Assange Blasts Clinton's "Constant Lying" Over Claim Wikileaks Is "Subsidiary Of Russian Intelligence"

Julian Assange accused Hillary Clinton of “constant lying” and displaying a “cold creepiness” after the former US presidential candidate accused Wikileaks of being a front for Russian intelligence during interviews with British and Australian media last week, Russia Today reported.

Clinton, who has sat for interviews with media outlets in several different countries over the past week as the global leg of her book tour for “What Happened” began, described the organization that Assange founded as part of a “concerted operation” between Russia, Wikileaks and “people in the United States” – likely an oblique reference to the Trump campaign.

“It is not just her constant lying,” Assange tweeted on Monday. “It is not just that she throws off menacing glares and seethes thwarted entitlement.”

“Something much darker rides along with it. A cold creepiness rarely seen.”

WikiLeaks has a pristine record for accuracy. HRC is not a credible person. The primary cause of her downfall was her own Machiavellian scheme to elevate Mr. Trump ("Pied Piper").

Our last Russian expose was three weeks ago. https://t.co/MGa1z99vVU https://t.co/He4vgLIKBW

— Julian Assange ???? (@JulianAssange) October 15, 2017

Hillary Clinton claimed in an interview with one Australian news program that Assange colluded with the Russian government to obtain and publish emails stolen from the DNC in the lead-up to the 2016 US presidential election.

“Assange has become a kind of nihilistic opportunist who does the bidding of a dictator,” she said.

“WikiLeaks is unfortunately now practically a fully owned subsidiary of Russian intelligence.”

“I think that their intention, coming from the very top with Putin, was to hurt me and to help [then-presidential hopeful Donald] Trump,” she said.

“Our intelligence community and other observers of Russia and Putin have said he held a grudge against me because as secretary of state, I stood up against some of his actions, his authoritarianism,” Clinton said.

“If he’s such a martyr of free speech, why doesn’t WikiLeaks ever publish anything coming out of Russia? You don’t see damaging, negative information coming out about the Kremlin on WikiLeaks,” she added.

According to Clinton, Assange was motivated by a personal dislike of her stemming from her role as secretary of state, when the Obama administration cracked down on Wikileaks after it published sensitive government cables. Of course, Clinton has made similar accusations about Putin, whom she claims developed a hatred for her after she encouraged anti-Putin protests in 2009.  

“I had a lot of history with him because I was secretary of state when WikiLeaks published a lot of very sensitive information from our State Department and our Defense Department,” she said.

For what it’s worth, Assange has repeatedly denied having any connection with Russia, and has even offered to turn over conclusive evidence that Russia wasn’t Wikileaks’ source for the hacked DNC emails – in exchange for a presidential pardon. However, nobody in the administration has considered his offer, according to a member of Congress who’s tried to help broker the deal.

Assange has been in hiding in the Ecuadorian embassy in London since 2011. Even though Sweden dropped sex crime charges against Assange earlier this year, he has remained in the embassy for fear of being arrested by the US for publishing classified material through Wikileaks.  
 

Assange Reminds The World That Facebook Did Collude In 2016, But With Hillary

As Congress and the U.S. news media continue to lose their collective minds over what appears to be a meaningless amount of advertising dollars purchased on Facebook by "potentially Russian linked" accounts, Julian Assange offered up a helpful reminder that if Silicon Valley"s tech billionaires colluded with anyone in the months leading up to the 2016 election it was Hillary Clinton, who they all "wanted to win badly."

Podesta emails reveal that Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg wanted Hillary Clinton to win "badly", provided research to her in March 2015 and met privately with her on multiple occasions. https://t.co/SxNQ4etdPD pic.twitter.com/dqyRG2zuln

— Julian Assange ???? (@JulianAssange) September 28, 2017

For evidence that Facebook was "in the tank" for Hillary from the start, one has to look no further than the following email from Facebook"s Chief Operating Officer, Sheryl Sandberg, who told John Podesta in June 2015 that she wanted Hillary to "win badly" and was "here to help as I can." 

Can you imagine the "outrage" that Senator Warner would feel if such an email were sent to someone on Trump"s campaign?

Or what about if Paul Manafort were invited to Facebook headquarters to meet Mark Zuckerberg to discuss "how to move the needle on the specific public policy issues he cares most about."  Oh wait, that did happen except it wasn"t Trump"s campaign head that was invited, it was John Podesta.

And wouldn"t you know it, just a few days later Mark Zuckerberg did meet with John Podesta...but we"re sure they only discussed the ins and outs of setting up a 501(c)(3).   

Of course, the "collusion" between the Hillary team and Facebook goes on and on...here is John Podesta in January 2016 expressing how much he looks forward to working with Facebook to "elect the first woman President of the United States."

Meanwhile, as we noted back in November 2016, Google"s Chairman, Eric Schmidt, didn"t even pretend to be impartial and actually submitted a thorough "strategic plan" designed to help Hillary win the election.

Among the latest set of Podesta releases, was the following email sent on April 15, 2014 by Google"s Eric Schmidt titled "Notes for a 2016 Democratic Campaign" in which the Google/Alphabet Chairman tells Cheryl Mills that "I have put together my thoughts on the campaign ideas and I have scheduled some meetings in the next few weeks for veterans of the campaign to tell me how to make these ideas better.  This is simply a draft but do let me know if this is a helpful process for you all."

Google head Eric Schmidt"s secret strategic plan for the US election #PodestaEmails https://t.co/LskJODXyXn

More: https://t.co/ZUfh7WDAT5 pic.twitter.com/llq5G9kp5V

— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) October 31, 2016

While there are numerous curious nuances in the plan, presented below in its entirety, the one section that caught our - and Wikileaks" attention - is the following which implicitly suggests Google planned the creation of a voter tracking database, using smart phones:

Key is the development of a single record for a voter that aggregates all that is known about them.  In 2016 smart phones will be used to identify, meet, and update profiles on the voter.  A dynamic volunteer can easily speak with a voter and, with their email or other digital handle, get the voter videos and other answers to areas they care about (“the benefits of ACA to you” etc.)

