Jump to content
BANGKOK
webfact

Trump offered to pardon Assange if he cooperated over email leak, UK court hears

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, sanemax said:

Courts judge people on evidence in front of them on the case in issue  

Previous issues are not bought into the equation , otherwise if say there was a burglary , the Police would just arrest a person who has burled before and the Court would convict him without any evidence of him committing the crime 

the courts judge people on evidence 555 and that's why Trump is still walking around free,  because the evidence and witnesses acquitted him 555.....oh sorry my mistake, he didn't allow ANY evidence nor did he allow ANY witnesses but the "republican judges" did judge him without evidence.... your contradictory comment

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Monomial said:

 

Please explain why any of this story is important. The problem is Trump has so little credibility that his denial is unimportant. On the other side, his attackers have so little credibility that it is quite easy to believe they would fabricate information in order to disparage him.

 

When nobody is considered trustworthy, who cares what anyone says?

 

Why do you believe the story is true rather than false?  Do you have a sworn affidavit in front of a judge under penalty of perjury testifying the claim is 100% factually true and correct in every detail?  I don't believe either side is telling the truth.  There are likely small elements of truth on both sides, but both sides are also probably lying more than they are admitting.

Perhaps both sides are probably lying.... but one more than the other, therefore one is more credible... I choose to believe that an internationally acclaimed journalist, not accused of grossly lying to the world, is more credible than a multi timed bankrupt who demonstrably uses his platform to lie to the world.

 

Why is this story important? If this (offer) did not happen, Assange and Dana are involved in a conspiracy to pervert justice in the UK.... if it did happen, Trump and Dana are involved in a conspiracy to pervert justice in the USA.

 

If the UK accept that trump conspired to pervert justice in the USA, they cannot release Assange to the USA, especially given the issues underpinning the current assault on the US DoJ.... if they do, it’s strong grounds for appeal to prevent extradition.

 

as to who cares what is said? Really? Society is governed by managing the varying degrees of guilt within it. You preach anarchy!

Edited by jany123
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Berkshire said:

You don't think a person's prior criminal history matters in the court of law?  It sure as heck does.  The court does take that into consideration, especially in sentencing. 

It doesn't , thats why juries are not told of a defendants previous criminal history , because it may prejudice their judgement .

   That is why Tommy Robinson got jailed , for informing juries of the defendants prior convictions .

   Juries are not told of a defendants previous convictions although once a verdict has been reached, prior convictions are them told for sentencing purposes

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Mavideol said:

the courts judge people on evidence 555 and that's why Trump is still walking around free,  because the evidence and witnesses acquitted him 555.....oh sorry my mistake, he didn't allow ANY evidence nor did he allow ANY witnesses but the "republican judges" did judge him without evidence.... your contradictory comment

Which Court case are you referring too ?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, sanemax said:

It doesn't , thats why juries are not told of a defendants previous criminal history , because it may prejudice their judgement .

   That is why Tommy Robinson got jailed , for informing juries of the defendants prior convictions .

   Juries are not told of a defendants previous convictions although once a verdict has been reached, prior convictions are them told for sentencing purposes

But this is not about a defendant. It's about witnesses. And in evaluating witnesses, character does definitely count as the links I supplied above show.

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, bristolboy said:

But this is not about a defendant. It's about witnesses. And in evaluating witnesses, character does definitely count as the links I supplied above show.

Getting a bit confusing now .

My point is that you cannot claim someone is guilty of lying because you think that have told lies before .

  If I made up quotes by assange and then accused him of lying........................this is getting ridiculous 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This isn't exactly a new story. This is from the Rupert Murdoch's Wall Street Journal dates Sep 15, 2017:

GOP Congressman Sought Trump Deal on WikiLeaks, Russia

California’s Dana Rohrabacher asks for pardon of Julian Assange in return for evidence Russia wasn’t source of hacked emails

A U.S. congressman contacted the White House this week trying to broker a deal that would end WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange’s U.S. legal troubles in exchange for what he described as evidence that Russia wasn’t the source of hacked emails published by the antisecrecy website during the 2016 presidential campaign.

The proposal made by Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R., Calif.), in a phone call Wednesday with White House Chief of Staff John Kelly, was apparently aimed at resolving the probe of WikiLeaks prompted by Mr. Assange’s publication of secret U.S. government documents in 2010 through a pardon or other act of clemency from President Donald Trump.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/gop-congressman-sought-trump-deal-on-wikileaks-russia-1505509918

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, evadgib said:

Hell still be returned for a second term in November no matter what they throw at him 😁

 Considering his job approval has never broken 50 percent, I’m not sure why you are so confident.  It looks like many more young people in cities are going to wipe out the old white country folk.  Many more educated young adults have said they will vote.  He also lost most black and Hispanics.  Good luck 

Edited by Redline
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, sanemax said:

Which Court case are you referring too ?

the "republican court" also called republican senate 555

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Mavideol said:
15 hours ago, sanemax said:

Which Court case are you referring too ?

the "republican court" also called republican senate 555

because only the Republicans 'Count' !? 🤔 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Mavideol said:

the "republican court" also called republican senate 555

So...............NOT a court case then ?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/20/2020 at 2:55 PM, Eric Loh said:

POTUS doing his ‘barely know him’ lies again. Dana Rohrabacher was hired by Trump together with Micheal Flynn to be his foreign policy advisers in 2017. 

An example of why I question the numerous "Trump lies all the time"posts 

Eric accuses Trump of lying and then posts false information to back -up his claims 

Also in a later post , posted further false info about an arm wrestle claims between Trump and Putin  .................whilst stating that Trump is lying whilst its Eric who isnt being truthful  

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/20/2020 at 10:48 PM, sanemax said:

Getting a bit confusing now .

My point is that you cannot claim someone is guilty of lying because you think that have told lies before .

  If I made up quotes by assange and then accused him of lying........................this is getting ridiculous 

Its called similar fact. Defendants with a prior criminal history similar to the current charge do indeed get those chatges known to the jury.

 

It may also be of assistance for you to know Rohrabacher has now admitted he offered the patdon to assange.

 

So the wh lies yet again. 

  • Like 2
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...