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.
These are Julian's sons Max and Gabriel. They need their father. Our family needs to be whole again.
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.
The Deep State is in a panic now. Now that Roger Stone isn’t being sentenced to die in prison thanks to President Trump commuting his sentence, he will appeal his case and this time he will attempt to prove that Russia never hacked the DNC servers.
If that happens, it will explode the entire Russia collusion as a hoax.
I feel that The Deep State likely knows that they may soon be exposed and they had hoped to slow the process down enough that nothing would happen until after the election.
If Biden were to win in November I’m sure every shred of evidence would get “lost.”
Robert Mueller came out of hibernation over the weekend to write an op-ed hit piece on the commutation of Roger Stone.
Mueller ran what most people on the right consider a smear campaign against Trump in an effort to have him removed from office.
He along with his boss, Andrew Weissmann, ran what could be exposed as the most corrupt investigation ever in this country if Stone is allowed to tell his story.
But in the end, it looks like maybe the investigators did not have enough gas in the tank.
They have seemingly wasted 22 months of America’s time and up to $40 million dollars of taxpayer’s money.
They purportedly leaked information that was possibly false and claimed that the DNC servers were hacked by the Russians.
The only proof they allegedly had was that CrowdStrike confirmed that it was Russia who hacked the DNC.
Shawn Henry, president of CrowdStrike testified before congress and, reportedly he told them that CrowdStrike confirmed no such thing.
In fact, it seems they couldn’t really say that the servers were never hacked at all.
That sort of blows the Russian collusion out of the water if true. Just when the Deep State thought they had Stone’s scalp.
The entire Russia collusion sham started with the Hillary campaign blaming the release of emails by WikiLeaks on the Russians in an effort to help the Trump campaign. As we have reported, in June 2016, Ellen Nakashima, a Deep State favorite from the Washington Post, released a report that the Democrat National Committee (DNC) had been hacked by Russia. The firm that validated this was Crowdstrike and its President Shawn Henry confirmed the claims. In December 2016, Ms. Nakashima followed up her reporting with the outlandish claim that the CIA had determined that Russia hacked the DNC because Russia wanted Trump to win the election. Nakashima also reported that the the Intel Community had determined that Russia also sent the emails to WikiLeaks. This position was reinforced by the Mueller gang in their efforts to have President Trump removed from office.
The GOP operative was charged with making false statements, obstruction and witness tampering tied to his pursuit of Russian-hacked emails in 2016.
So Roger Stone goes to jail but none of the corrupt Democrats are even getting investigated. Seems the entire judicial system is biased.
By Dartunorro Clark
Republican operative Roger Stone was found guilty on Friday of all seven counts against him, including witness tampering and making false statements.
Prosecutors portrayed Stone, 67, as a serial liar who tried to bully witnesses into not cooperating with authorities. They charged the confidant of President Donald Trump with making false statements, obstruction and witness tampering in a case that was an offshoot of former special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation.
Stone is the sixth Trump aide or adviser to be convicted of charges brought as part of Mueller’s probe.
His sentencing was set for Feb. 6 and he could face up to 20 years in prison.
Trump tweeted shortly after the verdict was announced, asking “what about” Hillary Clinton, Jame Comey, House Intelligence Committee chair Adam Schiff and others. “Didn’t they lie?”
The colorful trial in Washington, D.C., lasted for nearly two weeks and featured references to “The Godfather Part II,” threats of dognapping, complaints of food poisoning and a gag order.
Stone was arrested in January in an early morning FBI raid and charged with misleading the House Intelligence Committee in 2017 about his efforts to find out when WikiLeaks would be releasing emails hacked from the Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton’s campaign.
The prosecution rested its case on Tuesday with the testimony of former FBI agent Michelle Taylor. She was recalled to testify about Stone’s testimony to the Intelligence Committee, specifically when he told the panel about his thoughts about the potential connection between Guccifer 2.0 and the Russian government.
The trial also featured various former Trump aides, including ex-White House chief strategist Steve Bannon and onetime Trump campaign aide Rick Gates, who struck a plea deal with Mueller.
