Shocking News: The Truth About The Pardon Trump Offered Assange


Today most of the headlines are reading that Julian Assange’s lawyers stated that Assange was offered a pardon if he testified that Russia didn’t steal the DNC leaks.  All the MSM is having a field day with this claiming that Trump offered it on the condition that Assange help “cover-up” the Russian hacking.  The problem with these articles is it simply isn’t true.  Assange stated months before in January of 2017 that he did not receive the emails from Russia.  (For a video with Hannity where he states this see here. or a video with John Pilger

Interviews and articles dating back to when January of 2017 prove that Assange was already stating he didn’t receive the emails and leaks from Russia.  According to the headlines today, Dana Rohrabacher offered the pardon to Julian Assange on his visit.  The problem with it is that Rohrabacher didn’t visit Assange until August of 2017.  So, Assange was already stating Russia didn’t give him the info months before, as seen in the Wikileaks tweet below).

wiki 1

Of course, the White House insists that Trump does not even know Rohrabacher and no such offer was made.  The MSM needs to get this right. First Trump tried to coerce Assange with a pardon when that didn’t work, he had him indicted.

Assange did not want to be pardoned because it would be an admission of guilt.  What matters to Assange was the effect it would have on free speech and free press.  Rand Paul suggested Assange be given immunity if he was willing to testify in this case. (Article can be seen here.) This is a totally different scenario than what MSM is trying to produce.  Finally, Trump has remained silent on the extradition of Assange after saying he loved Wikileaks 150 times pre-election.  He claims now that Wikileaks is not his thing

So, since the White House is denying offering Assange a pardon, the question you must ask yourself is who is lying?  Let’s look at the evidence of Trump talking about Wikileaks.  Here is a youtube video showing Trump pre-election:

Then in April, after Assange was brutally kidnapped from the Embassy and arrested, Trump said the following according to washington post article:

But on Thursday, after the Justice Department unsealed an indictment charging Assange for actions stemming from WikiLeaks’ 2010 publication of classified diplomatic and military documents, Trump acted as if he’d never heard of the anti-secrecy group.“I know nothing about WikiLeaks. It’s not my thing,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office. “I know there is something having to do with Julian Assange.”

Wait… what?  So, who is the liar in this?  How can you love something and not know nothing about it?  His statement is recorded by many MSM articles if you would like to see.

Sadly, even the Guardian calls out the obvious lie.  It’s either Trump is lying or he has a memory issue.  If the case is his memory, then he doesn’t belong in the oval office in my opinion.

My point being, if you lied about loving Wikileaks when they were exposing your opponent, why wouldn’t you lie now? Here is another question I ask you the reader, are the indictments against Assange revenge for him refusing to be coerced or are they an attack on a free press or both?

The trial starting next Tuesday should be interesting, to say the least. I think we are in for an explosive amount of details that most never heard before.  Hopefully, it ends with a free Julian Assange.



Buckingham Palace Has Called Assange’s Case Political: Why That Matters


A tweet from Chris Lonsdale, shown below, contains a response to a letter he wrote to Buckingham Palace concerning the extradition of Julian Assange to the U.S.  In the response, a spokesperson stated that the case was political.


A lot of people are upset by the statement above which reads specifically:

“I must tell you, however, that as a Constitutional Sovereign, Her majesty acts on the advice of her Ministers and remains strictly non-political at all times. This is, therefore, a matter which the Queen cannot intervene.”

This statement actually may backfire.  You see, according to the Extradition Treaty between the U.S. and U.K.  According to an article by

“Another defense available to Assange—and perhaps his most formidable one—will be to assert that he is being charged with a political offense. If that assertion is deemed correct, it could block his extradition, because, like many extradition agreements, the US-UK treaty forbids any transfer based on such charges. The categorical prohibition under Article 4 of the treaty could not be clearer: “Extradition shall not be granted if the offense for which extradition is requested is a political offense.”