All that said, we do very much hope that Senator Warner is able to quickly get to the bottom of exactly who bought those $50,000 worth of Facebook ads...because that"s what is really important here.

Congressman Attacks "Disloyal" John Kelly For Quashing Possible Trump-Assange Deal

As we reported last week, California Rep. Dana Rohrabacher earlier this year tried to broker a deal between the Trump administration and Wikileaks founder Julian Assange whereby Assange would furnish purportedly conclusive evidence that Russia wasn’t responsible for the DNC leaks in exchange for a presidential pardon.

Well, apparently Trump isn’t an avid reader of the Wall Street Journal (the newspaper that originally reported on the Rohrabacher-Assange deal), because when asked about it over the weekend, he responded that he’d “never heard” of the deal.

That’s not surprising. As WSJ initially reported, Rohrabacher was stymied by Chief of Staff John Kelly when he tried to take the deal to the president. Trump’s chief of staff, who’s efforts to impose “discipline” on the West Wing in part by limiting access to the president have been widely publicized, suggested that Rohrabacher first clear the deal with the intelligence agencies, which, of course, would be a non-starter.

So, in what’s likely another attempt to circumvent Kelly’s influence via the media (after all, it’s not out of the question that Rohrabacher was behind the initial leaks to WSJ) Rohrabacher complained to the Daily Caller that certain disloyal aides are creating “a wall around” the president.

“I think the president’s answer indicates that there is a wall around him that is being created by people who do not want to expose this fraud that there was collusion between our intelligence community and the leaders of the Democratic Party,” Rohrabacher told The Daily Caller Tuesday in a phone interview.

...

“This would have to be a cooperative effort between his own staff and the leadership in the intelligence communities to try to prevent the president from making the decision as to whether or not he wants to take the steps necessary to expose this horrendous lie that was shoved down the American people’s throats so incredibly earlier this year,” Rohrabacher said.

As WSJ reported, Rohrabacher met with Assange in August at the Ecuadorian embassy in London, where the WikiLeaks founder has lived in asylum since 2012 due to now-dropped sexual assault charges in Sweden. However, American authorities are reportedly still investigating Assange for his role in disseminating thousands of classified US documents. At the meeting, Assange purportedly promised to deliver information that proves Russia wasn’t behind the DNC leak.

While Trump said early in the campaign that he believed Assange should get “the death penalty” for publishing US secrets and endangering intelligence assets, he has since softened his tone. Earlier this year, he praised Wikileaks for publicly denying that the Russian government was the source of the leaked DNC emails – provoking outrage among Democrats and some Republicans, who accused the president of siding with an enemy of the state over his own intelligence community.

US intelligence agencies have claimed that Russian state actors were involved with the hacking and leaking of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta’s emails.

Rohrabacher said that a pardon would likely have to occur for Assange to give up this information about the source of the DNC emails. Assange has long maintained that he would never reveal a source, but Rohrabacher said that Assange now “wants to get out of the Ecuadorian embassy.” Rohrabacher told The Daily Caller that he hasn’t seen the information that Assange says vindicates Russia, but vouched that the Wikileaks founder would provide the goods if the president is on board.” According to US laws, the president is able to preemptively pardon someone.

To be sure, nobody has railed against the ongoing Russia investigation harder than Trump, who has vehemently denied accusations that his campaign colluded with Russia, while also pushing back against the notion that Russia actively tried to interfere in the US election.

It’s not out of the question that Trump would consider such a deal if it were presented to him.

"I Have A Right To Express My Concerns": Fired Google Engineer Will Pursue Legal Action; Assange Offers Job

The computer engineer fired by Google for writing a memo in which he slammed the company"s anti-conservative culture and said women are less suited to certain roles in tech and leadership, is considering taking legal action against the company.

As a reminder, now former Google employee James Damore, caused outrage when he circulated a manifesto on Friday, complaining about Google’s “ideological echo chamber” alleging women have lower tolerance for stress and that conservatives are more conscientious. The chess master, who studied at Harvard, Princeton and MIT and worked at Google"s Mountain View HQ, was fired on Monday after the search giant’s chief executive, Sundar Pichai, said portions of Damore’s 10-page memo “violate our code of conduct and cross the line by advancing harmful gender stereotypes” despite saying in the same memo that Google employees shouldn"t be afraid of speaking their minds.

One day after Google announced the engineer was fired, Damore said he would “likely be pursuing legal action”.

“I have a right to express my concerns about the terms and conditions of my working environment and to bring up potentially illegal behavior, which is what my document does,” he said in an email reported by the New York Times.

In a further email to Breitbart, he reportedly said: “They just fired me for ‘perpetuating gender stereotypes’.”

While liberals were delighted by the decision, others accused Google of hypocrisy as the company is itself currently involved in litigation with the U.S. Department of Labor alleging the company systemically discriminates against women. Google has denied the charges, arguing that it doesn’t have a gender gap in pay, but has declined to share full salary information with the government. According to the company’s most recent demographic report, 69 percent of its workforce and 80 percent of its technical staff are male.

Among other things, Damore argued that “Google’s left bias has created a politically correct mono-culture that maintains its hold by shaming dissenters into silence”. He said: “The distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes, and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership.”

In his memo, subtitled “How bias clouds our thinking about diversity and inclusion”, he said he wanted to increase women’s representation in tech without resorting to discrimination.

He complained that “discriminating just to increase the representation of women in tech is as misguided and biased as mandating increases for women’s representation in the homeless, work-related and violent deaths, prisons and school dropouts”. His suggestions included the company making tech and leadership less stressful because “women are on average more prone to anxiety”. His dismissal followed "outrage" in Silicon Valley because Damore sought to explain the gender imbalance in the tech industry as a function of biological difference.

The senior software engineer had worked at Google since 2013 and had previously studied computational biology at Princeton, Harvard and the University of Illinois where he graduated with a bachelor’s degree in 2010 in the top 3% of his class, according to his CV posted online and noted by the Guardian.

On Tuesday, Julian Assange, the founder of Wikileaks, said that he would like to hire Damore, declaring “censorship is for losers”.

