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

[TU Curmudgeon]

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.

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?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Isn't that a straight up bribe?

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”.]

 

[dcsports]

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.

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.

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].)

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.

 

[Jack Hays]

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.

It's a stupid lie by a desperate attorney.

 

[Thoreau72]

It's a stupid lie by a desperate attorney.

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.

 

[Jack Hays]

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.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

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.

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.

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.

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).

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

It's a stupid lie by a desperate attorney.

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?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Trying to piggyback on current media focus.

Hey, it's 'The ***A*M*E*R*I*C*A*N*** Way' - right?

 

[Jack Hays]

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.

 

[Thoreau72]

Trying to piggyback on current media focus.

Trying to keep things in perspective.....

 

[The AntiDonald]

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.

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.

 

[ClaraD]

Immunity deals are now impeachable?!?

:lamo

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.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

My money's on the attorney.

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?

 

[Jack Hays]

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.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

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.

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.

 

[Oborosen]

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?

Now you've finally devolved into something else entirely.

 

[Jack Hays]

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.

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.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

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.

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.

 

[American]

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.

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.

“I spoke to Julian Assange and told him if he would provide evidence about who gave WikiLeaks the emails I would petition the president to give him a pardon,” Rohrabacher said. “He knew I could get to the president.”

When he spoke to Kelly, the then chief of staff was “courteous” but made no commitment that he would even raise the matter directly with the president

 

[OpportunityCost]

Rohrbacher confirmed the story. The story is true, and Grisham lied.

Not quite.

Dana Rohrabacher - News from Dana Rohrabacher

At no time did I talk to President Trump about Julian Assange. Likewise, I was not directed by Trump or anyone else connected with him to meet with Julian Assange. I was on my own fact finding mission at personal expense to find out information I thought was important to our country. I was shocked to find out that no other member of Congress had taken the time in their official or unofficial capacity to interview Julian Assange. At no time did I offer Julian Assange anything from the President because I had not spoken with the President about this issue at all. However, when speaking with Julian Assange, I told him that if he could provide me information and evidence about who actually gave him the DNC emails, I would then call on President Trump to pardon him. At no time did I offer a deal made by the President, nor did I say I was representing the President. Upon my return, I spoke briefly with Gen. Kelly. I told him that Julian Assange would provide information about the purloined DNC emails in exchange for a pardon. No one followed up with me including Gen. Kelly and that was the last discussion I had on this subject with anyone representing Trump or in his Administration.

 

[Jack Hays]

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.

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

 

[Cardinal]

Not quite.

Dana Rohrabacher - News from Dana Rohrabacher

"When speaking with Julian Assange, I told him that if he could provide me information and evidence about who actually gave him the DNC emails, I would then call on President Trump to pardon him."

I.e. "Give me a different name other than Russians and you get a pardon."

 

[Jack Hays]

"When speaking with Julian Assange, I told him that if he could provide me information and evidence about who actually gave him the DNC emails, I would then call on President Trump to pardon him."

I.e. "Give me a different name other than Russians and you get a pardon."

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.

 

[Cardinal]

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.

Yeah, no ****. That's the point.