Donald Trump 'offered Julian Assange a pardon if he denied Russia link to hack' (1 Viewer)

[TU Curmudgeon]

On the other hand, he could be lying to his lawyer too.

Somehow that statement doesn't quite track.

Mr. Assange is NOT telling his lawyer anything.

Mr. Assange's lawyer SAYS that he HAS a statement from a person who was personally present when the meeting took place and personally heard the offer being made.

That person happens to be female.

So, who is/are the person(s) that you are referring to when you say "On the other hand, he (emphasis added) could be lying to his (emphasis added) lawyer too."?

 

[GDViking]

It is a certainty you are not a Republican, so why would I care that you claim not to be in the only other party that matters? It's like someone saying they are a Libertarian. Since no Libertarian has a chance to win, it's a meaningless statement, isn't it? You damn sure aren't going to vote for Trump, so you will not throw your vote away by voting for Tom Arnold.

As for your second comment, you must live in some alternate reality or some world that only you inhabit. Get out more, Viking. Talk to people who aren't like you. Trump will literally trounce any of the sorry people running on the Democrat side. Your group has no enthusiasm. People know it has gone off the deep end with people like Sanders, Bloomberg, Pocahontas.



There is absolutely NO evidence, not one shred that Russia did anything to change even ONE vote. This is similar to the lies and half truths that far leftists keep repeating hoping that they will stick. Remember, GD, a lie repeated a million times doesn't make it true. At MOST, some people from Russia posted in chat rooms and bought a whopping $30,000 worth of ads (allegedly. we have to believe the dishonest FBI)



The tariffs were a success. Farmers are becoming more efficient and need less workers now. Convenience store openings help America. More unskilled minorities can get jobs. Are you against low unemployment for blacks and Hispanics? O


What's the point here You have none. Will BLM and ACLU members vote Democrat? You have any evidence that his crowds are white supremacists?



Billy Graham is not running for president. Look, I'm sorry that you folks couldn't get a good candidate. You've had years now to d]find one but your side picked only those who would give the most free stuff and promise a PC world and to go back to kissing others countries tush and opening the gates to illegals. Your side went t bed with the devil and thinks he is an angel just dressed in costume.

Good luck in November but not really. You will be in shambles and talking about how to deal with the carnage.


Here is a link to what Trump does which should scare the beejeezus out of Dems. People are in freezing tents in Colorado waiting to see Trump. He is a rock star compared to any one of your guys playing in a glee club
Hundreds camp out overnight ahead of Trump rally in Colorado | Fox News

That was exactly the type of gibberish I expected from you.

I strongly suspect that is a cut and paste reply you use on many other sight's.
Just you claiming the tariffs did anything positive proves you're lying.

I live In Wisconsin, and we have had one third of our farms go under since trump took office, imagine how many more would be gone without his, "oh **** I ****ed up" bailouts??

Ever notice he never, ever spends his own money????

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Positively ludicrous?

Well, I did provide an option when I wrote

the claim that "he had made the proposal on his own initiative, and that the White House had not endorsed it" is positively ludicrous (well, either that or Mr. Rohrabacher shouldn't be allowed outside of "The Home" without at least three minders).
(emphasis added)
​

didn't I?

I guess you missed the thread where this was already discussed...and I posted this reply using video evidence from back in 2017?

Yes I did, and I am most grateful to whomever amalgamated the threads.

So the facts are that he did make the proposal on his own initiative, and that Trump had never endorsed it.

No, the FACT is that he SAID that he made the proposal on his own initiative and that he SAID that Mr. Trump never endorsed it. The FACT is also that ANOTHER PERSON SAYS that they were personally present when the proposal was made and that the personally heard the proposal being made and that when making the proposal Mr. Rohrabacher clearly indicated that the proposal had the backing of Mr. Trump.

Now it is possible that BOTH Mr. Rohrabacher and Ms. Robinson are telling the truth and that Mr. Rohragacher was simply lying when he made the proposal to Mr. Assange, but we really aren't going to know whether that is the correct interpretation until after both Mr. Rohrabacher and Ms. Robinson have personally testified under oath and been competently cross-examined on their testimony.

