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

[Mavideol]

59 minutes ago, WalkingOrders said:

The cookie jar? That implies someone who takes, or is on the take. Who is that? Joe Biden through his son Hunter, and its all coming out. The ones who got millions. And Assange? He embarrassed primarily a very crooked Democrat party.

pity.... the candy jar was a metaphor, are you that "close"

[Sujo]

7 minutes ago, WalkingOrders said:

Source?

Rohrabacher himself admitting he did it is the source. Easy to search.

 

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/02/dana-rohrabacher-trump-pardon-deal-julian-assange.html

[candide]

2 hours ago, WalkingOrders said:

To be clear Dana Rohrabacher denies carrying ANY pardon message to Assange from the President:

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-51566470

So the guy wakes up one day (shortly after meeting Trump), is touched by grace and decides to go on a personal 'fact-finding' mission, without Trump having any knowledge of it. Then he proposes a QPQ to Assange, stating that he would call Trump to get a pardon.

Very credible.

[spidermike007]

2 hours ago, WalkingOrders said:

Things are pretty obvious here. You lack knowledge man.  We could carry on a much longer conversation about the nuance of American politics if you would like. A serious polite offer, not mocking your intelligence, I know you are a brightguy. But you do not understand, and have very simplified views of what is really going on here. This honestly has more to do with candidates that are not who THEY want, then with the man named Trump.

And there is no doubt about what you say. The DNC hates Warren and Sanders, and Mike. They want Joe. But, they are not going to get Joe, because he is a lousy candidate. So, who can beat Trump? 

[harriott456]

On 2/20/2020 at 6:04 AM, Sujo said:

Ahh donald, the most disgraced lying impeached president in history.

As written by a totally bias msm

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

4 hours ago, harriott456 said:

As written by a totally bias msm

 Nope, I don't think there's much arguing about the validity/truthfulness of the prior poster's comment you were responding to.

 

Trump has the lying/impeached president contest won by a mile! And don't need any main stream media or men who have sex with me (MSM) who know that's a FACT!

 

 

Edited February 22, 2020 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

4 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

And there is no doubt about what you say. The DNC hates Warren and Sanders, and Mike. They want Joe. But, they are not going to get Joe, because he is a lousy candidate. So, who can beat Trump? 

 

At this point, in my personal opinion, pretty much anybody other than Trump (among the Democrats) would be a vast improvement over the lying scumbag who currently holds the office. Heck, the White House janitor probably would be a big improvement too, considering the alternative. So I'd be content to take almost any of them...

 

However, while that might be my personal, individual view, the reality is:

--a majority of the U.S. isn't going to elect a gay former small town mayor as president.

--a majority of the U.S. isn't going to elect a self declared socialist as president.

--a majority of the U.S. probably is going to have problems electing most female candidates as president, because, like it or not, there are still enough neanderthals out there who believe a woman isn't capable to be president (enough to swing the scales to a loss in a close race).

 

So what are we left with that has any reasonable likelihood of beating Trump?  That's the conundrum.  Sure, nominate Bernie as the Democratic presidential candidate, and you can start printing your tickets to the Trump inauguration ceremony for 2020.

 

The country, in my opinion stupidly, is far more divided than it ought to be, because too many ordinary American have drunk the right-wing Kool-Aid that Trump and Co. are going to make life better for them -- which they haven't and won't. So the reality is, for a Democrat to win the presidency these days, it has to be someone who can win over the independents and the middle-America wishy-washy Democrats.  Without that, the Dems are SUNK!

 

 

[albertik]

I see Tapper from fake news CNN has realized that reports about Assange are bogus.

MAGA   KAG

[albertik]

43 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

At this point, in my personal opinion, pretty much anybody other than Trump (among the Democrats) would be a vast improvement over the lying scumbag who currently holds the office. Heck, the White House janitor probably would be a big improvement too, considering the alternative. So I'd be content to take almost any of them...

 

However, while that might be my personal, individual view, the reality is:

--a majority of the U.S. isn't going to elect a gay former small town mayor as president.

--a majority of the U.S. isn't going to elect a self declared socialist as president.

--a majority of the U.S. probably is going to have problems electing most female candidates as president, because, like it or not, there are still enough neanderthals out there who believe a woman isn't capable to be president (enough to swing the scales to a loss in a close race).

 

So what are we left with that has any reasonable likelihood of beating Trump?  That's the conundrum.  Sure, nominate Bernie as the Democratic presidential candidate, and you can start printing your tickets to the Trump inauguration ceremony for 2020.

 

The country, in my opinion stupidly, is far more divided than it ought to be, because too many ordinary American have drunk the right-wing Kool-Aid that Trump and Co. are going to make life better for them -- which they haven't and won't. So the reality is, for a Democrat to win the presidency these days, it has to be someone who can win over the independents and the middle-America wishy-washy Democrats.  Without that, the Dems are SUNK!

 

 

WoW.

