I doubt the US is going to drop their case. They've got a mountain of evidence against him. His conviction is all but assured.
Yes, but do you trust that Trump or Barr won't interfere? I'd have given it a good chance when it was just to "fuck with the libs".
But Assange seems like he was instrumental in the Russian interference in 2016, and given his "trade", might have much more information. Sure, he's a cockroach, he's a relatively competent cockroach (that's novel for these fuckers).
So, if he's got receipts, I can absolutely see him wanting an out. And if Trump believes he has the receipts, he'll want Assange nowhere near a court. Because if there's one thing Trump covets more than anything else, it's covering his own ass. So, the Barr DoJ finding an excuse to not file, is something I don't think is probable, but I definitely see it is possible if the above circumstances are likely.
I doubt the US is going to drop their case. They've got a mountain of evidence against him. His conviction is all but assured.
Yes, but do you trust that Trump or Barr won't interfere? I'd have given it a good chance when it was just to "fuck with the libs".
But Assange seems like he was instrumental in the Russian interference in 2016, and given his "trade", might have much more information. Sure, he's a cockroach, he's a relatively competent cockroach (that's novel for these fuckers).
So, if he's got receipts, I can absolutely see him wanting an out. And if Trump believes he has the receipts, he'll want Assange nowhere near a court. Because if there's one thing Trump covets more than anything else, it's covering h is own ass. So, the Barr DoJ finding an excuse to not file, is something I don't think is probable, but I definitely see it is possible if the above circumstances are likely.
Yeah but at the same time Trump has the loyalty of a starving dog. He doesn't give a shit about anyone, including Assange, unless they can be useful and it's become increasingly apparent he doesn't have the ability to understand that throwing a former ally under a bus might not go great for him.
I doubt the US is going to drop their case. They've got a mountain of evidence against him. His conviction is all but assured.
Yes, but do you trust that Trump or Barr won't interfere? I'd have given it a good chance when it was just to "fuck with the libs".
But Assange seems like he was instrumental in the Russian interference in 2016, and given his "trade", might have much more information. Sure, he's a cockroach, he's a relatively competent cockroach (that's novel for these fuckers).
So, if he's got receipts, I can absolutely see him wanting an out. And if Trump believes he has the receipts, he'll want Assange nowhere near a court. Because if there's one thing Trump covets more than anything else, it's covering h is own ass. So, the Barr DoJ finding an excuse to not file, is something I don't think is probable, but I definitely see it is possible if the above circumstances are likely.
Yeah but at the same time Trump has the loyalty of a starving dog. He doesn't give a shit about anyone, including Assange, unless they can be useful and it's become increasingly apparent he doesn't have the ability to understand that throwing a former ally under a bus might not go great for him.
Oh, I think you misread my post.
It wouldn't be loyalty that does it. I'm just thinking for example, if there was more to the coordination between Wikileaks and the Trump campaign, than Mueller was able to find out. Or any other secrets that Wikileaks has captured and been sitting on (they're a partisan hackery factory, not a speaker of truth, no matter what Assange says). If Assange has a proper amount of dirt, like what the National Enquirer apparently stored up, that could be sufficient for Trump and Co to not want him potentially pleading out, or just burning bridges, if he's actually sitting trial.
Now, it's quite possible that Trump is too short sighted to see far enough ahead that the short term hit of dropping the charges is worth it against the potential long term damage that Assange can do if he drops a bomb.
I don't think Assange has anything of value to America or Trump at this point. The only thing the US is interested in is making an example out of him as a warning to others who might leak. He's fucked. It was never going to go well for him. Sweden dropping their case looks to me like America "asking nicely" to clear the way for him to go direct to the US.
Sweden dropping the case after he left the Embassy just makes the case look like it was only ever pretext to get him into the hands of America.
+5
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
If Trump didn't want to prosecute Assange why did the administration decide to go after him in the first place? The Obama DoJ had basically dropped the case, reasoning that Assange was enough part of the media that going after him wasn't worth it. If he had been walking around in the US things may have been different, but him in the Ecuadorian embassy made them dismiss the issue.
