Trump offered pardon to Assange if he covered up Russian assistance to Trump

[billvon 2,384]

Just - wow.  Using presidential powers to protect an enemy of the US who is attacking the electoral process, because it might benefit the president.  There's a word for that.

LONDON—Lawyers representing the United States at Julian Assange’s extradition trial in Britain have accepted the claim that the WikiLeaks founder was offered a presidential pardon by a Congressman on the condition that he would help cover up Russia’s involvement in hacking emails from the Democratic National Committee.

Jennifer Robinson, a lawyer, told the court that she had attended a meeting between Assange, then Republican Congressman Dana Rohrabacher, and pro-Trump troll Charles Johnson at Assange’s hide-out, the Ecuadorian embassy in London, on August 15, 2017.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/us-admits-that-putins-favorite-congressman-offered-pardon-to-assange-if-he-covered-up-russia-links

[turtlespeed 212]

On 9/18/2020 at 12:15 PM, billvon said:

Just - wow.  Using presidential powers to protect an enemy of the US who is attacking the electoral process, because it might benefit the president.  There's a word for that.

LONDON—Lawyers representing the United States at Julian Assange’s extradition trial in Britain have accepted the claim that the WikiLeaks founder was offered a presidential pardon by a Congressman on the condition that he would help cover up Russia’s involvement in hacking emails from the Democratic National Committee.

Jennifer Robinson, a lawyer, told the court that she had attended a meeting between Assange, then Republican Congressman Dana Rohrabacher, and pro-Trump troll Charles Johnson at Assange’s hide-out, the Ecuadorian embassy in London, on August 15, 2017.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/us-admits-that-putins-favorite-congressman-offered-pardon-to-assange-if-he-covered-up-russia-links

Is there proof of this?

Or did it just get said?

Edited September 19, 2020 by turtlespeed

[jakee 1,254]

6 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

Is there proof of this?

Or did it just get said?

Have you ever considered reading an article? You never know, you might enjoy being informed about a subject before you spout off. Stranger things have happened.

[billvon 2,384]

10 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

Is there proof of this?

Or did it just get said?

Read the article.  She stated it.  Lawyers for the US accepted it without objection or cross.

[turtlespeed 212]

1 minute ago, jakee said:

Have you ever considered reading an article? You never know, you might enjoy being informed about a subject before you spout off. Stranger things have happened.

If I wanted to, I would have.

Have you ever considered giving a straight answer without a demeaning undertone, full of insult?

[turtlespeed 212]

1 minute ago, billvon said:

Read the article.  She stated it.  Lawyers for the US accepted it without objection or cross.

Thank you.  I'll take the time to read it now.

[turtlespeed 212]

3 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

Thank you.  I'll take the time to read it now.

It was partially corroborated by Rohrabacher, as well.

Hardly damning, but suspicious, I'll give you that.

 

[jakee 1,254]

9 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

If I wanted to, I would have.

I know you don't want to be informed about anything, that's the problem.

Quote

Have you ever considered giving a straight answer without a demeaning undertone, full of insult?

Have you ever considered not being a massive hypocrite? Anyone who ever asked you a question that was already answered anywhere in the whole forum and you tell them to do their own homework, yet time and again you demand to be spoon fed basic information even after the link to said information has been put right in front of your face. It's arrogant, it's lazy, and it's why you're so wrong so often.

[turtlespeed 212]

27 minutes ago, jakee said:

I know you don't want to be informed about anything, that's the problem.

Have you ever considered not being a massive hypocrite? Anyone who ever asked you a question that was already answered anywhere in the whole forum and you tell them to do their own homework, yet time and again you demand to be spoon fed basic information even after the link to said information has been put right in front of your face. It's arrogant, it's lazy, and it's why you're so wrong so often.

Generally - a quote from the article is a time saver.

This is why I don't answer you anymore, and rarely read your posts.

I won't block you, I'm not a coward.

I just don't usually have the interest in, or the time to respond to someone like you. 

 

[nigel99 143]

1 hour ago, jakee said:

Have you ever considered reading an article? You never know, you might enjoy being informed about a subject before you spout off. Stranger things have happened.

That ladies and gentlemen is how Trump manages to do so well with his base. Provided the headline or sound bite is good, he knows that they are too lazy to actually read. 
Provide a good headline, trigger an emotional response and get them to spout off and within 20 seconds the entire content is forgotten and irrelevant.

[yoink 321]

And once again Turtle manages to derail the topic of a thread by his actions.

 

Any thread that suggests that Trump or the GOP has done something wrong and he’ll come in, make such an ASININE series of comments that people can’t help but post on how his viewpoint is wrong while losing focus on the original issue.

 
It’s such a standard MO that I’m starting to think he’s actually a Russian bot.

[gowlerk 1,903]

30 minutes ago, yoink said:

And once again Turtle manages to derail the topic of a thread by his actions.

Time and time again people here allow him to.

[jakee 1,254]

13 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

Generally - a quote from the article is a time saver.

For you. But you want someone else to spend the time to do that for you, even though you woud never return the favour and would insult anyone who asked you to.

Quote

This is why I don't answer you anymore, and rarely read your posts.

I won't block you, I'm not a coward.

I just don't usually have the interest in, or the time to respond to someone like you. 

Is there a name for a statement which disproves itself?

Your protestations here ring just as false as your claims to be able to see things from the centre. Come on, the offer of a political pardon in return for election fraud, confirmed in court by representatives of the US government and the most condemnation you can offer is 'it's hardly damning'. Meanwhile if Pelosi boiled an egg for 1 minute too long you'd be calling for her head.