Jarrett [daughter of Obama aide Valerie] suggested that the fact that Giuliani might be requesting a pardon is evidence of consciousness of guilt. No—it's evidence that Rudy might understandably be concerned about possible retribution from a Biden administration. But the others loved Laura's suggestion. Co-host John Berman gave it a "ding, ding, ding!", and guest co-host Erica Hill enthused: "such a great point!"
Here's the exchange:
LAURA JARRETT: But who's asking for a pardon unless you believe you are facing some serious criminal exposure? The reporting from our White House team is that Giuliani is discussing this with the president, and asking for one. Now, we don’t know the full extent of what he’s facing in the Southern District of New York, but we know at least as of last summer, he was still under investigation for some of his business ties with the Ukraine. So why is he asking for this? He hasn’t been charged with anything. We haven’t seen any indictment on anything. So what’s going on?
BERMAN: Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding!
Honig, discussing the news that the DOJ is looking into a possible pay-for-pardon scheme, pointed the finger at President Trump as the person presumably sought to be bribed. Again, no evidence that the president was aware of any such plot.
Jarrett, her voice dripping with implication, also found it "most interesting" that the Justice Department put out a statement that no government official is a target of the investigation into a possible pay-for-pardon scheme.
CNN sliming President Trump with the suggestion that he might be offering Rudy Giuliani a pardon in return for his silence was sponsored in part by Fidelity and Lincoln. Contact them at the Conservatives Fight Back links to let them know what you think of this kind of slanderous speculation about President Trump.
Here's the transcript. Click "expand" to read more.
CNN
New Day
12/2/20
6:20 am ETJOHN BERMAN: Breaking overnight, CNN has learned that since the election, President Trump has discussed preemptive pardons for several people close to him, including his children, his son-in-law, and Rudy Giuliani.
. . .LAURA JARRETT: But who's asking for a pardon unless you believe you are facing some serious criminal exposure? The reporting from our White House team is that Giuliani is discussing this with the president, and asking for one. Now, we don’t know the full extent of what he’s facing in the Southern District of New York, but we know at least as of last summer, he was still under investigation for some of his business ties with the Ukraine. So why is he asking for this? He hasn’t been charged with anything. We haven’t seen any indictment on anything. So what’s going on?
BERMAN: Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding!
ERICA HILL: It’s such a great point! And to that point, Elie. If the president decided he wanted to try this move with Rudy Giuliani, some sort of a preemptive pardon, could the president potentially be opening himself up to some issues on his end?
ELIE HONIG: Well, it depends what the reason is. And one of the things that we’ve learned just overnight is that there has been a DOJ investigation of some case, we don’t know the players, involving an exchange of money for a pardon.
Now, it doesn’t necessarily have to be money. If there’s an exchange of money for a pardon, that would be bribery, that would be a crime. I don’t believe that pardon would be effective.
But I believe by the same logic, if there was an exchange of, perhaps, I’ll pardon you, Rudy Giuliani, if you stay quiet, I think that’s obstruction of justice. If that's the case also would be a crime, and the pardon would not be effective.
. . .
HILL: When we look, Eliot [sic, Elie] at this new pardon investigation we learned about overnight, that the DOJ is looking into. The fact that this involves communications between lawyers and clients. That’s a big deal.
HONIG: Yeah, it shows that this is not just some rogue actor out there. This is some sort of coordinated effort. Look, we don’t know who the person is who was trying to get this pardon. The names are all redacted out of the court documents we saw. We also, I guess, in some sense, don’t know where that money was headed.
But if you break it down, there's only one human being in this country who has the lawful power to grant a pardon. And so I think there’s a logical conclusion here. How much the president knew or didn’t know, I think, is to be determined. But the target, the subject of that effort to essentially buy a pardon, which is just a wild abuse of power and crime, the person who that was aimed for can only really be one person.
. . .JARRETT: Now, I find it most interesting that the Justice Department decided to put out a statement last night that mentioned that no government official, no current government official, is a target or subject of the investigation, at least trying to bat down some of the guesswork there.
