7 minutes ago, 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. 

Do you have any evidence/proof  of this ?

4 minutes ago, sanemax said:

Do you have any evidence/proof  of this ?

If you can’t even know that fact which can be verified on public domain search, you shouldn’t be engaging in this conversation. By the way, he also said he arm wrestled Putin. 

3 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

If you can’t even know that fact which can be verified on public domain search, you shouldn’t be engaging in this conversation. 

I did a web search and nothing came up, thats why I asked you to verify your claim 

7 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

By the way, he also said he arm wrestled Putin. 

It was Dana Rohrabacher who had a drunken arm wrestle with Putin , Trump didnt claim to do so .

23 minutes ago, sanemax said:

Thats not as logical way to come to a conclusion .

Like. if Assange said the World was flat and Trump said that it was round , Assange would be telling the truth and the World is flat ?

This isn't some school math problem. It's Trump who has a history of saying the world is flat and Assange saying it's a sphere. When testimony is evaluated in court, you don't think past performance  of witnesses in respect to truthfulness counts?  

13 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

This isn't some school math problem. It's Trump who has a history of saying the world is flat and Assange saying it's a sphere. When testimony is evaluated in court, you don't think past performance  of witnesses in respect to truthfulness counts?  

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 

9 minutes 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 

You're flat out wrong about that. 

https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1398&context=faculty_publications

https://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=2729&context=mulr

12 minutes 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 

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. 

8 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Trump was not found ‘Not Guilty’, the impeachment charges against him were voted as insufficient to remove him from office.

 

No defense was made against the facts relating to what Trump did and was impeached for. Many who voted to acquit openly stated that Trump had done that which he was impeached for.

Problem was.... he did not commit an impeachable crime.

12 minutes 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 

Testimony is evidence. Prior perjury or dishonesty, for example, will definitely effect the value of testimony ,and it will be relevant and considered very much a part of any equation

 

regards your analogy... prior offenders would definitely be considered, (ergo the old cop thing of rounding up the usual suspects) but where you get the opinion that others would not, is a mystery.... or that because the offender has offended before, that he does not need to be found guilty of the new charges, but that this guilt is assumed... ridiculous... where do you see courts operate thus?

3 hours ago, sanemax said:

That is quite important .

The Whitehouse denies this story and says this story isnt true 

Please explain? Why is this denial important? Get it on an affidavit and I might agree it’s relevant, but important... nah... the whitehouse deny everything and the fact checker has shown that the whitehouse lies at what should be seen by the sheeple, as an unbelievably unacceptable rate... yall must love the taste of it

1 hour ago, sanemax said:

Do you have any evidence/proof  of this ?

You cannot be serious

3 hours ago, sanemax said:

In this story, what brings you to the belief  that Assange is telling the truth and the Whitehouse isnt ?

  What evidence made you decide ?

pick me pick me Because of the 16K lies and counting.

2 hours ago, sanemax said:

Thats not as logical way to come to a conclusion .

Like. if Assange said the World was flat and Trump said that it was round , Assange would be telling the truth and the World is flat ?

And conversely (and more likely..) if Trump said the Earth was flat and Assange said it was round and had lots of emails from top scientists confirming its shape, you would believe Trump.

1 hour ago, jany123 said:

Please explain? Why is this denial important? Get it on an affidavit and I might agree it’s relevant, but important... nah... the whitehouse deny everything and the fact checker has shown that the whitehouse lies at what should be seen by the sheeple, as an unbelievably unacceptable rate... yall must love the taste of it

 

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.

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

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 February 20, 20206 yr by jany123

An off topic baiting post and a reply has been removed. 

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

6 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Well, there's evidence of past performance. We know Trump lies all the time. 

No, thats what you lot just keep on saying and as this thread shows , some people make up things Trump said and then call me a liar on the things they made up .

  Endless people just saying *Trumps a liar* 

In this story, Assange could well be lying to avoid extradition to the USA .

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 ?

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.

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 

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

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 February 20, 20206 yr by Redline

15 hours ago, sanemax said:

Which Court case are you referring too ?

the "republican court" also called republican senate 555

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' !? ???? 

10 hours ago, Mavideol said:

the "republican court" also called republican senate 555

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

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  

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.