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

[Paradoxical]

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

What if the world ends tomorrow? Is this some silly game you're playing, like pretending you're in an army helmet looking for bad tigers?

 

[Deuce]

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

Does the guy whose family started donating hundreds of thousands to his campaign count?

 

[Paradoxical]

Does the guy whose family started donating hundreds of thousands to his campaign count?

Who is that?

are you confusing Clinton and Marc Rich with Trump?

 

[dcsports]

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".

I don't watch Fox news at all, and I'm not interested in whataboutism. And I know quite a bit about marketing - thank you. The issue here isn't marketing, but journalistic standards / ethics.

My comments are about this story and the misleading title. Interestingly, you seem to be in agreement that it was a bad title, and bad journalism - but don't think it's important, because the sources goal isn't to provide information, but to drive traffic to it's website. Does that sum it up?

 

[MauiMan]

Donald Trump offered Julian Assange a pardon if he would say Russia was not involved in leaking Democratic party emails, a court in London has been told.

Donald Trump 'offered Julian Assange a pardon if he denied Russia link to hack' | Media | The Guardian

--

The extraordinary claim was made at Westminster magistrates court before the opening next week of Assange’s legal battle to block attempts to extradite him to the US.

Assange’s barrister, Edward Fitzgerald QC, referred to evidence alleging that the former US Republican congressman Dana Rohrabacher had been to see Assange, now 48, while he was still in the Ecuadorian embassy in August 2017.

A statement from Assange’s lawyer Jennifer Robinson shows “Mr Rohrabacher going to see Mr Assange and saying, on instructions from the president, he was offering a pardon or some other way out, if Mr Assange … said Russia had nothing to do with the DNC leaks”, Fitzgerald told Westminster magistrates court.

--

Very interesting. I think it's better to be skeptical of this one given the source and lack of evidence but something to keep tabs on.

Why does this not surprise anyone? And people still support him! They think he’s great! PT Barnum was right—there’s a sucker born every minute.

 

[Oborosen]

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).

Yes and with no other information to the contrary, as well as all of the false claims that we've seen pop up over the years about Trump, especially those from anonymous sources.

We have no real proof that Trump actually said anything like this to Assange.

 

[Thoreau72]

Seth Rich. lol!

Binney's a Inforwars, RT kind of guy.

And you, the NYT/Fox and other mainstream media kind of guy. :lol:

 

[Thoreau72]

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



"Close analysis by Binney"

Lol.

Ah, you are a "moderate" enamored of the mainstream narrative. That makes you typical, and a very well indoctrinated consumer. :2wave:

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

What if the world ends tomorrow? Is this some silly game you're playing, like pretending you're in an army helmet looking for bad tigers?

And you STILL appear to answer the question.

Would that be because providing an honest answer would have a serious negative impact on your credibility.

BTW, if the world ends tomorrow, then the day after tomorrow no one will give a damn about any of this.

Does that help you to see how easy it is to answer a "theoretical"?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Does the guy whose family started donating hundreds of thousands to his campaign count?

Not in the least, it requires that the person PERSONALLY had over actual CASH directly to Mr. Trump in return for Mr. Trump agreeing, in writing and under notarial seal, to perform a specific act that both sides acknowledge, in writing and notarial seal, is specifically contrary to the laws of the United States of America before it "counts". The minute you introduce third parties and/or something other than a direct personal transfer of cash and/or eliminate the documentation that the actions are contrary to law, it no longer "counts".

 

[GDViking]

One day, you'll learn how to accept your loss in 2016. Surely.

I hope so, because it's about to happen to you again ten-fold in a few months.

This is another concocted lie to take down Trump because your party has nothing to challenge him.

I don't have a party, but Trump is Americas first illegitimate president and I appose him because of it.

Trump has never won a fair election and never will...

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

I don't watch Fox news at all, and I'm not interested in whataboutism. And I know quite a bit about marketing - thank you. The issue here isn't marketing, but journalistic standards / ethics.

My comments are about this story and the misleading title. Interestingly, you seem to be in agreement that it was a bad title, and bad journalism - but don't think it's important, because the sources goal isn't to provide information, but to drive traffic to it's website. Does that sum it up?

