Former Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) released a statement Wednesday night to correct a story that was reported by the Daily Beast and repeated by other media outlets perpetuating what appears to be a coordinated disinformation campaign against President Donald J. Trump.
The Daily Beast attempted to string together a number of sentences to form the appearance that Rohrabacher, who they childishly call “Putin’ favorite Congressman”, offered Jullian Assange, a Presidential Pardon for covering up for alleged “Russian involvement” in the exposure of Hillary Clinton’s government-owned emails.
The Daily Beast London Editor Nico Hines writes his article under the assumption that so-called “Russian involvement” in the supposed “hack” of DNC data absolutely took place.
Apart from the inclusion of one Wikileaks tweet, Hines ignores entirely the many instances in which those close the situation insist that no Russian hack of the DNC actually took place.
In addition to NSA whistleblower Bill Binney, many other prominent individuals also insist Russia did not hack the DNC.
National File reached out to Nico Hines at The Daily Beast to ask him whether his blog actually confirmed whether there was indeed a so-called “Russian hack” at the DNC.
As of press time, Nico has not responded, so it is unclear whether The Daily Beast bothered to confirm that claim.
National File also asked Hines whether Assange’s attorney provided evidence of a quid pro quo in which Assange would confirm there was no supposed Russian hack in exchange for a pardon.
Again, Hines refused to respond, and so the article remains nothing but claims made by an attorney in the U.K.
Assange is the founder of WikiLeaks, who printed the hidden, government-owned emails of Clinton, a former Secretary of State, who was running for President against Trump in 2016, causing Clinton to lose support in her bid for President.
Media outlets, including The Daily Beast, have used their platforms and authority to spread a completely made up myth about Russian interference in the exposure of Clinton’s emails, since 2016, which is now the foundation of numerous hoaxes to unseat Trump for imagined Russian ties.
The Daily Beast has accused Rohrabacher of something he says he did not do.
According to Rohrabacher’s statement, “At no time did I offer Julian Assange anything from the President because I had not spoken with the President about this issue at all. However, when speaking with Julian Assange, I told him that if he could provide me information and evidence about who actually gave him the DNC emails, I would then call on President Trump to pardon him,” he said.
Rohrabacher said he would ask the president about a Pardon, not that he was offering a pardon.
There is a lot of misinformation floating out there regarding my meeting with Julian Assange so let me provide some clarity on the matter: https://t.co/4ujr21e6YH #FreeAssange #SethRich #justice
— Dana Rohrabacher (@DanaRohrabacher) February 19, 2020
The Daily Beast used a tactic to lead people to believe that a statement by Assange lawyer’s strung together with Rohrabacher’s statement, combined with fake news was the shocking offer to cover up something that has never been proved to be true.
From the Daily Beast article, “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.”
CORRECTION: Julian Assange’s lawyer claimed in a London court that President Trump offered to pardon the WikiLeaks founder if he agreed to cover up the involvement of Russia in hacking emails from the DNC https://t.co/oW74BG9YYz
— The Daily Beast (@thedailybeast) February 19, 2020
The story is being reported by other news outlets, to add to the chorus of people repeating the shocking allegations.
The original source of the story is a 3-year-old report by a local California CBS new outlet.
Interestingly Rohrabacher recalls that same time period, and wrote in his statement, “Upon my return, I spoke briefly with Gen. Kelly. I told him that Julian Assange would provide information about the purloined DNC emails in exchange for a pardon. No one followed up with me including Gen. Kelly and that was the last discussion I had on this subject with anyone representing Trump or in his Administration.”
It seems like news today, but then-Rep. Rohrabacher went on camera and told our LA station in September 2017 that he was engaged in a "confidential interaction" with the WH on a pardon for Assange.https://t.co/2563YgQ9Rg
— Steven Portnoy (@stevenportnoy) February 19, 2020
The Daily Beast insists the emails were “stolen by Russians” however Tom Fitton, the president of Judicial Watch has a totally different description of how Clinton’s email were exposed after being hidden on her private server.
Fitton describes Clinton’s use of a private server as an attempt to avoid Freedom of Information Act requests and describes Clinton’s email as being left on the equivalent of an” internet park bench”.
Tom Fitton: "Right now we are fighting the Justice Dept., the State Dept., & the Dir. of Nat'l Intelligence over whether they're even going to do a damage assessment over having classified material, as I say, on the internet equivalent of a public park bench." https://t.co/cie8YVoXxX
— Betty Eagan (@beteagan) January 5, 2018
National File has repeatedly reported, Bill Binney, a leading former NSA expert has proof that the Russian did not hack into Hillary’s private server, to “steal” her government-owned emails, which should not have been on a private server in the first place.
WikiLeaks announced they have more proof that Russia did not hack the DNC, which will be released soon, citing a Washington Times article, to tease interest.
“The common wisdom in Washington circles is that the Russians were responsible for illegally hacking into the DNC computers during the campaign and leaked the emails thus obtained through WikiLeaks, but recent revelations suggest that there is at least a possibility that the common wisdom is dead flat wrong. If it is wrong and can be proven, the charges of collusion so dear to Mr. Trump’s opponents could collapse,” the Washington Times said.
Chronology matters:
The meeting and the offer were made ten months after Julian Assange had already independently stated Russia was not the source of the DNC publication.
The witness statement is one of the many bombshells from the defence to comehttps://t.co/XsAmJe6n9j— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) February 19, 2020
National File will continue to follow the unfolding events of this story.
