An important detail is to understand what half-truths are...there are several new types...

While a statement may be true, it may be merely part of the truth.

http://thejesuschristcode.com

Yes, I would not say that he was bullied, I would say that he was a politician who was playing a bad hand of cards; remember he washed his hands of the matter and let the people decide who was to go free. We can speculate on other outcomes but we can not change history.

I would and do say that 'Pilate did exactly what he was fated to do'.

The Roman governor was not 'bullied' into doing anything.

Sent to Judea of Palestine, by Tiberius, in support of the Roman installed 'secular' government of Herod, -Pilate dealt with an ongoing "insurrection" by fanatical Jewish 'theologists' during his administration.

Begun in 6 A. D., Judas the Galilean was the 'author' of the "insurrection". Although he was killed in battle, another 'descendant of David and messiah' rose up after him... he too was killed. And another rose up after him, etc... the 'war' did not end until the wealthy and educated Jews scattered abroad, Jerusalem was razed to the ground (save the western or 'Wailing Wall') and the Jewish nation was no more in existence (70 A. D.)

"Jesus Christ"?

Who, pray tell, is "Jesus Christ"?

Put the Kool-ade down... be not like our Muslim brothers who read only one 'Book'...

It is altogether much too easy to obliterate that which was written before and (re)write anew...

Nevertheless, let us indeed look at was written...

According to the original Greek Gospel attributed to Matthew (27:17) we find: "Who do you wish that I release to you, Jesus Barabbas or Jesus who is called Christ?" (The name "Jesus", as applicable to Barabbas, was omitted from the Latin translation and most of the sub-sequential translations thereafter, -around 390
A. D.)

Whoa!

Portrayed in the 'theological tome' -known to us as the Holy Gospels, as "a notorious robber, murderer and insurrectionist", the assembled Jewish multitude Chose to release Jesus Barabbas.

Pilate, knowing full well 'who was who' and exactly what was going on around him, accented.

Did both the "multitude" and the Roman governor err?

Before one might answer (the above question and this scenario), consider this...

"Barabbas" is not a surname (any more than is "Christ"), rather it is an Aramaic appellation, -the meaning of which is: Bar = Son + Abba = Father (of us all or God). His name Was "Jesus", He Was called "the Son of God".

Pilate was neither "bullied into allowing the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ" nor was he concerned with the "Son of God" or Jewish theology... he Was concerned with an ongoing insurrection that was all around him.

Free "an insurrectionist"... in stead of an innocent man?

No, they were literally 'switched'... one for the other.

It is You, my friend, -although not exactly "bullied" but rather cleverly 'coerced' into 'believing' that Paul's "Jesus Christ" ever lived.

Roland, a reluctant iconoclast.

Pontius Pilate was a client of Lucius Aelius Sejanus, Prefect of the Praetorian Guard, under the emperor Tiberius. He received his appointment in Judea because of Sejanus, and contrary to what some might believe, this appointment was a vey important one. Judea was a very strategic place.
I believe, concerning the trial of Jesus, that there were a few factors involved in the way that Pilate behaved. As I mentioned, Pilate was a client of Sejanus who had in 31 AD been executed for treason along with many of his supporters. Pilate had escaped this purge somehow, but he was still on edge and in fear of being called back to Rome. Also when the crowd is said to say that if Pilate does not have Jesus executed that he is no friend of Caesar, it is thought that they are referring to an exclusive group of men who were called the friends of the emperor. Tiberius liked quiet in his provinces, so this can be interpreted as, probably not the crowd, but perhaps one of the priesthoods or members of royalty saying, that if the execution of Jesus does not take place there will be trouble, rioting etc., and this could have put Pilate in a position where he would not be looked upon favorably in Tiberius' eyes.
It seems that Pilate took advantage of every out that he could so as not to condemn Jesus to death, and, yes I do believe that to some extent, he was bullied into the condemnation. While political reasons are certainly present, I tend to think that there were personal reasons, too, for Pilate not wanting to put Jesus to death, ranging from his wife's input to his own realization that Jesus was probably not the political threat he was made out to be.
Still, Pilate was a Roman, before his name was ever splashed into any Bible, and I am sure that as a military and political man he weighed out the consequences and made his own decision concerning the death of Jesus. To Pilate Jesus was not the son of God, but an unfortunate prisoner who did not likely deserve death. So as far as bullying. I would say that Pilate was politically bullied into a decision he might not otherwise have made. He might have even thought that Jesus was a good man. I do not believe, however, that Pilate had some kind of epiphany during the trial. realized that Jesus was divine, and caved in anyways.

Pontius Pilate was a ruthless man. He, more than likely, didn't care whether Jesus lived or died. Pilate had hundreds of people, including children, crucified every day.