To repost an earlier entry (in a different thread)

As outlined by the conservative economist Milton Friedman in his 1962 book Capitalism and Freedom, (Capitalism and Freedom: Fortieth Anniversary Edition – University of Chicago Press 15 NOV 2002 [ISBN - 10:0226264211 / ISBN - 13:9780226264219]) the principle of shareholder primacy insists that "corporations have no higher purpose than maximizing profits for their shareholders”. That means that the purpose of a company is NOT (at least not on purpose) to make the world a better place. Rather it means that the job of the capitalist is to do anything legal to make money – regardless of consequences to others, and that (as the representatives of those same shareholders) corporate bosses have the same duty.

Thus the purpose of a “Capitalist News Media” is NOT to “report news” but rather it is to make as much money as possible. It also means that the purpose of a “Capitalist Pharmaceutical Company” is NOT to “manufacture healing medications – rather it is to make as much money as possible. It also means that the purpose of a “Capitalist Insurance Company” is NOT to “provide reasonably priced insurance against adverse happenings” – rather it is to make as much money as possible.
​

I DO think that the headline does NOT accurately reflect the actual content of the article (this places it well within the majority of headlines [from both "liberal" and "conservative" media sources).

I DO NOT think that the headline is "bad journalism" simply because I DO NOT regard "headline writing" as "journalism" at all.

Whether I think that it "is important" or not is irrelevant because I acknowledge that it is the owner of the media source that determines the PURPOSE of the headline, and also acknowledge that, as far as the owner of the media source is concerned, the PURPOSE of the headline is "to increase revenue". Do I think that that is what should be happening? No I do not (and neither do you). Do I recognize that that is what is happening? Yes I do (but you appear not to).

And that DOES sum it up.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Yes and with no other information to the contrary, as well as all of the false claims that we've seen pop up over the years about Trump, especially those from anonymous sources.

We have no real proof that Trump actually said anything like this to Assange.

Indeed, but (just as not having any "real proof" about anything that it is alleged that Ms. Clinton did means that Ms. Clinton is **G*U*I*L*T*Y** because she is alleged to have done something) what does that have to do with anything.

Until

1. Mr. Assange's lawyer actually calls Ms. Robinson as a witness, and
2. Ms. Robinson actually testifies under oath, and
3. Ms. Robinson is actually cross-examined, and
4. Mr. Rohrabacher is actually called as a witness, and
5. Mr. Rohrabacher actually testifies under oath, and
6. Mr. Rohrabacher is actually cross-examined, and
7. Mr. Trump is actually called as a witness, and
8. Mr. Trump actually testifies under oath, and
9. Mr. Trump is actually cross-examined,

we probably won't have any "real proof" - will we.

Now, I can quite conceive of the first three things happening, and I can agree that the second three things are barely possible, but the last three things are totally outside of the bounds of rational probability.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

I don't have a party, but Trump is Americas first illegitimate president ...

and I appose him because of it.[/quote]

That is a blatantly false statement.

Mr. Trump's mother and father were married to each other at the date of his birth. What does it matter than he will not release the certified original of his parent's marriage certificate?

and I appose him because of it.

What a blatantly Matrinonialist statement.

Trump has never won a fair election and never will...

What does the word "fair" (currently) have to do with American elections?

 

[GDViking]

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.

I don't get cable, I don't watch any of those shows.

But nice to know you easily jump to conclusions...

 

[GDViking]

and I appose him because of it.

That is a blatantly false statement.

Mr. Trump's mother and father were married to each other at the date of his birth. What does it matter than he will not release the certified original of his parent's marriage certificate?



What a blatantly Matrinonialist statement.



What does the word "fair" (currently) have to do with American elections?[/QUOTE]

You sir have a very unusual perspective...

 

[Integrityrespec]

Donald Trump offered Julian Assange a pardon if he would say Russia was not involved in leaking Democratic party emails, a court in London has been told.

Donald Trump 'offered Julian Assange a pardon if he denied Russia link to hack' | Media | The Guardian

--

The extraordinary claim was made at Westminster magistrates court before the opening next week of Assange’s legal battle to block attempts to extradite him to the US.

Assange’s barrister, Edward Fitzgerald QC, referred to evidence alleging that the former US Republican congressman Dana Rohrabacher had been to see Assange, now 48, while he was still in the Ecuadorian embassy in August 2017.

A statement from Assange’s lawyer Jennifer Robinson shows “Mr Rohrabacher going to see Mr Assange and saying, on instructions from the president, he was offering a pardon or some other way out, if Mr Assange … said Russia had nothing to do with the DNC leaks”, Fitzgerald told Westminster magistrates court.

--

Very interesting. I think it's better to be skeptical of this one given the source and lack of evidence but something to keep tabs on.