Because it was Sessions who was in charge at the time and not bar. And Ssssions might not have been as hands on. Plus, i want to say, that the indictment was only unsealed under Trump but was written under Obama
0
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
Because it was Sessions who was in charge at the time and not bar. And Ssssions might not have been as hands on. Plus, i want to say, that the indictment was only unsealed under Trump but was written under Obama
It was written/filed in 2017/2018, though the DoJ may have had a draft of it before. The charges weren't new, just the indictment.
And I see no reason to think Sessions wasn't hands on enough. It's not like this could have happened without his knowledge or direction. Plus it seems Pompeo was pushing heavily on this and that guy is still part of the administration.
I dont think the US government is interested in not pursuing leakers and punishing them to the fullest. I am still surprised that Obama released Chelsea Manning. Maybe Trump will surprise too, but i doubt it (although i guess you'd have to not expect it in order for it to be a surprise).
+1
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
I dont think the US government is interested in not pursuing leakers and punishing them to the fullest. I am still surprised that Obama released Chelsea Manning. Maybe Trump will surprise too, but i doubt it (although i guess you'd have to not expect it in order for it to be a surprise).
Chelsea was given a commutation because of how she was treated after being imprisoned. The fact that it was deserved and required is a dark stain on how we treat LGBT people, and especially service members.
+10
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
The NYT article suggests that the DoJ et al. wanted to go after Assange and the Obama administration didn't let them. Like with Manning I'm surprised given his record on going after leakers and whistle-blowers, but sure. The Trump administration clearly feels different, and Pompeo seems to have actively pushed it. I doubt Trump is suddenly going to surprise after letting it happen for so long.
(Also, Chelsea Manning is currently jailed for contempt of court because she is refusing to testify before a grand jury. Trump's anti-Obama agenda is very thorough.)
0
Options
knitdanIn ur baseKillin ur guysRegistered Userregular
Chelsea Manning’s current situation is not so much the Trump Administration being vindictive as it is the judicial system looking unkindly on people unilaterally deciding they won’t cooperate with grand juries because they disapprove of the grand jury system.
And I understand her position. Really I do. It’s principled. But it’s a principle that stands in opposition to the legal system in this country.
“I was quick when I came in here, I’m twice as quick now”
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
In response to the news today that Assange's attorneys wanted to enter statements into evidence about Dana Rorabacher trying to get Assange pardoned in exchange for exonerating Russia, Vox political journalist Andrew Prokop pulled together some contemporaneous articles / statements from Rorabacher on the matter
Edit: And, FWIW, the WikiLeaks Twitter account says to tune in Tuesday to "find out what this is about"
The WH Press Secretary said this is 'probably a DNC hoax,' so I am braced for nonsense one way or another.
ArbitraryDescriptor on
+10
Options
KoopahTroopahThe koopas, the troopas.Philadelphia, PARegistered Userregular
Fascinating and yet completely unsurprising. How many cases of co-conspirators admitting 'I was promised this, so I did this illegal thing' are we going to get? We talk about a single smoking gun in a case, and maybe I'm off base, but I feel like we've filled a whole gun rack of smoking guns at this point.
Fascinating and yet completely unsurprising. How many cases of co-conspirators admitting 'I was promised this, so I did this illegal thing' are we going to get? We talk about a single smoking gun in a case, and maybe I'm off base, but I feel like we've filled a whole gun rack of smoking guns at this point.
While the honesty of a lot of these guys IS questionable, that so many have similar stories that all seem to reinforce each other in their consistency, is telling.
I mean, this is going to be dismissed by defenders as yet another never-Trumper out to get the President. But why are so many of these people able to get so close to Trump? Cause it raises the question of why Trump surrounds himself with so many, being such a good judge of character, and all.
Fascinating and yet completely unsurprising. How many cases of co-conspirators admitting 'I was promised this, so I did this illegal thing' are we going to get? We talk about a single smoking gun in a case, and maybe I'm off base, but I feel like we've filled a whole gun rack of smoking guns at this point.
