Kim DotCom Posts Evidence Trump’s “Best Friend (Name Redacted)” in Pardon Discussions

Last night, Kim DotCom tried to take credit for brokering the meeting at which Dana Rohrabacher tried to pardon a pardon deal whereby Julian Assange would claim Seth Rich was his source for the DNC emails and Trump would pay him off with a pardon. He posted a bunch of texts with “Trumps best friend (name redacted)” where he pushed his  interlocutor to get Trump to take a public step in favor of the deal.

Only, the name of Trump’s “best friend (name redacted)” was not actually redacted.

While I have no doubt DotCom is overselling his own role in this, it does appear he was talking directly to Sean Hannity about it.

Which would suggest a real continuity between whatever happened when Hannity met Assange in January 2017, not long after Roger Stone reached out to Margaret Kunstler to discuss a pardon, and what happened in August 2017, when Dana Rohrabacher resumed discussion of the pardon. That suggests pardon discussions were not — as WikiLeaks is now falsely portraying — a one-time bid that got rejected, leading to Assange’s prosecution, but rather continued from late December 2016 until at least August 2017, through the time when Mike Pompeo labeled WikiLeaks a non-state hostile intelligence agency.

17 replies
  1. laura says:

    So your telling me that president-elect trump had dipolmat/statesman/cable rodeo clown Sean Hannity was tasked; along with noted political gadfly/scumbag Roger Stone and then elected official least likely to get his cleaning deposit back/russophile Dana Rhorbacher; with clearing russia from interference in the 2016 election asap. The immediacy and focus on clearing Russia and transferring suspicion to the “media” seems unpresidential.

  2. Terrapin says:

    Kim Dotcom is in the late stages of his own appeal in New Zealand seeking to avoid extradition to the U.S. for his piracy-related activities stemming from the now-defunct file locker/sharing website, Megaupload. He is a pretty dubious character. Fascinating that Hannity would even exchange messages with him.

    • Terrapin says:

      A decision on Kim Dotcom’s appeal to the NZ Supreme Court must be getting imminent (he failed at the last level in 2018). If he fails there, he will face extradition. With all the sketchy people Trump is pardoning, Dotcom must have decided that injecting himself in this situation to put POTUS in his debt was his best shot of staying out of U.S. custody. Looks like the ploy failed, so he’s outing Hannity’s role (and by implication Trump).

      • Terrapin says:

        Not wise. All he has done is piss off Hannity and make sure Bill Barr will pay personal attention to his case once he does make it to U.S. shores. I’d say Kim Dotcom is going to be a guest of the U.S. government for a long time. Maybe he and Assange can set up a support group.

  3. Richieboy says:

    Am I the only one to be skeptical about the authenticity of this? Call me a product of the times, I guess. The explicit “name redacted” callout, and then “oops! I accidentally left the name in the very end of the thread..I know nothing of this guy, and don’t do twitter, but seems stunty.

    • Richieboy says:

      And I’m not familiar with that view of iOS messages, which is what this looks like it is trying to look like. I’ve never seen each party’s name slugged just above each text. A suspicious person might think he inserted that so he could show he was “redacting” it from the recipient’s side of the conversation. Of course, it could be real AND he slapped his name above each message, too. Whatever. This is making me remember why I don’t use Twitter.

      • tim says:

        If it’s a conversation between you and one other person, it doesn’t show the name above each text. If it’s a group conversation though, it does

      • pennsyltuck says:

        You get nametags on participants in iOS messages iff it’s a group chat, i.e. there were more than 2 participants. With only 2 participants there’s no need to label the other party.

        Rayne, bmaz, etc. – apologies if I’ve posted from this ip under a different handle. I know you track this info, but unfortunately I did not. I’ve made a note, and will stick with this.

  4. fishman says:

    And people still believe the billy barr – rupert murdoch meeting is just a wild Bond movie plot? Methinks there’s a rat fucking undercurrent here only slightly less obvious than the Stoner!

      • fishman says:

        i wasn’t at their meeting but it should be obvious that the AG of the USA and Rupert Murdoch weren’t simply exchanging recipes. The topic of hannity’s impending trip and any other actions of his were undoubtedly discussed. That’s only an opinion, less than direct evidence, more than a conspiracy theory and somewhat circumstantial in evidence.

  5. Eureka says:

    Trump, his various affiliates, and _their_ mixes of main +/- side hustles are such a swill of shifting and at times conflicting motives and power-relations that I cannot even write this comment straight.

    Meaning: it seems clear that through the many “pardon Assange” efforts, POTUS at least took the hook that getting ‘cooked books’ from someone re 2016 was a good idea, and that after the WL/ Assange route became untenable, Trump’s cronies (and _their_ cronies) shifted his focus back over to Ukraine/ (later Zelensky) as a source to force.

    The timelines ~work/gradate there, too, with e.g. April 2018 Parnas, and Rudy coming on, etc., foci shifting. (Don’t want to oversimplify, but are there any sources of “promises and favors” that don’t either radiate out from the WL/Assange nexus or the Ukraine nexus? I’m leaving off Mueller investigation derailing/delaying some RU-direct or overt RU-Ukraine help, and (Whitaker) Barr helping at home in the middle.) Maybe it was more Assange pressing to get his needs met (including) while Trump was tied up with Mueller, while it was more toxic for the Trumpers to go the RU-backed Ukraine route. Then Assange becomes even more toxic, Mueller later gets shut down, overt Ukraine route back in play.

    But if Trump wasn’t surrounded by all of these pumpers and fluffers looking to make tv, groupthink-rigging memes, and other cash deliverables, might he have just let the whole thing go, suppressed by “adults in the room” (as has often been cited, the “adults” often won until the “sidekicks” overtook them on misc. issues)? I’ve been a believer that Trump’s narcissism couldn’t take being “illegitimate”, sure — but absent his associates throwing it in his face on the regular, maybe he’d have moved on to something else. Eh, never would have changed: his entire rally-fox-frothy platform depends on the deep-state victim schtick.

    What a fucking national security nightmare he is — all of them are.

    And about those screenshots:

    1-The supposed “Mueller cashe” (sic –? cache) / “roadmap” Assange has ? Anyone could predict the tastiest bait to Trump.

    2- “diplomatic relations” with WL ?!?! So it *is* a hostile state actor after all, of the cyber variety?

  6. Thomas says:

    Could Kim be deploying the Lev Parnas strategy—revealing a small piece of his personal archive publicly in the hope of extorting a personal legal angle of some sort out of the Trumpistas? Like maybe go easy on my extradition or I dump the rest of what I have?

  7. Mitch Neher says:

    If Julian Assange possesses verifiable evidence that Trump “associates” offered Assange a pardon in exchange for the release of the Podesta G-mails in an optimally timed manner, then . . . [“?”] . . .

    In what “venue” could such evidence ever be publicly disclosed without . . . [“?”] . . .

    Sorry. Blanks are all I’ve got anymore.

Comments are closed.