Bannon told jurors he saw Stone as “an access point” to WikiLeaks.
Gates testified that it was his understanding that Stone had inside, non-public information into Wikileaks’ operation and that the campaign acted on it.
After the DNC announced it had been hacked and Wikileaks planned a press conference, the campaign had “brainstorming” sessions about what to do with the information. Gates said that former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, who was convicted earlier this year in the Mueller probe, told him he would update Trump with any information that he could get from Stone.
The jury also saw an email between Gates and Stone after the DNC announced it had been hacked. In it, Stone asks for Trump son-in-law and senior adviser Jared Kushner’s contact information.
On Monday, a judge in the UK ruled that Wikileaks‘ founder Julian Assange was not going to be extradited to the United States to face charges for what the US Department of Justice said was spying and conspiring to get secret US documents by hacking government computers.
I know that many people have accused Assange of hacking for WikiLeaks, but he vehemently maintains that Wikileaks doesn’t hack for its information. People, mostly whistleblowers, upload their documents the Wikileaks website. There is no hacking involved concerning Wikileaks. If someone hacks a computer server to get documents and then uploads them to Wikileaks, that is not Wikileaks hacking. There is a distinct difference.
Courts have maintained that journalists from outlets like the New York Times or the Washington Post cannot be held liable for government documents that are given to them. So then how come WikiLeaks is treated differently? I remember when the Washington Post, under the George W Bush administration, published classified information on black sites overseas where they were interrogating terrorists, causing serious diplomatic relations problems with other countries for letting that cat out of the bag. Nothing happened to the Washington post.
American officials have accused Assange, 49, of 18 counts relating to Wikileaks’ release of a large number of confidential US military records, along with diplomatic cables that the government argued put lives in danger.
Assange’s lawyers argued that the prosecution was politically-motivated, powered by US President Donald Trump, even though it was started by under the Obama administration, and that his extradition posed a severe threat to the work of journalists.
US prosecutors indicted Assange on 17 espionage charges and a single charge of computer misuse over the publication of the leaked military and diplomatic documents in 2010. Again, other news outlets do not get into trouble when government documents are leaked to them, so why is this any difference?
The 49-year-old Australian activist was arrested again back in September over the charges, which carry a maximum sentence of 175 years in prison.
In the indictment, Assange is charged with conspiring with Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning to decrypt a password to a classified US Defense Department computer.
Assange denies all accounts of scheming with Manning to crack the encrypted password on the DOD computers, and he points out that there isn’t any evidence that anyone’s safety was ever put at risk.
Judge Vanessa Baraitser rejected almost all of Assange’s legal team’s arguments during a heaing at London’s Old Bailey, but she said she would not extradite him to the Unite States because there was a real risk he could commit suicide, and she ordered his discharge.
“Faced with conditions of near total isolation, I am satisfied that the procedures (outline by US authorities) will not prevent Mr. Assange from finding a way to commit suicide,” she said.
Assange’s legal team made the argument that Julian was acting as a journalist, and is therefore entitled to First Amendment protections of Freedom of Speech for publishing the leaked documents that exposed US military wrongdoing in Afghanistan and Iraq. Maybe they should have argue Freedom of the Press?
The judge rejected their claims, saying his conduct “would therefore amount to offences in this jurisdiction that would not be protected by his right to freedom of speech.”
The judge then added that Assange, who has suffered from clinical depression, would be further harmed by the isolation of sitting in a prison cell in the US should he face the American Justice System, saying that he has the “intellect and determination”
The judge added that Assange suffered from clinical depression that would be exacerbated by the isolation he would likely face in US prison, adding he had the “intellect and determination” to bypass any suicide prevention measures the American authorities would take. Just think about what happened to Jeffrey Epstein.
Assange’s many supporters were thrilled with the decision not to extradite him, but at the same time they were not happy that the ruling was made on health grounds.
Stella Moris, Assange’s fiancée, who is the mother of his two young sons, was there are the Old Bailey for the hearing.
