Julian Assange: Trump 'offered pardon for Russia denial'

originally posted by: CynConcepts
Wasn't it theorized that the DNC discovered the hack and attempted to retrieve the USB from Seth Rich? That his brother was the one who actually submitted it to Wikileaks? Thus why his family and Assange refused to say it was Seth Rich. Assange would only not state who sent it if the person was still alive. He could have easily said it was Seth, but he didn't. He did state it was not the Russians quite clearly though.

Although that is possible, the death of Rich was after hackers, identified as Russians by four security companies and the FBI, had left traces in the DNC's system.

And, it is pure speculation, and it has been investigated and found to be bollocks.

The bonkers Seth Rich conspiracy theory, explained - Vox

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...

Hahahahahha! Oh, they'll have to work harder and smarter than that. ALL of these stories/claims have been proven to be lies. This is no different. Trump didn't need Assange to do anything for him. Assange wasn't going to be interviewed by Mueller and his credibility was permanently damaged by his leaks. (I do think he should be pardoned, regardless)....This is the most ridiculous, umpteenth attempt at damaging Trump and will fail as it should and as they all do.

originally posted by: worldstarcountry
a reply to: bastion
Do you even have any idea what the evidence is, because it clearly seems that many here are a bit confused. The evidence they are speaking of is a written statement by assange's old lawyer, not his current one. That is the evidence that is being allowed, a written statement by a previous attorney. That's it. It's not some bombshell recording or video or something. It's just the statement made by one of the previous attorneys from 2017.

The Senator already clarified what he said. Remember, when you repeat something down the line, the words get changed along the way. So Dana independently said he would ask Trump about a pardon if Mr assange could provide concrete evidence for his claim. The attorney excitedly proclaims "Trump going to pardon you if you can prove it wasn't Russians".
The wording gets mixed up, and as a result the msm and Dems think they got another dead horse they can beat for politics.

Clearly assange was unable to provide anything concrete so he stayed behind bars and the Senator never mentioned it again to either party. But that is all that is meant it is stat d the evidence will be allowed, the written statetis the evidence.

Yes I'm familiar with the evidence. It's cross referenced by White House claims from 2017 that the person was acting as a representative for Trump in the case, it isn't just an IOU or get out of jail free card scrawled on a piece of paper. If there wasn't substantial evidence to back up the claim it would have been thrown out by the judge and ruled inadmissible in court. Read the links I posted, this is the UK court system, it's a lot more stringent than US court system.

It has nothing to do with the MSM or Dems as it was ruled admissible evidence by the judge and in the UK trail by media or distorting the facts of a court case is illegal and gets you a few years in jail. If it was just a claim on a piece of paper then Assange and his lawyers would have been done for deceit and court perversion and the judge would have ruled it inadmissible. Ruling it's admissible evidence means there's a lot of evidence suggesting it is true, enough that it has a good chance of being proven beyond reasonable doubt in the eyes of a jury.

It's pre-trial stage - people aren't freed at pre-trial stage even if they provide such evidence as the actual trial proceedings haven't been done so no he wouldn't have been released when the original claim was made - that happens after trial.

a reply to: chr0naut

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: SouthernForkway26
a reply to: chr0naut

Stone's request for proof Russia hacked DNC
Stone De 123 DOJ Response to MTC CrowdStrike Reports

Official court documents from the Roger Stone trial.

Stone wanted the FBI's proof Russians hacked the DNC server as part of his defense. The rebuttal states the FBI only received '3 redacted draft reports from the DNC' and doesn't have anything at all from their actual servers. Just the 3 CrowdStrike reports...

From the 2nd link:
 

As the government has advised the defendant in a letter following the defendant’s filing, the government does not possess the material the defendant seeks; the material was provided to the government by counsel for the DNC with the remediation information redacted.

That's a direct statement from the FBI admitting they never got access to the servers or 'drive images' of them. The FBI and '17 intelligence agencies' all made their judgement from CrowdStrike's 3 redacted draft reports. Not even a full, finished report.

CrowdStrike had superior and proprietary software for data forensics and were employed by the FBI to identify who the hackers may have been. The drive images were given to the FBI by the DNC administrators. If they simply handed them straight to CrowdStrike without retaining backups then it may have been because they had total trust in CrowdStrike.

Superior to the FBI? Thats a pretty big burn for the premier law enforcement in the world. Your assumption that CrowdStrike's data forensics are better than the FBI's is wrong.

Also the DNC handed them to CrowdStrike only. They denied requests by the FBI to see them. CrowdStrike's report is considered heresay in court if chargers on the 'hackers' were brought by the FBI.

FBI Denied by DNC on request for the servers.

And what do you imagine they would find on the server that CrowdStrike couldn't? Do you imagine that the Russians left a simple calling card with names and personal addresses?

Here's CrowdStrikes explanation with all the actual technical details that the media leaves out:

CrowdStrike’s work with the Democratic National Committee: Setting the record straight - CrowdStrike Blog

And CrowdStrike isn't the only company that had the images and did forensics on the data. Fidelis Cybersecurity, Mandiant, SecureWorks, and ThreatConnect all analysed the data and concluded that it was a Russian hack.

All analyzed CrowdStrike's rough drafts. Nobody else had exact drive images, not even the FBI.

The conspiracy theory nonsesnse put out by the pro-Republican media and FaceBork pundits is fake news.

