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: 4
17
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 19 2020 @ 06:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

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.


Yeah, no offense, I am going to take the word of experts who have looked at it over yours, who has clearly demonstrated their bias. Not to mention - I don't think it was a secret what the internet speed they were hooked up with, otherwise they would have nothing to compare the speed of the download too.

And it's not just that - Assange made Seth Rich famous - nobody knew anything about his murder till he brought it up.
Combine that with Rich's clear motive to release the emails vs Russia's motive - I have read a lot of the emails - all they show is Hillary and the DNC were rigging the primary which is not really that effective as dirt against Hillary - because people already heavily suspected that. And the fact Rich was murdered for no discernible reason - nothing was stolen, and initially his family demanded an investigation - than after having a DNC paid spokesman assigned to them suddenly reversed course and said they wanted no media and for nobody to investigate.

There is more, but needless to say, you are not going to convince me Seth Rich is not the source.




posted on Feb, 19 2020 @ 06:57 PM
link   
Assange could face decades in prison , unless he is pardoned.
Did Trump offer him a pardon for favorable testimony? Or did another party offer a pardon for false testimony?

Even if Trump were to be reelected, we know that a Democratic president will undoubtedly follow. Four years versus decades seems like a pretty sweet deal/

Personally. I'm not buying any of it. Just another way to create doubt and mistrust in the undecideds.



posted on Feb, 19 2020 @ 07:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Subaeruginosa

Since research is not one of your strong points, here is a video of someone explaining the fakeness of this news - complete with proof.

Now, here's the water, the question is: will you drink it???




posted on Feb, 19 2020 @ 08:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: proximo

originally posted by: chr0naut

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.

Yeah, no offense, I am going to take the word of experts who have looked at it over yours,


I am an expert in this. I work in IT. Several IT experts have responded that the original VIPS report was factually deficient. Some of those experts were from VIPS, itself and are critical of being falsely claimed to have contributed to the original article.

The hacked data could have been copied up to Guccifer2.0's machine days earlier at a slow rate and then copied to a thumb drive. This would then save in the metadata the speed of copying to the thumb drive, and NOT the speed that the data was actually downloaded. In fact, if Guccifer had any hacking chops this would have been the case and the hacking computer would be air-gapped from the one that sent the e-mails. That is the first point.

The other thing is that the data transfer speeds can easily be more than twice the quoted 'impossible' speed over standard consumer internet connections.

Here's the details released later by VIPS about their previous article, which points out the flaws in it:

A Leak or a Hack? A Forum on the VIPS Memo - The Nation.


who has clearly demonstrated their bias. Not to mention - I don't think it was a secret what the internet speed they were hooked up with, otherwise they would have nothing to compare the speed of the download too.

And it's not just that - Assange made Seth Rich famous - nobody knew anything about his murder till he brought it up.
Combine that with Rich's clear motive to release the emails vs Russia's motive - I have read a lot of the emails - all they show is Hillary and the DNC were rigging the primary which is not really that effective as dirt against Hillary - because people already heavily suspected that. And the fact Rich was murdered for no discernible reason - nothing was stolen, and initially his family demanded an investigation - than after having a DNC paid spokesman assigned to them suddenly reversed course and said they wanted no media and for nobody to investigate.

There is more, but needless to say, you are not going to convince me Seth Rich is not the source.


Murder of Seth Rich
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Seth Rich died on the July 10th 2016. The Wikileaks files are dated (inside the .zip files) 7 Dec 2016. Not that it means much but that is months after he was dead.

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



posted on Feb, 19 2020 @ 08:18 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.


SO, asking for a statement to be made under oath, with the risk of perjury and jail sentence is now being an apologist?

YOu truly arte delusional arent; you?

As I have stated dozens of times here, and you already know this, I didn't vote for Trump. So, I have nothing to apologize for at all. But I am still fed up with hearsay, presumptions, assumptions, and outright lies being used as "evidence of anything". And I do not give a furry rat's tail what political party is doing that.



posted on Feb, 19 2020 @ 08:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Krakatoa




SO, asking for a statement to be made under oath, with the risk of perjury and jail sentence is now being an apologist?


Chill your rocks Krakatoa! This was just a preliminary hearing, where the judge said that the evidence was admissible. That means it will be admitted to court, under the penalty of perjury.