While the honesty of a lot of these guys IS questionable, that so many have similar stories that all seem to reinforce each other in their consistency, is telling.
I mean, this is going to be dismissed by defenders as yet another never-Trumper out to get the President. But why are so many of these people able to get so close to Trump? Cause it raises the question of why Trump surrounds himself with so many, being such a good judge of character, and all.
In this specific case, it's because Priebus lacked the chops necessary to be an effective chief of staff and keep Rorabacher away from from the White House. His new job selecting fellowship candidates [in exchange for favors and personal connections] is much more his speed.
+3
Options
Zilla36021st Century. |She/Her|Trans* Woman In Aviators Firing A Bazooka. ⚛️Registered Userregular
Here's the thing - if you're going to argue that Assange shouldn't be extradited because he's a brave truth teller, presenting a video that is known to have been manipulated by him doesn't really help that argument.
Actually I'm fine with not extraditing Assange to the U.S. if some other country can lock him up for other crimes. I don't trust this President to not detour him straight to Moscow.
Actually I'm fine with not extraditing Assange to the U.S. if some other country can lock him up for other crimes. I don't trust this President to not detour him straight to Moscow.
I want him tried for conspiracy to breach a government system, and if he is aquitted after successfully arguing that he is a massive fraud who didn't have the first clue how provide the assistance he had promised when cultivating Manning, or alleged to provide after the fact; then so be it.
+10
Options
Zilla36021st Century. |She/Her|Trans* Woman In Aviators Firing A Bazooka. ⚛️Registered Userregular
@AngelHedgie Oh no, not at all. I was just impressed by their brazenness with the projector, and that they could afford to do that kind of stunt in the first place.
@AngelHedgie Oh no, not at all. I was just impressed by their brazenness with the projector, and that they could afford to do that kind of stunt in the first place.
To say nothing of the projector itself. It looks like you could summon Batman with that thing: from Metropolis.
So... the White House (via Press Secretary Grisham) is apparently denying that Trump has ever spoken with Rohrabacher on this subject or almost any subject, and is trying to insinuate they've never met privately.
"The White House is denying Trump even knows Rohrabacher or ever discussed this with him, when Trump hosted Rohrabacher for one private meeting at the White House in 2017 and nearly had a second in 2018."
*image of an article reporting that Rohrabacher had a private meeting with Trump, article date 4/4/17, which lines up with Assange's lawyer's claim.*
- Kevin Kruse is Professor of History (with a focus on conservatism) from Princeton.
It's amazing these fuckers STILL respond to a claim that person X met with Trump, when it's gonna be maybe a half hour before someone brings up video proof of them having met Trump, often on multiple occasions.
So... the White House (via Press Secretary Grisham) is apparently denying that Trump has ever spoken with Rohrabacher on this subject or almost any subject, and is trying to insinuate they've never met privately.
"The White House is denying Trump even knows Rohrabacher or ever discussed this with him, when Trump hosted Rohrabacher for one private meeting at the White House in 2017 and nearly had a second in 2018."
*image of an article reporting that Rohrabacher had a private meeting with Trump, article date 4/4/17, which lines up with Assange's lawyer's claim.*
- Kevin Kruse is Professor of History (with a focus on conservatism) from Princeton.
It's amazing these fuckers STILL respond to a claim that person X met with Trump, when it's gonna be maybe a half hour before someone brings up video proof of them having met Trump, often on multiple occasions.
I mean, why wouldn't they? There's no consequences to anything, why even pretend to tell the truth? Conservatives are dumb enough to buy it and will vote for him no matter what.
"Rohrabacher confirms here he met with Assange Aug 2017 and was in touch with White House: "I've talked to senior people at the White House ... I had extended conversation with the Chief of Staff Gen Kelly." Says deal with Assange between him and WH is confidential. What deal?"
*86 second video of Rohrabacher saying everything listed in the tweet*
- Scott Dworkin is a Democratic operative, but the video is straight from a local Cali network, KCAL9.
* The video is clearly not new, as he refers to Kelly as "now Chief of Staff Kelly".