Until that happens the most we can do is chose between an inherently plausible story (Ms. Robinson's) and an inherently implausible story (Mr. Rohrabacher's) while giving the appropriate weighting to the total denials of someone who has a lengthy history of denying EVERYTHING that reflects badly on them - even when confronted with positive evidence that it did happen (Mr. Trump).

 

[Vern]

Here we go again..... More Russia garbage! The democrats are so damn desperate now.
White House spokeswoman, Stephanie Grisham, told reporters: “The president barely knows Dana Rohrabacher other than he’s an ex-congressman. He’s never spoken to him on this subject or almost any subject.”

“It is a complete fabrication and a total lie,” Grisham said. “This is probably another never ending hoax and total lie from the DNC.”

From the article.

CS, for America's and democracy's sake, you should take a breath and just think about the facts. Trump is clearly lying about "barely knowing" Rohrabacher. We learned from Luther that this is an "old story".

The WSJ did a piece on Rohrabacher meeting with Assange way back in September of 2017. The Guardian article even links to that report. According to the WSJ it was Rohrbacher that went to Trump after the Assange meeting, not the other way around.

And we know that trump obsesses over getting putin's approval. He called America murderers to defend him and double crossed the kurds in Syria for him (to name just a few of his vomit inducing examples of subservience to putin). And not for nothing, he's dismissed the intel that Russia hacked the DNC so you just don't get to angrily dismiss the possibility of this being just another traitorous quid pro quo from trump. Have you considered the reason you're so angry is deep down you know its true?

 

[Jake]

Here we go again..... More Russia garbage!

Russia has a vested interest in seeing Trump elected again so this should surprise no one except the severely indoctrinated.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Wasn't this already debunked?

No, merely denied. "Debunked" and "denied" do NOT mean the same thing (even if the person doing the denying happens to be someone you support).

 

[Paradoxical]

One way of establishing the truth of the assertion would be for Mr. Assange's lawyers to put Mr. Rohrabacher on the stand so that he can testify under oath as to exactly what happened.

The odds on Mr. Rohrabacher complying with a subpoena/request to testify under oath in a country where Mr. Trump does NOT have "pardon power" don't appear to be all that high to me.

What's your opinion on whether Mr. Rohrabacher is going to risk a perjury or obstruction of justice conviction when Mr. Trump can NOT wave his "Magic Pardon Want" and spring him?

Who has Trump sprung in connection with him personally? You guys are so hyper

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

The article goes on to state that the whole thing was fabricated by Rohrabacher, that Trump has not spoken to him.

Not quite, the article goes on to state that Mr. Rohrabacher CLAIMS that the whole thing was fabricated by him and that Mr. Rohrabacher CLAIMS that Mr. Trump had not spoken to him.

Why is this even news?

Possibly because a member of the British Bar is prepared to testify, in court and under oath (thus risking disbarment and incarceration if she is not telling the truth), that Mr. Rohrabacher's CLAIMS are false.

Will Mr. Rohrabacher risk a perjury conviction in a country where Mr. Trump does NOT have the ability to wave his "Magic Pardon Wand" and agree to testify? If Mr. Rohrabacher is telling the truth there should be absolutely no difficulty in getting him to testify, in court and under oath, at the UK trial. Draw your own conclusions if Mr. Rohrabacher refuses to cooperate.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Okay, what was said?

Does the fact that someone doesn't know what was said in a meeting that has been proven to have taken place prove that the person who said that the meeting never took place was telling the truth when they said that the meeting never took place?

How?

 

[Paradoxical]

That was exactly the type of gibberish I expected from you.

I strongly suspect that is a cut and paste reply you use on many other sight's.
Just you claiming the tariffs did anything positive proves you're lying.

I live In Wisconsin, and we have had one third of our farms go under since trump took office, imagine how many more would be gone without his, "oh **** I ****ed up" bailouts??