The extraordinary claim was made at Westminster magistrates court before the opening next week of Assange’s legal battle to block attempts to extradite him to the US, where he faces charges for publishing hacked documents. The allegation was denied by the former Republican congressman named by the Assange legal team as a key witness.

Assange’s lawyers alleged that during a visit to London in August 2017, congressman Dana Rohrabacher told the WikiLeaks founder that “on instructions from the president, he was offering a pardon or some other way out, if Mr Assange … said Russia had nothing to do with the DNC [Democratic National Committee] leaks.”

Before Rohrabacher’s denial, district judge Vanessa Baraitser, who is hearing the case at Westminster, said the claim of a deal was admissible as evidence.

www.theguardian.com...



posted on Feb, 19 2020 @ 08:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Krakatoa




SO, asking for a statement to be made under oath, with the risk of perjury and jail sentence is now being an apologist?


Chill your rocks Krakatoa! This was just a preliminary hearing, where the judge said that the evidence was admissible. That means it will be admitted to court, under the penalty of perjury.


The extraordinary claim was made at Westminster magistrates court before the opening next week of Assange’s legal battle to block attempts to extradite him to the US, where he faces charges for publishing hacked documents. The allegation was denied by the former Republican congressman named by the Assange legal team as a key witness.

Assange’s lawyers alleged that during a visit to London in August 2017, congressman Dana Rohrabacher told the WikiLeaks founder that “on instructions from the president, he was offering a pardon or some other way out, if Mr Assange … said Russia had nothing to do with the DNC [Democratic National Committee] leaks.”

Before Rohrabacher’s denial, district judge Vanessa Baraitser, who is hearing the case at Westminster, said the claim of a deal was admissible as evidence.

www.theguardian.com...


So, a poster in New Zealand (who isn't even a citizen of either country involved here) calls me an apologist, and you need to rush to his defense, why?

Got something in common do you?





edit on 2/19/2020 by Krakatoa because: fixed spelling errors



posted on Feb, 19 2020 @ 08:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krakatoa

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.


SO, asking for a statement to be made under oath, with the risk of perjury and jail sentence is now being an apologist?

YOu truly arte delusional arent; you?

As I have stated dozens of times here, and you already know this, I didn't vote for Trump. So, I have nothing to apologize for at all. But I am still fed up with hearsay, presumptions, assumptions, and outright lies being used as "evidence of anything". And I do not give a furry rat's tail what political party is doing that.


Delusional? Moi?

Umm, this was a statement, by a lawyer, attending a court of law, but slightly before a hearing had taken place, so I guess he wasn't under oath at the time, but very close to what you asked for in your post.

My guess is that neither the lawyer, nor Julian Assange, will profit personally from saying this (at least I can't see an ulterior motivation), so, it is likely to be true. Of course, if it is true, it is another attempt by Trump to pervert the course of justice by asking Assange to say something that may have been false.

And since Assange had previously denied any knowledge of Russian source, it is indicative of an ill-considered guilty reaction on Trump's part.

However, in the post I was commenting on the large number of times there has been an accusation against Trump and then people make all sorts of mental gymnastic efforts to not see the bleedin' obvious. Don't you guys get tired of doing it over and over? Making excuses for him?

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



posted on Feb, 19 2020 @ 08:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Krakatoa

I'm just saying, have some patience. The "evidence" whatever it is, will be admitted to the court, under oath and under penalty of perjury.

It's interesting also that this is Julian Assange fighting an extradition order to the USA, and he's kinda throwing Trump under a bus. It's hard to see his strategy here.



posted on Feb, 19 2020 @ 08:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Krakatoa

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.


SO, asking for a statement to be made under oath, with the risk of perjury and jail sentence is now being an apologist?

YOu truly arte delusional arent; you?

As I have stated dozens of times here, and you already know this, I didn't vote for Trump. So, I have nothing to apologize for at all. But I am still fed up with hearsay, presumptions, assumptions, and outright lies being used as "evidence of anything". And I do not give a furry rat's tail what political party is doing that.


Umm, this was a statement, by a lawyer, attending a court of law, but slightly before a hearing had taken place, so I guess he wasn't under oath at the time.

My guess is that neither the lawyer, nor Julian Assange, will profit personally from saying this (at least I can't see an ulterior motivation), so, it is likely to be true. Of course, if it is true, it is another attempt by Trump to pervert the course of justice by asking Assange to say something that may have been false.

