Extradition Hearing For Wikileaks Founder Being Overshadowed by Possible Trump Pardon

Extradition Hearing For Wikileaks Founder Being Overshadowed by Possible Trump Pardon

On Monday, a UK judge will rule over whether or not WikiLeaks Founder Julian Assange should be extradited to the United States to face criminal charges in the face of weeks of talks about a possible pardon by President Donald Trump.

The decision from a London judge will come after President Trump, whose administration brought the charges, issued a large number of pardons to political allies, albeit worthy of pardon since the allies were wrongfully prosecuted and set up by the Obama administration in one of the worst political scandals in our history.  Lawyers are arguing that the odds of clemency from Trump are a lot better than a judge believing Assange’s argument that his human rights will be trampled on in America.  Though not by Trump, our deep state is no longer to be trusted.

“It’s very rare for the magistrates to refuse extradition requests from the US,” said Anthony Hanratty, a lawyer who specializes in extradition cases working at BDB Pitmans in London. “There’s a quite strong presumption that the US will comply with obligations in relation to human rights and legal process.”

Assange, 49, has been in a self-imposed exile in London for the better part of a decade.  He considers it being in custody.  The Wikileaks Founder initially asked for and received refuge in the Ecuadorian embassy in 2012 rather than face questioning in a Swedish sexual assault case, which was later dropped.  The evidence of that case looked very shady at best.  I would never put it past the Obama administration of fabricating the whole thing. After what we have learned the Obama administration did against the Trump campaign, then President Trump, they are capable of any crime.

Assange was finally expelled from the Ecuadorian embassy, and he immediately faced US charges related to WikiLeaks disclosures.

Among other things, Assange has been accused of conspiring with US Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning to obtain classified documents from databases containing about 90,000 Afghanistan war-related activity reports, 400,000 Iraq war-related reports and 250,000 State Department cables.  The thing that really bothers me here is deep state bad actors have leaked classified information out of the Trump administration like a sieve, and the mainstream Fake News media were always only too happy to publish the material, so long as it harmed Trump.  And nothing has ever happened to the media, because the leftist judicial system has said that it is not illegal for the press to publish documents that were obviously illegally given to them.  So then, how come Wikileaks, a media outlet that actually spreads truth, is treated differently?  It’s a double standard that I never quite understood.  And yes, I do understand all the nuances involved.

Earlier this year, Assange’s lawyers, at extradition hearings that were delayed because of COVID, argued that their client couldn’t get a fair trial in the United States.

Trump said some nice things about Assange when in 2016 Wikileaks released the emails of Hillary Clinton that brought on many scandals for the failed presidential candidate.  And now it looks like the embattled Wikileaks Founder’s supporters are switching from fighting an extradition fight to focus on a possible pardon.

Stella Moris, Assange’s fiancée, has used the last few months to make direct pleas to President Trump on Twitter, and in some appearances on Fox News.

“I beg you, please bring him home for Christmas,” she tweeted last month.

The hopes for a pardon for Assange have grown in fever pitch over the last few weeks after hearing Trump pardoned over a dozen people, mostly political allies who were wrongfully harmed by corrupt Obama officials, which is what the pardon power is really all about.  Allies like Paul Manafort, Roger Stone, George Papadopoulos, and Dinesh D’Souza just to name a few, all screwed over by Obama operatives for political reasons.

Liberals Whine About Trump’s 44 Uses of Clemency Powers Even Though Obama Granted 1,927!

Liberals Whine About Trump’s 44 Uses of Clemency Powers Even Though Obama Granted 1,927!

When President Donald Trump announced that he would be issuing a pardon for retired General Michael Flynn, his former National Security Adviser, the president’s opponents ripped the move as an alleged abuse of the president’s clemency powers.

Take the idiot Adam Schiff-For-Brains (D-CA) for instance:

“Donald Trump has repeatedly abused the pardon power to reward friends and protect those who covered up for him. This time he pardons Michael Flynn, who lied to hide his dealings with the Russians. It’s no surprise that Trump would go out as he came in — Crooked to the end.”

