Reportedly, Julian Assange, founder of Wikileaks, has made an offer to the Trump administration to provide proof that Russia was not the source of the DNC emails Wikileaks released to the public at the height of the 2016 election. Assange is apparently seeking clemency, a pardon, or some sort of reprieve from legal jeopardy. The offer comes to the White House through Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Ca) who has some sort of personal relationship with Assange.

To assess this deal there are a few things that ought to be considered. First, what does Trump get out of this? What is it to him if Russia is exonerated from blame in the DNC email hack? Does this nullify Special Prosecutor Mueller’s mandate? Can that investigation be shut down? How would Trump benefit politically by letting Assange off the hook for, at a minimum, providing a vehicle to disseminate classified information?

Second, what are Assange’s motives for this offer? Is he at his wit’s end inside the Ecuadorian embassy where he must remain to avoid an international arrest? Has he gone mad? Is he being eaten up by guilt that the Russians are getting blamed for this leak? Does he want to prove he’s not lying?

Third, what information would Assange provide to Trump, and essentially to the world? Will we learn the name of the leaker or the hacker responsible for gathering the pitiful Podesta emails? How could Assange prove the Russians are not behind the leak without showing such proof, and if that is what he has in mind, isn’t his entire life’s work is kaput? Would Assange really destroy his reputation for safeguarding his sources over this issue? If he wouldn’t reveal his sources, would the U.S. government really be interested in not getting information that would not lead to a prosecution? Would the U.S. government not care about prosecuting whoever broke into the DNC servers? Is that person or person somehow already immune from prosecution, by being outside the jurisdiction of the United States – or perhaps by being dead?

While Americans are probably very curious about the behind-the-scenes workings of Wikileaks, there is very little upside to making a deal with Assange. In some ways he provides a service by which governments can be held accountable, but in other, arguably much more important ways, he undermines national security and puts actual lives at risk. His platform can be used for good or it can result in dire consequences. Many in the intelligence communities have no love for Assange, and that ire is shared by many Americans – though it does not compare to the disgust aimed at the individuals who carry out these leaks lie Chelsea Manning of Edward Snowden. Trump more than likely would not gain anything politically by siding with Assange, but it is less certain that he would lose much either – at least from those who want the swamp drained.

So it seems that only if the information is really helpful for Trump, in the sense that he can use the information to political gain, should he make this deal. Assange’s motives seem minor in comparison to a possible blow to his reputation, but he must think he will be able to reveal something without losing his own credibility. The biggest loser, though, in all of this could be Hillary Clinton. To see her try to squirm away from her Russia blame game would be a real treat, and perhaps this could be very helpful to Trump if it contributes to a criminal prosecution against her or any other of her cronies.

If you were Trump would you be interested in Assange’s offer? If you were Julian Assange, what is the card you’d be looking to play?