After the ruling, Moris said in a statement, “Today is a victory for Julian. Today’s victory is a first step towards justice in this case.”
At long last, the day has come for a judge in Great Britain to rule on whether Julian Assange can be extradited to the United States. Many of you are rooting against that happening.
But, I have some bad news for you, the chances of the judge denying extradition are unlikely. It is rare for such a request to be denied since there is little likelihood that any prisoner here would undergo human rights violations. (Unless Assange is a Republican.)
A U.K. judge will rule Monday on whether WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange should be extradited to the U.S. to face criminal charges after weeks of talk about a possible pardon from Donald Trump.
The decision from a London judge will come after President Trump, whose administration brought the charges, issued a plethora of pardons to political allies. And lawyers say the odds of clemency from Trump are better than a judge buying Assange’s arguments that his human rights will be trampled on in America.
“It’s very rare for the magistrates to refuse extradition requests from the U.S.,” said Anthony Hanratty, a lawyer at BDB Pitmans in London, who specializes in extradition cases. “There’s a quite strong presumption that the U.S. will comply with obligations in relation to human rights and legal process.”
Assange, 49, has been in custody or self-imposed exile in London for the better part of a decade. He initially sought refuge in the Ecuadorian embassy in 2012 rather than face questioning in a Swedish sexual assault case, which was later dropped. Last year, when he was expelled from the embassy, he faced U.S. charges related to WikiLeaks disclosures.
Many people on both sides of the aisle believe Assange just did what any good reporter would do. I have never seen this kind of fuss when the NYT and the WaPo publish classified information, especially if they think it will hurt the Republicans.
Personally, I think the thing that Democrats have against Assange is not the military secrets he revealed but because he published the DNC emails.
If I were them, I would hope he was not extradited. What if he got mad and revealed his source? What if his source was Seth Rich as many suspect it was? They would not want that known.
Those emails revealed the pay to play scheme during Hillary’s reign as Secretary of State.
It also alleged campaign contribution fraud and the fact that the DNC was actively working against Bernie Sanders.
In the predawn hours of Jan. 25, 2019, over a dozen heavily armed FBI agents arrived after CNN News crews were on the scene, arriving by Car, Boat, and Helicopter and raided Roger Stone’s home in South Florida and took into custody one of President Donald J. Trump’s closest longtime confidants an eternal foe to the left and a long time American Political campaign Icon. The footage of the raid hit social media and television in a broadcast by CNN designed to harass and humiliate Stone, his family, supporters, and the supporters of Trump’s.
But how did CNN know what was going to happen, and when, how did they get there so much before the FBI? And if Stone was so dangerous that he needed 12 heavily armed FBI agents in helicopters and boats, why was CNN, a civilian and unarmed news crew, allowed to stay and film before and after the raid?
Here is the footage:
Those questions have been asked in legal motions and have never been answered.
Special Counsel Robert Mueller indicted Stone, claiming Stone was coordinating with Trump officials about “WikiLeaks’ stolen emails.” Stone was convicted in a highly suspicious trial that smacked of a secret state and two-tiered justice system, punished with a circus media trial, bankrupted, denied access to his closest friends, gagged from addressing the corrupt media, denied work, and then Trump eventually pardoned stone.
Now Stone is talking. He still wants to know why this matter was not investigated. Americans should want to know, as well, because if it can happen like that to someone close to the President of the United States, it can happen to the least of us.
Written in 2019 and not answered yet, about CNN knew of the arrest, “Therefore, Roger Stone, by counsel, requests a show cause order directed to the Office of the Special Counsel to show cause why contempt did not occur,” Grant Smith wrote on behalf of stone.
It is unsettled still, the matter of the unjust televised raid by CNN on Stone’s home, showing his arrest. Some question if there are legal consequences for what appears was leaked information to one media company. Were those actions an infringement of Stone’s civil rights?
In court documents, Stone and his lawyer alleging that it was Andrew Weisman who was the last to edit a document containing the arrest information, that it was Weisman who wrote to execute an arrest and search warrant. There is no proof that the CNN reporter who first had the information about the arrest and contacted Stone’s attorney, Sara Murray, got texts or emails from Weisman. Still, those questions should be investigated and could be answered if the Government took the civil liberties of Americans seriously.