But what is a political offense? Transgressions such as espionage, sedition, and treason are what are known as “pure” political offenses, including underUK law—that is to say, activities that directly target the state but that would not necessarily be criminal in other contexts. A related category, known as “relative” political offenses, covers common crimes that are incidental to purely political activities. Because various jurisdictions have interpreted the expansiveness of this political exception differently over time, a universal definition of a relative political offense is difficult to articulate, but the basic principle of the political exception in extradition has remained unchanged since its origins in the late nineteenth century. It states, in brief, that nations should not return political opponents to face prosecution for challenging the states that would sit in judgement of them.”

The Queen’s statement just made Assange’s extradition illegal according to their extradition treaty.  Technically, he cannot be sent to the United States.  Keep in mind, the U.S. is refusing to extradite a woman accused of killing Harry Dunn on diplomatic issues, claiming she is a diplomat’s wife when in fact she is CIA.  The U.K. could easily back out of this case by using its own treaty to justify saving Assange.

The only question that remains then is will the British judicial system abide by its own laws?

Julian Assange Today: New Updates


It appears that even Queen Elizabeth views the extradition and persecution of Assange is politically motivated. In an article by RT, (seen here), a Buckingham Palace spokesperson stated the following:

“The Queen will not intervene to release Julian Assange, vowing to remain “non-political.”

This statement alone makes the extradition of Assange illegal through the extradition treaty between the U.S. and U.K. governments as it states the following:

“Extradition shall not be granted if the offense for which extradition is requested is a political offense.”

When even the Queen of England won’t intervene because it is a political matter, it is obvious to extradite him would be illegal and against the very treaty he would be extradited under. Why are more people not out on the streets screaming about this?

George Christensen, a federal MP in Tasmania, posted this on Facebook today:

“Earlier today, Andrew Wilkie MP and I met with the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture Nils Melzer. Prof Melzer advises that he and other medical experts had examined imprisoned Australian journalist Julian Assange and recognised he had the symptoms of psychological torture. Prof Melzer believes this to be the result of ongoing isolation and also the lack of fairness and adherence to protocol in the legal and juridical systems that Assange had been exposed to.”


pictured left to right, George Christensen, Nils Melzer and Andrew Wilkie MP

Wilkie and Christensen will be visiting Assange in Belmarsh on Tuesday. In an article by the Sydney Morning Herald, seen here:

Mr. Wilkie said, “Mr. Assange “was clearly publishing information in the public interest”.

“He had hard evidence of US war crimes,” he said. “Now the country guilty of the war crimes is trying to get a hold of him. For the Australian government to be going along with this is unconscionable.

“The whole thing is mad from start to finish.”

Mr. Wilkie said his two objectives were “for the extradition to be dropped and for Assange to be returned to Australia”.

When you add to the fact the Queen sees this as political, the CIA spied on Assange and his lawyers using a Spanish security agency, they have tortured Assange for over 9 years and the U.S. refuses to extradite Anne Sacoolas, a CIA agent, claiming she is the wife of a diplomat, the U.K. would literally be showing their submission to the U.S. empire. There is nothing worse than a western country bowing as though it is a servant to another country in an act of fear.

Support for Assange is growing worldwide, the question that remains is will it be soon enough to save the Wikileaks founder. Will enough people fight for free speech and free press to end this travesty? We will know soon enough.

List Of Assange Vigils on February 24th in Countries Around the World


In an amazing effort to free the Wikileaks founder, Julian Assange, from the clutches of the U.S. empire, supporters around the world have banned together for the extradition trial. I have compiled a list of vigils worldwide. Please share. Also if you are having one not listed contact me and I will add to the list below.

24 FEB Global Free Assange Protest:


Wellington 12 Noon Parliament Steps

AUCKLAND 12 noon UK Consulate


BRISBANE 9AM – 5PM UK Consulate 100 Eagle St (daily)

SYDNEY 12 NOON Martin Place Amphitheater

MELBOURNE 10AM – 5PM British Consulate

Alice Springs 2 pm onwards, Council Lawns, Vigil and Information Stall.

