It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Julian Assange: Trump 'offered pardon for Russia denial'

page: 3
17
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 19 2020 @ 05:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: proximo

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: proximo

originally posted by: xuenchen
😃 😆 😃

My Meeting with Julian Assange

​There is a lot of misinformation floating out there regarding my meeting with Julian Assange so let me provide some clarity on the matter:

At no time did I talk to President Trump about Julian Assange. Likewise, I was not directed by Trump or anyone else connected with him to meet with Julian Assange. I was on my own fact finding mission at personal expense to find out information I thought was important to our country. I was shocked to find out that no other member of Congress had taken the time in their official or unofficial capacity to interview Julian Assange. At no time did I offer Julian Assange anything from the President because I had not spoken with the President about this issue at all. 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. Upon my return, I spoke briefly with Gen. Kelly. I told him that Julian Assange would provide information about the purloined DNC emails in exchange for a pardon. No one followed up with me including Gen. Kelly and that was the last discussion I had on this subject with anyone representing Trump or in his Administration.

Even though I wasn't successful in getting this message through to the President I still call on him to pardon Julian Assange, who is the true whistleblower of our time. Finally, we are all holding our breath waiting for an honest investigation into the murder of Seth Rich.




That last line tells you he knows the truth - and was told by Assange Seth Rich was the source.


From bits and pieces of incoming info, it appears that there may not be any "honest investigators" in the DOJ. At least not any to investigate high-level crimes involving Democrats.


It sure does seem that way. We won't know for sure till we see what Durham comes up with.


I don't want to derail this thread, so I'll just respond with: After 16 months of investigating, Durham has yet to convene a grand jury. (That's all I'll say about it in this thread.)




posted on Feb, 19 2020 @ 05:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: xuenchen
If the DNC was truly on the up and up at the time, they would have gladly given the server system(s) to the FBI when the FBI requested 😎


Let me get this straight. The DNC called the FBI. When the FBI got there, DNC head Debbie Wazzerman-Schultz told them to go away. Right?


Yes - and incredibly the FBI did. Well not so incredible knowing what we know now about the FBI. I have no proof - but interestingly Judical watch is working on getting emails pertaining to Seth Rich right now and is getting resistance - the FBI was told by someone to not investigate this. Now - there are very few people with that much juice - Comey, McCabe, Lynch, or Obama - any one of which could have been directed to do so by Hillary.

Remember what Donna Brazile wrote about Seth Rich in her book - That she was terrified after he was killed that someone might come after her.

What do you think that actually means? To me it means she knows who murdered him.



posted on Feb, 19 2020 @ 05:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Subaeruginosa


Seriously, how would Assange be in a position to actually know for a fact, one way or the other?


Maybe it’s the indisputable fact that in its 13 years of existence Wikileaks has never:

1. Published any leaked document or content that was proven to be inauthentic.
2. Had to retract or correct anything they’ve published.
3. Never disclosed the identity of a source.
4. Never published anything that can be proven to have resulted in the loss of life.

Given their literally flawless track record of authenticity, something tells me Assange is doing something right. He is clearly capable of discerning what is authentic and what is not.

What surprises me is that no one in this thread has yet to point out the less than coincidental timing of this story. To me, it looks something like this:

-Dems try to impeach Trump, they fail miserably in the senate.
-Some weeks later, Trump makes headlines again by granting pardons and commuting the sentences of aN obscure and diverse group of individuals who’s crimes do not appear to be connected to one another in any way.
-Dems are still grasping at anything that will float since it’s the only way off their sinking ship, and do they attempt to use the recent actions of POTUS as a justifiable basis for new articles of impeachment.
-MSM Sensational Propaganda Machine takes info from older news stories, rearranging the wording to facilitate their narrative while making sure to omit any exculpatory details that would contradict their newly recycled donkey turd they call “news.”

Did I get it all?



posted on Feb, 19 2020 @ 05:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
a reply to: xuenchen


I was on my own fact finding mission at personal expense to find out information I thought was important to our country.

Nice find! So it's exactly what I suspected, he was acting on his own accord... isn't it funny how the MSM neglects to mention these pertinent facts in order to gently mold the story into something it's not. I've seen it so many times that a single phrase, "under Mr Rohrabacher's terms", is enough to tell me the offer didn't come from Trump.


Playing catch up: Was Assange standing next to his attorney when his attorney made the claim about Rohrabacher/Trump?