The speed at which proper sources are found that appear to refute claims made by the Administration, and appear to back the claims of the accusers, and completely unravel their talking points, has become almost Wohl-ian.
Oh, looks like yet another few Trumpers just met the underside of the bus with coffee in hand. How's the transmission and undercarriage down there, Dana?
Couldn't have happened to a nicer pair of useful idiots.
Though at this point I hope somebody at Wikileaks has the knowledge that Donnie's going to leave them hanging in regards to this and just infodumps everything for the press in response.
I can has cheezburger, yes?
+21
Options
No-QuarterNothing To FearBut Fear ItselfRegistered Userregular
Oh, looks like yet another few Trumpers just met the underside of the bus with coffee in hand. How's the transmission and undercarriage down there, Dana?
Couldn't have happened to a nicer pair of useful idiots.
Though at this point I hope somebody at Wikileaks has the knowledge that Donnie's going to leave them hanging in regards to this and just infodumps everything for the press in response.
Good. They helped get us into this fucking mess, so it stands to reason that they should get us the fuck out of it.
I doubt Wikileaks does much about trump, since ~putting aside how a chunk of wikileaks leadership/founding members didn't like the direction Assange was taking them~ Russia probably considers them a less valuable tool then trump and will offer a friendly reminder that the FSB routinely poisons assets that don't remember their place in the grand scheme of things.
+7
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
So... the White House (via Press Secretary Grisham) is apparently denying that Trump has ever spoken with Rohrabacher on this subject or almost any subject, and is trying to insinuate they've never met privately.
"The White House is denying Trump even knows Rohrabacher or ever discussed this with him, when Trump hosted Rohrabacher for one private meeting at the White House in 2017 and nearly had a second in 2018."
*image of an article reporting that Rohrabacher had a private meeting with Trump, article date 4/4/17, which lines up with Assange's lawyer's claim.*
- Kevin Kruse is Professor of History (with a focus on conservatism) from Princeton.
It's amazing these fuckers STILL respond to a claim that person X met with Trump, when it's gonna be maybe a half hour before someone brings up video proof of them having met Trump, often on multiple occasions.
To be fair, the claim that Trump barely knows who someone is (the actual claim by wh spokesperson) even if he has met them is quite believable. Trump 100% forgets your face and name as soon as he leaves the room unless you have something he wants.
like the reason for that meeting was that Rohrabacher appeared on Fox News (to praise Trump) and Trump called him almost directly after that live-segment to invite him and his beautiful family over for a visit. That is just the normal shit and I don't think we can infer that anything interesting was discussed at that meeting or that Trump remembered the guy afterwards.
It also is not a defense against the accusation because none of this requires a direct meeting between them or even that the president remembers his name. What they're doing is pretending the actual accusation says they have some close trusted confidante relationship and then proving that such a relationship does not exist.
+1
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
"Rohrabacher confirms here he met with Assange Aug 2017 and was in touch with White House: "I've talked to senior people at the White House ... I had extended conversation with the Chief of Staff Gen Kelly." Says deal with Assange between him and WH is confidential. What deal?"
*86 second video of Rohrabacher saying everything listed in the tweet*
- Scott Dworkin is a Democratic operative, but the video is straight from a local Cali network, KCAL9.
* The video is clearly not new, as he refers to Kelly as "now Chief of Staff Kelly".
The speed at which proper sources are found that appear to refute claims made by the Administration, and appear to back the claims of the accusers, and completely unravel their talking points, has become almost Wohl-ian.
Nobody ever denied the meeting, because visits to the embassy are registered and also that is a news report from september 2017. He was there to get to the bottom of all this and how Russia was not behind it and all that. That was the point of the meeting!
All this is well known and not being denied and also not relevant. like sure Rohrabacher met with Assange and discussed a deal and was in contact with the WH. That's not controversial? That is what you would expect of any administration.
0
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
edited February 2020
I think it might be useful to clarify what this is all about so that we don't have to debate everything some journalists on twitter post like it's relevant.
At the moment it's two things, two claims really.