Of course, Schiff lies every time he opens his mouth.  He lied to the American people for over 2 years, constantly claiming on cable network news programs that he had in his possession definite evidence of Russian collusion, yet he never produced any of that evidence. He said this every single time he was given the chance. And even after the Mueller witch hunt ended with the special counsel having to admit there was zero evidence of collusion, Schiff still continued to claim there was evidence. This man is a pathological liar.

Not only did General Flynn not lie to the FBI about sanctions, which is what Schiff is referring to in his tweet lies, but according to the 302 documents of Flynn’s interview with the FBI, they never asked him a single question about his discussions of sanctions with the Russian ambassador.   How could the FBI charge Flynn with lying about sanctions when they never asked him about it?  If I know this, then Schiff, the Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, has to know as well. Therefore, he’s still lying.

Attacking President Trump’s use of the pardon power to help allies is nothing new.  A lot of people were upset when Trump pardoned former Maricopa County (Arizona) Sheriff Joe Arpaio in 2017 for targeting Hispanics while searching for illegal aliens.  You don’t look for little old ladies with blue hair and aluminum walkers when searching for illegal aliens in Arizona.

Liberals complained about Trump’s pardon of Dinesh D’Souza, a conservative icon, lecturer, author and filmmaker, who was singled out by President Barack Obama for making a movie “2016: Obama’s America” with some claiming D’Souza’s pardon was more about Trump’s ego and partisan politics than justice.  Can you believe that?  The man was targeted by the former president of the United States and the dingbats at NBC ignored that part of the story and reported it was about some sort of personal flaw in Trump’s character.

With such an outrageous amount of alleged abuse of the pardoning powers, normal people who watch the news would think that President Trump must have racked up an enormous number of pardons and commutations over the last 4 years.  And they could not be more wrong.  In fact, going all the way back to McKinley, President Donald Trump has the lowest number pardons and/or commutations than any other past president.

According to the non-partisan think tank Pew Research Center, who recently released a report, Trump had granted clemency only 44 times.  He granted only 28 pardons and 16 commutations, which means he granted only 0.5 percent of all the clemency requests he received.

The president’s haters may not like the people he granted clemency, but the Constitution gives him that power, and it is absolute.

Compared to the guy in the White House right before him, Trump would be considered an amateur.

President Barack Obama issued clemency 1,927 times.  He issued 212 pardons and 1,715 commutations.  And none of the same whiners against Trump issued as much as a peep.

A lot of Obama’s clemency decisions were considered highly controversial.  According to Pew:

“But Trump is far from the only president who has faced scrutiny over his use of clemency. Obama’s frequent use of commutations, particularly for prisoners convicted of drug-related crimes, prompted criticism from Republicans, who said it benefited ‘an entire class of offenders’ and infringed on the “lawmaking authority” of the legislative branch.”

Obama boot-lickers and other sycophants will defend the former president’s use of clemency by claiming he only came through for 5.3 percent of requests received.  But to leave it there would rob you of the whole story.  Yes, it was less than 6 percent of all requests, but during Obama’s eight years in the Oval Office, clemency requests jumped almost three times the previous record number, to 36,544, where you’d have to go all the way back to FDR.

And it was the Obama administration that was responsible for the spike in clemency requests during those 8 years as they actually created a program called “The Clemency Initiative,” where the administration called on prisoners to request clemency.  The sheer volume of petitions for clemency is what drove the percentage rate of granted requests down.

So, why all the hubbub over Trump’s use of the pardon power?  That’s being treated no differently from anything else this president has done.  His detractors hate his guts and will trash everything he’s done no matter how appropriate.  Given the facts about presidents invoking clemency, their complaints reflect more on their own character flaws than anything President Trump has done.

Court of Appeals Rules Texas  and Louisiana Can Drop Planned Parenthood From Medicaid

Court of Appeals Rules Texas and Louisiana Can Drop Planned Parenthood From Medicaid

Score one for the good guys.