If so, he should have spoke up. Someone is lying and will eventually be charged with perjury.



posted on Feb, 19 2020 @ 05:53 PM
link   
That's so last week




posted on Feb, 19 2020 @ 05:55 PM
link   
a reply to: proximo
And Donna Brazille was at the very hospital where Seth Rich was brought in, in critical condition. Maybe she made sure he didn't make it.



posted on Feb, 19 2020 @ 05:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
If the DNC was truly on the up and up at the time, they would have gladly given the server system(s) to the FBI when the FBI requested 😎

And if Hillery had nothing to hide she would not of destroyed phones and bleach bit hard drives either which was a fact and not right wing propaganda.



posted on Feb, 19 2020 @ 05:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
a reply to: Lumenari




They had already pumped tens of millions of dollars into the Clinton Foundation, paid Bill extravagant speaking fees, had a good time doing Uranium 1.


lol, that just sounds like a bunch of right wing conspiracy theory gibberish to me... From everything I've seen, she always held a pretty strict stance towards the Russian government well she was Secretary of State.


What is jibberish? That they gave the Clintons millions? That's true. That she arranged to have our uranium sold to them? Also true. Her "strict" stance toward them was a front to hide the back door deals they made with each other.

Aside from the Uranium, I'm not sure what the Russians got for their millions.



posted on Feb, 19 2020 @ 06:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: alldaylong
Interesting story just breaking.




A lawyer for Julian Assange has alleged that President Donald Trump offered to pardon the Wikileaks founder, if he said Russia was not involved in leaking emails during the 2016 US election.

The offer is said to have been conveyed by the former Republican Congressman, Dana Rohrabacher.

Assange's barrister revealed the claim at Westminster Magistrates' Court ahead of an extradition hearing next wee

The White House have of course denied the claim is true.

Let's see what becomes of this.

www.bbc.co.uk...


Was anyone under a sworn oath when that statement was made?
Do they have actual evidence, beyond hearsay, that the statement is true?

I have had it with attacks based upon hearsay....I want actual evidence, that you can use in a court of law.

Until then, it's all just noise.


My but Trump has so many apologists!

Always with the excuses.



posted on Feb, 19 2020 @ 06:09 PM
link   
a reply to: alldaylong

Instead of just strenuously denying everything, ask yourself, what was the possible motive of all those involved for doing what they did?

Would Assange achieve anything personally by implicating Trump?

Would Trump have a reason to push for the vindication of his campaign rhetoric?

Has everyone forgotten about the part played by, and timing of, Guccifer2.0's releases?



posted on Feb, 19 2020 @ 06:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: alldaylong
Interesting story just breaking.




A lawyer for Julian Assange has alleged that President Donald Trump offered to pardon the Wikileaks founder, if he said Russia was not involved in leaking emails during the 2016 US election.

The offer is said to have been conveyed by the former Republican Congressman, Dana Rohrabacher.

Assange's barrister revealed the claim at Westminster Magistrates' Court ahead of an extradition hearing next wee


The White House have of course denied the claim is true.

Let's see what becomes of this.

www.bbc.co.uk...


But will he put on a condom?



posted on Feb, 19 2020 @ 06:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: alldaylong
Interesting story just breaking.




A lawyer for Julian Assange has alleged that President Donald Trump offered to pardon the Wikileaks founder, if he said Russia was not involved in leaking emails during the 2016 US election.

The offer is said to have been conveyed by the former Republican Congressman, Dana Rohrabacher.

Assange's barrister revealed the claim at Westminster Magistrates' Court ahead of an extradition hearing next wee

The White House have of course denied the claim is true.

Let's see what becomes of this.

www.bbc.co.uk...


Was anyone under a sworn oath when that statement was made?
Do they have actual evidence, beyond hearsay, that the statement is true?

I have had it with attacks based upon hearsay....I want actual evidence, that you can use in a court of law.

Until then, it's all just noise.


My but Trump has so many apologists!

Always with the excuses.


Coming from an extremely large Leftist deflector such as yourself, those words really don’t hold any water.



posted on Feb, 19 2020 @ 06:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: alldaylong
Interesting story just breaking.




A lawyer for Julian Assange has alleged that President Donald Trump offered to pardon the Wikileaks founder, if he said Russia was not involved in leaking emails during the 2016 US election.

The offer is said to have been conveyed by the former Republican Congressman, Dana Rohrabacher.

Assange's barrister revealed the claim at Westminster Magistrates' Court ahead of an extradition hearing next wee


The White House have of course denied the claim is true.

Let's see what becomes of this.

www.bbc.co.uk...


But will he put on a condom?