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

I'm not greatly familiar with her, but just on demographics and political appeal, Sen. Amy Klobuchar from Minnesota probably has a better chance than most of the rest, despite the built-in electoral handicap of being a woman candidate facing a Trump incumbent president and all that's likely to mean in any head-on campaign between the two.

 

It looks like the NYT jointly endorsed Klobuchar and Warren for president back in January. And now today, I see that the S.F. Chronicle has endorsed Klobuchar, which comes as a pretty big surprise coming out of San Fran., but nonetheless good to see. 

 

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/01/19/opinion/amy-klobuchar-elizabeth-warren-nytimes-endorsement.html

 

https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/editorials/article/Editorial-Chronicle-recommends-Amy-Klobuchar-in-15074770.php

 

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

3 minutes ago, albertik said:

I see Tapper from fake news CNN has realized that reports about Assange are bogus.

MAGA   KAG

 

The Assange reports are true, and have been confirmed by Rohrabacher himself, at least in so far as that Rohrabacher made the pardon offer to Assange in exchange for a statement denying any Russian involvement in the Wikileaks affair.

 

The sticking point is Rohrabacher claims it was his own idea and he never personally discussed it with Trump, but did discuss it with then Chief of Staff John Kelly after the fact.  Whether that's true or not, who knows...

 

 

Quote

 

Rohrabacher, meanwhile, has confirmed to Yahoo News that he told Assange he would get him a Trump pardon deal, but he also said he never spoke with Trump about it. In other words, he’s suggesting it was more of an idea than a sanctioned proposal.
 

“I spoke to Julian Assange and told him if he would provide evidence about who gave WikiLeaks the emails I would petition the president to give him a pardon,” Rohrabacher said. “He knew I could get to the president.”

 

 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/02/19/white-house-denies-julian-assanges-pardon-claim-heres-what-we-know-about-it/

[Somewhere In Time]

46 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

At this point, in my personal opinion, pretty much anybody other than Trump (among the Democrats) would be a vast improvement over the lying scumbag who currently holds the office. Heck, the White House janitor probably would be a big improvement too, considering the alternative. So I'd be content to take almost any of them...

 

However, while that might be my personal, individual view, the reality is:

--a majority of the U.S. isn't going to elect a gay former small town mayor as president.

--a majority of the U.S. isn't going to elect a self declared socialist as president.

--a majority of the U.S. probably is going to have problems electing most female candidates as president, because, like it or not, there are still enough neanderthals out there who believe a woman isn't capable to be president (enough to swing the scales to a loss in a close race).

 

So what are we left with that has any reasonable likelihood of beating Trump?  That's the conundrum.  Sure, nominate Bernie as the Democratic presidential candidate, and you can start printing your tickets to the Trump inauguration ceremony for 2020.

 

The country, in my opinion stupidly, is far more divided than it ought to be, because too many ordinary American have drunk the right-wing Kool-Aid that Trump and Co. are going to make life better for them -- which they haven't and won't. So the reality is, for a Democrat to win the presidency these days, it has to be someone who can win over the independents and the middle-America wishy-washy Democrats.  Without that, the Dems are SUNK!

 

 

Your 1st paragraph is utter rubbish!  Surely you did not mean to type that.

 

Your 2nd paragraph is hard to debate.

 

Your 3rd paragraph is spot-on; a conundrum indeed.

 

Your 4th paragraph is...well...the first sentence is an opinion brazenly worn on your sleeve a majority would not and will not agree with; the second & third sentences are spot-on.

 

SIT

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

15 minutes ago, Somewhere In Time said:

Your 1st paragraph is utter rubbish!  Surely you did not mean to type that.

 

Nope, really!!!  At this point, the White House janitor WOULD absolutely be an improvement over Trump. He (or she) would get my vote if it came down to a choice between the two.

 

in truth, having an ordinary American as president -- someone who worries about their health insurance expenses, whether they'll have enough money in retirement, the future viability of Social Security, the spiraling federal budget deficit, problems in public education, climate change and environmental pollution, etc etc. -- would be a refreshing change from the current ape.

 

The NYT crystalized Trump to a tee in an editorial last month:

 

Quote

The incumbent president, Donald Trump, is clear about where he is guiding the Republican Party — white nativism at home and America First unilateralism abroad, brazen corruption, escalating culture wars, a judiciary stacked with ideologues and the veneration of a mythological past where the hierarchy in American society was defined and unchallenged.

 

That's who Trump is, and that NOT what most thinking Americans would want to stand for.

 

Edited February 22, 2020 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[Chomper Higgot]

The A question to Rohrabacher (and something for Trump apologists to ponder):

 

On who’s authority was Rohrabacher negotiating a pardon with Assange?

 

 

[Monomial]

19 hours ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

The country, in my opinion stupidly, is far more divided than it ought to be, because too many ordinary American have drunk the right-wing Kool-Aid that Trump and Co. are going to make life better for them -- which they haven't and won't. So the reality is, for a Democrat to win the presidency these days, it has to be someone who can win over the independents and the middle-America wishy-washy Democrats.  Without that, the Dems are SUNK!

 

 

 

Unfortunately your analysis is anachronistic and wrong.

