Trump 'associates' offered Assange pardon in return for emails source, court hears

[Tommy Tainant]

Trump 'associates' offered Assange pardon in return for emails source, court hears

WikiLeaks founder was asked to reveal source of leak damaging to Hillary Clinton, hearing told

www.theguardian.com

Two political figures claiming to represent Donald Trump offered Julian Assange a “win-win” deal to avoid extradition to the US and indictment, a London court has heard.

Under the proposed deal, outlined by Assange’s barrister Jennifer Robinson, the WikiLeaks founder would be offered a pardon if he disclosed who leaked Democratic party emails to his site, in order to help clear up allegations they had been supplied by Russian hackers to help Trump’s election in 2016.

According to a statement from Robinson read out to the court, the offer was made by the then Republican congressman Dana Rohrabacher and Trump associate Charles Johnson at a meeting on 15 August 2017 at the Ecuadorian embassy in London where Assange was then sheltering. At the time he was under secret investigation by a US grand jury.

I do not know if this stuff gets reported over there but this offer was outlined in a British court this week. Our courts are not partisan venues like the ones in the US.

I have not really followed the Assange story closely over the years. I understand that he is in trouble for leaking US secrets and that these leaks may have led to the deaths of American soldiers.

What I am taking from this story is that ALLEGEDLY Trump is/was prepared to pardon Assange in order to get potentially damaging stuff on his democrat opponents. In other words a "quid pro quo" similar to the deal that Trump offered to the President of the Ukraine.

I would imagine that it would be possible to place the two "fixers" in London and at the Embassy at that time. I would also suspect that Assange had the meeting taped.

It seems to be a very dirty business. I have some sympathy with Assanges agenda but he does strike me as an unpleasant sort of individual. If people have died then he should be accountable for that. Any deal that allows him to walk away from that does a disservice to the victims and their families.

 

[fncceo]

What I find truly amusing is that Democrats are incensed to the point of apoplexy about the fact that emails from the DNC were leaked.

But, are positively silent on the incriminating and embarrassing things contained in those emails.

Like the criminal who is incensed about police for catching him in his crimes, but makes no effort to deny them.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

What I find truly amusing is that Democrats are incensed to the point of apoplexy about the fact that emails from the DNC were leaked.

But, are positively silent on the incriminating and embarrassing things contained in those emails.

Like the criminal who is incensed about police for catching him in his crimes, but makes no effort to deny them.

People who are guilty will always want to talk about the process rather than the evidence. that holds in pretty much every sphere of life. There are lawyers who made their millions on that aspect of human nature.

 

[Aletheia4u]

Pres. Trump can't pardon Assange until he is done with all other legal issues in other countries and plus he has to be on American soil. But the Globalist are making sure that Assange doesn't get extradited to America.


Can the POTUS issue a presidential pardon to a non US citizen such as Julian Assange? Source please.

 

[Polishprince]

Trump 'associates' offered Assange pardon in return for emails source, court hears

WikiLeaks founder was asked to reveal source of leak damaging to Hillary Clinton, hearing told

www.theguardian.com

Two political figures claiming to represent Donald Trump offered Julian Assange a “win-win” deal to avoid extradition to the US and indictment, a London court has heard.

Under the proposed deal, outlined by Assange’s barrister Jennifer Robinson, the WikiLeaks founder would be offered a pardon if he disclosed who leaked Democratic party emails to his site, in order to help clear up allegations they had been supplied by Russian hackers to help Trump’s election in 2016.

According to a statement from Robinson read out to the court, the offer was made by the then Republican congressman Dana Rohrabacher and Trump associate Charles Johnson at a meeting on 15 August 2017 at the Ecuadorian embassy in London where Assange was then sheltering. At the time he was under secret investigation by a US grand jury.

I do not know if this stuff gets reported over there but this offer was outlined in a British court this week. Our courts are not partisan venues like the ones in the US.

I have not really followed the Assange story closely over the years. I understand that he is in trouble for leaking US secrets and that these leaks may have led to the deaths of American soldiers.

What I am taking from this story is that ALLEGEDLY Trump is/was prepared to pardon Assange in order to get potentially damaging stuff on his democrat opponents. In other words a "quid pro quo" similar to the deal that Trump offered to the President of the Ukraine.