And since Assange had previously denied any knowledge of Russian source, it is indicative of an ill-considered guilty reaction on Trump's part.

However, in the post I was commenting on the large number of times there has been an accusation against Trump and then people make all sorts of mental gymnastic efforts to not see the bleedin' obvious. Don't you guys get tired of doing it over and over? Making excuses for him?


You are mistaken, I am not making excuses. I am asking that we vett these accusations by requiring them to be done under oath, and threat of penalty if found to be untruths. REGARDLESS of who it is....how is that an excuse????


Seriously?



posted on Feb, 19 2020 @ 08:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Krakatoa

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.


SO, asking for a statement to be made under oath, with the risk of perjury and jail sentence is now being an apologist?

YOu truly arte delusional arent; you?

As I have stated dozens of times here, and you already know this, I didn't vote for Trump. So, I have nothing to apologize for at all. But I am still fed up with hearsay, presumptions, assumptions, and outright lies being used as "evidence of anything". And I do not give a furry rat's tail what political party is doing that.


Umm, this was a statement, by a lawyer, attending a court of law, but slightly before a hearing had taken place, so I guess he wasn't under oath at the time.

My guess is that neither the lawyer, nor Julian Assange, will profit personally from saying this (at least I can't see an ulterior motivation), so, it is likely to be true. Of course, if it is true, it is another attempt by Trump to pervert the course of justice by asking Assange to say something that may have been false.

And since Assange had previously denied any knowledge of Russian source, it is indicative of an ill-considered guilty reaction on Trump's part.

However, in the post I was commenting on the large number of times there has been an accusation against Trump and then people make all sorts of mental gymnastic efforts to not see the bleedin' obvious. Don't you guys get tired of doing it over and over? Making excuses for him?


You are mistaken, I am not making excuses. I am asking that we vett these accusations by requiring them to be done under oath, and threat of penalty if found to be untruths. REGARDLESS of who it is....how is that an excuse????

Seriously?


Well, the court case will happen and if the lawyer is lying, he would also do so under oath. That is because he would obviously be a bad person, and bad people do such things.

The lawyer knows that there is no way that the court can actually know at the time if the testimony in that regard is true or false.

The perjury bit is really not that relevant in that case because if the court were to deny what he said, what could they bring in evidence against his testimony?

But getting back to the issue, usually, lawyers, at least good practicing defense lawyers, are people of good repute because their livelihood depends on their trustworthiness.

So, I would take it that if he did say such a thing outside the court, he would most likely repeat it inside the court and under oath, no matter what motivated him.



posted on Feb, 19 2020 @ 08:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Krakatoa

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.


SO, asking for a statement to be made under oath, with the risk of perjury and jail sentence is now being an apologist?

YOu truly arte delusional arent; you?

As I have stated dozens of times here, and you already know this, I didn't vote for Trump. So, I have nothing to apologize for at all. But I am still fed up with hearsay, presumptions, assumptions, and outright lies being used as "evidence of anything". And I do not give a furry rat's tail what political party is doing that.


Umm, this was a statement, by a lawyer, attending a court of law, but slightly before a hearing had taken place, so I guess he wasn't under oath at the time.

My guess is that neither the lawyer, nor Julian Assange, will profit personally from saying this (at least I can't see an ulterior motivation), so, it is likely to be true. Of course, if it is true, it is another attempt by Trump to pervert the course of justice by asking Assange to say something that may have been false.

And since Assange had previously denied any knowledge of Russian source, it is indicative of an ill-considered guilty reaction on Trump's part.

However, in the post I was commenting on the large number of times there has been an accusation against Trump and then people make all sorts of mental gymnastic efforts to not see the bleedin' obvious. Don't you guys get tired of doing it over and over? Making excuses for him?


You are mistaken, I am not making excuses. I am asking that we vett these accusations by requiring them to be done under oath, and threat of penalty if found to be untruths. REGARDLESS of who it is....how is that an excuse????

Seriously?


Well, the court case will happen and if the lawyer is lying, he would also do so under oath. That is because he would obviously be a bad person, and bad people do such things.

The lawyer knows that there is no way that the court can actually know at the time if the testimony in that regard is true or false.

The perjury bit is really not that relevant in that case because if the court were to deny what he said, what could they bring in evidence against his testimony?

But getting back to the issue, usually, lawyers, at least good practicing defense lawyers, are people of good repute because their livelihood depends on their trustworthiness.