1/ Censorship is for losers. @WikiLeaks is offering a job to fired Google engineer James Damore. https://t.co/tmrflE72p3

— Julian Assange ???? (@JulianAssange) August 8, 2017

Writing on Twitter he said: “WikiLeaks is offering a job to fired Google engineer James Damore. Women and men deserve respect. That includes not firing them for politely expressing ideas but rather arguing back.” He added: “I value intellectual diversity and workers rights to not be fired for politely expressing the ‘wrong’ opinion.”

I value intellectual diversity and workers rights to not be fired for politely expressing the "wrong" opinion. https://t.co/Qlqyht8CUA

— Julian Assange ???? (@JulianAssange) August 8, 2017

Damore"s termination also sparked a conservative backlash, with Breitbart and other websites rushing to Damore’s defence. Breitbart quoted an anonymous employee who claimed that “the diversity gospel has been woven into nearly everything the company does, to the point where senior leaders focus on diversity first and technology second.

“For conservative employees, this is obviously demoralising, but it is also dangerous. Several have been driven out of the company or fired outright for sharing a dissenting view.”

Eric Weinstein, managing director of Peter Thiel’s venture capital firm, wrote an open missive to Google asking it to “stop teaching my girl that her path to financial freedom lies not in coding but in complaining to HR”.

More to the matter at hand, legal observers have questioned whether Google has broken employment law by firing Damore.

Dan Eaton, an employment lawyer, in San Diego wrote on CNBC: “Federal labour law bars even non-union employers like Google from punishing an employee for communicating with fellow employees about improving working conditions … California law prohibits employers from threatening to fire employees to get them to adopt or refrain from adopting a particular political course of action.”

He also said” “It is unlawful for an employer to discipline an employee for challenging conduct that the employee reasonably believed to be discriminatory, even when a court later determines the conduct was not actually prohibited by the discrimination laws.”

A spokesman for Google in London declined to comment to the press on the legality of the decision.

Our guess: the most likely outcome will be a multi-million dollar settlement, and in a few months the name James Damore will be forgotten.

Finally, for those who still haven"t read it, Damore"s full memo is below (link):

7 Pro-Gun Quotes … Straight From The Founding Fathers

July 4, 2017

As we celebrate Independence Day this week, it’s a good time to look back at what the Founding Fathers said about our freedoms – and that includes the right to own a gun.

We should be reminded, once in a while, that this nation was built and established through turmoil and the right to self-govern and the right of self-defense. Many politicians and high-profile celebrities are chomping at the bit for more gun control — all the while enjoying the protection of armed guards.

They forget that, in essence, their mere existence was built on the use of firearms and the right of self-protection. They need to go back and read their history.

I have utilized firearms my entire life in a responsible and ethical manner. I continue to do so today by teaching others, and I occasionally still put on the uniform.

The Self-Defense Weapon That Doesn’t Require A Firearms License!

Here, then, are seven pro-gun quotes from the Founding Fathers:

“What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.” - Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, Dec. 20, 1787.

“A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined.” - George Washington, First Annual Address to both houses of Congress, Jan. 8, 1790.

“I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.” - Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, Jan. 30, 1787.

“The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.” - Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, June 5, 1824.

“To disarm the people…is the most effectual way to enslave them.” - George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788.

“The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.” – Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788.

“The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them.” -Zachariah Johnson (delegate to Virginia Ratifying Convention), Elliot’s Debates, vol. 3, “The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution.”

What do you think about gun rights? Share your thoughts in the section below:

4 Reasons America Is STILL The Greatest Nation On Earth

With all of the turmoil and controversy in our nation over the last few decades, it’s easy to criticize the USA as a country in decline.

However, it is times like these that we need to gird up our loins, fight for what we believe in, and remember that despite the many faults we can currently name with the United States, this is still the greatest nation on Earth. Here are four reasons that we — on this Fourth of July – can still celebrate being an American:

1. The First Amendment

It’s true that our freedom of speech and freedom of religion are under attack in modern America, and I don’t deny that we are standing and looking over a cliff that freedom haters are desperately trying to shove us off of. Yet we can still express ourselves as we wish, thanks to the First Amendment to our Constitution.

In many countries, speaking out against the government — or even writing blog posts such as this one — are cause enough for imprisonment at best and death at worst. Even our good friends Canada and the United Kingdom fine people for making comments that our Constitution protects.

Learn About The ‘Real Constitution’ And What The Founders Truly Intended

In America, we can protest peacefully with signs in the street, we can call our congressmen with complaints or suggestions, and we even can publicly write an opinion about how we think that our leaders are dirtbags or criminals if we believe that to be the case — all without any fear of being taken away in the night or dragged to prison.

Further — and more importantly — we still have the freedom to practice our religious beliefs. I understand and agree that at this moment in time this freedom is closer to being curbed than at any previous time in our history, but if you go to church this Sunday to worship, you won’t be questioned by government authorities. In many countries, simply admitting that you follow Christ — or Buddha, or Vishnu, for that matter — can land you in prison or even result in your death.

The First Amendment to our Constitution guarantees these rights, and it is arguably the greatest contribution to freedom in the history of the world since the Magna Carta was signed.

2. Guns

Although the quote is thought to have been fabricated, tradition holds that Japan’s Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto said during WWII, “You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.” Whether the quote is accurate or not, the idea is still true to an extent today. It’s estimated that one in three households in the USA has guns, and that is as it should be in our Founders’ eyes. In fact, the number of registered hunters in the US is estimated to be between 25 and 45 million. Combined and united, this would by far be the largest standing army in the world. Keep in mind that this doesn’t include gun owners who aren’t registered hunters. And it’s all possible because our Founders placed this right in the Constitution, in the Second Amendment.

Discover The Only Way Back To True Freedom And Liberty In America…

Yes, there are threats to gun ownership every other week by the Left. For now, though, we still have the right to defend ourselves, from enemies foreign and domestic, and the means with which to do so. Very, very few other countries in the world can come anywhere close to that claim.