I would imagine that it would be possible to place the two "fixers" in London and at the Embassy at that time. I would also suspect that Assange had the meeting taped.

It seems to be a very dirty business. I have some sympathy with Assanges agenda but he does strike me as an unpleasant sort of individual. If people have died then he should be accountable for that. Any deal that allows him to walk away from that does a disservice to the victims and their families.

If this great patriot, Julian Assange, has information about liberal corruption and espionage, why not make a deal?

Mr. Assange spent a long time already incarcerated in Britain. Remember he has no particular obligation to America as an Ecuadorian national. If the She Male Bradley Manning , someone who swore loyalty to America, can be let go and pursue a career as a Democrat politician, why not Assange?

 

[pknopp]

Prosecuting someone because they won't reveal their sources. Pretty sad.

 

[Polishprince]

Prosecuting someone because they won't reveal their sources. Pretty sad.

In this situation, it might however help to solve the Seth Rich whacking which is still an open case. If Mr. Rich was Assange's source, isn't that important information to determine who decided to fund a botched robbery against him?

I know that the Rich family is uninterested in finding the perps who whacked their son, but the general public has an interest here too, if dangerous criminals are running loose.

 

[pknopp]

Prosecuting someone because they won't reveal their sources. Pretty sad.

In this situation, it might however help to solve the Seth Rich whacking which is still an open case. If Mr. Rich was Assange's source, isn't that important information to determine who decided to fund a botched robbery against him?

I know that the Rich family is uninterested in finding the perps who whacked their son, but the general public has an interest here too, if dangerous criminals are running loose.

Divulging sources can provide lots of info in many cases but not doing so is not something this country is suppose to prosecute someone over.

 

[Polishprince]

Prosecuting someone because they won't reveal their sources. Pretty sad.

In this situation, it might however help to solve the Seth Rich whacking which is still an open case. If Mr. Rich was Assange's source, isn't that important information to determine who decided to fund a botched robbery against him?

I know that the Rich family is uninterested in finding the perps who whacked their son, but the general public has an interest here too, if dangerous criminals are running loose.

Divulging sources can provide lots of info in many cases but not doing so is not something this country is suppose to prosecute someone over.

This is more about giving someone mercy and consideration for their cooperation, instead of persecuting them for not cooperating.

 

[Muhammed]

Prosecuting someone because they won't reveal their sources. Pretty sad.

In this situation, it might however help to solve the Seth Rich whacking which is still an open case. If Mr. Rich was Assange's source, isn't that important information to determine who decided to fund a botched robbery against him?

I know that the Rich family is uninterested in finding the perps who whacked their son, but the general public has an interest here too, if dangerous criminals are running loose.

Divulging sources can provide lots of info in many cases but not doing so is not something this country is suppose to prosecute someone over.

Where does the US constitution say that?

 

[Mac1958]

Prosecuting someone because they won't reveal their sources. Pretty sad.

We just had a President aggressively and continually lie to the American people about the severity of a deadly global pandemic bearing down on the country.

Yeah, this kind of thing ain't good, but we've decayed to a point at which it's nothing more than a fly on a horse's butt.

 

[Dekster]

Prosecuting someone because they won't reveal their sources. Pretty sad.

In this situation, it might however help to solve the Seth Rich whacking which is still an open case. If Mr. Rich was Assange's source, isn't that important information to determine who decided to fund a botched robbery against him?

I know that the Rich family is uninterested in finding the perps who whacked their son, but the general public has an interest here too, if dangerous criminals are running loose.

Divulging sources can provide lots of info in many cases but not doing so is not something this country is suppose to prosecute someone over.

This is more about giving someone mercy and consideration for their cooperation, instead of persecuting them for not cooperating.

Journalists traditionally have been able to protect their sources under the first amendment. Now Trump didn't start the Assange prosecution, but at the same time, he also shouldn't be trying to extort protected information from him either. Assange should have never been pursued based on any evidence I have seen. Snowden, however, should be buried under the prison.

 

[pknopp]

Prosecuting someone because they won't reveal their sources. Pretty sad.

In this situation, it might however help to solve the Seth Rich whacking which is still an open case. If Mr. Rich was Assange's source, isn't that important information to determine who decided to fund a botched robbery against him?