On Monday, a circuit court ruled that Louisiana and Texas can exclude Planned Parenthood from Medicaid funding, a win for Life that will strip the abortion provider of federal funding.

The Fifth Circuit overruled a District court’s injunction that blocked the exclusion of Planned Parenthood from Medicaid funding.  It is unbelievable to me that any court would allow taxpayer dollars to fund a business that kills unborn babies.

In an 11-5 ruling, the appeals court said that Planned Parenthood does not have the right to challenge the state’s decisions regarding who receives Medicaid benefits.

Medicaid beneficiaries “have no right under the statute to challenge a State’s determination that a provider is unqualified,” the court’s Chief Judge wrote in the majority’s opinion.  So, because Planned Parenthood doesn’t have the right to challenge Louisiana’s or Taxes’ determination to remove the baby killing factory from Medicaid benefits, the states may now go ahead and remove them from Medicaid funding.

Think about this.  The Left doesn’t care that there are millions of Americans who are against the practice of abortion and were being forced, through their taxpayer dollars, to pay for someone’s abortion.  The government should never be in the business of death this way. The government should always strive for life.

Liberals love to say that abortion is a Constitutional right. Well, I’m sorry, but you can read the Constitution, you can hold it up to the light, upside down, and pour lemon juice on it, and you still won’t find it in there.  I once heard Dinesh D’Souza make an incredible point about this, saying, the First Amendment right of Free Speech is a Constitutional right, but the government doesn’t hand out bullhorns.   The Second Amendment is a Constitutional right to protect yourself by owning a firearm, but the government doesn’t hand out guns or ammunition. So, even if we were to stipulate that abortion is a Constitutional right, which it most certainly is not, but if we were, for the sake of argument, to agree that is is, then why do the liberals  expect the government to pay for it?

The legal fight over Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood in in Louisiana and Texas started back in 2015 after the release of controversial undercover videos by Project Veritas showing Planned Parenthood workers talking about the sale of fetal tissue.  It was so horrendous to listen to that Louisiana and Texas  state officials took action to remove the abortion provider out of Medicaid funding, using the videos as clear evidence that the organization showed a willingness to make a profit off of the sale of fetal tissue.  What kind of ghouls are these people?  Then, a lower court in 2017, ruled that the states could not cut the abortion provider from Medicaid funding.

After the Trump administration rightfully created a rule that forbid participants in Title X from providing direct abortion referrals Planned Parenthood pulled out of Title X funding. The organization can’t receive federal funding for abortions but it does get Medicaid funding for other health care services it provides.  The problem there is the money goes into the same organization that does abortions, and it’s wrong.

Planned Parenthood denounced the ruling claiming it was politicizing health care coverage.  Killing babies is not health care.

“The governor wants to control where you can get family planning and sexual health care — once again, political ideology is driving health care policy, resulting in reduced access to care,” Planned Parenthood South Texas president and CEO Jeffrey Hons said.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, celebrated the ruling.

“The Fifth Circuit correctly rejected Planned Parenthood’s efforts to prevent Texas from excluding them from the state’s Medicaid program,” Paxton said.   He added, “Undercover video plainly showed Planned Parenthood admitting to morally bankrupt and unlawful conduct, including violations of federal law by manipulating the timing and methods of abortions to obtain fetal tissue for their own research.”

Trump Legal Team: “Cheating is an Institution, Election Is Irredeemable,  Fraud Must be Shut down”

Trump Legal Team: “Cheating is an Institution, Election Is Irredeemable, Fraud Must be Shut down”

“We don’t know where the FBI is, perhaps we need a new agency to protect us,” Rudy Giuliani said on Thursday.

The legal team for President Donald J. Trump held a press conference on Thursday at noon, led by Rudy Giuliani who told people they have statistical data that proves cheating in the Presidential election, Giuliani said, “but also many sworn avadavats that prove there was a plan to execute plans of voter fraud especially in big cities controlled by Democrats with a long history of fraud.”