1.) Assange, or Assange's barrister really, claimed in court that Rohrabacher offered to him in their meeting (i) a pardon (ii) on instructions from Trump, on the condition (iii) he would say Russia had nothing to do with the DNC leaks.
2.) In response, the administration called this a complete fabrication and lie because "the president barely knows Dana Rohrabacher" and "he has never spoken to him on this subject or almost any other subject".
The first claim can't be proven or disproven, really. But that's also not important because it's just a claim in court and just needs to be believable. Because the point here is that Assange's representation is trying to argue that the extradition request is retaliatory or personal and therefore not valid and/or the Trump administration, by offering a quid pro quo deal beforehand, intends to ignore the justice system regardless. Extradition requests do not have to be honoured if it can be expected that the person will not receive a fair or proper trial.
The (2) denial by the White House is in response to what this means domestically for the Trump administration, and it has nothing to do with the trial. The President is totally allowed to offer deals as such, the issue is that Assange would get one on the condition he denied Russian involvement. So a pardon in exchange for denying something irrelevant to the case that helps Trump combat the Russian collusion accusations he was facing.
(The denial is mildly interesting in that it is a very good example of the usual tactic they employ of denying additional things nobody ever said. The media isn't going to prove it's not true Trump barely knows Rohrabacher, because it's probably true. It's better than just saying it's not true, because now people are going to discuss the truth of a thing the admin put there itself!)
Julius on
+1
Options
WACriminalDying Is Easy, Young ManLiving Is HarderRegistered Userregular
He tries to claim that Trump was never technically aware, but like...c'mon.
Yeah the big issue is if he was acting on WH orders, otherwise it's just some guy offering something he couldn't anyway.
It is possible that Rohrabacher just said he'd petition the government, but there is no way he could have believed Assange would take him seriously. A pardon offer with some commitment by the White House is the only non-dumb way it could work.
(That said the plausible deniability here is why it works. Even if it is all true the knowable facts will never be enough to prove more than the White House version of events.)
He tries to claim that Trump was never technically aware, but like...c'mon.
Yeah the big issue is if he was acting on WH orders, otherwise it's just some guy offering something he couldn't anyway.
It is possible that Rohrabacher just said he'd petition the government, but there is no way he could have believed Assange would take him seriously. A pardon offer with some commitment by the White House is the only non-dumb way it could work.
(That said the plausible deniability here is why it works. Even if it is all true the knowable facts will never be enough to prove more than the White House version of events.)
It's also possible that trump decides to climb into the jet engines of air force one. Or that a long lost uncle offers me a a million dollars if I just spend one night in a haunted house. Or that Pepsi resurrects Pepsi blue. Or that Justin Trudeau annexes the united states with no opposition from anyone.
Because hey: it's possible that these things could happen.
He tries to claim that Trump was never technically aware, but like...c'mon.
Yeah the big issue is if he was acting on WH orders, otherwise it's just some guy offering something he couldn't anyway.
It is possible that Rohrabacher just said he'd petition the government, but there is no way he could have believed Assange would take him seriously. A pardon offer with some commitment by the White House is the only non-dumb way it could work.
(That said the plausible deniability here is why it works. Even if it is all true the knowable facts will never be enough to prove more than the White House version of events.)
It's also possible that trump decides to climb into the jet engines of air force one. Or that a long lost uncle offers me a a million dollars if I just spend one night in a haunted house. Or that Pepsi resurrects Pepsi blue. Or that Justin Trudeau annexes the united states with no opposition from anyone.
Because hey: it's possible that these things could happen.
I'm having an easy time believing that Rorabacher, a bottom rung politician with limited influence withing the GOP establishment, was genuinely unable to close this deal. After Kelly slammed the door on him, the articles Prokop pulled together have Rorabacher pleading with Rand Paul to help him get a message to Trump about whatever promises he had made to Assange.
I do however disagree that there was "no way" Rorabacher might think Assange would take him seriously. That requires a level of humility about his own importantance that doesn't really comport with deciding that he should insert himself into this situation to begin with.
I can definitely believe Rorabacher thought Assange would believe he could make this happen.
