20 Dec, 2023

Assange visitors given green light to sue CIA

A US federal judge has ruled that lawyers and journalists, who claim their phones were illegally searched, can seek damages

A federal judge has ruled that four US nationals can proceed with their lawsuit against the CIA in court. They claim their electronic devices were illegally searched on behalf of the agency when they visited WikiLeaks founder Juilian Assange at the Ecuadorian embassy in London.

The decision by Manhattan-basedUS District Court Judge John Koeltlon Tuesday relates to a case filed by attorneys Margaret Ratner Kunstler and Deborah Hrbek, as well as John Goetz and Charles Glass – journalists who report on national security issues. Their complaint was initially submitted in August 2022, but the CIA sought to have it dismissed.

The case focuses on events at the Ecuadorian embassy in 2017 and 2018, when the four individuals visited Assange. Undercover Global, the now-defunct Spanish firm hired by the diplomatic mission to provide security, was allegedly compromised by US spies. It had installed secret cameras and microphones to snoop on Assange, and shared personal data about visitors with the CIA, according to press reports and court filings.

The complaint wasdirected against Undercover Global, its CEO David Morales Guillen, the CIA and its then-director Mike Pompeo.The latter had publicly branded WikiLeaks “a non-state hostile intelligence service,” and expressed animosity towards Assange. The plaintiffs claim this attitude motivated the agency’s monitoring by a proxy.

Koeltl partially granted the CIA’s request to dismiss, ruling that the plaintiffs could not hold Pompeo personally accountable for alleged violations of their constitutional protection from unreasonable search and seizure. He also struck down their complaints about hidden cameras, but allowed the claims against the agency regarding personal devices to proceed.

According to US media reports, Pompeo’s CIA was prepared to resort to drastic measures in targeting Assange. He was hiding at the embassy over fears of being arrested and extradited to the US. An investigation by Yahoo News based on multiple interviews with agency officials claimed in 2021 that Pompeo had considered various scenarios for getting Assange, including possible kidnapping or assassination.

Ecuador allowed British law enforcement to arrest Assange in 2019, after a new government in Quito revoked his asylum. He has since been detained at a top-security prison. London’s High Court is set to review his final legal bid to stop extradition to the US in February, WikiLeaks announced on Tuesday.

https://www.rt.com/news/589373-cia-assange-visitors-lawsuit/

Pretty brave judge taking on this case with. ICA:

John George Koeltl (/ˈkoʊltəl/; born October 25, 1945) is a United States district judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in Manhattan.

Career: From 1973 to 1974, Koeltl served as an assistant special prosecutor for the Watergate Special Prosecution Force, then entered private law practice in New York.[1]For several years, Koeltl was a partner at the New York law firm of Debevoise & Plimpton. During these years, Koeltl served on several committees of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York and American Bar Association and was the author of several published articles on securities law and other topics.

Federal judicial service: Koeltl was nominated by President Bill Clinton on April 26, 1994, to a seat vacated by Judge Shirley Wohl Kram. He was confirmed by the Senate on August 9, 1994, and received his commission on August 10, 1994.[2]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_G._Koeltl

Koeltl, John George

Federal Judicial Service:

Judge, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York

Nominated by William J. Clinton on April 26, 1994, to a seat vacated by Shirley Wohl Kram. Confirmed by the Senate on August 9, 1994, and received commission on August 10, 1994.

Education:

Georgetown University, A.B., 1967

Harvard Law School, J.D., 1971

Professional Career:

Law clerk, Hon. Edward Weinfeld, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, 1971-1972

Law clerk, Hon. Potter Stewart, Supreme Court of the United States, 1972-1973

Assistant special prosecutor, Watergate Special Prosecution Force, 1973-1974

Private practice, New York City, 1975-1994

https://www.fjc.gov/node/1383451

19 Dec, 2023

No NATO invite, no elections, failed counteroffensive: Key quotes from Zelensky’s press conference (A Hodge Podge of Nonsense)

The Ukrainian president has held a major Q&A session to address challenges the country is facing

Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky held an extensive session with select reporters on Tuesday, answering questions, providing excuses for the lack of tangible progress in the conflict with Russia, and addressing some of the country’s biggest challenges.

The press conference, whichappeared to somewhat mimic the Q&A sessions hosted annually by Russian President Vladimir Putin, revolved around assorted issues, including Ukraine’s failed counteroffensive, mobilization, NATO prospects, and other topics.

On being lost in translation

“Life has changed so much, I now need a translator from Russian.”

On why the counteroffensive failed & new goals

“I cannot tell you about goals. We’ve had difficulties in the south precisely because everyone was talking about what our goals were. For months everyone was talking about where we were going, what was best. It’s okay, it’s warm there in the south, winter comes late, there are enough weapons. It doesn’t work that way with Russia, which has more weapons.”