Even a redacted report from CrowdStrike clearly identified that the hackers were Russian. SecureWorks and the FBI both identified the IP address of one of the hacks and the fact that it physically came from a Moscow building that also housed exclusively, Russian government agencies.

There's no doubt Moscow tried to hack the DNC. So did China, India, thousands of Americans and probably even some Canadians. Successful or not, these third parties are not how Wikileaks figured out the DNC was rigged. Assange has put his credibility on Seth Rich, with plenty of evidence to back it up. The FBI put their credibility on CrowdStrike, because that's all the DNC would let them see.

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 evidence that could be used in a court of law, some how now makes you an apologist... seriously? I would suggest you give your head a shake but I'm fearful you might dislodge what little you have left.

Asking for evidence, actual evidence and not relying on feels, is not in anyway being an apologist, if anything it would be the farthest thing from the truth. Since you would actually not be apologizing for anything but rather questioning everything. Get what I mean?

a reply to: chr0naut

you do know that IF they can TRACE who was there that they could also FAKE who was there right? the Intelligence agencies are full of never trumpers and democrats. they cant be trusted anymore.

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: chr0naut

you do know that IF they can TRACE who was there that they could also FAKE who was there right? the Intelligence agencies are full of never trumpers and democrats. they cant be trusted anymore.

That's right. No one. Suspect everything. Double check everything. And tell everyone if there are inconsistencies that indicate lies.

That's what we used to expect our news media to do.

a reply to: bastion
I have not said it is fake. A type statement from an attorney is nothing more than a document with a letterhead. Again, what exactly is so special about this??

The Senator made his statements, the attorney typed up a statement later with their own words. I don't understand what you think makes this substantial. Or I should say, what significance or bearing do you believe this typed statement on a letterhead by a previous attorney has for Mr. Julian Assange's defense??

a reply to: alldaylong



This has been Proven to be FAKE NEWS ..................NEXT .

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: chr0naut

you do know that IF they can TRACE who was there that they could also FAKE who was there right? the Intelligence agencies are full of never trumpers and democrats. they cant be trusted anymore.

That's right. No one. Suspect everything. Double check everything. And tell everyone if there are inconsistencies that indicate lies.

That's what we used to expect our news media to do.

Yet, when I do that, and question the veracity of a statement by a lawyer, you accuse me of being an apologist.

No bias or hypocrisy from you there at all.

I was replying to Yuppa who was replying to me, who was replying to cynconcepts, who was replying to the OP. Where in that chain of posts, were you?

Irregardless, a condom should be first and foremost and that would be on Julian's nose.

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: chr0naut

you do know that IF they can TRACE who was there that they could also FAKE who was there right? the Intelligence agencies are full of never trumpers and democrats. they cant be trusted anymore.

That's right. No one. Suspect everything. Double check everything. And tell everyone if there are inconsistencies that indicate lies.

That's what we used to expect our news media to do.

Yet, when I do that, and question the veracity of a statement by a lawyer, you accuse me of being an apologist.

No bias or hypocrisy from you there at all.

I was replying to Yuppa who was replying to me, who was replying to cynconcepts, who was replying to the OP. Where in that chain of posts, were you?

Irregardless, a condom should be first and foremost and that would be on Julian's nose.

You seem to have some confusion over biology and/or the correct use of prophylactics.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: chr0naut

you do know that IF they can TRACE who was there that they could also FAKE who was there right? the Intelligence agencies are full of never trumpers and democrats. they cant be trusted anymore.

That's right. No one. Suspect everything. Double check everything. And tell everyone if there are inconsistencies that indicate lies.

That's what we used to expect our news media to do.

Yet, when I do that, and question the veracity of a statement by a lawyer, you accuse me of being an apologist.

No bias or hypocrisy from you there at all.

I was replying to Yuppa who was replying to me, who was replying to cynconcepts, who was replying to the OP. Where in that chain of posts, were you?

Irregardless, a condom should be first and foremost and that would be on Julian's nose.

You seem to have some confusion over biology and/or the correct use of prophylactics.

Who me? You got the wrong person. If Julian won't pull it on, then he should wear it on his nose, where it belongs.

a reply to: worldstarcountry

The significance is the judge has looked at the evidence and deemed it admissible in the actual trial that starts on Monday. If it's just a letterhead then its conjecture and wouldn't have been deemed admissible as evidence. There's a very high burden of proof that needs to come from multiple sources for something to be deemed admissible in UK courts which is what the pre-trial hearings are intended to seperate.

The original claim and letterhead from couple of years back was not admissible evidence as there wasn't anything/much to back the claim up and it would have wasted the judges/courts time by allowing it into that stage. With the new evidence presented earlier in the week it's crossed that level of evidence/proof threshold and is now deemed admissible evidence; hence why it's a shock turn of events.

My reasoning for thinking it's significant is that a judge has ruled it significant when previously the same judge had dismissed the evidence. If it turns out to be true then in UK law the case against Assange will be thrown out of court and extradition to the US would be denied as it'd be illegal foreign State interference in a UK trial.

If the Senator was acting on his own and not with the knowledge of Trump (White House records show the Senator reported it back to Trump's aide as was agreed but it doesn't mean the aide passed it onto Trump) then the Senator would be guilty of perverting the courts of justice and face an extradition warrant and lengthy jail sentence in the UK.

I'm a lowly ex court reporter and have to bow to the Judges ruling, but have strong working knowledge and legal training in the issues, a couple of posters on here (OldCarpy and Paraphi are lawyers/solicitors so know more than me).