This isn't even coming from The President or Rohrabacher. So odd how the democrats want to believe Assange now and didn't a few years back. Assange is looking for a plea bargain, to get one you have to offer dirt on somebody. But Assange was voted the most honest man in the world in 2020 I believe.

 

[Paradoxical]

I don't get cable, I don't watch any of those shows.

But nice to know you easily jump to conclusions...

You must get you half truths from somewhere!

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

My Post

That is a blatantly false statement.

Mr. Trump's mother and father were married to each other at the date of his birth. What does it matter than he will not release the certified original of his parent's marriage certificate?

What a blatantly Matrinonialist statement.

What does the word "fair" (currently) have to do with American elections?
​

Your response

You sir have a very unusual perspective...
​

A combination of "oopsies" here, but I get your drift.

I am both an "Orthodox Curmudgeon" and a "Practising Cynic" who makes up his mind on each individual issue based on the actual facts (as far as I can determine them), logical inferences (where the actual facts are not clear) using the skills and training I received through a massively misspent youth and a "classical education" (compiled through 17 years of post-secondary education in a variety of disciplines) and practical experience gained through making money out of both being right much more often than not and application to working out "Worst Possible Case" scenarios. What I think about "the party line" on "Issue 1" has absolutely no bearing on what I think about "the party line" on "Issue 2".

PS - Some people would substitute "warped" for "unusual".

 

[dixon01767]

Riiiigggghhhhtttt....

I'm a buying that.

This has trump written all over it.

Trump is an illegitimate president and he knows it.

He will do anything to try to distance Putin from his election even though anyone paying attention and future historians in particular know he colluded with Russia to fix the election with was made very clear in the Mueller report...

The Russian Dossier was more detrimental to the Trump campaign than any WikiLeaks or fake Face Book postings were to Hillary. History will show that Russia denied trump the majority of voters he would have won without the Russian interference in 2016.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

This isn't even coming from The President or Rohrabacher.

And no one ever claimed that it did.

The statement came from Mr. Assange's lawyer.

Mr. Rohrabacher has confirmed that he DID make the offer but has denied that he had any "input" from Mr. Trump with regard to the offer.

Mr. Trump, despite clear video evidence to the contrary, has denied that he has even met Mr. Rohrabacher.

So odd how the democrats want to believe Assange now and didn't a few years back.

What I believe is that Mr. Assange's lawyer is quite prepared to risk disbarment by telling the court that he has a witness who can offer personal testimony that they were personally present when Mr. Rohrabacher told Mr. Assange that Mr. Trump would grand Mr. Assange a pardon if Mr. Assange would make a statement that Mr. Trump wanted Mr. Assange to make.

What I also believe is that Ms. Robinson (another lawyer) is quite prepared to risk disbarment if she offers her personal testimony that she was personally present when Mr. Rohrabacher told Mr. Assange that Mr. Trump would grant Mr. Assange a pardon if Mr. Assange would make a statement that Mr. Trump wanted Mr. Assange to make.

Neither of those qualify as "hearsay" but also neither of those qualify as proof that Mr. Trump was the actual source of the offer that Mr. Rohrabach presented to Mr. Assange (and which Mr. Rohrabacher has admitted presenting to Mr. Assange).

Assange is looking for a plea bargain, ...

Now there's a blinding flash of the obvious.

... to get one you have to offer dirt on somebody.

You did miss the fact that that "dirt" has to be both true and provable, didn't you?

But Assange was voted the most honest man in the world in 2020 I believe.

No, I don't think that he came in first, but I do believe that he beat Mr. Trump.

PS - I wouldn't buy a used car from EITHER Mr. Assange or Mr. Trump, but I might let Mr. Assange into my house without first sending my daughters off to visit their Grandmother and locking up the family silver.

 

[dcsports]

To repost an earlier entry (in a different thread)

As outlined by the conservative economist Milton Friedman in his 1962 book Capitalism and Freedom, (Capitalism and Freedom: Fortieth Anniversary Edition – University of Chicago Press 15 NOV 2002 [ISBN - 10:0226264211 / ISBN - 13:9780226264219]) the principle of shareholder primacy insists that "corporations have no higher purpose than maximizing profits for their shareholders”. That means that the purpose of a company is NOT (at least not on purpose) to make the world a better place. Rather it means that the job of the capitalist is to do anything legal to make money – regardless of consequences to others, and that (as the representatives of those same shareholders) corporate bosses have the same duty.