3. Sea to Shining Sea

There’s no doubt that God brought our forefathers to this land. There is no other country on the face of the Earth with the natural resources and variety of climates and land types that we have. Beaches, mountains, deserts, valleys, prairies, tundra, you name it — we’ve got it.

Not only do we have this vast and beautiful land, but we can travel freely to any of them without passports, papers or any other restrictions. Consider Europe as a comparison. There are different climates and landforms there — all within a smaller area than our single country, but traveling between them means traveling across different countries with different rules.

As far as natural resources, no other landmass — let alone country — on the planet compares in the slightest to what we have here. We sit on top of the largest deposits of oil and natural gas anywhere. Our timber is practically unrivaled. The list goes on and on. This is by far the most blessed piece of land on our globe, despite the constant attempts to restrict our access to the resources we own.

4. Opportunity and Wealth

In many countries, the caste or social status you are born into is where you will remain for life. Other countries allow people to advance themselves but don’t have the opportunities to make such advancement feasible or even possible. America, though, is the land of opportunity. Despite what the Leftists would have us believe, you can still go from rags to riches in the USA if you have the desire and drive to do so.

The majority of the world’s wealthiest people live here. We hear constantly from the media about how many poor and underprivileged there are in this country, yet in reality the poor in the US are richer than the poor of just about any country – and are actually richer than the rich in some countries. Stick that in your “occupy” movements and smoke it. The poor in this country have cell phones, air conditioning and cable television. The poor in many countries eat dirt and bugs to survive.

Yes indeed, despite our many downfalls and problems, there is still no better place on this Earth to live than the good old USA. And that is also one of our biggest problems.

There are many who want to strip us of what we have, and more than a few of these are right here among us. The top dog is always under attack by those who would tear them down, and we are by far the biggest target around.

There are only two things that can keep these beasts at bay. The first is our own diligence. Great nations always fall when the citizens become complacent, self-righteous and morally depraved. Always.

The second is our loving and providing God, under whose protection we have been for two centuries. Yet those of us who know and love the Truth understand that His protection of our country is conditional on us acknowledging and following Him. When we turn our backs on Him, He will undoubtedly return the favor in kind. I pray that we have not already fallen this far, although in the flesh it’s very hard to see how we are not either standing at the precipice – or are already in freefall, having gone over it, unaware of our impending fate in our own ignorant bliss.

Do you agree or disagree? What would you add to the list? Share your thoughts in the section below:

Were America’s Origins Truly Christian?

Americans talk a lot about liberty. It’s debated in the halls of Congress, on television and radio talk shows, and even over the water cooler or coffee pot at work.

Rarely, though, do we discuss the definition and source of liberty.

This week on a special Independence Day edition of Off The Grid Radio, we talk to Off The Grid Radio founder Bill Heid, who has produced a new video – called “The Lost Secrets of Liberty” — that addresses the definition of liberty. It also examines a controversial question: Were America’s origins truly Christian?

Bill tells us:

• Why the popular dictionary definition of “liberty” is just plain wrong.


• Why Ethan Allen demanded the surrender of the British at Fort Ticonderoga “in the name of the Great Jehovah and the Continental Congress.”


• Why John Adams said American independence had as much to do with religion as with “taxation without representation.”


• Why Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin wanted a scene out of the book of Exodus as the national seal.

Bill also tells us why atheism can flourish best in a nation that has a Christian foundation. (Bill’s thoughts on this one surprised even us!)

If you enjoy learning about America’s past, then this is one show you don’t want to miss!

Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 29:00 — 26.6MB)

Trump: If The DOJ Wants To Arrest Assange, "It's OK With Me"

Having selected several key excerpts from Donald Trump"s lengthy AP interview earlier, we urge readers looking for fascinating yet surreal bedtime reading to give the full, nearly 8,000 word transcript a try, as it contains bizarro excerpts such as this:

AP: You did put out though, as a candidate, you put out a 100-day plan. Do you feel like you should be held accountable to that plan?

TRUMP: Somebody, yeah, somebody put out the concept of a hundred-day plan. But yeah. Well, I"m mostly there on most items. Go over the items, and I"ll talk to you ... (Crosstalk.)

TRUMP: But things change. There has to be flexibility. Let me give you an example. President Xi, we have a, like, a really great relationship. For me to call him a currency manipulator and then say, "By the way, I"d like you to solve the North Korean problem," doesn"t work. So you have to have a certain flexibility, Number One. Number Two, from the time I took office till now, you know, it"s a very exact thing. It"s not like generalities. Do you want a Coke or anything?

AP: I"m OK, thank you. No. ...

Yet what caught our attention was the following excerpt on a topic that has re-emerged in recent days in the aftermath of the spat between Julian Assange and the new CIA chief Mike Pompeo, who last week made it clear Assange"s days as a quasi-free man are numbered. And, as the following exchange between the AP and Trump notes, the president does not harbor any partcularly fond feelings for the man who has been accused of being a Russian plant or spy and crushing Hillary Clinton"s election chances. That, and so much more in the following bizarre exchange:

AP: Jeff Sessions, your attorney general, is taking a tougher line suddenly on Julian Assange, saying that arresting him is a priority. You were supportive of what WikiLeaks was doing during the campaign with the release of the Clinton emails. Do you think that arresting Assange is a priority for the United States?

TRUMP: When Wikileaks came out ... never heard of Wikileaks, never heard of it. When Wikileaks came out, all I was just saying is, "Well, look at all this information here, this is pretty good stuff." You know, they tried to hack the Republican, the RNC, but we had good defenses. They didn"t have defenses, which is pretty bad management. But we had good defenses, they tried to hack both of them. They weren"t able to get through to Republicans. No, I found it very interesting when I read this stuff and I said, "Wow." It was just a figure of speech. I said, "Well, look at this. It"s good reading."

AP: But that didn"t mean that you supported what Assange is doing?

TRUMP: No, I don"t support or unsupport. It was just information. They shouldn"t have allowed it to get out. If they had the proper defensive devices on their internet, you know, equipment, they wouldn"t even allow the FBI. How about this — they get hacked, and the FBI goes to see them, and they won"t let the FBI see their server. But do you understand, nobody ever writes it. Why wouldn"t (former Hillary Clinton campaign chairman John) Podesta and Hillary Clinton allow the FBI to see the server? They brought in another company that I hear is Ukrainian-based.

