[DoodleDawg]

What the lawyer states is irrelevant. Rohrabacher admits he said he would get President Trump to authorize a pardon if he delivered to him, Rohrabacher, the proof that it wasn't Russia that provided the emails. I have heard nowhere that President Trump admited that he agreed to pardon Julian if he delivered.

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>

[Robert DeLong]

I said: So since no deal was made, there is zero evidence to support that Julian bought it as you claimed.

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

[Mount Athos]

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