CNN reporter Sara Murray emailed my lawyer Grant Smith a draft copy of my indictment three hours before it was unsealed,” Stone told me, and offered me court documents with texts.
“CNN’s claim that they pulled the document off the OSC website is disproved by the way back machine. The OSC did not post the document until it was unsealed. Clearly, CNN was in possession of an illegally leaked document- a felony for the leaker,” he said.
This is important: CNN claims they got the information from a public press release, and Stone continues to dispute that statement- and the Government has refused to investigate the matter, even at Stone’s documented legal request to do so.
Does CNN have any journalistic standards? Any Integrity? If there was no one else there, was the information really public? And did they consider the amount of damage they would cause by filming an arrest that appeared to be made purely out of political revenge?
Here are the documents that Stone alleges prove that CNN was lying about the source of their knowledge of his arrest and the raid on his home.
According to court documents, Timeline for the Morning of January 25, 2019
4:58 am CNN SUV with 2 people arrives and parks on the street directly in front of the Stone residence 6:04 am FBI arrives, and their operations begin 6:04 am CNN jumps out of vehicle and is permitted to begin filming the FBI activities without being asked to leave 6:06 am After Stone is arrested CNN is approached and asked to move vehicle and leave the area 6:06 am Stone walked out in bed clothes 6:11 am CNN calls counsel for Stone to inform of arrest and seek comment 6:22 am CNN provides to counsel for Stone by text message a draft copy of the indictment said to have come from the SCO 8:55 am Clerk’s office enters the unsealing of the Indictment on to the public docket
TEXT MESSAGE FROM CNN
Stone has text messages showing the date and time of the claim that there was a Press Release from SCO.
“Defendant Roger J. Stone, Jr., requests a show-cause order to determine whether the Court’s Order sealing the indictment of Roger J. Stone until his arrest, was violated by the premature release of a draft copy of the sealed indictment, enabling news media to attend and witness Stone’s 6 a.m. arrest.”
“It should be noted that CNN apparently received a copy of Mr. Stone’s Indictment prior to its filing and its unsealing. This is substantiated by the metadata contained within the copy of the Indictment that was sent to me by a reporter contemporaneous with Mr. Stone’s arrest. Curiously, the copy sent to me did not contain the PACER filing notations in its header. It would be of great public interest to understand how that occurred,” Grant Smith, Stone’s attorney wrote.
The letter continued from Smith describing the timeline of Stone’s arrest:
“6:22 am I received a link from CNN Correspondent Sara Murray to the DOJ website where the indictment is posted. (It is important to note that the current copy posted there has the PACER filing confirmation in the header of each page indicating a filing date of 1/24/2019.
The copy that currently appears on the DOJ website is now different from PACER Docket Entry #1 as the one originally in PACER was replaced with a scan of the original with signatures and stamps).
6:22 am I receive, via text message from Sara Murray of CNN, what appears to be a draft copy of the indictment as it has no PACER filing notations in the header. (See attached) This makes the document provided to me different from the copy currently on the DOJ website and would appear to be prior in time to the filing and the unsealing. It is unknown how CNN had obtained a copy of a sealed indictment without a PACER filing header.
BACK TO MOTION TO SHOW CAUSE
Page 3
Additionally, the metadata of the document sent to me, also attached, indicates that the author was “AAW” and that it was created and modified on 1/23/19 at 11:04 pm using Acrobat PDF Maker for Word, a full day before it was filed with the Court under seal.
According to the PACER docket entry, the Indictment was unsealed and entered onto the public docket on January 25, 2019, without a notation as to time. It contained only the initials of the person who created the entry, “zvt.” The Clerk’s office informed counsel for Mr. Stone that the Indictment’s entry into the docket was made on January 25 at 8:55 a.m., more than two-and-a-half-hours after the news reporter sent the “draft” Indictment to counsel, and four hours after the news organization’s camera crew arrived at Mr. Stone’s house to film his arrest on the sealed Indictment.