ADELAIDE 5PM Parliament Steps


24 Feb 2020 SEOUL 2PM – 8PM Square outside Hyundai U Dept Store



Kapnikarea 6PM Συγκέντρωση για τον Julian Assange


24 Feb 2020 LJUBLJANA, SLOVENIA – UK Embassy 3PM


24 Feb 2020 AMSTERDAM 12 NOON Museumplein (Near AH)

(Main protest on Saturday 22 Feb same time and location)


24 Feb 2020 NICE 6PM Place Girabaldi Nice

PARIS – LONDON (23rd Feb 8PM – 25th Feb 8AM)


4.30PM Helvetiaplatz


24 Feb 2020 BRUSSELS, BELGIUM 5PM UK Consulate 10 Ave d’Auderghem Comite Free Assange Belgium on FB (Otherwise Weekly MONDAY at Place De la Monnaie)


24 Feb 2020 EDINBURGH 10.30AM – 1PM Parliament Building


24 Feb 2020 LONDON 9.30AM Belmarsh Prison 4 Belmarsh Road, Thamesmead SE28 0HA

*MAIN PROTEST* (all week)


DUBLIN, IRELAND 10AM British Embassy Dublin


24 Feb 2020 NEW YORK, USA 11AM – 1PM British Consulate 885 Second Ave (47th)

24 Feb 2020 WASHINGTON DC, USA 12 NOON Whitehouse March to DOJ


crew (Events planned ALL WEEK) More info. available at

24 Feb 2020 DENVER, USA 4PM – 6PM Union Station

24 Feb 2020 SAN FRANCISCO, USA 12 NOON UK Consulate, 1 Sansome Street, San Francisco


24 Feb 2020 MEXICO CITY 11AM UK Embassy: Calle Río Lerma 71, Cuauhtémoc

MEXICO CITY 3.30PM UK Embassy – March to USA Embassy Calle Río Lerma 71, Cuauhtémoc

22 February 2020

LONDON 11.3h OZ House to ParlimntSQ w/

BASEL 14h 1 munsterbrg

STOCKHOLM 12h Soltorget Sigyn Meder on FB

AMSTERDAM 12h Museumplein(AH)

25 February 2020 (Tues)

WASHINGTON DC 12h Washington Post MEDIA HQ Tour!

LONDON 18h St Pancras New Church ‘Imperialism On Trial’

28 February 2020 (Friday)

VICTORIA BC 19.3h 761 StationAve #Jam4Assange

ROCKHAMPTON 9h 20 EastSt #Walk4Assange FreeAssangeCQ

WASHINGTON DC 12h Whitehouse March to D.O.J

HOBART, TASMANIA 12.30h Hobart Parliament Lawns

Rally for #JulianAssange hosted by Free Assange Hobart Speakers incl. President of

Fabian Cangelosi & Founder of

Tasmania Tristan Sykes

STOCKHOLM 12h Soltorget

In solidarity w/

GLOBAL protest when Assange’s extradition hearings start Sweden will not stay silent, we are with Assange! #PressFreedom #Sweden4Assange

Does Assange Stand A Chance At Justice in the United Kingdom?


I wish the answer was yes but it’s unlikely at this point.  At least with Judge Vanessa Baraitser at the helm.  It is obvious in her treatment in prior hearings she already has formed an opinion without ever knowing the plaintiff himself.  She has allowed him to be tortured and lawyer’s access to their client has been almost zero.  With 7 days until the trial actually begins, he still has not had a half a dozen meetings with his lawyers to prepare his defense.  Is that justice or just a show trial?

What about the fact that he is spent much of his time in solitary confinement only to be released a few short weeks ago?  Did they release him because of the many petitions from supporters and inmates or because his trial starts soon and they want him at his best for appearance sake?  They have withheld his mail, put him in a “hot box” prior to a hearing, limited his access to legal documents and the internet and library and who knows what else has happened.  This is not justice in itself.

We also know that the actual judge assigned to this case, Lady Arbuthnot, is compromised due to her husband and son being exposed.  Wikileaks exposed her husband’s wrongdoings and Arbuthnot’s son is connected to a national security agency in the U.S.  Baraitser is under Arbuthnot.  Fair trial?  I think not.  Prejudice is apparent and a decision has probably already been made.

