WASHINGTON, D.C. – Now that the British magistrate has refused to release Assange from criminal responsibility for violating his bail in 2012, Assange’s hopes for being released from the Ecuadorian Embassy depend increasingly upon President Trump.

Should President Trump pardon Assange for any violations of U.S. law that Assange may have committed, the pressure on Great Britain to allow Assange to leave the Ecuadorian Embassy without being arrested could be expected to intensify.

If Assange has definitive proof Russia was not his source for WikiLeaks’ publication of Democratic Party emails during the 2016 presidential election, getting Assange free to come to the United States may provide Trump the evidence he needs to undermine once and for all the “Russia Collusion” advanced by Democratic partisans and their mainstream media servants, setting the stage for ending Robert Mueller’s special counselor investigation.

The rub is that Trump faces considerable Deep State resistance to issuing Assange a pardon.

Democratic Party holdovers in both the CIA and the State Department can be expected to have little sympathy for any move President Trump may make to free Assange, given their continuing resentment over the decision made by Assange during the 2016 presidential campaign to publish in a drip-by-drip fashion the over 50,000 Democratic Party emails in a process many Clinton supporters feel was instrumental to causing her to lose the election.

The Intercept reported yesterday that White House Chief of Staff General John Kelly blocked a meeting with Rep. Dana Rohrabacher about a meeting Rohrabacher held with Assange in London last August during which Assange reportedly showed Rohrabacher definitive proof that Russia was not the source of the Democratic Party emails WikiLeaks published during the 2016 presidential campaign.

The Wall Street Journal reported in September 2017 that Rohrabacher, after returning from his meeting with Assange in London, spoke by phone with Kelly, only to find that Kelly was concerned Rohrabacher might compound problems President Trump may have with Special Counselor Robert Mueller in that any discussion with the president about Russia and the WikiLeaks release of Democratic Party emails might provide Mueller with additional cause for investigation.

Earlier, in April 2017, the Wall Street Journal reported that CIA Director Mike Pompeo in his first public remarks as head of the spy agency a “non-state hostile intelligence service,” likening it to a foreign government that attempts to undermine U.S. interests and conduct espionage.

The newspaper made it clear that Pompeo pointed to an assessment by U.S. intelligence agencies in January 2017 that concluded the Russian government wanted to undermine public faith in the U.S. democratic process and denigrate Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton, and that the Kremlin “developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump,” adding the intelligence agencies have high confidence in their judgments.

In a motion filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on Dec. 29, 2017, in the case Roy Cockrum vs. Donald J. Trump for President, attorneys for President Trump argued that Julian Assange had a right under the First Amendment to publish the DNC and John Podesta emails, even if the emails were stolen.

The case was orchestrated by Project Democracy, a group run by former attorneys from the Obama administration, arguing that then former Trump campaign adviser Roger Stone had conspired with the Russians to publish the DNC and Podesta emails.

Infowars.com has repeatedly noted arguments made by White House attorneys that suggest Assange has violated no U.S. law by publishing the Democratic Party emails, even if they were stolen and were found to contain classified material.

In a 32-page motion defending the Trump Campaign, Michael A. Carvin of the Jones Day law firm and the attorney of record representing President Trump, argued that the Trump campaign, and by inference Julian Assange at WikiLeaks, could not be held liable under the First Amendment for a disclosure of stolen information if the information published deals with “a matter of public interest” and the speaker was not “involved” in the theft.

In making the argument, Trump’s attorneys relied upon Bartnicki v. Vopper. 532 U.S. 514 (2001), a labor union case in which the Supreme Court ruled a radio station had a right to broadcast a stolen tape of a phone call between the chief union negotiator for a Pennsylvania high school and the chief union negotiator together with the union president.

Technically, Assange has not yet been indicted for any criminal offense in the United States, nor is it clear he has committed any crime.  Under the Supreme Court Decisions New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), and in the Pentagon Papers case, New York Times v. U.S. 403 U.S. 713 (1971), a journalist is allowed to accept and publish classified documents provided by other sources.


Related Articles


Comments