The Court’s order sealing the Indictment stated: IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the government shall inform the Court as soon as the defendant named in the Indictment is in custody so that the foregoing materials can be unsealed and entered on the public docket. That Stone’s 6:06 a.m. arrest preceded, by three hours, the Court being informed, is par for the course. What is not par for the course is that a news crew knew the time and place of the arrest, and was “staked out” to watch the arrest unfold, having been provided an unfiled, draft copy of the indictment the Court had ordered sealed.
President Donald J. Trump issued a full Presidential pardon to Roger Stone on Wednesday and Stone took the opportunity to deliver a statement full of gratitude as well as pleas to Trump to issue pardons to others.
The following is the full and unedited statement of Roger Stone, from December 23, 2020.
On behalf of my family and myself, I wish to praise God and give my deepest thanks to President Donald J. Trump for his extraordinary act of justice in issuing me a presidential pardon, completely erasing the criminal conviction to which I was subjected in a Soviet-style show trial on politically-motivated charges, further corrupted by egregious, illegal misconduct by the Jury Forewoman in the case.
Just weeks ago, when the US Department of Justice released the last remaining redacted sections of the ‘Mueller Report’ that pertained to my case, the Special Counsel admitted that there was no “factual” evidence whatsoever of coordination, collaboration, or collusion between me, any Russians, WikiLeaks or publisher Julian Assange. Additionally, they found no “factual” evidence that I had advanced knowledge of the precise timing, source, or content of any of WikiLeaks’ 2016 disclosures, including the release of John Podesta’s apparently purloined emails. Even more incredibly, the ‘Mueller Report’ concludes that even if they had found evidence that I had received data from WikiLeaks and disseminated it to anyone, these were perfectly legal, constitutionally-protected actions under the First Amendment. In short: Mueller’s intrusive, lawless, malicious multimillion-dollar witch hunt could find no prosecutable crime against me, other than what they managed to fabricate.
Why am I not shocked that only BuzzFeed, whose lawsuit won the release of this material, the Washington Examiner, and ZeroHedge reported this shocking news? Perhaps it’s because the Justice Department released it at midnight of election day – the busiest news day of the year – in other words, they wanted it buried deep. Or perhaps media outlets like the Washington Post, the New York Times, CNN, MSNBC, NBC, the Business Insider, Politico, and others who gleefully reported lie after lie about me, my case, and the purported “evidence” against me. In fact, the media jackals reported nothing. I have no doubt that the unhinged radical left, who despise both President Trump and me, will now recycle the entirely-false and now thoroughly- the debunked narrative that I “maintained my silence” regarding misconduct by the President in return for the commutation of my sentence and a pardon. Hillary Clinton has said it, Jerry Nadler has said it, Adam Schiff and Hakeem Jeffries have said it, and Eric Swalwell, the communist Chinese-compromised Congressman, echoed it. It’s a lie.
This canard is based on a conversation I had with Howard Fineman that he later misreported on MSNBC. Fortunately, I have Fineman’s text message reaffirming that I never said I ‘knew of criminal misconduct’ by the President or ever said that I maintained my silence to protect him, but rather that I merely repeated what I had said on multiple occasions after the commutation of my sentence, namely that I refused to bear false testimony against the President when the Mueller prosecutors approached by my attorneys seeking my “cooperation” in return for a recommendation for leniency in my sentencing.
Claims falsely made by Michael Cohen and Rick Gates that they overheard conversations between candidate Trump and myself discussing WikiLeaks are not only totally-uncorroborated but also materialized only after the Special Counsel’s legal operators’ induced the two with favorable plea bargains for their other crimes. These manufactured claims are unsupported by any phone records or witnesses, and their sworn testimony is contradicted by their FBI 302 documents released by the Justice Department.