I know that the Rich family is uninterested in finding the perps who whacked their son, but the general public has an interest here too, if dangerous criminals are running loose.

Divulging sources can provide lots of info in many cases but not doing so is not something this country is suppose to prosecute someone over.

Where does the US constitution say that?

Where did I mention the Constitution?

 

[pknopp]

Prosecuting someone because they won't reveal their sources. Pretty sad.

In this situation, it might however help to solve the Seth Rich whacking which is still an open case. If Mr. Rich was Assange's source, isn't that important information to determine who decided to fund a botched robbery against him?

I know that the Rich family is uninterested in finding the perps who whacked their son, but the general public has an interest here too, if dangerous criminals are running loose.

Divulging sources can provide lots of info in many cases but not doing so is not something this country is suppose to prosecute someone over.

This is more about giving someone mercy and consideration for their cooperation, instead of persecuting them for not cooperating.

Journalists traditionally have been able to protect their sources under the first amendment. Now Trump didn't start the Assange prosecution, but at the same time, he also shouldn't be trying to extort protected information from him either. Assange should have never been pursued based on any evidence I have seen. Snowden, however, should be buried under the prison.

We also have laws that are suppose to protect whistleblowers.

 

[Dekster]

Prosecuting someone because they won't reveal their sources. Pretty sad.

In this situation, it might however help to solve the Seth Rich whacking which is still an open case. If Mr. Rich was Assange's source, isn't that important information to determine who decided to fund a botched robbery against him?

I know that the Rich family is uninterested in finding the perps who whacked their son, but the general public has an interest here too, if dangerous criminals are running loose.

Divulging sources can provide lots of info in many cases but not doing so is not something this country is suppose to prosecute someone over.

This is more about giving someone mercy and consideration for their cooperation, instead of persecuting them for not cooperating.

Journalists traditionally have been able to protect their sources under the first amendment. Now Trump didn't start the Assange prosecution, but at the same time, he also shouldn't be trying to extort protected information from him either. Assange should have never been pursued based on any evidence I have seen. Snowden, however, should be buried under the prison.

We also have laws that are suppose to protect whistleblowers.

Snowden wasn't a whistleblower. He was a thief who stole national intelligence. Whistleblower laws do not protect criminals and are not designed to protect outside disclosures to the press.

 

[Muhammed]

Prosecuting someone because they won't reveal their sources. Pretty sad.

In this situation, it might however help to solve the Seth Rich whacking which is still an open case. If Mr. Rich was Assange's source, isn't that important information to determine who decided to fund a botched robbery against him?

I know that the Rich family is uninterested in finding the perps who whacked their son, but the general public has an interest here too, if dangerous criminals are running loose.

Divulging sources can provide lots of info in many cases but not doing so is not something this country is suppose to prosecute someone over.

Where does the US constitution say that?

Where did I mention the Constitution?

You didn't. You just pulled that bullshit out of your dumb ass.

 

[pknopp]

Prosecuting someone because they won't reveal their sources. Pretty sad.

In this situation, it might however help to solve the Seth Rich whacking which is still an open case. If Mr. Rich was Assange's source, isn't that important information to determine who decided to fund a botched robbery against him?

I know that the Rich family is uninterested in finding the perps who whacked their son, but the general public has an interest here too, if dangerous criminals are running loose.

Divulging sources can provide lots of info in many cases but not doing so is not something this country is suppose to prosecute someone over.

This is more about giving someone mercy and consideration for their cooperation, instead of persecuting them for not cooperating.

Journalists traditionally have been able to protect their sources under the first amendment. Now Trump didn't start the Assange prosecution, but at the same time, he also shouldn't be trying to extort protected information from him either. Assange should have never been pursued based on any evidence I have seen. Snowden, however, should be buried under the prison.

We also have laws that are suppose to protect whistleblowers.

Snowden wasn't a whistleblower. He was a thief who stole national intelligence. Whistleblower laws do not protect criminals and are not designed to protect outside disclosures to the press.

Whistleblowers often times have to release info to expose corruption. It's why we have laws to protect them.

 

[gipper]

Trump 'associates' offered Assange pardon in return for emails source, court hears

WikiLeaks founder was asked to reveal source of leak damaging to Hillary Clinton, hearing told

www.theguardian.com

Two political figures claiming to represent Donald Trump offered Julian Assange a “win-win” deal to avoid extradition to the US and indictment, a London court has heard.

