• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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


And what does that have to do with

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. Trump actually testifies under oath, and
  9. Mr. Trump is actually cross-examined,

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

other than "absolutely nothing", I mean?
 
Royal PITA said:
Isn't that a straight up bribe?
Click to expand...

Not at all, a "bribe" (in this case) would require that someone personally handed over (directly) to Mr. Trump actual cash money at the same time that both the person and Mr. Trump explicitly acknowledged that what they were doing was illegal and intended to be so.

What you have here (assuming that the report is correct) would be Mr. Trump engaging in a perfectly legal commercial transaction in that he would have been offering something that he had a legal right to offer in return for something that Mr. Assange would have a perfectly legal right to supply.

[The above legal opinion, has been provided by the law firm of Wieselwort, du Plicité, Poco-Escrupuloso, Flerd, and Corrotto LLP, was paid for and has been officially approved and endorsed by "Devoted Online Lovers of Trump" Inc. (a non-partisan, independent, research and analysis organization exempt from federal taxation that is dedicated to bringing you the true truth and not the false truth that anyone who doesn't believe 100% of what Donald Trump says tries to tell you the so-called "facts" are), "Pro-Life United Gun Enthusiasts and Manufacturers for Jesus", and “"The ‘First Amendment Rights Trust’ Foundation”.]
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
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.
Click to expand...

That's kind of an odd statement, considering the discussion we just had. Of course, I recognize that there's a difference between 'should be' and 'are'. That's why I commented that this was a bad headline, and was out of character for The Guardian, which has had a decent reputation. This type of headline would not surprise me from certain other sources.


Understood, but profit and standards aren't necessarily in conflict. I still feel it's possible to make a profit BY providing reliable information that follows journalistic standards. Unfortunately, it seems that path is only followed by some local news providers.
 

It's a stupid lie by a desperate attorney.
 
Jack Hays said:
It's a stupid lie by a desperate attorney.
Click to expand...

Or not.

Assange had already made statements regarding the source of the DNC material before this mini-scandal broke. I saw him make the statement during an interview in the embassy.

What motivates the attorney to make the claim now, other than a statement of truth? Assange does not benefit from the statement, so what's the point?

Knowing how the mobster in the WH operates, I would not be surprised if he did send such a message, ignorant of the fact that Assange had already stated that it was NOT a state actor that sent the material.
 

Trying to piggyback on current media focus.
 

Had your comment been restricted to how "bad" the headline was, I wouldn't have had any issue with it. The issue I had with your comment was that the headline was "bad journalism". I avoid the (to use your term) "bad journalism" in headlines by actually reading the whole article.


Indeed, on the other hand there ARE fairly widely circulated media outlets like "The Christian Science Monitor" which does a quite decent job of it (editorial caveat - not quite so good on matters of religion).
 
Jack Hays said:
It's a stupid lie by a desperate attorney.
Click to expand...

Really?

Are you saying that Mr. Fitzgerald QC, was lying when he said that he has a statement from Ms. Robinson that she was personally present and actually heard Mr. Rohrabacher make the offer (while he also indicated that the offer already had the approval of Mr. Trump)?

Or are you saying that Ms. Robinson was lying when she said that she was personally present and actually heard Mr. Rohrabacher make the offer (while he also indicated that the offer already had the approval of Mr. Trump)?

Or are you saying that Mr. Rohrabacher was lying when he said that he did meet with Mr. Assange and make him an offer of a pardon in return for a statement from Mr. Assange that the Russians were NOT involved in the release of the documents (regardless of the truth of that statement)?

Or are saying that Mr. Trump's lawyer was lying when he said that Mr. Trump didn't know Mr. Rohrabacher at all?
 

My money's on the attorney.
 

If Grisham said it's a total lie, it is very likely the opposite. This press office has no credibility going back to day one. These people don't know how to tell the truth. they've been Trumped.

Does anyone wonder why the pressers have been completely halted? The press is in search of and entitled to the truth. They are incapable of providing it and they know it.
 
Barnacle said:
Immunity deals are now impeachable?!?

:lamo
Click to expand...

if they are corrupt, yes. You cannot hold out a pardon in exchange for something of benefit...that is a crime...so, even if he did pardon him...and that would be permenant, he can be impeached for the conduct of pay for play...he can also be imprisoned when he leaves office.
 
Jack Hays said:
My money's on the attorney.
Click to expand...

Three of the four mentioned are lawyers, which one are you betting on?

PS - As I understand "my money's on" that means that you expect the person you put your money on to "win".

PPS - You do realize that your "response" did NOT actually address a single one of the four questions that I asked you, don't you?
 

My reference was to the QC, although that's not a vote of confidence in any of the others.
I didn't answer your questions because I thought they were silly.
 
Jack Hays said:
My reference was to the QC, although that's not a vote of confidence in any of the others.
I didn't answer your questions because I thought they were silly.
Click to expand...

So, your position is that a Queen's Council is willing to risk disbarment by lying to the courts when he says that he has a statement from another lawyer (who has not denied that he has that statement) that the other lawyer was personally present and actually witnessed Mr. Rohrabacher not only make the offer but indicate that he was doing so with the backing of Mr. Trump - right?

PS - "Silly" is one of the words that a lot of people use to dismiss questions that they either cannot answer or know that giving an honest answer to the question would make them look more foolish than the want to appear.
 

Now you've finally devolved into something else entirely.
 

Someone in that chain is lying. We just don't know who. There is no one less credible than Assange and those who associate with him.
 
Jack Hays said:
Someone in that chain is lying. We just don't know who. There is no one less credible than Assange and those who associate with him.
Click to expand...

That "chain" includes:

  1. Mr. Assange (who hasn't said anything in this particular instance);
    *
  2. Mr. Assange's lawyer;
    *
  3. Ms. Robinson;
    *
  4. Mr. Rohrabacher;
    *
    and;
    *
  5. Mr. Trump.

It seems reasonable to exclude from the class of "persons actively lying" anyone who hasn't said anything in this particular instance, so that means that of the four remaining, one would have to look at background and current performance in order to make a guess as to whether the statement that one of them is lying.

On balance, and considering the background and current performance of

  1. Mr. Assange's lawyer;
    *
  2. Ms. Robinson;
    *
  3. Mr. Rohrabacher;
    *
    and;
    *
  4. Mr. Trump;

PLUS the likelihood that they actually believe that lying will actually have any negative consequences to themselves personally, then I have to agree with you that at least one person on that list is lying.

However I strongly suspect that your opinion as to the likelihood of any particular person on that list being a liar (which I would guess to be that in order of likelihood [most to least] is 2, 1, 3, 4) differs markedly from mine (which is 4, 3, 2, 1) with respect to this particular matter. That, I do have to stress is an assessment of likelihood and nothing more than that.
 

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

So what we have here is a morphing story, that started as an offer by Dana Rohrbacher to ask for a pardon, and became Trump offering a pardon. You people never get tired of being wrong.

 
Cardinal said:
Rohrbacher confirmed the story. The story is true, and Grisham lied.
Click to expand...

Not quite.

Dana Rohrabacher - News from Dana Rohrabacher

 

Based on the link in #195, it looks like Mr. Assange's lawyer was the liar.
 

What a silly claim. Rohrbacher was not in a position to offer a pardon, and didn't. He offered to call on Assange's behalf.
 
Jack Hays said:
What a silly claim. Rohrbacher was not in a position to offer a pardon, and didn't. He offered to call on Assange's behalf.
Click to expand...

Yeah, no ****. That's the point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…