Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Wow. You just told a lie and then posted the proof for all to see.
"...Rohrabacher has confirmed that he told Assange that he could get a Trump pardon for proof that Russia dis not hack the DNC server."
what part of that do you believe is a lie? from the article:
Rohrabacher : “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 has confirmed that he told Assange that he could get a Trump pardon for proof that Russia dis not hack the DNC server."
what part of that do you believe is a lie? from the article:
Rohrabacher : “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,”
Can you not differentiate between...
Rohrabacher has confirmed that he told Assange that he could get a Trump pardon
and
I would petition the president to give him a pardon
Just enough plausible deniability for the President. See how that works? Of course President Trump did not know.
Suppose there was such a promise. Obviously, there would be nothing wrong with it. So my question is, do you genuinely think there would be something wrong with that, or are you just pretending for political advantage?
Rohrabacher has confirmed that he told Assange that he could get a Trump pardon
and
I would petition the president to give him a pardon
Read the article. It says both of the above things. Either one could be true. Or neither. Or both if they referred to different conversations. Take your pick.
Read the article. It says both of the above things. Either one could be true. Or neither. Or both if they referred to different conversations. Take your pick.
We're not talking about the article. We're talking about the FACT that Rohrabacher did not "confirm" what the article said.
"...Rohrabacher has confirmed that he told Assange that he could get a Trump pardon for proof that Russia dis not hack the DNC server."
what part of that do you believe is a lie? from the article:
Rohrabacher : “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,”
Seems fairly clear.
Is the argument that Rohrabacher was lying when he said that, that he would not petition Trump or that Trump would not pardon Assange for offering proof that Russia did not hack server?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