AP: CrowdStrike? 

TRUMP: That"s what I heard. I heard it"s owned by a very rich Ukrainian, that"s what I heard. But they brought in another company to investigate the server. Why didn"t they allow the FBI in to investigate the server? I mean, there is so many things that nobody writes about. It"s incredible. 

AP: Can I just ask you, though — do you believe it is a priority for the United States, or it should be a priority, to arrest Julian Assange? 

TRUMP: I am not involved in that decision, but if Jeff Sessions wants to do it, it"s OK with me. I didn"t know about that decision, but if they want to do it, it"s OK with me.

And while Trump may somehow not know about the DOJ"s decision to arrest Assange, we are confident he knows that any potential pardon of Assange is long gone. As for Donald Trump "loving" Wikileaks, that was so six months ago.

Julian Assange In Jeopardy As Exit Poll Shows Lasso Winning Ecuador Presidency

It may be the worst possible news for Julian Assange. Or the best, depending on which exit poll of the Ecuador presidential election is right.

With the results of the Ecuador presidential run-off race set to be announced in hours, two exit polls projected two different winners in a tight election in OPEC"s smallest member nation on Sunday evening, sparking celebrations in the rival camps of a leftist government-backed candidate and a former banker. As Reuters reports, the final results could take days to tabulate, the electoral council has warned, in a race that could extend a decade of leftist rule or usher in more business-friendly policies in the oil-rich Andean country.

According to one exit poll, conservative challenger Guillermo Lasso had 53.02% of votes versus 46.98% for government-backed Lenin Moreno, an exit poll by leading pollster Cedatos showed on Sunday afternoon. With Cedatos considered one of the most trustworthy polls, the Lasso camp broke into cheers, with supporters waving flags and honking horns in wealthier northern Quito.

"Today a new Ecuador is born, the Ecuador of democracy, the Ecuador of freedom," Lasso told a crowd chanting: "Lasso President!" in his sweltering coastal hometown, Guayaquil.

Meanwhile, a separate exit poll by Perfiles de Opinion showed Moreno with 52.2% of the vote versus 47.8% for Lasso. Moreno was more measured, telling supporters in Quito: "We have a very trustworthy lead." He urged Ecuadoreans to await final results.

The results will have substantial geopolitical implications, and South America is watching closely to see if Ecuador will follow Argentina, Brazil and Peru in shifting to the right as a commodities boom ends.

But the polarized country is also bracing for potential unrest after a tense campaign. Both candidates have called for their supporters to take to the street and "defend the vote."

The two contenders could not be more different.

Moreno, 64, a paraplegic former vice-president, just missed the minimum threshold to win the presidency in the first round in February, and polls leading up to Sunday"s runoff showed him leading Lasso. Moreno, who has used a wheelchair since being shot during a robbery in 1998, has promised to boost social benefits to single mothers, pensioners and disabled Ecuadoreans while being more conciliatory than the mercurial Correa.

Lasso, a 61-year-old former head of Banco de Guayaquil who has campaigned on creating one million jobs in four years, argues that Moreno"s generous social promises risk plunging Ecuador"s economy further into debt. He also accuses the ruling Country Alliance party of covering up corruption scandals, stifling media, and stacking institutions with supporters in the vein of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, a Correa ally. As Reuters notes, Venezuela"s political upheaval cast a shadow over Ecuador"s vote, with Lasso supporters fearing their country could turn the way of the crisis-hit nation.

* * *

But the biggest reason why the presidential election is being closely watched by the international community is that its outcome may seal the fate of Julian Assange.

Lasso, who according to the Cedatos poll is the winner, has vowed that if he wins the WikiLeaks founder’s time in the Ecuador embassy in London will be up. Lasso has said he would “cordially ask Señor Assange to leave within 30 days of assuming a mandate”, because his presence in the Knightsbridge embassy was a burden on Ecuadorian taxpayers.

Meanwhile, Lenin Moreno, has said Assange would remain welcome, albeit with conditions. “We will always be alert and ask Mr Assange to show respect in his declarations regarding our brotherly and friendly countries,” Moreno said.

As the Guardian wrote on March 31 ahead of Sunday"s election, the Australian’s legal team are extremely worried.

“We are obviously very concerned that any candidate would threaten to undermine the protection that the Ecuadorian state has granted Julian,” said Jennifer Robinson, a lawyer at Doughty Street Chambers who is a member of Assange’s UK legal team. “No government should play politics with the granting of asylum. It’s a legal protection provided for under international law, Ecuador has granted that protection, they have recognised him as a refugee, and now they have obligations to protect him whatever happens in the elections.”

Assange’s team are reluctant to be drawn on what legal avenues they might be able to pursue, but he is understood to have instructed lawyers in Quito, while others are looking at whether they may have potential options through the Inter-American and European courts of human rights.

Making matters for Assange worse, British authorities are adamant that, should Assange leave the embassy under any circumstances, he will be immediately arrested and sent to Sweden, which has been seeking to extradite him over an allegation of rape dating from 2010, which Assange denies.

In short, Assange’s best hope in the short term, is a Moreno victory. If that does not happen as at least one poll suggests, international human rights groups might rally in his defence, or WikiLeaks might uncover material to put pressure on Lasso. But according to Arturo Moscoso, an Ecuadorian lawyer and academic, Assange should not expect Ecuadorian public opinion to come to the rescue: “For many it’s a headache.”

 “No organisation, no law and no person can prevent the president from revoking the status of political asylum.” Assange’s asylum was granted by a presidential decree and could just as easily be removed by one, he said.

Curiously, while many have implied Russian "interference" in every major recent geopolitical event, from the Brexit vote, to the US presidential election, to the upcoming elections in France and Germany, few have discussed whether or not the Kremlin would be "manipulating" the results of the Ecuador presidential election, especially since the fate of one of the men rumored to have been collaborating with Putin, Julian Assange, is now on the line and could result in a protracted prison sentence.