Ever notice he never, ever spends his own money????

Bloomberg spent 400 million of his own money. Lotta good that did him. He had to reveal what a AHole he was last night.

Unlike many others here, rarely do I go the cut and paste route because I don't need CNN and Maddow to do my thinking for me like you do.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

I'm kind of disappointed in the Guardian for this headline. Bad journalism.

"Headlines" ARE NOT "journalism".

"Headlines" ARE "marketing".

 

[W_Heisenberg]

Close analysis by Binney and others have shown the material was not hacked over the internet, it was leaked from the inside. That, from the transfer speeds of the data.

As "DNC Hacked Itself" Conspiracy Theory Collapses, Key Backer Of Claim Exposed As UK Troll

The widely-circulated report leaned heavily on a published memo by Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), a collection of former intelligence experts and whistleblowers like William Binney and Ray McGovern. It also leaned heavily on the input of several, anonymous, self-professed "computer forensics investigators" who, the news outlet informed readers, had "split the DNC case open like a coconut," providing incontrovertible evidence that Russian intelligence played no role in the now-legendary breach.

But the entire claim was little more than fluff and nonsense.

As we noted at the time, The Nation story relied heavily on the allegation the stolen files must have been copied locally to USB by a DNC insider because, as The Nation claimed, "no Internet service provider was capable of downloading data at this speed" (22.7 megabytes per second). In reality, 22.7 megabytes per second was simply a 180 Mbps connection, widely available around the world at the time the DNC hack took place. That includes Romania, the country that the Russian cutout Guccifer 2.0 pretended (at the time) to have originated from.

We weren't alone in pointing out that the story was flimsy, relied largely on cherry-picked evidence, and frequently stumbled into the realm of the "incoherent." And it's only gone downhill since. The Nation was forced to review the report, adding a meandering preamble to address criticism. In the year since, reports have forged a new infosec community consensus that yes, Guccifer 2.0 was GRU, and had been amusingly caught because Russian intelligence forgot to activate its VPN before logging into the bogus persona's WordPress site on one occasion (one of several opsec errors made by Russian intel).

"Close analysis by Binney"

Lol.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Who has Trump sprung in connection with him personally? You guys are so hyper

An interesting question that completely ignores the actual content of my post.

However, let's take it one sentence at a time and see where you stand:

1. "One way of establishing the truth of the assertion would be for Mr. Assange's lawyers to put Mr. Rohrabacher on the stand so that he can testify under oath as to exactly what happened." - is this statement "True" ___ or "False" ___ (pick one only)?
   *
2. "The odds on Mr. Rohrabacher complying with a subpoena/request to testify under oath in a country where Mr. Trump does NOT have "pardon power" don't appear to be all that high to me." - do you think that the odds referred to in this statement are "VERY Good" ___, "Good" ___, "50/50ish" ___, "Poor" ___, or "VERY Poor" ___ (pick one only).
   *
3. "What's your opinion on whether Mr. Rohrabacher is going to risk a perjury or obstruction of justice conviction when Mr. Trump can NOT wave his "Magic Pardon Want" and spring him?" - which is the question that you REALLY don't want to deal with so why not write a short paragraph on it?

 

[Paradoxical]

An interesting question that completely ignores the actual content of my post.

However, let's take it one sentence at a time and see where you stand:

1. "One way of establishing the truth of the assertion would be for Mr. Assange's lawyers to put Mr. Rohrabacher on the stand so that he can testify under oath as to exactly what happened." - is this statement "True" ___ or "False" ___ (pick one only)?
   *
2. "The odds on Mr. Rohrabacher complying with a subpoena/request to testify under oath in a country where Mr. Trump does NOT have "pardon power" don't appear to be all that high to me." - do you think that the odds referred to in this statement are "VERY Good" ___, "Good" ___, "50/50ish" ___, "Poor" ___, or "VERY Poor" ___ (pick one only).
   *
3. "What's your opinion on whether Mr. Rohrabacher is going to risk a perjury or obstruction of justice conviction when Mr. Trump can NOT wave his "Magic Pardon Want" and spring him?" - which is the question that you REALLY don't want to deal with so why not write a short paragraph on it?