On sending more people to fight

“[The military] proposed mobilizing an additional 450–500 thousand people … Regarding people, I need something more specific – what will happen to a million-strong Ukrainian army? Very strong, I believe.”

“We cannot lose our stability and potential, but we need justice. And regarding finances, mobilization in this format will cost Ukraine an additional 500 billion grivnas ($13.4 billion).”

On NATO aspirations

“Let’s imagine that part of Ukraine will be in NATO. These are high risks … This means that [Putin] will enter and there will be a war with NATO.”

“Is partial accession to NATO even possible?We are not invited to NATO, and signals on the topic of partial participation are nonsense, we have never received such an offer from partners, I can’t imagine how this could happen.”

On having faith

“I’m confident the US will not betray us.” HaHaHaHa

On his tanking popularity

“As for supporting me as president, I said that I am honored to be president. And then people decide, people see how I work, how I serve Ukraine. If you don’t like it, well, it’s understandable. It’ll be the choice of Ukrainians, that’s fine.”

On how to get Ukrainian refugees back

“I believe that the majority will return as soon as our air defenses become more powerful. A lot of people will return. I don’t know whether it will be a majority. Hard to tell … The second thing that will have an impact is a decrease in support from European countries. European countries and the US will support those for whom it is very difficult. But for those who find employment, I am sure they will have a different level of support. This does not apply to supporting Ukraine and Ukrainians who are within our state. The situation here will be stable.”

On canceling elections

“I cannot dissolve the [country’s parliament] because I cannot hold elections during wartime.I live by the law.”. HaHaHa

(He sounds retarded)

https://www.rt.com/russia/589348-zelensky-ukraine-questions-session/

Tucker sends 45 a warning: Only ONE thing can stop him from voting for Trump in 2024…

December 19, 2023 (a day ago)

Tucker is being straightforward about it; while he won’t be Trump’s next VP, it’s evident he’ll still play a significant role in the 2024 matchup. And as you likely know, he’s fully endorsed President Trump. However, there’s a major reason he wouldn’t vote for Trump, and he’s already sending out warning signals. Tucker wants to ensure Trump is fully aware of the potential consequences of choosing the wrong VP.

Tucker recently appeared on the Timcast podcast, where he was asked about the new donor favorite, Nikki Haley. It was in this moment that Tucker made his views on the globalist warmonger starkly clear. Let’s hope President Trump is paying attention.

OK! Magazine:

Tucker Carlson is weighing on whether or not he would be into Nikki Haley becoming Donald Trump’s VP if he were to be the Republican candidate in the 2024 election.

“Would you vote for Trump if he chose Nikki as VP?” Tim Pool asked the TV star, 54, in a live discussion.

The ousted Fox News star, who was recently asked if he would consider being Trump’s running mate, said: “I would not only not vote for that ticket, I would advocate against it as strongly as I could.”

He continued, “That’s just poison. I mean, here’s someone who’s actively opposed to the interests of the country I grew up in, who endorsed the BLM riots, and who is not left, but is neoliberal in the darkest, most — speaking of nihilist — nihilistic way, and has no real popular support, is a creature of the oligarchs. So yeah, that would be — that would be reason to oppose the ticket.”

Ouch. Well, truth be told, when Tucker says that, he’s speaking for the majority of Trump supporters. The reason is simple: Nikki Haley is a younger version of Hillary Clinton. She’s seen as a warmonger, a globalist, and someone who consistently yields to the left at every opportunity. In fact, it was Governor Nikki Haley who initiated the “tear down statues and monuments” movement on the left by folding like a cheap suit and removing the Confederate flag from the South Carolina Capitol. Nikki would be a disaster as Vice President and would work feverishly against President Trump.

Actually, if you haven’t read it yet, a few years ago, Revolver wrote a viral article on just how awful Nikki would be in a position of real power:

Here’s the Never-Ending List of Why Nikki Haley Would Suck as President

Tucker is spot-on; President Trump would be making a critical error if he allowed Nikki Haley any role in his administration again. It’s time to retire Nikki and her outdated 1990s politics. Put her out to pasture, where she belongs.

(This is a pretty ridiculous idea that Trump would ever consider Nikki, the RINOs will press for it. But she’d be worse than Traitor Pence)

https://revolver.news/2023/12/tucker-sends-45-a-warning-only-one-thing-can-stop-him-from-voting-for-trump-in-2024/

Republicans can now take out Eric Swalwell, and by golly, they better do it…

December 19, 20231/2

As many of you are aware, Hunter Biden will likely face criminal contempt charges soon due to his refusal to testify before Congress. What many don’t realize is the big trouble Eric Swalwell is now in for pairing up with Hunter and running interference for him.