Assange’s hope lies in the fact that the CIA spied on him and his lawyers through a Spanish security agency while in the embassy.  It also may help that the U.S. has refused to extradite Anne Sacoolas, wife of a U.S. diplomat, accused in the death of Harry Dunn.  (See article here). By using diplomatic immunity, in this case, it further renders Assange’s extradition moot as Ecuador once gave him the title of a diplomat.  It also further renders the U.S./ U.K. extradition treaty moot.  If the U.S. cannot keep its side of the bargain, why should British authorities?

According to the Business Insider, (article seen here), Trump and Johnson are feuding.

UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson has canceled a trip to the US planned for next month after a furious phone call from President Donald Trump in which Trump slammed down the phone on the prime minister.

Johnson had been due to visit Washington last month but repeatedly delayed the trip after a series of rows with the president over Iran, Huawei, and a rejected request by the prime minister to extradite the wife of a US diplomat.

The disagreements culminated in a phone call last month in which Trump hung up on Johnson, according to officials with knowledge of the conversation.

Johnson has now canceled his trip altogether, and is not planning on visiting the country until the G7 summit in June.

In an article by WSWS seen here, Jeremy Corbyn, who remained silent for the last ten months on the subject of Assange, asked Boris Johnson about the extradition of Assange.

In a question to Prime Minister Boris Johnson in the House of Commons yesterday, Jeremy Corbyn condemned the attempt to extradite WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange to the United States.

During Prime Minister’s Questions, he cited a recent report by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe branding the attempt to extradite Assange as a “threat to all journalists.” The Labour leader said that Assange had been charged by the US “for exposure of war crimes, the murder of civilians and large-scale corruption.”

He asked: “Will the prime minister agree with the parliamentary report that’s going to the Council of Europe that this extradition should be opposed and the rights of journalists and whistleblowers upheld for the good of all of us?”

Johnson, whose chief ally is President Donald Trump and who gloated over Assange’s arrest last year, declared that he would “not mention any individual cases,” before absurdly claiming that his government would “continue to uphold” “the rights of journalists and whistleblowers.”

The question still remains, will justice be served in this case or will it take an uprising to save Assange from literal extermination in the United States?

Targeting Assange Supporters: Results of my Personal FOIA request to the FBI


img_20200125_1421252100542943.jpgIn recent months I received an email from Google stating my emails had been subpoenaed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.  After seeing someone else who had their emails subpoenaed as well, I decided to look into this further through a lawyer friend.  He suggested putting in for an FOIA request with my name and alias which he charged me 25 dollars to take care of.  He had hoped by being a lawyer he would get better results.  This is the part of the response sent to me afterward.  I have not included some personal info that was in the letter.



It makes me wonder how many others have files on them.  If you are wondering, here is the link on how to request your FOIA:

What Assange Faces If Extradited: The Darkest Corners of U.S. Prisons


In January, at a routine hearing for the Julian Assange case, U.S. attorneys explained to the court the “special circumstances” in which Assange is to be held stateside.  They intend to hold him in what is known as the darkest corner of the U.S. prison system.  This means that he will have little if any human contact and only with a handful of approved individuals.  This also silences his lawyers.  It is a special kind of torture that results in the prisoner having no contact with the outside world whatsoever.  This is worse than solitary confinement and enables the country to perform other types of torture without public scrutiny or knowledge.

In a report seen here:

 “SAMs are
the darkest corner of the U.S. federal prison system, combining the brutality and isolation of maximum security units with additional restrictions that deny individuals almost any connection to the human world.
Those restrictions include gag orders on prisoners, their family members, and their attorneys, effectively shielding this extreme use of government power from public view.