Then again, it"s just one exit poll, which as recent events have demonstrated, can be painfully wrong. One person - the founder of Wikileaks - will spend the night praying that it is.

Ecuador's Presidential Front-Runner: "We Will Ask Assange To Leave Our Embassy"

It appears President Correa"s "intention to safeguard [Assange"s] life and physical integrity until he reaches a safe place," is under threat as The Miami Herald reports that Guillermo Lasso, the front-runner in Ecuador’s presidential election, says he intends to evict Assange from that country’s London embassy if he wins the April 2 runoff against ruling party candidate Lenín Moreno.

“We will ask Mr. Assange, very politely, to leave our embassy, in absolute compliance with international conventions and protocols,” Lasso said in an email exchange with the Miami Herald.

Assange took refuge in Ecuador’s cramped London embassy in 2012 fighting extradition to Sweden where he is wanted on sexual misconduct allegations. Assange and his legal team fear that the Swedish charges are a ploy to have him extradited to the United States.

Lasso also noted that Assange had volunteered to leave the embassy if Chelsea Manning, who is serving a 35-year-sentence for giving WikiLeaks hundreds of thousands of secret and confidential U.S. diplomatic cables, were to be pardoned. On his way out of office, President Barack Obama commuted Manning’s sentence, and she will be released May 17. But Assange argued that a commutation wasn’t a pardon and hunkered down at the embassy.

The ruling party’s Moreno has said he would continue Correa’s policy of letting Assange stay at the embassy.

As a reminder, in October 2016, Ecuador cut Assange"s internet access due to his publication of a "wealth of documents impacting the U.S. election." Despite what seems to be the Ecuadorian government caving to political pressure from the Obama administration, the statement takes special caution to reassure everyone that the decision was in response to "sovereign decisions alone" and that Ecuador "does not yield to pressure from other states"....sure, though we do wonder how many drafts John Kerry"s staffers went through at the State Department before finally approving these comments for dissemination.

Here are some key excerpts from the Ecuadorian statement:

"In recent weeks, WikiLeaks has published a wealth of documents, impacting on the U.S. election campaign.  This decision was taken exclusively by that organization."

“The Government of Ecuador respects the principle of non-intervention in the internal affairs of other states. It does not interfere in external electoral processes, nor does it favor any particular candidate."

“Accordingly, Ecuador has exercised its sovereign right to temporarily restrict access to some of its private communications network within its Embassy in the United Kingdom.  This temporary restriction does not prevent the WikiLeaks organization from carrying out it journalistic activities."

"Ecuador, in accordance with its tradition of defending human rights and protecting victims for political persecution, reaffirms the asylum granted to Julian Assange and reiterates its intention to safeguard his life and physical integrity until he reaches a safe place."

"Ecuador"s foreign policy responds to sovereign decisions alone and does not yield to pressure from other states."

Probably just a coincidence? Is the deep state still pulling the strings? One wonders just what Wikileaks may have up its sleeve next... especially as the Obama links to Trump White House leaks and Trump Tower surveillance grow stronger.

Finally, while it may be nothing, we note that Ecuador transferred half its gold to Goldman Sachs in exchange for "liquidity" in June 2014 - that "swap" is due to expire in June 2017...

Ecuador agreed to transfer more than half its gold reserves to Goldman Sachs Group Inc. for three years as the government seeks to bolster liquidity.

The central bank said it will send 466,000 ounces of gold to Goldman Sachs, worth about $580 million at current prices, and get the same amount back three years from now. In return, Ecuador will get “instruments of high security and liquidity” and expects to earn a profit of $16 million to $20 million over the term of the accord.

“Gold that was not generating any returns in vaults, causing storage costs, now becomes a productive asset that will generate profits,” the central bank said in the statement. “These interventions in the gold market represent the beginning of a new and permanent strategy of active participation by the bank, through purchases, sales and financial operations, that will contribute to the creation of new financial investment opportunities.”

Probably nothing, nevertheless it"s clear Assange - rightfully so - is getting increasingly frustrated with his status (and faces more enemies). Remember, Assange"s uncharacteristically emotional remarks last year with Hannity:

"I have been detained illegally, without charge for six years, without sunlight, lots of spies everywhere. It"s tough... but that"s the mission I set myself on. I understand the kind of game that"s being played - big powerful actors will try and take revenge...it"s a different thing for my family - I have young children, under 10 years old, they didn"t sign up for that... and I think that is fundamentally unjust... my family is innocent, they didn"t sign up for that fight."

There is however, perhaps a modest silver lining, as Lasso latter said “we vow to take all the steps necessary so that another embassy will take him in and protect his rights.”

However, as the Miami Herald notes, even if another government were willing to provide Assange shelter, it’s unclear how he would be transferred. In the five years since he’s been holed up in the embassy, the Rafael Correa administration hasn’t been able to figure out how to move him to Ecuador, amid heavy police scrutiny in London.

Irish Bookie Takes Bets On Trump's Inauguration Skin Tone; "Burnt Orange" Is A Long Shot At 12/1

Proving you can place bets on just about anything, the Irish bookie, PaddyPower, is making markets on several inauguration-related events ranging from the color of Donald Trump"s skin at the swearing in ceremony to the color of Melania"s dress to the likelihood of Julian Assange and Vlad Putin making an appearance.

Of course, the "Inauguration Skin Color" has drawn a lot of attention with "Tiger"s Eye" and "Deep Saffron" being the clear favorites while "Mahogany" and "Burnt Orange" are the long shots.

Meanwhile, you can also place odds on whether the new President will say a number buzz words and catch phrases during his speech.  We all know that Trump"s slogan of "Make America Great Again" is a near certainty while "Grab her by the Pussy" and "Golden Shower" are understandably long shots at 500/1.

You can also place your bets on inauguration attendees with Hulk Hogan leading the favorites and the Dalai Lama and Bono near the end of the list.  Meanwhile, wagers placed so far seem to indicate that Vlad Putin and Julian Assange are more likely to attend then we would have thought.

Place your bets!

