Wow just wow, look at the speed of those fingers spinning when you said:

"deliberately communicating through others to avoid it looking like they were colluding on this"

in other words you and The Daily Beast took something the Intercept said and spun it as adequately displayed by your fingers wounding up a spin faster than a tornado.  The really sad part for you is that bit of fabrication was so easily debunked not just by the ordinary citizens who were fully aware of it but Wikileaks themselves in a text release.  What the attorney in court said was this:

>Fitzgerald referred in that hearing to a statement from Jennifer Robinson, another lawyer for Assange, saying that then-Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., told Assange that, “on instructions from the president, he was offering a pardon or some other way out, if Mr. Assange ... said Russia had nothing to do with the DNC [Democratic National Committee] leaks,

The key words here being:  if Mr. Assange said

Hummmm, lets see what Mr Assange had to say....

https://youtu.be/WPjZ3S8zcgE

and he said it in January 2017, months before your allegations against Mr. Rohrabacher that he went there to get Assange to say Russia wasn't involved in the heck.  Wikileaks had no problems pointing that out also:

Wikileaks@wikileaks:

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.



If you watch the full interview Assange gave he goes on to explain that many experts have testified that you cannot conclusively rely on markers as an indication of the source of a material, he goes on to cite that the markers they used to identify the Russians as the hackers that the tools the hackers used are also tools used by Ukrainians.  I myself find that much more interesting now that I am aware of what took place in Ukraine and the connection of Crowd Strike being owned by a US citizen but backed financially by a Ukrainian billionaire.  Remember Assange made the comparison in the tools used back in January 2017 in that interview, back then there was no assertions to Ukrainian connections involved in the hack, so yeah, that proves to be a rather interesting observation now.  Plus Assange notes in the final intelligence analysis by the FBI of the hack it states right at the top that the FBI did not have access to the server that was hacked.  In essence they are claiming there was a vital component missing during this analysis.  The importance of this was further collaborated when Mr Mueller having stated in his final report that Russians were responsible for the hack that during questioning of the event he had to acknowledge he never had access to the server.

>In his March 22, 2019 report on alleged Russian collusion, Special Counsel Robert Mueller stated unequivocally that Russian hackers were responsible for sending DNC emails to Wikileaks, but he was later forcedto admit that his investigators had never examined the DNC's servers. Instead, Mr.Mueller had relied on exclusively on a redacted  copy of a report that Crowd Strike had produced for the DNC. The U.S. Department of Justice had  never before relied exclusively on a private company's report about an alleged computer crime (as opposed to the government conducting its own investigation), and Mr. Mueller certainly did not disclose in his report that he had failed to examine the servers.Furthermore, Mr. Mueller never made any attempt to interview Mr. Assange, who would know better than anyone else how Wikileaks obtained the DNC emails 

Then there is always the Seth Rich angle, former security experts have said:

>Bill Binney, a former top official at the National Security Agency (“NSA”),was applauded by American media when he exposed widespread electronic surveillanceof American citizens nearly 20 years ago. Like Mr. Assange and Wikileaks, however, he became a pariah to American journalists when he questioned the Russia Collusion Hoax.Mr. Binney presented overwhelming scientific evidence that the DNC emails publishedby Wikileaks were obtained from an internal leak versus an external hack. He will testify that it was scientifically and technologically impossible for the Russians (or anyone else)to have downloaded the DNC emails remotely via hack. Instead, both the metadata and download time for the stolen emails indicate that they were downloaded onto a thumb drive or something similar.

>Larry Johnson is a retired officer of the Central Intelligence Agency. He and Mr. Binney both observed in a February 14, 2019 article that while some U.S.intelligence agencies reported “high” confidence that Russians hacked the DNC, the NSAreported only “moderate” confidence.
See “Why the DNC was not hacked by the Russians,”https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/02/exclusive-cyber-security-experts-release-damning-report-why-the-dnc-was-not-hacked-by-the-russians. As explained inthe article (incorporated herein by reference), the NSA's monitoring systems would have collected an electronic record of any internet-based hack on the DNC, which in turn would have prompted a “high” confidence conclusion by the NSA that Russians were responsible for obtaining the emails. The absence of a “high” confidence conclusion means there is no electronic record of a Russian hack on the DNC. Meanwhile, agencies that expressed “high” confidence, like the FBI and CIA, have been implicated in promoting the Russia Collusion Hoax,e.g., via the fraudulent dossier of Christopher Steele.70. 

Many wonder to this day if this statement by Assange wasn't as close as he could come without outright naming his source to admitting Mr Seth was his connection to the hack.





>In an unprecedented act on August 9, 2016 on Dutch television station NOS,Wikileaks founder Julian Assange spoke specifically about Seth Rich: “
>Whistleblowers go to significant efforts to get us material, often very significant risks. There’s a 27-year-old that works for the DNC who was shot in the back, murdered, just two weeks ago, for unknown reasons as he was walking down the street in Washington… I am suggesting that our sources, ah, take risks and they, they become concerned to see things occurring like that…
” Mr. Assange had not before, and has not since, discussed the identify of anyconfidential source for Wikileaks. Wikileaks also offered a $20,000 reward for information leading to the conviction of Seth Rich's killers.

Seems rather telling, if someone didn't feel that that person died for sure as a result of being a whistle blower why would they offer up such a huge reward?

Furthermore there's the sister of an Assange attorney whom her brother passed away, he told his sister that Assange wanted him to tell the parents of Seth Rich that he was there source, he didn't do such he said because he didn't want to get dragged into a dramatic drama.  The sister went to see Assange and according to her Assange told her the same thing.  Ellen Rattner said Assange told her the Seth and Aaron Rich was the source of his information.  Rattner went to Seths parents and conveyed that message whereas they informed her they already knew.  

So it is highly conceivable that the Rich family isn't keeping quiet about their son's death because they fear for their lives as some have speculated but because their other son was also involved and the serious criminal consequences he would face.

Now let's get back to the very last thing that reporter said after Assange's statement in the video above.  He remarked that didn't leave out other players basically....they also didn't have to be state players they could have been anybody Russian, that's a whole another story on the other political side of the spectrum.  

Basically what you know conclusively about the whole hacking businesses is about as much as me, not jack shit.  When you use line's like "which would have been a lie because we know that's the way it went down" to "it's been widely accepted that the  Russians hacked the DNC" holds about as much truth as your headline that Trump Promised Assange Pardon To Deny Russian Hack, totally and blatantly misleading not only shown by those who've testified, yes Rohrabacher did testify about it, it was in a sealed indictment though his testimony happened before the Mueller investigation and ironically was kept sealed until after the completion of the investigation,  in that testimony his testified that Assange told him the Russians were not responsible for the leak, that testimony came in December of 2017, sealed away and hidden from view as it would have been counter to the narrative, but your headline is debunked by your very own words when you open your video with "Trump has been accused"...that's a far off cry off the statement of fact portrayed in your headline.  Why am I not surprised.