SAMs deny prisoners the narrow avenues of indirect communication – through sink drains or air vents –
available to prisoners in solitary confinement. They prohibit social contact with anyone except for a few immediate family members, and heavily regulate even those contacts. And they further prohibit prisoners from connecting to the social world via current media and news, limiting prisoners’ access to information to outdated, government-approved materials. Even a prisoner’s communications with his lawyer – which are supposed to be protected by attorney-client privilege – can be subject to monitoring by the FBI.
The U.S. Attorney General has sole discretion to impose SAMs, and a prisoner lacks the most basic procedural protections to allow him to contest the SAMs designation. Indeed, prisoners may be left in the dark as to why they have been subjected to SAMs, because the Attorney General’s justification often cites little more than the prisoner’s charges or conviction. Many prisoners remain under these conditions indefinitely, for years or in some cases even decades.
And court challenges are difficult. For convicted prisoners in particular, the regulations operate to obstruct their access to counsel, impeding the act of filing a challenge. And even when prisoners can bring challenges, courts routinely rule against them,
accepting the government’s vague national security justifications.5
The imposition of SAMs extends beyond convicted prisoners. Federal prosecutors regularly request that the Attorney General place defendants under these punishing conditions while they await trial, beforethey have been convicted of any crime. In numerous cases, the Attorney General recommends lifting SAMs after the defendant pleads guilty. This practice erodes defendants’ presumption of innocence and serves as a tool to coerce them into cooperating with the government and pleading guilty. Indeed, the Central Intelligence Agency (“CIA”) for years relied on the torture of isolation and sensory deprivation as a tool to elicit what it termed “learned helplessness” in detainees suspected of terrorism. For those defendants who do fight their charges at trial, SAMs infect the entire proceeding, limiting prisoners’ capacity to participate in their defense and hindering their attorneys’ abilities to investigate and zealously advocate. 

In addition to shrinking the entirety of the prisoner’s world to the four corners of his prison cell, SAMs prevent anyone else from understanding what happens within. Prisoners under SAMs are prohibited from communicating with anyone except a few pre-approved individuals – their attorneys and immediate family members – and SAMs prohibit those individuals from repeating the prisoner’s words to anyone else. There is also an explicit prohibition on all forms of communication with the media. In effect, the regulations silence those most qualified to attest to the harms of SAMs. The Department of Justice (“DOJ”) further shrouds SAMs under a veil of secrecy by concealing who is subject to these conditions and why. Indeed, the DOJ and Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) consistently ignore or deny Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) requests seeking basic information about prisoners under SAMs. The psychological and physiological harms are thus hidden from public oversight and democratic

Many seem to think that Assange would be better off if extradited, but this is not the case as the U.S. government intends to try him without his Constitutional rights.  We will have no way of knowing what happens to him while awaiting trial.  If Chelsea Manning’s torture while incarcerated is any example, Assange faces a terrible injustice ahead.  If the threats found in the Strafor Emails seen below are to be used, Assange will be systematically tortured for publishing war crimes without ever being convicted.




In an article I shared earlier titled Why Assange Fears Extradition to the U.S., I explain what his lawyers stated in a court hearing which convicted him of bail jumping for seeking political asylum:

In a summary of the court hearing seen here by Catherine Brown, the defense shows the torture techniques used on Chelsea Manning which included one year in solitary confinement.

“She was held in military detention under conditions of sleep deprivation, kept naked, and forced to parade as such in front of military personnel.

Just to remind you, there were two cases involved the surrender of people by Sweden to Egypt – a state well known to practice torture – with the active assistance of America. They are not isolated cases, as the judgments make clear, and America’s involvement can be made clear at para 10.2 of the [Aguisa – sp.?] judgement, in which the circumstances of their expulsion are set out.

[The details of the people involved in one such case:] They were handcuffed at Stockholm airport. A private plane of the US landed. They were stripped – their clothes were cut off them. Suppositories were placed in their penises. They were dressed in nappies. They were chained to specially-designed stress harnesses for the duration of their transit.”

In the same article seen above:

Another statement found in the Wikileaks Stratfor emails states:

“Burton also says he “would pursue [c]onspiracy and [p]olitical [t]errorism charges and declassify the death of a source someone which [he] could link to Wiki” (1074383). Burton’s strategy is to: “[b]ankrupt the arsehole first,” Burton states, “ruin his life. Give him 7-12 yrs for conspiracy.”

“The owner [Julian Assange] is a peacenik. He needs his head dunked in a full toilet bowl at Gitmo.”