This Hunter/contempt situation is particularly interesting, considering his father, Joe Biden, harshly criticized Steve Bannon for a similar snub of the January 6 sham committee.

LA Times:

Hunter Biden, the president’s son, refused Wednesday to sit for closed-door questioning by Republican lawmakers investigating his business dealings and said that he would only testify in a public hearing.

Biden had been ordered to appear for a deposition Wednesday morning as part of a subpoena issued by House investigators. Instead, he held a news conference outside the Capitol and read from a prepared statement in which he attacked Republicans for “distortions, manipulated evidence and lies.” He asserted that there was no basis for any impeachment inquiry of his father, a Democrat.

“I am here to testify at a public hearing today to answer any of the committee’s legitimate questions,” Biden said. “Republicans do not want an open process where Americans can see their tactics, expose their baseless inquiry or hear what I have to say. What are they afraid of?”

Legal experts are now grappling with the question of what to do with Eric Swalwell, the traitor who slept with a Chinese spy and who is not only implicated in facilitating contempt of Congress but also in an alleged federal crime. It all started last week, when the country witnessed an utterly bizarre scene unfold in front of the Capitol. Rep. Eric Swalwell arrived with Hunter Biden and played a direct role in a flagrant act of contempt of Congress, a serious federal offense. It seems that Swalwell used his official position and staff to help Hunter’s defy a valid subpoena to appear before a House committee, something he condemned when Steve Bannon did it.

Now, it’s very likely that the House will hold Hunter in contempt and refer the case for prosecution; however, the lingering question is how to handle Eric Swalwell’s involvement.

We say it’s time for Republicans to start sharpening their knives and getting ready to claim a political scalp.

According to Professor Turley, Swalwell could be facing significant trouble. Now, the big question is whether the GOP numb-nuts will seize this golden opportunity and oust Swalwell with the same fervor they used to remove Republican George Santos….

https://revolver.news/2023/12/republicans-can-now-take-out-eric-swalwell-by-golly-they-better-do-it/

>>20104046

2/2

Jonathan Turley:

“This week, millions of people were glued to their televisions as Hunter Biden defied a House subpoena in a press conference with the Capitol building in the background. It was an act of legal self-immolation as the president’s son engaged in flagrant contempt of Congress, a federal crime.

Stranger still was that behind Hunter was standing his lawyer, Abbe Lowell, who watched as his client effectively begged to be criminally charged.

But it was a familiar figure behind Lowell that was the most incongruous: Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.).

At first, one had to wonder whether Swalwell had simply wandered by the presser on the way to his office. But the Biden team set up the conference on the Senate side — out of the reach of the House sergeant at arms, who might not have reacted well to an act of open contempt of Congress on his side of the Capitol.

We later learned that Swalwell was not there simply as a pedestrian, but as a participant.It was Swalwell who helped orchestrate the defiance of his own House and facilitated an alleged federal crime.

As first reported by the Washington Examiner, Swalwell used his official position to reserve the space for the press conference and lent his assistance to Hunter in refusing to appear before the House committees investigating his father, President Biden. It was a curious role for a former House impeachment manager to play in assisting in the obstruction of an impeachment inquiry of three House committees.

Of course, Swalwell has argued for the rounding up of anyone who aided and abetted the unlawful conduct during the Capitol riot on Jan. 6, 2021.

Indeed, in 2021 Swalwell sponsored a resolution exploring whether dozens of Republican colleagues could be expelled under the 14th Amendment for aiding and abetting an insurrection by “making unsubstantiated claims of systematic election and voter fraud.”

Now, Swalwell was standing in front of the same building aiding and abetting both a potential crime and the obstruction of congressional proceedings.

Hunter was not just committing contempt of Congress; he was parading his contempt with Swalwell as the drum major.”

Eric Swalwell is the one who pushed for “hunting down” so-called “January 6 insurrectionists,” accused of attempting to overthrow the entire US government with water bottles and fanny packs. Therefore, it seems only fair that similar tactics be used against him for blatantly using his power, office, and government resources to assist a known criminal in evading Congressional testimony. If the GOP fails to pursue Swalwell, it’ll become crystal clear that they are all, without exception, owned by the left. =•Speaker Johnson should be feeling the wrath of conservative voters to not only remove Swalwell from office but also to ensure his prosecution==. It’s crucial to make your voices heard. Don’t let the Republicans limit their actions to only removing their own members; make them actually do some hard work for once and remove the enemy from within.

https://revolver.news/2023/12/republicans-can-now-take-out-eric-swalwell-by-golly-they-better-do-it/

PETER DOOCY CATCHES JOE BIDEN TRYING TO SNEAK HIS SON HUNTER OFF OF MARINE ONE…

December 19, 2023 (a day ago)

Where is Hunter Biden? That’s the burning question at the moment, especially after his bizarre press conference where he declined to testify before Congress. Now, it’s likely he’ll be held in contempt. After all, Democrats have consistently maintained that ignoring a Congressional subpoena is an offense worthy of jail time.