Giuliani pointed to numerous convictions of voter fraud that were already prosecuted, “The fraud was done in cities controlled by Democrats, where they control law enforcement and voting boards like in Pennsylvania where we have a margin of victory now, which is a fraud, that is 69,040 votes,” he said suggesting that cleaning up the fraud will erase that lead. 

“We have a testimony that there was no inspection of those 69,000  ballots, and mail votes are suspect to fraud, which Jimmy Carter and Justice Souter and even the New York Time said had a danger of mail, and we make this case when we have done mail-in voting en mass.  It is dangerous especially if you have a plan or scheme, as Joe Biden said a few days before the election.,” Giuliani said making reference to Democrat Joe Biden slip when he told people the Democrats had “the best voter fraud scheme”.

“They made many mistakes as all crooks do- start by pushing Republicans out- even in third worlds, they don’t push others out. Recounts will tell us nothing because we do not have signatures to look at, which we always looked at in the past. They were not inspected, and they need to be removed from the totals; these ballots could come from anyone or many ballots from one person. Bush V. Gore being the most recent case, he said. 

“That is not the only fraud in PA. For example, if you made a mistake and lived in some places, you could fix it in Democrat states; one of our plaintiffs, Mr. Henry, testified that in a Republican area, he was not allowed to fix it. The Democrat secretary of State made-up rules, and it is easily provable with hundred to thousands of witnesses on that,” he said. 

“15,000 people in Pittsburg, according to the Democrat election machine, had been told they had already voted. We have witnesses to testify that they were told they already voted when they showed up to vote, and they will testify. 50-60 witnesses who were not allowed to inspect the ballots, who were pushed and assaulted, placed far away, and corraled. They were too far away, witnesses swore under penalty of perjury that these things happened. They swear they were not allowed to carry out their functions as inspectors. Why would you not allow them to carry their functions because those ballots were being used to catch Biden up by 700,000 votes?” Giuliani said. 

“In Michigan, we have testimony from Jessie Jacob, that gave us an affidavit the coverage of this is as dishonest as the crime of the election. A fine woman, who is giving out her name, and we know that people who will be threatened and the media’s censorship is making things worse. A woman was assigned to voting duties and trained to cheat. She says she was assigned to change the date on balots. She this under oath. This is direct evidence. This is not circumstantial. Biden’s people can cross-examine her, but you can not say there is no evidence. This is public information. We believe illegal immigrants and out-of-state people were voting in Michigan and places like Camden, New Jersey. They carried these places in corrupt cities, not in places where they respect the law,” he said.


“Justice Alito said that the ballots that come in after a certain time had to be placed aside. We have a testimony that says that Alito’s order was violated, sworn to under the penalty of perjury,” Giuliani said.  “People are afraid of having their names out in public because goons go after them, and the media condones it, so that is a problem. There are many more, and the media needs to read them and not falsely report there is no evidence.” 

“People ran to what they thought was food trucks, carrying ballots at 4 AM, and we have people who will swear that the ballots were only for Biden with no down tickets with nothing on the outer envelope; we have between 60,000-100,000 ballots that were counted up to three times.  We have three American citizens who will go to court and swear to it.” 

We can specifically identify up to 300,000 votes, which is more than the margin, and they went through Detroit.    Constantino and the City of Detroit, not by us but by a private citizen with sword testimony.  Constantino, et al. v City of Detroit.

“Wisconson is a petition, that claims there was no inspection allowed, many precincts with over-votes.  The clearest sign of fraud is, for example, where there is 200% of registered voters who have voted. Classically it is considered over-voting 80%; we have 200%-300% of overvotes, as in Wayne, Michigan, and Wisconsin. There is a massive fraud.” 

“Georgia will file a lawsuit going to be filed by Trump legal team, inspections cast aside, double voters, out of state voters, and specific evidence in voting and intimidation changes.” 