I was charged with “lying to Congress,” even though any misstatements I made to partisan Democrat inquisitors on the House Intelligence Committee concealed nothing material either to their investigation or regarding any underlying crime because there was none. Rod Rosenstein testified to the Senate Judiciary Committee that he did not approve the investigation into my affairs. His statement is belied by his own signed scope-memo authorizing the Special Counsel’s expansion. In other words, Rosenstein lied to Congress under oath. More recently, the Washington Post reported that three top senior nonpolitical career prosecutors denied claims made by Assistant US
Attorney Aaron Zelinsky in sworn testimony to the House Judiciary Committee that they told him they were being pressured by the White House and top administration officials regarding my sentencing, specifically to “go easy on Stone in their sentencing recommendation.” In other words, both Rosenstein and Zelinsky lied to Congress. When will they be prosecuted? Lastly, I want to particularly thank Rev. Franklin Graham for his spiritual guidance, as well as Rev. Randy Coggins, Pastor Mark Burns, Pastor Darrel Scott, Pastor Rod Parsley, Reverend Rodney Howard-Browne, David Clement, Eric Metaxas, Father Michael J. Grady of St. Anthony’s Parrish in Fort Lauderdale, and other men of God who convinced me that reaffirming my faith in Jesus Christ and confessing my sins would bring God’s grace in delivering me from my persecutors. How right they were. The injustice done to me does not stand alone. Other good Americans have been victims of a corrupt system made to serve venal power-seekers, rewarding deceit and manipulation, rather than reason and justice. President Trump can be the purveyor of justice over the vile machinations of wicked pretenders to the mantle of public service.
I hope the president will consider granting full and unconditional pardons to Julian Assange, Edward Snowden, Marcus Garvey, and Former Secret Service Agent Abraham W. Bolden, Sr.
James O’Keefe released audio footage of Julian Assange, the founder of Wikileaks, talking to Cliff Johnson, an attorney from the US State Department, about what appears to be a discussion over a “dangerous leak.”
“We have been calling the US State Department for a day to explain the urgency and they have not called back,” Assange said in 2011 when the State Department was under the leadership of Hillary R. Clinton.
O’Keefe posted on Twitter:
“Julian Assange to Hillary Clinton’s State Department following the theft of 250,000 diplomatic cables from @Wikileaks: “In case there are any individuals who haven’t been warned…they should be warned.”
The footage, O’Keefe described as from August 26, 2011 and said the two were discussion State Department documents.
The video starts with the introduction of Cliff Johnson, an attorney for the US State Department, and Assange is heard saying, ” Thank you for calling back. Have you been briefed? Yes, so the situation is that we have intelligence that the State Department Database Archive of 250,000 diplomatic cables, including declassified cables, is being spread around and is to the degree that we believe that it is in the next few days will become public. We are not sure but the timing could be imminently or within the next few days to a week and there may be some possibility to stop it,” Assange said.
Veritas adds, “The Documents originally obtained by Assange and Wikileaks were to be redacted by Wikileaks before any release, but were stolen.”
The video goes on, Cliff Johnson asks, ” And who would be releasing these cables? Is this Wikileaks?”
“No. We would not be releasing them,” Assange responds. “This is Daniel Domscheit-Borg, a previous employee that we suspended last August,” Assange said.
Johnsons asks,” So e apparently has access to the materials that Wikleaks also has?”
Assange answers,”yes that is correct.”
Johnson: “And he has access to everything you have, is that correct?”
Assange: “That is correct.”
Johnson: “Ok. And that includes classified as well as unclassified cables?”
Assange: “That is correct.”
Johnson: “I see, and in terms of what they took does that mean that they now have the ability themselves without your control or authorization to make this as available as they want?”
Assange: “That is correct. There is no attempt at redaction program and no attempt at harm minimization.”
Project Veritas added: “Assange believed there was great danger to US Agents and interests with the publication of the unredacted documents.”
Assange: “In case there are any individuals who haven’t been warned that they should be warned.”
The video shows that Assange was acting in assistance to the US Government. ANd that the information was out there and not under his control. Veritas said that Assange also thought the US may have blocked or slowed the publication by eliminating some of the files covertly.
Assange offered advice on how to slow or stop the breech.
