Posted on 02/20/2020 8:21:36 AM PST by DoodleDawg
“widely debunked”
Which now apparently means “we haven’t looked for any evidence, so there is no evidence FOR it, and therefore it can’t be true, so we are not going to look for any evidence of it”
I don’t have trouble beleiving that the russians had gotten malware into the servers.
And I’m not convinced someone had Rich murdered.
But that actually doesn’t in any way disprove the hypothesis that Rich copied files to a flash drive and gave them to Assange. He could have done that even though Russia managed to get their code onto the computer, and he could have done so even though he later, coincidentally, got mugged and killed by a street thug.
Quid pro quo in itself is not only legal, but the foundation of all commerce and most human interactions. If I give you a dollar (the quid) and you give me a chicken sandwich (the quo), that is quid pro quo.
The concert of quid pro quo being a crime is when a person uses their position of power in exchange for some action or benefit that they would otherwise not be able to obtain through legitimate means. (I get you a government contract if you give me a sack of cash, you sleep with me if I give you a promotion, I let you off of this traffic ticket if you give me a bribe)
Whether or not a pardon in exchange for information is an illegitimate use of power to conduct quid pro quo is a political argument, not a legal one. The president can pardon anyone from federal crimes for any reason, and as demonstrated last month congress can impeach the president for any crime or noncrime that it wants.
I don’t think it would be that hard for Assange — he probably knows where he got the information, after all.
He just doesn’t ever want to reveal sources, because then they all dry up.
It’s why I am not convinced it was Seth Rich. He’s dead, so I would think Assange wouldn’t be making anybody mad if he came out and said Seth is the one who sent him the files.
LOL, spot on!
Rorbacher just told Assange "Publicly proclaim the truth and you'll get a pardon".
1. Assange has been saying this since the campaign (before he talked to Rohrabacher.)
2. It was 2017. He wasn’yt charged with anything. There was nothing to pardon.
yep. latest fake news debunked: idiot ex-Congressman made fake offer of pardon to Assange; President Trump not involved at all ...
“I would think Assange wouldn’t be making anybody mad if he came out and said Seth is the one who sent him the files.”
Except, maybe, the people that killed Seth Rich...
Yep. And they had the correct info all along.
Trump made no offer.
Rohrbacher didn’t either.
He basically said he’d work on it.
When the CIA had evidence that Russia/USSR was installing missiles in Cuba they showed us. If they have evidence that Russia hacked the email, why haven’t they shown it? Because they have no evidence. It’s part of a pathetic attempt to frame Trump.
SETH RICH DID !!!
The article provides:
“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.”
So Rohrabacher merely told Assange that he would “petition” President Trump for a pardon if Assange would give Rohrabacher certain evidence. That means that President Trump had *not* told Rohrabacher that he would pardon Assange; in fact, it strongly implies that Rohrabacher never had discussed a potential Assange pardon with Trump.
And Rohrabacher’s “He knew I could get to the president” is either braggadocio by Rohrabacher or a true statement of what *Assange* believed, not evidence that Rohrabacher was certain to get President Trump to issue a pardon.
This allegation says absolutely nothing about President Trump, but it says a lot about that stoner loser Rohrabacher (who, BTW, handed his House seat to a Leftist Democrat in 2018 by running ads against the conservative Republican running in the blanket primary so as to allow the Democrat to make it into the run-off and then lost the run-off against the Democrat).
Question is do you believe Rohrabacher? This is not some ‘unnamed sources’ story. Rohrabacher spoke on the record for this and Isikoff is quoting him.
Rohrabacher is one of a kind. I conversed with him about Russia on twitter one time. While he was a sitting Congressman! Ha ha.
*Ping*
***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.”***
This revelation has NOTHING to do with the original false story. The media is hoping the two sound similar enough that people will confuse the two and assume the original story has been vindicated. The original false allegation was that POTUS offered Assange a pardon if he would lie about the source of the DNC data breach. Rohrabacher’s claim is that Assange offered to testify about the source of the breach if POTUS would give him a pardon - an offer which POTUS never accepted.
Or that. Can’t tell from here. Also, I see no need to assume “the worst”. I have Democrats to do that for me.
Thanks. Some sober reporting at last. This stuff is hard on the ticker.
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.