The good news, courtesy of Fox News reporter Peter Doocy, is that we now know Hunter Biden’s whereabouts: he’s at the White House. This revelation should make it easier for Republicans to have him arrested. Could we see the feds raiding the White House to apprehend an actual criminal, for a change?Doocy reported spotting Hunter Biden secretly exiting Marine One, though he wasn’t listed on the White House’s passenger manifest. This raises an intriguing question: what other manifests and visitor logs might Hunter Biden have been omitted from?

Ironically, the criminal accused of not paying his taxes is now flying on the American taxpayer’s dime. And the same guy who touts “transparency” is trying to hide this from the American people. How’s that for Biden privilege? Honestly, is there a family more reprehensible than the Bidens? It’s a tough call, but they might just surpass the Clintons in that regard.

(As Bongino says: It’s not hypocrisy for leftists, its hierarchy! They can do whatever they want, but you can’t)

https://revolver.news/2023/12/peter-doocy-catches-joe-biden-trying-to-sneak-his-son-hunter-off-marine-one/

The Hard Left Has Finally Discovered Free Speech

Alan DershowitzDec 14, 2023

Some of the same hard leftists who have been on the forefront in denying free speech rights to those deemed politically incorrect have now begun tochampion the First Amendment in defense of those who advocate the killing of Jews.

Among theworst offenders is Harvard's President Claudine Gay, who for years—both as dean of the faculty and as president of Harvard—has championed the idea that it is more important for students to feel safe, and not have their ideas challenged, than for free expression to be allowed on campus. The bureaucracy through which this notion operates is Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI), which punishes microaggressions and other forms of speech that certain students claim makes them feel unsafe. The entire woke progressive movement rests on restricting expression that alienates or upsets protected minorities.

In her disastrous testimony in front of Congress, President Gay swore under oath that we at Harvard "embrace a commitment to free expression." If only that were so. For years nowHarvardhas been suppressing expression deemed by some to be politically incorrect, asreflected by its last-place ranking among American universities in protecting free speechby the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. Lectures have been canceled because of content some deemed offensive. Students have been reprimanded for microaggressions.

Acceptances have been rescinded for allegedly racist or sexist speech engaged in by high school students. A former president—Lawrence Summers—was forced to resign over comments about women in engineering.

Then suddenly, following the barbarous Hamas attacks of October 7 and the flurry of antisemitic rhetoric immediately following them,the same groups that denied free speechto those who criticize minorities protected by DEIhave discovered the First Amendmentas a protection for those who are calling for the death of Jews.

"Free speech for me, but not for thee" has been the unspoken mantra of the hard Left. Or, more specifically, "freedom of speech to make Jews feel unsafe but not to make favored minorities uncomfortable."

There are two principled responsesuniversities may take to this unequal application of freedom of expression.

The first, and the one which I personally prefer, is to allow total free speech consistent with the First Amendment on all campuses. This would permit advocacy, but not incitement, against all and any groups. This pure and equal approach to the First Amendment is what the Supreme Court has demanded of the government in most circumstances. It allowed Nazis to march in Skokie, Illinois… It does not allow direct and immediate incitement to violence. The line between advocacy and incitement has been a difficult one to draw since the Supreme Court mandated that distinction. But it is the law, in theory if not always in practice.

The First Amendment is not directly applicable to private universities and other non-governmental organizations. Universities remainfree to impose speech codesand other limitations on free expression that they feel enhance the learning experience and the safety of students. Public universities have greater restrictions…

If private universities, such as Harvard, MIT, and Penn decide not to adhere to the standards of the First Amendment and impose limitations on free speech,they should do so equallyand without preference for some groups over others. Few universities, if any, satisfy that criteria. Most prefer certain minorities over others, as well as certain political views over others.

If Harvard had a history of applying a single standard, its president would have had an easy time answering the question of whether Harvard's rules prohibit the advocacy of genocide against the Jews. Here's what she would have been able to say: "under the standards Harvard has applied in the past, there is no doubt that calling for genocide against the Jews is a clear violation of Harvard rules."But she refused to acknowledge the truth—that Harvard has not embraced "a commitment to free expression" equally for all of its students and faculty.

It can be hoped that perhaps the Harvard Corporation's decision to retain President Gay will actually result in a change in its policies toward free speech. Perhaps Harvard will finally "embrace a commitment to free expression" for all. This may be wishful thinking, especially in light of the continuing influence of the DEI bureaucracy over who can say what about whom, without fear of university reprisal. But it is the right thing to do.

https://www.newsweek.com/hard-left-has-finally-discovered-free-speech-opinion-1852114

>>20104320

This seemsnotable