Not all journalism is created equal. Not all coverage is equal in quality or bias or lack thereof. There's plenty of decent journalism left. Some platforms even in 2020 never stoop to the level of deceptively covering a story to frame a kid as a Native hating trump supporter because it fits the narrative only to get sued for millions.

I challenge you to read front page CNN Trump coverage and WSJ Trump coverage for a month. It's stark contrast. One tries to mold how you should feel about something pertaining to Trump while another presents facts without injecting it's spin.

Naw.
Rorhabacher already said ages ago that he was acting independently of Trump and his CoS said that he was keeping it out of Trump's view
It was an old story back 2 years ago, now its just being rehashed because Wikileaks brought it up. We already had news reports that rorhbacher had been floating a pardon offer to Assange, something that he couldn't actually promise since Trump wasn't looped in- a deal he was hoping to set up. And this 'revelation' is just recapping that. The timeline is also bonkers, because Assange had independently already said that the source of his leaks wasn't "Russia" a full 10 months before Rorhbacher even floated that offer, and Trump sure as hell never pardoned Assange.

It just looks like Rorhbacher was floating the idea in hopes that Assange could actually provide proof that his source wasn't Russian, in which case he would 'try' to convince Trump to pardon him. A shit deal for Assange to take, because the guy who was trying to set it up didn't even have Trump's ear to begin with, and if he had made such a bargain would have been unlikely to receive the pardon anyway. One-way trade. And for Assange, it was a moot point anyway. He didn't know who Guccifer 2.0 was, only that his source was Guccifer, not Russia. And then Wikileaks and Assange also bullshitted by claiming their source wasn't Russian to begin with, something they couldn't actually know- not knowing isn't the same thing as knowing its not. And it turned out to be Russians behind the Guccifer 2.0 persona, as the Mueller Report laid out.

Its just more clickbait'o'clock stories. Its actually been a while since the media has spread this nonsense, it really went quiet after the Mueller Report ended the collusion storyline and impeachment/ukraine ate up all the oxygen. We used to get nonsense like this every week

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

The Wall Street Journal reported in 2017 that he had contacted the White House in an attempt to secure a pardon for Mr Assange.
The paper said that, under Mr Rohrabacher's terms, Mr Assange was required to provide "proof" that Russia was not the source of hacked emails published by Wikileaks during the 2016 US election.
In 2018, the US Department of Justice charged 12 Russian intelligence officers with hacking emails from the DNC and the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, as part of a plot to influence the outcome of the election.


Yes seems this Rorhabacher has been blown off repeatedly, why he tried to arrange this with Assange is still a mystery.

Well, it would make perfect sense if Rorhabacher held genuine doubts that the DNC emails came from Russia.
If Wikileaks could actually offer proof they didn't, it would be worth a pardon for Assange from Trump, and Trump would probably agree to it.
Wikileaks couldn't offer that, because they had no such proof. It would be a good way for Rorhabacher to solicit the truth, if the truth was in his favor, which it wasn't

And here he is, with a statement, saying exactly what we already knew:




I really missed having this hollow f5'o'clock stories. It feels like its been too long since the media blew anything out of proportion and insisted on a big bombshell scoop about something easily explained by facts we already knew years ago.

Somebody give me some logical reason why it’s ok for tRump to be involved in the justice system. And if Barr resigns in a week “in before deep state and he was anti tRUmp long time”

Because the constitution says the president shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.

Who says they were not?

bet my life !