Posted on 02/20/2020 8:21:36 AM PST by DoodleDawg
the story yesterday was Trump offered the pardon...
Here we go with impeachment 3.0.
Well, yes, I do. It was confirmed by the subject himself and this has nothing to do with Trump - so don’t worry about it.
If you are promising presidential action on something then shouldn't you check with the President before you promise it?
And today the facts are coming out that contradict yesterday's story. Isn't that amazing? </sarcasm>
So the REAL story of Assange and a pardon from Trump is that a DEMOCRAT offered the pardon in exchange for Assange claiming that it wasn’t the Russians who hacked the DNC’s computers. That is a significant change from what The Hill was spouting yesterday.
“Rohrabacher confirms he offered Trump pardon to Assange for proof Russia didn’t hack DNC email”
This is much different than the headline yesterday that that screamed Trump wanted Assange to lie about Russian the hack.
The fact that he didn't deliver tells me that either the promise of a pardon was not set in stone, or Julian couldn't prove his claim that it wasn't Russia.
So since no deal was made, there is zero evidence to support that Julian bought it as you claimed.
Today’s version is that a congressman offered a pardon, not Trump. There is no evidence Trump was ever even presented with the proposal.
Why was this not quid pro quo?
Agree.
Essentially Rohrabacher went to Assange and asked if he had proof Russia didn't hack the DNC. It's difficult to prove the negative but he was also asking 'do you have any evidence someone else did it?' And if you do have evidence it was someone else than the Russians the evidence would benefit Assange and Trump.
Simply asking someone if they had evidence to prove your client innocent isn't a crime.
If Rohrabacher asked Assange to fabricate proof it wasn't the Russians that would be different.
It was, sort of. It was a quid pro quo between Assange and Rohrbacher. But if the side promising had no power to deliver on that promise then was it really a quid pro quo?
Not really. Rohrabacher is a Republican.
Rohrabacher’s statement was crystal-clear, he made the offer knowing that Trump was totally unaware of it and that he’d have to convince him to actually issue the pardon if he brought back the information. That wasn’t very smart maybe, but it was Roharbacher’s doing.
They don’t need Assange if they’re just confirm what Bill Binney has said for years, that the DNC server info could only have come from a direct transfer, not a “hack”.
Seth Rich
Yesterday I saw articles that claimed he never offered a pardon. One day he did...the next day he didn’t? No wonder no one believes the media anymore. They can’t get their stories straight.
I can imagine that conversation taking place.
It’s way different than the current narrative, which is “Trump offered a pardon to Assange if he would LIE about Russia.”
And Rohrabacher is upfront about that and states that the President never said he would pardon Assange. Regardless of what Rohrabacher promised and what the media was saying yesterday.
So since no deal was made, there is zero evidence to support that Julian bought it as you claimed.
Other that what Assange's lawyer claimed there's no evidence at all. But hey, what do lawyers know? </sarcasm>
Yes, Trump had nothing to do with it. Rohrbacher said as much.
Excellent point. Media lies change entire meaning. Add in that it wasn’t even from Trump (as in ‘Trump offers a pardon’ vs Rohrabacher offers’) and this is a big nothingburger as usual.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.