Opinion| Lawrence David| Keep alive the Russian collusion hoax at all costs… it’s all that the corrupt democrats, who turned our intelligence community into their personal dirty tricks campaign operation, have left before U.S. Attorney John Durham drops the sledgehammer of truth.
The appointment of a special counsel was a sham from the outset.
The alleged collusion between candidate Donald Trump and Russia was never substantiated. In fact, the dossier used by Team Obama as evidence to convince the FISA court to allow the surveillance of a political enemy, had been discredited as early as January 12, 2017.
Don’t take our word for it… Here’s Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s findings:
That was prior to the inauguration of incoming-President Trump. More importantly, that was four months prior to the appointment of the special counsel.
Significantly, no incriminating evidence linking then-President Trump to Russia was found during those four months of continued FBI investigations.
It can now be said with near certainty that the special counsel had been instituted to cover up a history of illegal surveillance by the Obama administration.
As long as the special counsel had an obstruction of justice charge handing over President Trump like the Sword of Damocles, and the opposition media ready to crucify him, the president was blocked from declassifying key documents that would have proved his innocence.
Trump couldn’t declassify anything lest the special counsel slap him with obstruction charges and the Marxist media burn him at the stake.
Beyond that, the special counsel proceeded authorizing FISA warrants based on the same false premise so that they could continue what can only be described as a witch hunt against the president, his family, and his associates.
As you read on keep in mind that Mueller’s team of handpicked hangmen brought no indictments for any substantive crimes related to Russian collusion, likely because they understood the scrutiny of a trial would expose the thin reed their case was built on as the product of an overactive imagination.
Robert Mueller’s recent op-ed attempts to justify the FBI ever opening the investigation…
Mueller: “By late 2016, the FBI had evidence that the Russians had signaled to a Trump campaign adviser that they could assist the campaign through the anonymous release of information damaging to the Democratic candidate.”
That’s a level of conflation worthy of Adam Schiff…
“The recently declassified FBI electronic communication (EC) that officially opened its Russia investigation, code-named Crossfire Hurricane, states that Downer had told the U.S. government that Papadopoulos had “suggested the Trump team had received some kind of suggestion from Russia that it could assist” the Trump campaign by anonymously releasing damaging, yet “unclear,” information about Clinton and President Obama. Not only was this tip vague, there was no evidence that the “some kind of suggestion” actually came from the Russian government or even a Russian national…
“… Speaking to the House Intelligence Committee, [former FBI deputy director Andrew] McCabe said the Papadopoulos-Mifsud tip was not considered evidence of a Russia connection.” (Go deep)
In the words of the FBI counterintelligence expert, Peter Strzok, there was no there, there.
But, protecting the Obama administration’s prior illegal surveillance continuing the Russia hoax became critical to the future legitimacy of the Democratic Party.
That explains why three days after Mueller’s piece was published, the top prosecutor on his team, Andrew Weissmann, published his own op-ed in the New York Times.
Weissmann effectively called for longtime Trump confidant Roger Stone to be brought “before a grand jury.” Stone was accused of being an intermediary between Russian hackers and WikiLeaks, something Mueller/Weissmann never proved but for which Stone was found guilty of lying about in a fixed trial.
Why the special counsel’s 22-month long investigation, led by Weissmann didn’t indict Stone is best explained this way;
There was no there, there and a deep dive during a trial during which, perhaps, just maybe, could expose the falsity behind the Russia hoax; that Russia and Wikileaks never consorted and might expose the possibility that the source of the DNC emails was a disenchanted DNC operative, S*** R***.
Those people who care to examine the evidence, as it becomes declassified, will see that the entire Mueller investigation was empowered only to prevent President Trump from maintaining his campaign promise:
“Our movement is about replacing a failed and corrupt establishment with a new government, controlled by you, the American people.
“The Washington establishment and the financial and media corporations that fund it exists for only one reason, to protect and enrich itself.
“The establishment has trillions of dollars at stake in this election for those who control the levers of power in Washington.
“And for the global special interests they partner with, these people that don’t have your good in mind, our campaign represents a true existential threat…