“We are collecting evidence still most likely to file suit there and significant allegations in Virginia and New Mexico. We have provable illegal ballots, so look at the lawsuits.  Looks at the affidavits.  I have at least 10, and we have 1,000, and there is more that we can not reveal.”

“But this is enough to look into these issues. There also seems to be a plan on handling legal observers by putting them into a pin, not allowing them to see the ballots.  It is clearly a plan, and there was a Freudian slip by the candidate- this had to be planned, and was there a contractor to get the same pen to put the observers in.  We use a Venuzualla machine to cont the votes. The people deleted Donald Trump, and Biden is in the lead because of the illegal ballots produced, and we will prove it in court.”


“In our election, Cuba and China’s have a massive influence on Communist money, and it is the Dominion and Smartmatic software to help keep Chavez from losing. We have a strong witness to tell us how it works and they are in the pleadings of Lin Woon in Georgia – stunning affidavit, and the eyewitness was with Chavez when they developed these systems. He knew that when he saw the states close down from counting, we were going through the same things,” Powell said. 

“The testimony matches numerous eyewitness testimony who said they saw ballots come in at the time when counting stopped, and we have statistical evidence to prove there was a change. Dominion is not to be found now, but we know that there are ties to the Clinton Foundation and other politicians to Dominion.  We know this from a written letter read from testimony about Smartmatic, and the company has hidden offshore and hidden entities, and is own by Chaves and is Communistic,” she said. 


Experts have found that Smartmatic has end-user vulnerabilities and change to whatever they want. They can weigh votes differently; they could have changed the entire election.  The machines had to shut down because of so many votes for Trump, and they had to backfill the votes for Biden, so we only know about all of this time.  The software manual, which you can get from the internet, spells it out.  The machines are easily accessible to anyone- there has been no oversight, even videos on how a kid with a phone could hack it.  You can drop and drop a batch to throw away or assign to a different candidate.  We have proof of Biden being given votes and batches of Trump votes being dumped. 

Many people working on elections might not have known, but many did. Hence, we need a widescale criminal investigation, different benefits that used taxpayer money to get Dominion machines and election insurance, who used the machines.  Texas denied certification in 2019 with Dominion systems. Other software is embedded in the source code in all machines, and no doubt there is evidence of use in the other corrupt counties. This is stunning and heartbreaking, infuriating, and most unpatriotic acts for people to have participated in; the American public is fed up with the corruption. we are not going to back down, and we will clean it up.  We will reclaim the country who vote for freedom. 


“I can tell you what the media will say, they will say that there is not sufficient evidence of fraud,  or that we talked too long; this, what we are doing today,  is an opening statement; this is not a law and order episode where everything is wrapped up in 60 minutes.  What we are telling you is what the networks have been hiding, by hiding the merits of this case- our objection is to preserve safe elections.  We are going to make sure that election integrity is preserved and if your fake news network is not allowing you to the core, ask why. 

We have a case that could take years to develop, and we go thru the process; we are not trying our case in the court of public opinion. You are not unbiased jurors.  Your opinion does not matter; you need to allow coverage of our legal team. I can anticipate what your headlines will be. You are unacceptable; this is an opening statement; we tell you what the evidence will show- the American people need to know what we have uncovered in a few weeks. We are a nation of rules, not rulers. There is not someone who gets to pick a president outside of the American people. The states legislature and all of the way up to change the rules that are what Democrats do if they can t win they change the rules. Hamilton Fed 68 on the electoral college, We want to protect election integrity and are proud of President Trump. He swore an oath to protect and defend the US Constitution awe is confident we will get to victory. Still, we will also protect the election process, and this I not overturn an election. We are the represents here standing in the gap and defending the American people, and this is about the unites States of American; we won’t back down. The PRess needs to cover this fairly- it matters.  This is an overview; we have time, and we will show the Constitutional process.  The election is irredeemably compromised. 