These are all hypotheticals. hypotheticals for hyper people who are overly anxious to ruin Trump.

 

[dixon01767]

What? Romney did? Oh, boy, that changes everything!

Will be fun if they expose this whole Ukraine fiasco to be an orchestrated plot pulled off by the same guy who orchestrated cover for Hunter Biden in the Obama administration, the whistle blower. Aided by the democrats in the Intelligence Committee. I would ask Romney how he thinks he and his God were so easily fooled?

 

[dcsports]

"Headlines" ARE NOT "journalism".

"Headlines" ARE "marketing".

Headlines are a part of the story. While a headline might be phrased to be attention getting, they are still supposed to reflect what's in the story (and be accurate). This one doesn't. It's not following good standards of journalism to use it.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

These are all hypotheticals. hypotheticals for hyper people who are overly anxious to ruin Trump.

Right, so it is your opinion that "One way of establishing the truth of the assertion would be for Mr. Assange's lawyers to put Mr. Rohrabacher on the stand so that he can testify under oath as to exactly what happened." - is this statement "True" ___ or "False" ___ (pick one only)?" is only a hypothetical is it?

And you think that YOUR thought on ""The odds on Mr. Rohrabacher complying with a subpoena/request to testify under oath in a country where Mr. Trump does NOT have "pardon power" don't appear to be all that high to me." - do you think that the odds referred to in this statement are "VERY Good" ___, "Good" ___, "50/50ish" ___, "Poor" ___, or "VERY Poor" ___ (pick one only)." is only a hypothetical, do you?

And you think that YOUR opinion "... on whether Mr. Rohrabacher is going to risk a perjury or obstruction of justice conviction when Mr. Trump can NOT wave his "Magic Pardon Want" and spring him?" - which is the question that you REALLY don't want to deal with so why not write a short paragraph on it?" is only a hypothetical, do you?

Maybe it's my fault for asking too many questions in the same post.

I'll make it easier for you and deal with the questions one at a time so that you can marshal your thoughts in order to answer them.

The first question is

One way of establishing the truth of the assertion would be for Mr. Assange's lawyers to put Mr. Rohrabacher on the stand so that he can testify under oath as to exactly what happened." - is this statement "True" ___ or "False" ___ (pick one only)?
(emphasis added)
​

If that question is too difficult for you to handle, please just tell me that you are completely incapable of answering it because you have absolutely no idea what it actually means and we'll go on from there.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Headlines are a part of the story. While a headline might be phrased to be attention getting, they are still supposed to reflect what's in the story (and be accurate). This one doesn't. It's not following good standards of journalism to use it.

Once more and with a bit of emphasis.

"Headlines" ARE NOT "journalism".

"Headlines" ARE "marketing".

 

[Moonglow]

Once more and with a bit of emphasis.

"Headlines" ARE NOT "journalism".

"Headlines" ARE "marketing".

Yet two out of three for confirmation makes Trump look bad yet again.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/rohrabac...oof-russia-didnt-hack-dnc-email-131438007.htm
WASHINGTON — Former California Republican congressman Dana Rohrabacher confirmed in a new interview that during a three-hour meeting at the Ecuadorian Embassy in August 2017, he told Julian Assange he would get President Trump to give him a pardon if he turned over information proving the Russians had not been the source of internal Democratic National Committee emails published by WikiLeaks.

 

[Paradoxical]

Right, so it is your opinion that "One way of establishing the truth of the assertion would be for Mr. Assange's lawyers to put Mr. Rohrabacher on the stand so that he can testify under oath as to exactly what happened." - is this statement "True" ___ or "False" ___ (pick one only)?" is only a hypothetical is it?

