BOMBSHELL: Trump Offered Assange Pardon if He Covered Up Russian Hack, WikiLeaks Founder’s Lawyer Claims

Because the statement "WikiLeaks posted the stolen DNC emails after they were hacked by Russian operatives," was written/asserted by the daily-beast, NOT by Wikileaks. They only stated Assange was offered a pardon IF he could show the Russians weren't involved (which Wikileaks has asserted from the beginning.) This is the worse kind of propaganda.

Try this on... Zimmerman admitted he shot Trayvon. Zimmmerman shot Trayvon because he hated black people.

You see the problem there. Just because the first statement is true, that doesn't make the second statement true.

This is just more BS and wishful thinking from the sleazy anti-Trunp reporters, and as per usual, thus will all fall apart and blow-up in their faces. Yawn.

Has anyone noticed the left wing media isnt jumping all over this? Its entirely possible trump wanted him to say it wasnt a russian hack because he had info to show it was an inside job as its long been suggested? Have we forgot about seth rich who for some reason was being discussed by lisa page and petr strozk in their emails?

W-w-we got trump this time, right guys?!?!?

Well, we have not seen any evidence and won't until next week, but this was presented for the first time today by Julian Assange and his lawyer. That said, if there is indeed incontravertible evidence proving that this really happened, it will be a very big deal indeed for Donald Trump.

Also.....how do we know that Assange is

a) still alive
b) not drugged out of his mind
c) being starved and beaten.

Somehow I lack faith in the judicial process.

He was present for today's pre-trial hearing, where his lawyer made the statement regarding Dana Rohrabacher offering Assange the deal in 2017.

This one is different,

If Trump pardons a man considered a Russian Intelligence laundromat in exchange to coverup an attack on America by a foreign power's spy agencies – that is treason. Period.

"Assange’s lawyers said on Wednesday that former Republican congressman Dana Rohrabacher offered Assange the deal in 2017, a year after emails that damaged Hillary Clinton in the presidential race had been published. WikiLeaks posted the stolen DNC emails after they were hacked by Russian operatives."

Assanges' lawyers stated that in court today.

Assange was present and obviously consented with what hsi lawyers stated.

The judge ruled that Assange lawyers can present a witness and evidence at the next hearing, and that will be admissable.

Daily Beast asserted nothing and it's not propaganda, unless you want to blame Assange for propaganda, since it was his statement today.

Truth:

1. Assange didn't make ANY remarks in court as the garbage alleges.

2. NOTHING was said in court about Assange lying about Russia.

Why would Assange’s lawyers say today that former Republican congressman Dana Rohrabacher offered Assange the deal in 2017, a year after emails that damaged Hillary Clinton in the presidential race had been published. WikiLeaks posted the stolen DNC emails after they were hacked by Russian operatives?

Now this was stated by Assange's lawyers in court today with Assange present. They did not make this statement without Assange allowing it. They plan to introduce evidence and a witness during their next court date on the 25th, and the judge has stated this will be admissible.

So how can you explain that?

February 25th should be interesting.

"Assange’s lawyers said on Wednesday that former Republican congressman Dana Rohrabacher offered Assange the deal in 2017, a year after emails that damaged Hillary Clinton in the presidential race had been published. WikiLeaks posted the stolen DNC emails after they were hacked by Russian operatives."

Assanges' lawyers stated that in court today.

Assange was present and obviously consented with what hsi lawyers stated.

The judge ruled that Assange lawyers can present a witness and evidence at the next hearing, and that will be admissable.

Daily Beast asserted nothing and it's not propaganda, unless you want to blame Assange for propaganda, since it was his statement today.

Rohrabacher did not offer a deal. He told Assange he would publicly encourage Trump to pardon Assange.

Rohrabacher never spoke to Trump and had no authority to make a deal for the DOJ or for Trump.

This has nothing to do with Trump. It has to do with Rohrabacher.

Get your facts, straight shill boy. All you foreign flag globalists are full of it as you work to destroy our country.

So where is your proof that what Assange’s lawyer said is false and you are correct?

Then why did Assange's lawyers, with Assange himself present during the court hearing, offer to provide evidence to support Trump offering a pardon in exchange for Assange keeping quiet about Russian email hacking?

This statement:

Thread: BOMBSHELL: Trump Offered Assange Pardon if He Covered Up Russian Hack, WikiLeaks Founder’s Lawyer Claims

Was made by Assange’s lawyer under oath with Assange present at a public pre-trial hearing in a British courtroom.

Garbage?

But...but...three years ago, Julian Assange said in a YouTube video...

So was he lying then or is he lying now?

Assange talked about Seth Rich and the DNC leak before Trump was elected.

Assange started the theory that the Russians didn’t hack so why would Trump need to bribe him to say something he has already said publicly?

This thread quotes from sworn testimony given in a London court from his lawyer with Assange present.

I would say sworn testimony would be more accurate than some statement Assange made three years ago on YouTube.