Under the proposed deal, outlined by Assange’s barrister Jennifer Robinson, the WikiLeaks founder would be offered a pardon if he disclosed who leaked Democratic party emails to his site, in order to help clear up allegations they had been supplied by Russian hackers to help Trump’s election in 2016.

According to a statement from Robinson read out to the court, the offer was made by the then Republican congressman Dana Rohrabacher and Trump associate Charles Johnson at a meeting on 15 August 2017 at the Ecuadorian embassy in London where Assange was then sheltering. At the time he was under secret investigation by a US grand jury.

I do not know if this stuff gets reported over there but this offer was outlined in a British court this week. Our courts are not partisan venues like the ones in the US.

I have not really followed the Assange story closely over the years. I understand that he is in trouble for leaking US secrets and that these leaks may have led to the deaths of American soldiers.

What I am taking from this story is that ALLEGEDLY Trump is/was prepared to pardon Assange in order to get potentially damaging stuff on his democrat opponents. In other words a "quid pro quo" similar to the deal that Trump offered to the President of the Ukraine.

I would imagine that it would be possible to place the two "fixers" in London and at the Embassy at that time. I would also suspect that Assange had the meeting taped.

It seems to be a very dirty business. I have some sympathy with Assanges agenda but he does strike me as an unpleasant sort of individual. If people have died then he should be accountable for that. Any deal that allows him to walk away from that does a disservice to the victims and their families.

No. Assange is in trouble with the crooked US government, because he published emails that harmed Hillary’s election chances.

The treatment of Assange is unjust and reveals the fraudulent nature of the US government. We have freedom of speech, but not to criticize or expose wrongs by the government.

The elitist CIA crook Leon Panetta admits it all.

Panetta laughing as he discusses the prosecution of Assange (Screenshot “Wikileaks - USA against Julian Assange”)

Former CIA director Leon Panetta: We are prosecuting Assange to intimidate others
By Oscar Grenfell
18 September 2020
Leon Panetta, who served as director of the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) from 2009 to 2011, and then as the Obama administration’s secretary for defence, has let the cat out of the bag, telling interviewers that the US is seeking to prosecute WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange to send a threatening message to whistleblowers and publishers alike.

The comments were aired this week in a documentary produced by German public broadcaster ARD, entitled “Wikileaks - USA against Julian Assange.” The program was a compelling and objective account of the ten year US persecution of Assange and featured strong interviews with his father John Shipton, his partner Stella Moris, WikiLeaks’ lawyers, United Nations Rapporteur on Torture Nils Melzer and famous National Security Agency (NSA) whistleblower Edward Snowden.

Former CIA director Leon Panetta: We are prosecuting Assange to intimidate others

 

[gipper]

Prosecuting someone because they won't reveal their sources. Pretty sad.

In this situation, it might however help to solve the Seth Rich whacking which is still an open case. If Mr. Rich was Assange's source, isn't that important information to determine who decided to fund a botched robbery against him?

I know that the Rich family is uninterested in finding the perps who whacked their son, but the general public has an interest here too, if dangerous criminals are running loose.

Divulging sources can provide lots of info in many cases but not doing so is not something this country is suppose to prosecute someone over.

This is more about giving someone mercy and consideration for their cooperation, instead of persecuting them for not cooperating.

Journalists traditionally have been able to protect their sources under the first amendment. Now Trump didn't start the Assange prosecution, but at the same time, he also shouldn't be trying to extort protected information from him either. Assange should have never been pursued based on any evidence I have seen. Snowden, however, should be buried under the prison.

We also have laws that are suppose to protect whistleblowers.

Snowden wasn't a whistleblower. He was a thief who stole national intelligence. Whistleblower laws do not protect criminals and are not designed to protect outside disclosures to the press.

Idiot.

 

[Aletheia4u]

Prosecuting someone because they won't reveal their sources. Pretty sad.

In this situation, it might however help to solve the Seth Rich whacking which is still an open case. If Mr. Rich was Assange's source, isn't that important information to determine who decided to fund a botched robbery against him?

I know that the Rich family is uninterested in finding the perps who whacked their son, but the general public has an interest here too, if dangerous criminals are running loose.

it is going to be hard to find the one that was operating the remote....