Furthermore, even the U.N. special rapporteur on torture, Nils Melzer, has stated that Assange is facing a show trial and stands no chance in the U.S.  Especially since the CIA had been spying on him through a Spanish security agency while he was in the embassy and obtained video and audio of his meetings with his attorneys.  This simply is against all laws and his human rights.  If you can advocate for his extradition after seeing these facts, you do not support Julian Assange.

If the U.K. courts rule to extradite Assange, they are literally signing his death warrant.  Julian Assange has no chance of surviving in the U.S. prison systems.  We, as free citizens, must fight for his rights and in doing so, ensure future generations of their own rights as humans.

Is Assange Covered By The Same Constitutional Rights As U.S. Citizens?

The answer is definitely, yes! Here is why…

The U.S. government is attempting to set a dangerous precedent not only against journalists but its own Constitution by stating in last Thursday’s Assange hearing. They say that Julian Assange has no rights in this case as a foreigner. The problem with this statement is very clear. The Constitution of the United States was written to protect human rights against government that seeks to harm the individual.

The Founding Fathers had just declared independence from England who ruled them with an iron fist, taking away their rights while taxing them literally to death. After winning the Revolutionary War, those who fought so valiantly for their freedom and their rights wanted to make sure it could not be taken away. So they put together a Constitution and a bill of rights to protect the people.

Mind you, when they fought for independence they were not citizens of the United States yet. They didn’t just want to protect themselves but everyone. A key part of the Declaration of Independence says the following:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Notice there is no mention of those rights are not for certain people, but all men. You cannot bring a foreign national on to American soil and prosecute him under U.S. laws and not give him certain inalienable rights.

In an article in Forbes magazine seen Here:

How does the Constitution apply to a non-citizen?

The same way it applied to enemy combatants held at the U.S. base in Guantanamo Bay in a 2008 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Boumediene v. Bush, which held that the basic right of habeas corpus to challenge illegal detentions extends even to non-citizens on foreign territory.

Also in an article seen here:

There is a misconception that the U.S. Constitution applies only to U.S. citizens. Some passages and phrases in our laws explicitly state only “citizens” are afforded certain rights, such as the right to vote. When the terms “resident” or “person” is used instead of citizen, the rights and privileges afforded are extended to protect citizens and non-citizens alike. Moreover, protections under the 14th Amendment ensure that no particular group is discriminated against unlawfully.

Bill of Rights

Nowhere in the first 10 amendments to the Constitution is the word “citizen.” Often it is written “The right of the people…” The Bill of Rights protects everyone, including undocumented immigrants, to exercise free speech, religion, assembly, and to be free from unlawful government interference.

The fact is, our government thinks it can decide who has rights and who doesn’t as in the case of Mr. Assange. If we allow them to do this to a foreign journalist then they can decide who else has rights including citizens of the United States. The American lawyers in the case of Julian Assange are violating our rights by choosing to ignore the Constitution. They are not the Supreme Court, they are simply lawyers. In fact, not even the State Department or the president has a right to decide who is covered under the Constitution.

Yet another article from Learn Liberty as shown here makes the following statement:

Immigration restrictionists sometimes claim that noncitizens have no rights under the Constitution, and that the US government is therefore free to deal with them in whatever way it wants. At least as a general rule, this claim is simply false.

Noncitizens undeniably have a wide range of rights under the Constitution. Indeed, within the borders of the United States, they have most of the same rights as citizens do, and longstanding Supreme Court precedent bans most state laws discriminating against noncitizens. There is little if any serious controversy among experts over this matter.

Simply put, the U.S. government and its lawyers in this case, are doing something very illegal by stating Assange has no free speech or free press rights. Will Americans allow their government to destroy a man? Will they permit such a travesty of justice to stand? Will they allow the Constitution to be ignored? Or will they fight against this precedent and stand up for their own rights in process?

Sex, Lies and Assange





Now that I have your full attention…

Someone told me today I have a one-track mind. Yeah, I guess I do. Freeing Assange is extremely important. It sets a precedent against freedom and by God, that IS IMPORTANT!

Do you like being able to speak your mind without being arrested?
Guess what? If we allow Assange to be extradited and convicted it sets a legal precedent to SILENCE YOU!!!!