 

The country is under the influence of a demagogue. It has happened many times to many different countries throughout history. But it isn't the demagogue who creates the division. It is the demagogue who leverages it to increase the divide and pull everyone apart. If you really want to fix the problem, you have to fix what gave rise to the divide in the first place, and that is what the Democracts are currently unwilling to do.

 

The Democracts want to continue with the previous 50 years of policies. That needs to change. There has been an unwritten rule for decades that the Democrats have looked the other way with economic policies that benefit big business in exchange for wealthy companies backing their preferred social initiatives. The Republicans have looked the other way with economic policies that benefit big business in exchange for wealthy companies backing their war machine. This is what people are angry with, and this is what Trump has so brilliantly targeted by attacking "immigration".

 

You say people won't vote for socialism. This is only because people have been brainwashed through the sieve of the cold war to believe that "socialism" and "capitalism" are the only choices. Pick a 3rd way economic philosophy and you could have a real winner. People are angry right now.  Trump focused that anger on immigrants. If you want to win, you need a candidate who will focus that anger somewhere else. I think anyone who viciously attacks bankers and Wall Street and the investor class in general has a real chance of winning over the electorate.

 

No Democratic candidate is currently going to do that. Bernie might under the right circumstances, therefore he is the only guy who stands a chance, but only if he adopts the right policies.  It is a new world now. Everything you believed for the last 50 years is over.

 

[spidermike007]

20 hours ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

At this point, in my personal opinion, pretty much anybody other than Trump (among the Democrats) would be a vast improvement over the lying scumbag who currently holds the office. Heck, the White House janitor probably would be a big improvement too, considering the alternative. So I'd be content to take almost any of them...

 

However, while that might be my personal, individual view, the reality is:

--a majority of the U.S. isn't going to elect a gay former small town mayor as president.

--a majority of the U.S. isn't going to elect a self declared socialist as president.

--a majority of the U.S. probably is going to have problems electing most female candidates as president, because, like it or not, there are still enough neanderthals out there who believe a woman isn't capable to be president (enough to swing the scales to a loss in a close race).

 

So what are we left with that has any reasonable likelihood of beating Trump?  That's the conundrum.  Sure, nominate Bernie as the Democratic presidential candidate, and you can start printing your tickets to the Trump inauguration ceremony for 2020.

 

The country, in my opinion stupidly, is far more divided than it ought to be, because too many ordinary American have drunk the right-wing Kool-Aid that Trump and Co. are going to make life better for them -- which they haven't and won't. So the reality is, for a Democrat to win the presidency these days, it has to be someone who can win over the independents and the middle-America wishy-washy Democrats.  Without that, the Dems are SUNK!

 

 

Totally agree with all of the above. The US is in for some rough times ahead. I do hope Mike can pull this off. I just do not know who else can beat Trump. And he desperately needs to be beaten, if the country is to be saved, from his ravages and crimes. 

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

1 hour ago, Monomial said:

 

If you want to win, you need a candidate who will focus that anger somewhere else. I think anyone who viciously attacks bankers and Wall Street and the investor class in general has a real chance of winning over the electorate.

 

No Democratic candidate is currently going to do that. Bernie might under the right circumstances, therefore he is the only guy who stands a chance, but only if he adopts the right policies.  It is a new world now. Everything you believed for the last 50 years is over.

 

 

Elizabeth Warren probably fits the bill for the kind of candidate you're talking about above. And she has good, proven credentials for standing up to Wall Street on behalf of ordinary Americans. But the whole "Indian" heritage flap, which of course Trump exploited HUGELY, helped torpedo her candidacy pretty much before it got into the real primaries campaign cycle.

 

PS - I don't think there's any evidence that middle America independents and wishy-washy Democrats want a candidate who's going to try to wholesale remake the economic system of the country. And, anyone who starts talking about "socialism" is guaranteed to lose a presidential election in today's America. Not to mention that Bernie is already 78 and just coming off a heart attack not long ago.

 

Plus, in checking the campaign wire lately, it seems he's pulling "Trump I'll release my income tax returns some year (but no I really won't)" move on issues pertaining to his heart attack and overall health situation -- which isn't very forthright or reassuring from someone who wants to be president.

 

https://apnews.com/019b6618cb74063df43c40d95765c2fc

 

Quote

 

Questions about Sanders’ health linger after heart attack

February 20, 2020

 

WASHINGTON (AP) — Bernie Sanders says he doesn’t plan to divulge additional information about his health, months after suffering a heart attack on the campaign trail and subsequently pledging to release “comprehensive” medical records.

 

“I think we have released a detailed medical report, and I’m comfortable on what we have done,” the 78-year-old Vermont senator said during a CNN town hall on Tuesday.

 

Questions about Sanders’ health have lingered ever since he checked into a Las Vegas hospital with chest discomfort on Oct. 1 and had two stents inserted. His campaign didn’t acknowledge that he had suffered a heart attack until his release several days later. 

 

 

 

Edited February 23, 2020 by TallGuyJohninBKK