(And that he would offer things Trump never agreed to, but especially that Trump would have never specifically agreed to anything, as he would have first tried to get it for free)
Attorneys for Julian Assange, who is fighting a U.S. extradition request on espionage and computer hacking charges, plan to introduce evidence in the WikiLeaks founder’s extradition hearing involving President Donald Trump’s new intel chief Richard Grenell.
Gareth Peirce, a lawyer representing Assange in his extradition proceedings in London, plans to argue this week that the process to try to extradite her client was abused from early on. Representatives for Assange’s defense team say they expect to introduce recordings and screenshots of communications of a close Grenell associate, including a secondhand claim that Grenell was acting on the president’s orders.
Grenell’s sudden embroilment in Assange’s extradition fight comes at an inconvenient time, as Democrats and national security veterans criticize him as ill-suited and unqualified to be the acting director of national intelligence. And it threatens to spotlight his close relationship with President Trump, feeding the widespread perception that the president is politicizing intelligence work for partisan ends.
At the heart of the Assange team’s argument is an ABC News report from last April alleging that, while serving as Trump’s ambassador to Germany, Grenell told Assange’s Ecuadorean hosts that the U.S. government would not pursue the death penalty for Assange if Ecuador allowed British officials to enter its embassy in London and arrest him.
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange secretly fathered two children with one of his lawyers while he was holed up at the Ecuadorean embassy in London and fighting extradition to the US, according to a report.
Stella Morris, a South African-born lawyer, began a relationship with Assange, 48, in 2015, she told the Daily Mail Saturday of the couple’s secret romance.
The couple’s first son, Gabriel, was born in 2017 said Morris, 37.
Their second child, Max, was born last year. Both births were filmed with a GoPro camera and the footage sent to Assange, the Mail reported.
Posts
Yes, but do you trust that Trump or Barr won't interfere? I'd have given it a good chance when it was just to "fuck with the libs".
But Assange seems like he was instrumental in the Russian interference in 2016, and given his "trade", might have much more information. Sure, he's a cockroach, he's a relatively competent cockroach (that's novel for these fuckers).
So, if he's got receipts, I can absolutely see him wanting an out. And if Trump believes he has the receipts, he'll want Assange nowhere near a court. Because if there's one thing Trump covets more than anything else, it's covering his own ass. So, the Barr DoJ finding an excuse to not file, is something I don't think is probable, but I definitely see it is possible if the above circumstances are likely.
Yeah but at the same time Trump has the loyalty of a starving dog. He doesn't give a shit about anyone, including Assange, unless they can be useful and it's become increasingly apparent he doesn't have the ability to understand that throwing a former ally under a bus might not go great for him.
Oh, I think you misread my post.
It wouldn't be loyalty that does it. I'm just thinking for example, if there was more to the coordination between Wikileaks and the Trump campaign, than Mueller was able to find out. Or any other secrets that Wikileaks has captured and been sitting on (they're a partisan hackery factory, not a speaker of truth, no matter what Assange says). If Assange has a proper amount of dirt, like what the National Enquirer apparently stored up, that could be sufficient for Trump and Co to not want him potentially pleading out, or just burning bridges, if he's actually sitting trial.
Now, it's quite possible that Trump is too short sighted to see far enough ahead that the short term hit of dropping the charges is worth it against the potential long term damage that Assange can do if he drops a bomb.
Sweden dropping the case after he left the Embassy just makes the case look like it was only ever pretext to get him into the hands of America.
It was written/filed in 2017/2018, though the DoJ may have had a draft of it before. The charges weren't new, just the indictment.
And I see no reason to think Sessions wasn't hands on enough. It's not like this could have happened without his knowledge or direction. Plus it seems Pompeo was pushing heavily on this and that guy is still part of the administration.
Trump's personal motivations and self-interest are the wild card there.
Given his recent problems don't have much to do with Assange these days though, I suspect he's forgotten all about it for now and wouldn't interfere.
Chelsea was given a commutation because of how she was treated after being imprisoned. The fact that it was deserved and required is a dark stain on how we treat LGBT people, and especially service members.