Are you sick of seeing your favorite independent journalists removed from social media?
First, they took Assange.
This is how censorship works. Once you silence one of the truthtellers, it leads to silencing them all. Soon all you have is propaganda…

Something is really wrong with a society who allows war criminals who have committed despicable crimes to grow free but indicts a journalist who exposed those war crimes to 175 years in prison.
All Julian Assange ever wanted was two things. ..
1. Justice for the innocent.
2. Governments held accountable for their criminal activity.
Are the American people going to allow a man to be destroyed and tortured for telling them the truth?

We have a right to hold our government accountable for its crimes against humanity. If we allow the free press to become a thing of the past, our ability to know when our government commits atrocities will be gone forever. We will be no better off than NAZI Germany.

The US government likes to frame people who speak out against their crimes. They like to make the good look evil to validate when they martyr them. When they silenced Assange, they silenced the voice of the people. He stood up for those who had no voice. Now we need to stand up for him. Tell your elected officials via phone, letter or postcard they will be held accountable if they do not Free Assange.

They framed Assange with fake allegations of sex crimes, going so far as to change the supposed victims’ testimonies in Sweden. Nils Melzer, the U.N. rapporteur on torture reveals the whole treacherous story here.

After you read that, you realize just how bad 3 governments wanted to silence Assange.  Those governments include the United Kingdom, Australia, and the United States but mostly the title of tyrannical goes to the U.S. government.  The U.S. government seeks to murder Assange after having the U.K. do its dirty work by abducting him from the Ecuadorian Embassy and having Ecuador revoke his asylum.  This is a crime against humanity.

I personally am sick of my government destroying my rights, taxing me so they can wage wars and steal from the poor. I am sick of the lies both sides tell. I want my government held accountable for its crimes. Without Assange, we have no hope of ever being able to do so. Our government seeks to set a precedent than any journalist who publishes government crimes will be prosecuted under the Espionage Act. By spying on Assange, they seek to make it possible to make spying on is legal. This is against our 4th amendment rights!

After spying on Assange, how can he even hope to get a fair trial in the U.S.?  He simply cannot.  Any hope for justice at all is lost. In the above mentioned article, Nils states the following:

You’re saying that the targeting of Assange threatens the very core of press freedoms.
‘Let’s see where we will be in 20 years if Assange is convicted – what you will still be able to write then as a journalist. I am convinced that we are in serious danger of losing press freedoms. It’s already happening: Suddenly, the headquarters of ABC News in Australia was raided in connection with the «Afghan War Diary». The reason? Once again, the press uncovered misconduct by representatives of the state. In order for the division of powers to work, the state must be monitored by the press as the fourth estate. WikiLeaks is a the logical consequence of an ongoing process of expanded secrecy: If the truth can no longer be examined because everything is kept secret, if investigation reports on the U.S. government’s torture policy are kept secret and when even large sections of the published summary are redacted, leaks are at some point inevitably the result. WikiLeaks is the consequence of rampant secrecy and reflects the lack of transparency in our modern political system. There are, of course, areas where secrecy can be vital. But if we no longer know what our governments are doing and the criteria they are following, if crimes are no longer being investigated, then it represents a grave danger to societal integrity.’

What are the consequences?
“As the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture and, before that, as a Red Cross delegate, I have seen lots of horrors and violence and have seen how quickly peaceful countries like Yugoslavia or Rwanda can transform into infernos. At the roots of such developments are always a lack of transparency and unbridled political or economic power combined with the naivete, indifference and malleability of the population. Suddenly, that which always happened to the other – unpunished torture, rape, expulsion and murder – can just as easily happen to us or our children. And nobody will care. I can promise you that.”

He also states:

“A murderous system is being created before our eyes…”

People, we must open our eyes.  We must leave our comfort zones and end this now! We must free Assange and by doing so, free ourselves from the arms of our tarantula-like leaders who seek to devour our freedoms like a vampire feeds on blood.  We must fight for what is left of our rights as individuals through the fight the free Assange.