Thus the purpose of a “Capitalist News Media” is NOT to “report news” but rather it is to make as much money as possible. It also means that the purpose of a “Capitalist Pharmaceutical Company” is NOT to “manufacture healing medications – rather it is to make as much money as possible. It also means that the purpose of a “Capitalist Insurance Company” is NOT to “provide reasonably priced insurance against adverse happenings” – rather it is to make as much money as possible.
​

I DO think that the headline does NOT accurately reflect the actual content of the article (this places it well within the majority of headlines [from both "liberal" and "conservative" media sources).

I DO NOT think that the headline is "bad journalism" simply because I DO NOT regard "headline writing" as "journalism" at all.

Whether I think that it "is important" or not is irrelevant because I acknowledge that it is the owner of the media source that determines the PURPOSE of the headline, and also acknowledge that, as far as the owner of the media source is concerned, the PURPOSE of the headline is "to increase revenue". Do I think that that is what should be happening? No I do not (and neither do you). Do I recognize that that is what is happening? Yes I do (but you appear not to).

And that DOES sum it up.

That is a long journey. I'm think you agree with me? Other than the quirk of thinking a headline isn't a part of the publication, and shouldn't be subject to journalistic standards (or even basic honesty).

Don't really need the Milton Freeman lecture, but I guess that I can agree that the goal of the Guardian is to make a profit, and not to provide accurate information.

 

[Oborosen]

Indeed, but (just as not having any "real proof" about anything that it is alleged that Ms. Clinton did means that Ms. Clinton is **G*U*I*L*T*Y** because she is alleged to have done something) what does that have to do with anything.

Until

1. Mr. Assange's lawyer actually calls Ms. Robinson as a witness, and
2. Ms. Robinson actually testifies under oath, and
3. Ms. Robinson is actually cross-examined, and
4. Mr. Rohrabacher is actually called as a witness, and
5. Mr. Rohrabacher actually testifies under oath, and
6. Mr. Rohrabacher is actually cross-examined, and
7. Mr. Trump is actually called as a witness, and
8. Mr. Trump actually testifies under oath, and
9. Mr. Trump is actually cross-examined,

we probably won't have any "real proof" - will we.

Now, I can quite conceive of the first three things happening, and I can agree that the second three things are barely possible, but the last three things are totally outside of the bounds of rational probability.

Devolving into whataboutisms are we?

The only time I mention that woman is how she lost, or about the questionable proceedings around how she was found innocent. Then that is it.

This crap surrounding Trump keeps getting pulled up by some anonymous source, or another, all year round and it's much of the same effect. Nothing happens and it quickly slips into the back of everyone's mind.

I would believe these reports, or sources more readily. If it wasn't a dead assurance that they were most likely built upon a lie, given how all this has proceeded in the last few years.

 

[Divine_Wind]

Donald Trump offered Julian Assange a pardon if he would say Russia was not involved in leaking Democratic party emails, a court in London has been told.

Donald Trump 'offered Julian Assange a pardon if he denied Russia link to hack' | Media | The Guardian

--

The extraordinary claim was made at Westminster magistrates court before the opening next week of Assange’s legal battle to block attempts to extradite him to the US.

Assange’s barrister, Edward Fitzgerald QC, referred to evidence alleging that the former US Republican congressman Dana Rohrabacher had been to see Assange, now 48, while he was still in the Ecuadorian embassy in August 2017.

A statement from Assange’s lawyer Jennifer Robinson shows “Mr Rohrabacher going to see Mr Assange and saying, on instructions from the president, he was offering a pardon or some other way out, if Mr Assange … said Russia had nothing to do with the DNC leaks”, Fitzgerald told Westminster magistrates court.

--

Very interesting. I think it's better to be skeptical of this one given the source and lack of evidence but something to keep tabs on.

Isn't that a straight up bribe?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

That is a long journey. I'm think you agree with me? Other than the quirk of thinking a headline isn't a part of the publication, and shouldn't be subject to journalistic standards (or even basic honesty).

I'll go even further than that. I DO think that "headlines" SHOULD BE subject to journalistic standards and even basic honesty. Where we differ is that I recognize that SHOULD BE and ARE do not mean the same thing.

Don't really need the Milton Freeman lecture, but I guess that I can agree that the goal of the Guardian is to make a profit, and not to provide accurate information.

It was simpler to C&P the old post. The GOAL of every business is to make a profit. If the business doesn't make a profit then it shuts down. (I will agree that there is a bit of an exception for those things that LOOK LIKE businesses but are really only hobbies [or hobbyhorses].)