And you think that YOUR thought on ""The odds on Mr. Rohrabacher complying with a subpoena/request to testify under oath in a country where Mr. Trump does NOT have "pardon power" don't appear to be all that high to me." - do you think that the odds referred to in this statement are "VERY Good" ___, "Good" ___, "50/50ish" ___, "Poor" ___, or "VERY Poor" ___ (pick one only)." is only a hypothetical, do you?

And you think that YOUR opinion "... on whether Mr. Rohrabacher is going to risk a perjury or obstruction of justice conviction when Mr. Trump can NOT wave his "Magic Pardon Want" and spring him?" - which is the question that you REALLY don't want to deal with so why not write a short paragraph on it?" is only a hypothetical, do you?

Maybe it's my fault for asking too many questions in the same post.

I'll make it easier for you and deal with the questions one at a time so that you can marshal your thoughts in order to answer them.

The first question is

One way of establishing the truth of the assertion would be for Mr. Assange's lawyers to put Mr. Rohrabacher on the stand so that he can testify under oath as to exactly what happened." - is this statement "True" ___ or "False" ___ (pick one only)?
(emphasis added)
​

If that question is too difficult for you to handle, please just tell me that you are completely incapable of answering it because you have absolutely no idea what it actually means and we'll go on from there.

Another "What If" question.

 

[Mr Person]

Bears noting, it did in fact happen:

A former California congressman confirmed in an interview with Yahoo News' Michael Isikoff that he did offer to broker a pardon for Julian Assange in exchange for information that would exonerate Russia from the theft of emails from the Democratic National Committee and members of the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign organization. Republican Dana Rohrabacher was seeking to prove that the emails were leaked by DNC staffer Seth Rich, who was murdered in July 2016—and were not the product of a hacking campaign by Russian intelligence organizations.

Rohrabacher, who lost his seat in 2018, was a long-time cheerleader in Washington for Russian President Vladimir Putin's government. Using information provided to him directly by the Kremlin, Rohrabacher personally promoted an effort to remove the name of Sergei Magnitsky from the Russia and Moldova Jackson–Vanik Repeal and Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act of 2012, an anti-corruption law intended to sanction and punish officials involved in Magnitsky's imprisonment and death. (Magnitsky was a Russian tax lawyer murdered after he decided to testify against Russian Interior Ministry officials who had taken over the investment companies of his client and embezzled 5.4 billion rubles (about $230 million) from the Russian government himself.)

[continues]

Former congressman confirms he offered to broker pardon for Assange | Ars Technica

See also: Rohrabacher confirms he offered Trump pardon to Assange for proof Russia didn’t hack DNC email

 

[dcsports]

Once more and with a bit of emphasis.

"Headlines" ARE NOT "journalism".

"Headlines" ARE "marketing".

Once again...Headlines are a part of the story. Applying appropriate standards of journalism does matter. A reputable news source won't put a false or intentionally misleading headline on a news story.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Yet two out of three for confirmation makes Trump look bad yet again.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/rohrabac...oof-russia-didnt-hack-dnc-email-131438007.htm
WASHINGTON — Former California Republican congressman Dana Rohrabacher confirmed in a new interview that during a three-hour meeting at the Ecuadorian Embassy in August 2017, he told Julian Assange he would get President Trump to give him a pardon if he turned over information proving the Russians had not been the source of internal Democratic National Committee emails published by WikiLeaks.

All I am saying is that if I had to bet on whether:

• Mr. Rohrabacher DID make the offer with (at least the implied) authority of Mr. Trump;
  *
  or
  *
• Mr. Rohrabacher DID NOT make the offer with (at least the implied) authority of Mr. Trump.

you'd have to be offering REALLY good odds to entice me to risk my lunch money on "Option B".

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Another "What If" question.

Indeed, and one that you appear to be totally incapable of answering.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Once again...Headlines are a part of the story. Applying appropriate standards of journalism does matter. A reputable news source won't put a false or intentionally misleading headline on a news story.

Obviously you either don't watch much (for example) FOX News, don't know much about marketing, or don't consider FOX News to be a "reputable news source".