Julian Assange Today: Nominated for Nobel Peace Prize, John Shipton, EU Council and more

Updates on Julian Assange

In a tweet by Oscar Parilli, a senator in Argentina, stated the following:

Nominamos a #JulianAssange y WikiLeaks para el Premio Nobel de la Paz, como uno de los contribuyentes más importantes a la libertad de expresión y la transparencia en el siglo XXI, impactando directamente la paz global.

Translation below:

This makes 8 times I do believe. How can a man like Pompeo attack Assange with statements like selfish and arrogant as well as calling Wikileaks “a non-state hostile intelligence agency” which basically is calling them terrorists when Assange has been nominated that many times?
He did his job as a journalist as well as an editor. He is not arrogant and selfish but is called generous and humble by many who know him personally. To me, this attack by now Secretary of State was made to attempt invalidate #Vault7 and to take the focus off himself as CIA director and his agency for spying on American citizens. As well as a ploy to get vengeance on the editor. Pompeo is also the “diplomat” who helped coerce Ecuador by bribing them with a 5.6 billion IMF loan to end Assange’s political asylum at the embassy in London.

In other news, the EU council met earlier this week and has demanded the release of Julian Assange.

Even though the British government is leaving the EU they still have numerous trade deals in place. If they do not comply with this ruling, how will it affect their economy? How will other European countries and the world view their obvious human rights violations? (This includes their abduction of Assange from the Ecuadorian embassy).

Keeping him in Belmarsh, (nicknamed “Britain’s Gitmo” and “Hellmarsh”), which is a Category A prison, while he is on remand is not only a distorted atrocity but puts him in danger. Belmarsh holds terrorists murderers and rapists. Assange is an intellectual. He is gentle, kind and humble. He does not deserve to be in a supermax prison.
The U.N. has also called for his release several times as well as the Mexican President and other organizations.
However, Amnesty International refuses to back this up, claiming Assange’s case it not one of conscience. If this is not a case that Amnesty is willing to fight what the hell is?

In an article from Sputnik where John Shipton, Assange’s father, was interviewed, John states the following (article seen here):

Sputnik: And what was his condition like?

John Shipton:Pretty dire. [United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment Nils] Melzer’s and the doctors’ – the 160 doctors, – analysis or diagnosis is pretty sharp.

Sputnik: Recently it was also announced that US government is lagging in its legal submissions in relation to the extradition case at least; the documents that it submitted to the relevant party senior in the UK, that the Trump administration is claiming that protections under the First Amendment of US Constitution as they relate to freedom of the press and freedom of speech, don’t apply to foreign journalists. Have you heard? Are you aware of that claim?

John Shipton:Yes, I see that they keep on extending their claims to continue with the judicial abduction of Julian. If I can make the point that over the last 10 years the United States has introduced a policy. The policy covers two areas. One is that of judicial abduction, rewriting extradition treaties between nations, any nation that they could rewrite to simplify extradition. The other is extrajudicial murder. So, in the case of judicial abduction, there is Mike Lynch, Julian Assange, Ola Bini, and the Chief Executive Officer of Huawei. They abduct people who are journalists or who have the knowledge of technology that the United States wants. The parallel policy is extrajudicial murder which we have just seen demonstrated with the murder of Soleimani. This is taking the United States outside the civilized family of nations. And they seem determined to plunder Europe and to extend their laws to every other nation in the world.

The U.S. empire, in an effort to win this battle over the free press, hired U.C. security systems out of Spain to spy on Assange, his lawyers, doctors, and visitors while in the Ecuadorian embassy. They turned over data monthly. This is a violation of lawyer-client privilege as well as doctor-patient privilege, not to mention an invasion of privacy.
When Daniel Ellsberg was charged under the Espionage for leaking the Pentagon Papers the case was dropped due to U.S. governmental misconduct because they were spying on Ellsberg and his lawyers. This case sets a precedent. Assange simply cannot be charged in this case due to government misconduct. The CIA spied on Mr. Assange and has all his data and the paperwork regarding this case, giving then an unfair advantage to prosecute.
If you think this case is a fair one, you have been misled. It is time the U.S. dropped its case and the U.K. freed Assange.