Pretty please!



posted on Feb, 19 2020 @ 06:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: JON666
a reply to: proximo
From what I understand the server has never been turned over to law enforcement, to investigate if it was hacked. So it just propaganda of the Russian hack rather than someone on the inside.


The server drive images were handed over to the FBI who outsourced their data forensics work to CrowdStrike, to whom they gave access to the physical servers.

CrowdStrike had data mining tools that could rapidly identify details of the hack and the FBI's internal cybersecurity staff could examine the specific evidence to verify the conclusions.



posted on Feb, 19 2020 @ 06:19 PM
link   
a reply to: carewemust


Someone is lying and will eventually be charged with perjury.

I don't really think anyone is lying here, the offer was made and Rohrabacher did indicate he would seek a pardon from Trump if Assange could offer proof. Apparently Assange did agree to the offer but Trump didn't do anything about it, perhaps sensing if he did it would look bad and be used against him in the Russian probe, and I don't doubt it would have.



posted on Feb, 19 2020 @ 06:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: JON666
a reply to: alldaylong
Wasn't it Seth Rich who leaked them was he a Russian asset?



False,

Don't you know that already...does Russian indictments ring a bell?

IMHO, even if Assange..or his lawyer, hadn't said this, you would only have to think this yourself, and say, Yes this is exactly what Trump would do....
Thing is, why should anyone 'moralise' Trump at the expense of their own morality in defending by him perpetuating known lies...that shiite does not work anymore.
Fox news disclaimer at the time,
'Statement on coverage of Seth Rich murder investigation
Published May 23, 2017Fox News
On May 16, a story was posted on the Fox News website on the investigation into the 2016 murder of DNC Staffer Seth Rich. The article was not initially subjected to the high degree of editorial scrutiny we require for all our reporting. Upon appropriate review, the article was found not to meet those standards and has since been removed.
We will continue to investigate this story and will provide updates as warranted.'
web.archive.org...://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/05/23/statement-on-coverage-seth-rich-murder-investigation.html

edit on 19-2-2020 by smurfy because: Text.



posted on Feb, 19 2020 @ 06:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: proximo

originally posted by: JON666
a reply to: proximo
From what I understand the server has never been turned over to law enforcement, to investigate if it was hacked. So it just propaganda of the Russian hack rather than someone on the inside.



Yes, that is correct.

It infuriates me - the Dossier which has been totally discredited as total lies paid for by the DNC is what started all things Russia.

The same DNC paid crowdstrike to examine the server - why is it so hard to believe that the DNC would also pay them to lie that Russia was involved in the taking of the emails. It has already proven they have done it before.

Again read this article which clearly states - it could not have been hacked remotely because internet speeds are not fast enough to account for the file transfer speed.


Government networks are far faster (like 100x) than standard consumer networks. These faster networks also connect at a fairly direct level to backbone protocols and telco networks. It is part of the evidence of Russian government involvement that the data transfers could be done so quickly, end-to-end.

Consider that you can download a 4Gig movie in a reasonable timeframe. 44,053 emails with 17,761 attachments represents just over 1 Gig - 1/4 of a movie.

Here's a link to the Wikileaks DNC EMails files.



posted on Feb, 19 2020 @ 06:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: RazorV66

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: alldaylong
Interesting story just breaking.




A lawyer for Julian Assange has alleged that President Donald Trump offered to pardon the Wikileaks founder, if he said Russia was not involved in leaking emails during the 2016 US election.

The offer is said to have been conveyed by the former Republican Congressman, Dana Rohrabacher.

Assange's barrister revealed the claim at Westminster Magistrates' Court ahead of an extradition hearing next wee

The White House have of course denied the claim is true.

Let's see what becomes of this.

www.bbc.co.uk...


Was anyone under a sworn oath when that statement was made?
Do they have actual evidence, beyond hearsay, that the statement is true?

I have had it with attacks based upon hearsay....I want actual evidence, that you can use in a court of law.

Until then, it's all just noise.


My but Trump has so many apologists!

Always with the excuses.


Coming from an extremely large Leftist deflector such as yourself, those words really don’t hold any water.


I'm not leftist. In the last two elections in my country, I voted for the right-wing party. Previous to that, I supported mainly independents.


edit on 19/2/2020 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2020 @ 06:38 PM
link   
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

It looks like Peter Strzok squashed the FBI investigation into Seth Rich's murder and the DNC server.

mobile.twitter.com...




edit on 2/19/2020 by carewemust because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2020 @ 06:42 PM
link   

edit on 19-2-2020 by smurfy because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join