So, I would take it that if he did say such a thing outside the court, he would most likely repeat it inside the court and under oath, no matter what motivated him.


And that is called a presumption on your part.



posted on Feb, 19 2020 @ 09:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Krakatoa

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.


SO, asking for a statement to be made under oath, with the risk of perjury and jail sentence is now being an apologist?

YOu truly arte delusional arent; you?

As I have stated dozens of times here, and you already know this, I didn't vote for Trump. So, I have nothing to apologize for at all. But I am still fed up with hearsay, presumptions, assumptions, and outright lies being used as "evidence of anything". And I do not give a furry rat's tail what political party is doing that.


Umm, this was a statement, by a lawyer, attending a court of law, but slightly before a hearing had taken place, so I guess he wasn't under oath at the time.

My guess is that neither the lawyer, nor Julian Assange, will profit personally from saying this (at least I can't see an ulterior motivation), so, it is likely to be true. Of course, if it is true, it is another attempt by Trump to pervert the course of justice by asking Assange to say something that may have been false.

And since Assange had previously denied any knowledge of Russian source, it is indicative of an ill-considered guilty reaction on Trump's part.

However, in the post I was commenting on the large number of times there has been an accusation against Trump and then people make all sorts of mental gymnastic efforts to not see the bleedin' obvious. Don't you guys get tired of doing it over and over? Making excuses for him?


You are mistaken, I am not making excuses. I am asking that we vett these accusations by requiring them to be done under oath, and threat of penalty if found to be untruths. REGARDLESS of who it is....how is that an excuse????

Seriously?


Well, the court case will happen and if the lawyer is lying, he would also do so under oath. That is because he would obviously be a bad person, and bad people do such things.

The lawyer knows that there is no way that the court can actually know at the time if the testimony in that regard is true or false.

The perjury bit is really not that relevant in that case because if the court were to deny what he said, what could they bring in evidence against his testimony?

But getting back to the issue, usually, lawyers, at least good practicing defense lawyers, are people of good repute because their livelihood depends on their trustworthiness.

So, I would take it that if he did say such a thing outside the court, he would most likely repeat it inside the court and under oath, no matter what motivated him.


And that is called a presumption on your part.


Okay, yes.

I often make presumptions. It is a survival mechanism.




posted on Feb, 19 2020 @ 10:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: proximo
a reply to: alldaylong

Wikileaks posted this on twitter


link

So even they are saying Assange was saying the DNC was not hacked by russia several months before anyone spoke to Assange about a possible pardon.

Read that article linked there also - All evidence points to Seth Rich being the leaker, not the Russians.


Why cant they spell defense right for their meme 🤔



posted on Feb, 19 2020 @ 10:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

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.


The DNC is not government, it is a private entity.



posted on Feb, 19 2020 @ 11:24 PM
link   
a reply to: alldaylong

Sealand

Look it up and then you will have a good idea of what happened.



posted on Feb, 20 2020 @ 01:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: FlyingSquirrel

originally posted by: proximo
a reply to: alldaylong

Wikileaks posted this on twitter


link

So even they are saying Assange was saying the DNC was not hacked by russia several months before anyone spoke to Assange about a possible pardon.

Read that article linked there also - All evidence points to Seth Rich being the leaker, not the Russians.


Why cant they spell defense right for their meme 🤔



Defence and defense are different spellings of the same word; yet belong to different forms of the English language. Defense is used in American English, and defence is used in British English, which spans Australian and Canadian English. It is important to maintain spelling consistency within a piece of writing.


Source: spellcheckonline



posted on Feb, 20 2020 @ 01:29 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut


Seth Rich died on the July 10th 2016. The Wikileaks files are dated (inside the .zip files) 7 Dec 2016. Not that it means much but that is months after he was dead.


Where’s your source for that? Because it
definitely wasn’t that Wikipedia link you gave just above. Nowhere on the Wikipedia page for The Murder Of Seth Rich does it even mention Wikileaks.

Not that it means much, but that means you’re full of sh!t.



posted on Feb, 20 2020 @ 01:35 AM
link   
Lmao, the MSM here in AU just reported this story as if the order came from Trump and completely neglected to mention the statements made by Rohrabacher that he was doing his own investigation and never promised Assange a pardon.



posted on Feb, 20 2020 @ 01:41 AM
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.


It's "butt". 2 't's




top topics



 
17
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join