Wikileaks Press Conference Post Mortem: The CIA "Issued A Press Release, Not An Intelligence Report"

Submitted by Stefanie MacWilliams via PlanetFreeWill.com,

Wikileaks announced a 9AM press conference on Monday morning to, quote, “respond to the CIA report on the US election”. Wikileaks readers were asked to tweet questions using the #AskWL hashtag on Twitter. 

The press conference was streamed live from the Ecaudorian embassy in London, via an audio feed on Periscope.

Julian Assange slammed the recent report as a “press release”, stating that only about five pages of the report could be considered substantial content.

“The real question is whether the Russians hacked the Democratic party with the intention of favoring Donald Trump,” Said Assange [Paraphrase].

“Even if you accept that Russia hackers were involved, even if no evidence was presented in the report, what was the intent of those Russian attacks and do they connect to Wikileaks.”

Assange went on to confirm once again that the DNC emails and the Podesta emails were not provided by state actors.

He accuses that the report “deliberately obscures” the timeline of the email leak in regard to the timeframe in which Donald Trump became a serious contender for President. He notes that DNI director James Clapper himself has confirmed that the intelligence community does not know when Wikileaks obtained any of the emails.

Assange also took issue with the conflation of direct vote hacking and the possibility of information which caused a change in public opinion. He asserts that Donna Brazile and other DNC and Hillary campaign officials lied to the public by stating that the emails were “fake” and noted Wikileaks’ ten year accuracy record.

The conference then moved on to answering questions from the Twitter hashtag.

“On a scale of one to ten, how fabricated was the CIA report?”  Assange states that this is an interesting question, since by nature of the report, there is very little accusatory information and most of the content is speculative.

“Your whole premise has been that you don’t know sources and therefore can’t endanger them. Now you say you don’t know your source.” Assange denies that this statement was made, and asserted that the source is not a state party. He clarifies that Wikileaks treats their source information with care and wants to keep that record. He says that depending on the case, they can give more or less information without compromising their safety.

“Is Wikileaks sure that the go-between didn’t get the information from the Russians or a private hacking group on order from the Russians?” Assange stated that “we can’t play 20 questions with sources, for obvious reasons.”

In regards to many questions about “proof of life”, Assange states that it has been a difficult time for him with pressure from many sides, and that he will address the proof of life issue in a Reddit AMA tomorrow morning.

“What is the most important thing we can do before obama leaves office?” Assange states his level of concern with destruction of records across agencies, and states that both Democrat and Republican governments have been guilty of destroying vital information. He asserts that destroying historical documents is a crime against humanity and our shared history. He asks whistleblowers to get ahold of data now and protect it.

“Julian, how are you doing? How is your health? How much longer will you survive in the embassy?” Assange states that “It’s a difficult environment to be in for six years without trial,” and that “On the other hand, I am committed to this work and it gives me engery to continue.”

“What would you say to people who see Wikileaks’ recent activity as an open endorsement of trump?” Assange states that before the election, he released an editorial (presumably this one) on behalf of Wikileaks which answered some of these concerns. He admits they all assumed Hillary was going to win, and goes on to explain that the conflict was mainly against the elite power class. He also asserts that he has concerns about Trump’s administration and calls many of his cabinet choices “poor” with “some interesting ones”. Trump will “loosen up” DC, he says – both positively and negatively.

“Do you think the intelligence report released by the CIA undermines the leak, or is this just growing pains of a major leak like this?” Assange states that Wikileaks like any publisher likes the attention on their materials, and the fact that the DNI report concluded the veracity and accuracy of their documents adds weight to the strength of the leaks. He states the content was what had the biggest impact.

“Is there a future for the FOIA in the present ‘fake news’ attack on the press and freedom of speech?” Assange calls the Freedom of Information Act a “formalized leak system” and states that there is a “hoover dam of information” that is being withheld due to Wikileaks being under investigation by the DOJ.

“Why don’t you explain why it would be hard for Russia to hack the votes. Explain the security, and how easy it would be.” Assange states that the media has put out a lot of misinformation leading people to believe the vote machines and vote counting infrastructure were breached. Though Assange criticizes electronic voting as not secure, he also states that the intelligence community has stated that this sort of hack did not occur.

“Why is there more focus on those who exposed the corruption instead of on the offenders?” Assange specifically notes Fox as one of the few mainstream outlets who actually covered the content – but gives the initial credit to the citizen journalists who found the most important information that was picked up later by broader media.

“Is there any truth to the rumour that W ikileaks had access to rnc data and chose not to leak?” “No, that’s false. Absolutely false.”

“How do you feel about trump cabinet picks that called for the death penalty for Wikileaks whistleblowers?” Assange states that many Republicans and Republican supporters were opportunists, but they were also mislead by the media and specifically the Obama administration that the Wikileaks releases led to the deaths of US soldiers. Assange states that this was proven to be false.

“Why do you think the US  media is recieving intelligence before President Elect Trump?” Assange states that this was a strategic move to ensure the American public was only receiving one narrative, and to make it more difficult for Donald Trump and Wikileaks to respond to the allegations. He states that had they released it on a Friday afternoon themselves, it wouldn’t have had the same effect. Particularly since by releasing it on a Thursday afternoon, including some classified information that was not later released to the public, they were able to further their own narrative. He slams the report once again stating that “This report is not really about facts, it’s about producing something that is not falsifiable and is intellectually bankrupt.”

“Do you believe whistleblowers will be safer in the upcoming administration, or will they continue to be persecuted?” Assange states that he believes they will continue to be persecuted, and that though there are some anti-DC elements of the upcoming administration, Trump will form his own establishment.

“No system of authority likes those who undermine it’s authority.” Said Assange.

Julian Assange Talks To Sean Hannity: "Big Powerful Actors Want Revenge" - Full Fox News Interview

As previewed yesterday, today at 10pm ET, WikiLeaks" Julian Assange would be interviewed by Fox News" Sean Hannity, in a wide ranging discussion touching most notably on whether or not Russia provided WikiLeaks the hacked Democratic emails - as pointed out yesterday, the answer was a "1000%" no.

For those who are unable, or unwilling to watch, Fox, here is a link to the full interview which will take place over the next hour, until 11pm ET.