Further Reading: 

REPORT: Harris and Her AG Office Kept Prisoners Locked Up for Cheap Labor — Used Inmates to Fight Forest Fires for $2 per Day

REPORT: Harris and Her AG Office Kept Prisoners Locked Up for Cheap Labor — Used Inmates to Fight Forest Fires for $2 per Day

When the courts ruled that California had too many criminals locked up and that non-violent offenders needed to be released, Kamala Harris was reportedly trying to hang onto them for dear life because they could be used to fight forest fires for two dollars a day.

This seems like utilizing slave labor may run in Harris’ genes. The Gateway Pundit says that some things never change, noting that Harris’ ancestors also owned slaves.

Kamala Harris says that the mass incarceration of Blacks is completely wrong but she didn’t mention the fact that the bill that led to mass incarceration was forced through the Senate by Joe Biden, her running mate. Now, that’s what I call an inconvenient truth.

In 2011, the courts ruled that California’s prisons were so overcrowded that the conditions violated the cruel and unusual punishment in the US constitution.

But Harris and her prosecutors argued that if they released the prisoners they would lose the cheap labor they used in fighting forest fires and other duties such as cleaning the parks and streets.

In 2011, the Supreme Court ruled in Brown v. Plata that it was cruel and unusual punishment for prisons to be so overcrowded. Harris violated that ruling for what amounted to slave labor.

Is cheap labor really a valid reason for ignoring the Supreme Court? And where would you find that exemption in the constitution?

By 2014, there was a class action suit filed to force California to forget the cheap labor and release the prisoners as the high court demanded. Harris’ office said:

“Extending 2-for-1 credits to all minimum custody inmates at this time would severely impact fire camp participation—a dangerous outcome while California is in the middle of a difficult fire season and severe drought.” 

From The Gateway Pundit

According to VICE — Back when she was San Francisco D.A., U.S. Senator Kamala Harris, now a presidential contender and a self-described “progressive prosecutor,” cost the city of San Francisco millions of dollars and cost Jamal Trulove more than six years of his life. Harris allowed the people working under her to pursue a murder charge against Trulove that was ultimately overturned by an appeals court. Harris has yet to account for this incident.

Supreme Court Hands President Donald Trump Two Major Victories In One Day By Deciding On Obamacare and School Religious Freedom Cases

Supreme Court Hands President Donald Trump Two Major Victories In One Day By Deciding On Obamacare and School Religious Freedom Cases

President Donald Trump and conservatives have scored two major victories in the Supreme Court with religious freedom on the line.

In a 7 – 2 decision that united some liberals with the conservatives on the court, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Little Sisters of the Poor, The Daily Mail reported

n the Obamacare case, the high court ruled 7-2 the administration acted properly when it allowed more employers who cite a religious or moral objection to opt out of covering birth control.

“We hold today that the Departments had the statutory authority to craft that exemption, as well as the contemporaneously issued moral exemption. We further hold that the rules promulgating these exemptions are free from procedural defects,” Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas said in the majority decision.

As a result of the Obama-era health law most employers must cover birth control as a preventive service, at no charge to women, in their insurance plans. The Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania case tested whether the law properly provided religious exemptions is called. 

The other ruling Wednesday also dealing with religious exemptions was in Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru.  

The court sided with two Catholic schools in a ruling that underscores that certain employees of religious schools, hospitals and social service centers can’t sue for employment discrimination.

“The religious education and formation of students is the very reason for the existence of most private religious schools, and therefore the selection and supervision of the teachers upon whom the schools rely to do this work lie at the core of their mission,” Justice Samuel Alito said in the decision.

“Judicial review of the way in which religious schools discharge those responsibilities would undermine the independence of religious institutions in a way that the First Amendment does not tolerate,” he said, CNBC reported.

Alito’s opinion was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented.

The schools argued that the ministerial exception prevented them from facing those lawsuits, but the teachers countered that they should not qualify as ministers under the 2012 Supreme Court precedent that established the rule.

In that case, Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & School v. EEOC, the Supreme Court outlined four factors for lower courts to consider when weighing whether an employee.