(Also, Chelsea Manning is currently jailed for contempt of court because she is refusing to testify before a grand jury. Trump's anti-Obama agenda is very thorough.)
And I understand her position. Really I do. It’s principled. But it’s a principle that stands in opposition to the legal system in this country.
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
In response to the news today that Assange's attorneys wanted to enter statements into evidence about Dana Rorabacher trying to get Assange pardoned in exchange for exonerating Russia, Vox political journalist Andrew Prokop pulled together some contemporaneous articles / statements from Rorabacher on the matter
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1230168232545456129.html
Relevant timeline confirmed by Rorabacher and WH sources at the time:
- Trump summoned and met with Rorabacher after seeing him on Fox News in April 2017.
- Rorabacher met with Assange in Aug 2017
- Rorabacher then seemed to get stonewalled by Kelly (who took over as gatekeeper in July), who tried to deflect him to the IC.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/gop-congressman-sought-trump-deal-on-wikileaks-russia-1505509918?tesla=y
Assange's extradition hearing is set to begin Monday
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-51566470
Edit: And, FWIW, the WikiLeaks Twitter account says to tune in Tuesday to "find out what this is about"
The WH Press Secretary said this is 'probably a DNC hoax,' so I am braced for nonsense one way or another.
Twitch: KoopahTroopah - Steam: Koopah
While the honesty of a lot of these guys IS questionable, that so many have similar stories that all seem to reinforce each other in their consistency, is telling.
I mean, this is going to be dismissed by defenders as yet another never-Trumper out to get the President. But why are so many of these people able to get so close to Trump? Cause it raises the question of why Trump surrounds himself with so many, being such a good judge of character, and all.
In this specific case, it's because Priebus lacked the chops necessary to be an effective chief of staff and keep Rorabacher away from from the White House. His new job selecting fellowship candidates [in exchange for favors and personal connections] is much more his speed.
Here's the thing - if you're going to argue that Assange shouldn't be extradited because he's a brave truth teller, presenting a video that is known to have been manipulated by him doesn't really help that argument.
I want him tried for conspiracy to breach a government system, and if he is aquitted after successfully arguing that he is a massive fraud who didn't have the first clue how provide the assistance he had promised when cultivating Manning, or alleged to provide after the fact; then so be it.
To say nothing of the projector itself. It looks like you could summon Batman with that thing: from Metropolis.
"The White House is denying Trump even knows Rohrabacher or ever discussed this with him, when Trump hosted Rohrabacher for one private meeting at the White House in 2017 and nearly had a second in 2018."
*image of an article reporting that Rohrabacher had a private meeting with Trump, article date 4/4/17, which lines up with Assange's lawyer's claim.*
- Kevin Kruse is Professor of History (with a focus on conservatism) from Princeton.
It's amazing these fuckers STILL respond to a claim that person X met with Trump, when it's gonna be maybe a half hour before someone brings up video proof of them having met Trump, often on multiple occasions.
I mean, why wouldn't they? There's no consequences to anything, why even pretend to tell the truth? Conservatives are dumb enough to buy it and will vote for him no matter what.
"Rohrabacher confirms here he met with Assange Aug 2017 and was in touch with White House: "I've talked to senior people at the White House ... I had extended conversation with the Chief of Staff Gen Kelly." Says deal with Assange between him and WH is confidential. What deal?"
*86 second video of Rohrabacher saying everything listed in the tweet*
- Scott Dworkin is a Democratic operative, but the video is straight from a local Cali network, KCAL9.
* The video is clearly not new, as he refers to Kelly as "now Chief of Staff Kelly".
The speed at which proper sources are found that appear to refute claims made by the Administration, and appear to back the claims of the accusers, and completely unravel their talking points, has become almost Wohl-ian.
Couldn't have happened to a nicer pair of useful idiots.
Though at this point I hope somebody at Wikileaks has the knowledge that Donnie's going to leave them hanging in regards to this and just infodumps everything for the press in response.
I can has cheezburger, yes?
Good. They helped get us into this fucking mess, so it stands to reason that they should get us the fuck out of it.
To be fair, the claim that Trump barely knows who someone is (the actual claim by wh spokesperson) even if he has met them is quite believable. Trump 100% forgets your face and name as soon as he leaves the room unless you have something he wants.
like the reason for that meeting was that Rohrabacher appeared on Fox News (to praise Trump) and Trump called him almost directly after that live-segment to invite him and his beautiful family over for a visit. That is just the normal shit and I don't think we can infer that anything interesting was discussed at that meeting or that Trump remembered the guy afterwards.
It also is not a defense against the accusation because none of this requires a direct meeting between them or even that the president remembers his name. What they're doing is pretending the actual accusation says they have some close trusted confidante relationship and then proving that such a relationship does not exist.
Nobody ever denied the meeting, because visits to the embassy are registered and also that is a news report from september 2017. He was there to get to the bottom of all this and how Russia was not behind it and all that. That was the point of the meeting!
All this is well known and not being denied and also not relevant. like sure Rohrabacher met with Assange and discussed a deal and was in contact with the WH. That's not controversial? That is what you would expect of any administration.
At the moment it's two things, two claims really.
1.) Assange, or Assange's barrister really, claimed in court that Rohrabacher offered to him in their meeting (i) a pardon (ii) on instructions from Trump, on the condition (iii) he would say Russia had nothing to do with the DNC leaks.
2.) In response, the administration called this a complete fabrication and lie because "the president barely knows Dana Rohrabacher" and "he has never spoken to him on this subject or almost any other subject".
The first claim can't be proven or disproven, really. But that's also not important because it's just a claim in court and just needs to be believable. Because the point here is that Assange's representation is trying to argue that the extradition request is retaliatory or personal and therefore not valid and/or the Trump administration, by offering a quid pro quo deal beforehand, intends to ignore the justice system regardless. Extradition requests do not have to be honoured if it can be expected that the person will not receive a fair or proper trial.
The (2) denial by the White House is in response to what this means domestically for the Trump administration, and it has nothing to do with the trial. The President is totally allowed to offer deals as such, the issue is that Assange would get one on the condition he denied Russian involvement. So a pardon in exchange for denying something irrelevant to the case that helps Trump combat the Russian collusion accusations he was facing.
(The denial is mildly interesting in that it is a very good example of the usual tactic they employ of denying additional things nobody ever said. The media isn't going to prove it's not true Trump barely knows Rohrabacher, because it's probably true. It's better than just saying it's not true, because now people are going to discuss the truth of a thing the admin put there itself!)
He tries to claim that Trump was never technically aware, but like...c'mon.
Yeah the big issue is if he was acting on WH orders, otherwise it's just some guy offering something he couldn't anyway.
It is possible that Rohrabacher just said he'd petition the government, but there is no way he could have believed Assange would take him seriously. A pardon offer with some commitment by the White House is the only non-dumb way it could work.
(That said the plausible deniability here is why it works. Even if it is all true the knowable facts will never be enough to prove more than the White House version of events.)
It's also possible that trump decides to climb into the jet engines of air force one. Or that a long lost uncle offers me a a million dollars if I just spend one night in a haunted house. Or that Pepsi resurrects Pepsi blue. Or that Justin Trudeau annexes the united states with no opposition from anyone.
Because hey: it's possible that these things could happen.
I'm having an easy time believing that Rorabacher, a bottom rung politician with limited influence withing the GOP establishment, was genuinely unable to close this deal. After Kelly slammed the door on him, the articles Prokop pulled together have Rorabacher pleading with Rand Paul to help him get a message to Trump about whatever promises he had made to Assange.
I do however disagree that there was "no way" Rorabacher might think Assange would take him seriously. That requires a level of humility about his own importantance that doesn't really comport with deciding that he should insert himself into this situation to begin with.
I can definitely believe Rorabacher thought Assange would believe he could make this happen.
(And that he would offer things Trump never agreed to, but especially that Trump would have never specifically agreed to anything, as he would have first tried to get it for free)