Assange"s concluding remarks were uncharacteristically emotional:

"I have been detained illegally, without charge for six years, without sunlight, lots of spies everywhere. It"s tough... but that"s the mission I set myself on. I understand the kind of game that"s being played - big powerful actors will try and take revenge...it"s a different thing for my family - I have young children, under 10 years old, they didn"t sign up for that... and I think that is fundamentally unjust... my family is innocent, they didn"t sign up for that fight."

Full Interview below (starting at 49:08...)

Assange To Hannity: "Our Source Is Not The Russian Government"

It won"t be the first time Julian Assange was interviewed and asked whether the source of the hacked DNC and Podesta emails was Russia; however, it will be the first time everyone pays attention to his answer. Recall that the first such interview of Assange - when the question of who had sourced Wikileaks with the hacked emails came up - took place exactly two months ago, on November 3. Back then, in an interview televized by RT, John Pilger explicitly asked Asange where the emails in question had come from.

Assange"s response was straightforward: “The Clinton camp has been able to project a neo-McCarthyist hysteria that Russia is responsible for everything. Hillary Clinton has stated multiple times, falsely, that 17 US intelligence agencies had assessed that Russia was the source of our publications. That’s false – we can say that the Russian government is not the source.”

That particular interview took place when Trump has losing badly in the polls, and as such few people paid attention: after all, what difference did it make who had leaked the Podesta emails: Hillary Clinton was assured to win (with a 90%+ probability according to the NYT and other "non-fake news" outlets).

Needless to say, the issue of Russian hacking has since come back with a vengeance, and culminated last week with Obama expelling 35 Russian diplomats in the greatest diplomatic escalation between the US and Russia in decades; an action which took place based on a flimsy 13-page DHS/FBI report which demonstrated that anyone could have hacked the DNC emails if only they spent a few dollars to purchase a piece of Ukranian PHP malware.

Which is why many more will pay attention to Assange"s next interview with Sean Hannity, which will air Tuesday on Fox News. According to a Fox News release, the two will discuss Russian hacking, the 2016 presidential election, and both the Obama and upcoming Trump administrations. It will air at 10 p.m. on Jan. 3, with additional portions of the interview airing throughout the week. As Variety adds, The interview will mark Assange’s first face-to-face cable news appearance. It is not, however, the first time he’s spoken publicly to Hannity. Most recently, in December, Assange called into Hannity’s radio show, in which the host gushed to Assange that “you’ve done us a favor” in exposing gaps in U.S. cybersecurity.

And while what Assange would say was rather predictable, as he would simply reiterate what he has said previously, courtesy of Real Clear Politics, we have an advance glimpse into the punchline, to wit:

HANNITY: Can you say to the American people, unequivocally, that you did not get this information about the DNC, John Podesta"s emails, can you tell the American people 1,000 percent that you did not get it from Russia or anybody associated with Russia?

ASSANGE: Yes. We can say, we have said, repeatedly that over the last two months that our source is not the Russian government and it is not a state party... Obama is trying to say that President-elect Trump is not a legitimate President.

When asked if  WikiLeaks changed the outcome of the election, Assange replied "Who knows, it’s impossible to tell" but, he added, "if it did, the accusation is that the true statements of Hillary Clinton and her campaign manager, John Podesta, and the DNC head Debbie Wasserman Schultz, their true statements is what changed the election.”

Which is correct, however admitting as much would shift the blame away from the "Russians" and back to the failures of the Clinton campaign and the shortcoming of the Democrats, and the whole point of this scapegoating campaign is precisely the opposite.

As the Hill adds, Assange said there"s an "obvious" reason the Obama administration has focused on Russia"s alleged role in Democratic hacks leading up to Donald Trump"s electoral win.

“They’re trying to delegitimize the Trump administration as it goes into the White House.”

He then added that "our publications had wide uptake by the American people, they’re all true,” Assange continued. “But that’s not the allegation that’s being presented by the Obama White House.”

However, as we said previously, since at the end of the day it is Assange"s word - unless Wikileaks does actually reveal its source, which would be professional suicide - against the word of Obama and 17 agenices who back him up, despite still having provided no actual evidence in the ongoing, and quite bizarre attempt to force a deterioration of US-Russian relations in the final days of the Obama administration, just so Trump can inherit a complete diplomatic mess and make closer relations with Putin more complicated, this latest interview with Assange will likewise resolve absolutely nothing.

Julian Assange Crushes Obama Narrative: "Our Source Is Not The Russian Government"

As Obama gets set to announce retaliation efforts against the Russian government for "hacking" the 2016 election, Julian Assange has come forward, once again, to confirm that his source is not the Russians.  Appearing on the Sean Hannity radio show, Assange had the following to say:

Assange:  "Our source is not the Russian government."

Hannity:  "Let me be clear, Russia did not give you the Podesta documents or anything from the DNC?"

Assange:  "That"s correct."

JULIAN ASSANGE: Our source is not the Russian government (via #Hannity) pic.twitter.com/ySTEg8HBqa

— FOX & friends (@foxandfriends) December 16, 2016

Meanwhile, even James Clapper, the Director of National Intelligence who oversees the 17 intelligence agencies that Hillary loved to quote during the campaign, confirmed, after the election, that he had no "good insight" into where WikiLeaks received they"re information.

James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence (11/17/16):  "As far as the WikiLeaks connection, the evidence there is not as strong and we don"t have good insight into the sequencing of the releases or when the data may have been provided.  We don"t have as good insight into that."

So, just to summarize where we are.  WikiLeaks, the organization behind both the DNC and Podesta leaks, has confirmed repeatedly that its source was not the Russian government.  James Clapper, the head of Hillary"s 17 intelligence agencies, has confirmed that he has no "good insight" into where WikiLeaks got their information.  But the Obama administration, utilizing the full might of the corrupt mainstream media, is about to "retaliate" against the Russian government, without a shred of credible evidence, as the mainstream media continues to spin a dangerous narrative based on "anonymous" sources at the CIA.  Does that about sum it up? 

Here is the full interview with Assange: