Posted on 02/20/2020 8:21:36 AM PST by DoodleDawg
Former California Republican congressman Dana Rohrabacher confirmed in a new interview that during a three-hour meeting at the Ecuadorian Embassy in August 2017, he told Julian Assange he would get President Trump to give him a pardon if he turned over information proving the Russians had not been the source of internal Democratic National Committee emails published by WikiLeaks.
In a phone interview with Yahoo News, Rohrabacher said his goal during the meeting was to find proof for a widely debunked conspiracy theory: that WikiLeaks’ real source for the DNC emails was not Russian intelligence agents, as U.S. officials have since concluded, but former DNC staffer Seth Rich, who was murdered on the streets of Washington in July 2016 in what police believe was a botched robbery.
(Excerpt) Read more at msn.com ...
He didn’t say there would be a pardon. He said he’d approach the president for a pardon. He said Trump didn’t know a thing about it.
Anything related to Assange is now poison.
Damned if you do and damned if you don’t.
My God, yes. Fake headline. He said he'd "petition" the president for a pardon, and that was indirectly with someone who was just the messenger.
FAKE! FAKE! FAKE!
We should all be livid.
That word they love to misuse.
“Yes, Rohrbacher saying he’d ask Trump to give him a pardon is not nearly the same thing as Trump saying he’d grant a pardon.”
Exactly. Dana would ask President Trump for a pardon.
Rohrabacher’s actual words to Assange were not “damaging” at all, as he was not asking Assange to merely say the hack was not done by the Russians, but asking him - Assange - for any evidence that it wasn’t the Russians.
That is much different than the media’s spin, implying Rohrabacher only wanted Assange to make up a tale, whether it was true or not.
At this point it appears President Trump had nothing to do with the conversation between a House member and Wikileaks' leader Julian Assange. But even if the President were involved, there is nothing wrong with law enforcement officials offering immunity for evidence. It happens all the time in prosecutor's offices all across America.
If someone did have evidence regarding the actual party responsible for the DNC email hack or theft wouldn't it be worthwhile to promise them either a pardon or immunity from prosecution in order to get the evidence?
Assange is not a complete idiot, so he's going to confess to being an accessory to distributing state secrets? Hell some Leftist US Attorney would probably string him up on little-used spam laws LOL.
Trump would have had to offer not just a pardon (for past sins) but complete carte blanche immunity (for new revelations). Nuh uh, never happened, never gonna happen.
Plus Assange is likely on his way out, whatever demon he has in his system is eating him up whole -- there's no impetus to pardon the dude.
"Debunked" because the DS said so.
+100 - Operation Varsity Blues (college admissions bribery scandal) was a recent example of a perp trading a deal for information (see Morrie Tobin, tipster) .
Or he thought that Assange actually had the proof but wouldn’t reveal it without some extraordinary incentive.
“The idea we have any proof THE RUSSIANS were responsible for the Wikileaks release is laughable.”
The level of “proof” we have is basically someone scribbling a note and leaving it at the crime scene that says “Dmitry wuz here”, on a piece of stationary that says “From the Desk of Hillary Clinton”.
Your post is absolutely critical here. Most people never picked up on the important distinction between the two.
“But if the side promising had no power to deliver on that promise then was it really a quid pro quo?”
Sounds like a quid pro con.
Your retort back: Other that what Assange's lawyer claimed there's no evidence at all.
Are you saying that Assange's lawyer stated that Julian agreed to do it but then never followed through?
What his lawyer actually said is that the offer was presented that Trump had promised that Assange would receive a pardon if Julian lied and said Russia was not involved. So in reality this lawyer is attempting to muddy the water with regard to his extradition, period.
But hey, what do lawyers know?
Too easy, how to lie for the sake of their client. /reality
Robert Delong: “So since no deal was made, there is zero evidence to support that Julian bought it as you claimed.”
DoodleDawg: “Other that what Assange’s lawyer claimed there’s no evidence at all. But hey, what do lawyers know? </sarcasm>”
me: Lawyers know that lawyer statements aren’t evidence of anything.
But somehow you convinced yourself it is proof Julian bought it. You actually have no idea what his real opinion was.
Broken logic alert
“...Rohrabacher said his goal during the meeting was to find proof for a widely debunked conspiracy theory: that WikiLeaks’ real source for the DNC emails was not Russian intelligence agents, as U.S. officials have since concluded, but former DNC staffer Seth Rich...”
In other words, he was seeking the truth. How dare he?!
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.