H/T Thomas Ventimiglia
Those who frequent cryptic message sites like 4Chan are reporting that the Trump administration has ended its grand jury proceedings against WikiLeaks and is preparing to pardon Julian Assange, making him a free man again, of course only possible with the cooperation of the British government.

The basis for the case to free Assange lies in his First Amendment rights to freely publish as a journalist. The First Amendment, of course, had no validity with the Barack Hussein administration, nor did any part of the United States Constitution. President “Trump’s attorneys argued that Julian Assange had a right under the First Amendment to publish the DNC and John Podesta emails.” Therefore, in the near future, Julian Assange will be a free man once again.

It is also believed that Assange has a “dead man’s switch” at the ready should he be arrested, which involves the release of much more highly sensitive information that is likely to damage the Obama legacy, what’s left of it, even further.

take our poll - story continues below

Who should replace Nikki Haley as our ambassador to the U.N.?

  • Who should replace Nikki Haley as our ambassador to the U.N.?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Powdered Wig Society updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Trending: Caravan picking up steam and numbers. President Trump preparing to place military on border and close it. Liberal weenies go into convulsions

Jerome Corsi, another highly credible investigative reporter, is also reading recent developments the same way – all signs point to a Trump pardon of Julian Assange in the near future.

WASHINGTON, D.C. (Infowars)– In the past few days, a series of unexpected developments have cleared the path for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange to leave the Ecuadorian Embassy in London without fear of arrest.

On Tuesday, WikiLeaks posted a tweet announcing the U.S. government had ended its eight-year-long grand jury proceedings against WikiLeaks that was expanded in 2017 to cover the WikiLeaks various “Vault” releases on CIA spy technology.

The WikiLeaks tweet referenced a State Department press conference held that day, Jan. 2, 2018, in which State Department Spokesperson Heather Nauert made a strong statement regarding freedom of speech that was couched in a reference to Iran.

The WikiLeaks tweet confirmed the State Department’s reference to freedom of speech in Iran was a coded communication intended to extend the umbrella of free speech and press rights to WikiLeaks in a clear reversal of the policy in which both CIA Director Mike Pompeo and Attorney General Sessions have argued that arresting Julian Assange is a priority. It is not clear that Assange has violated national security laws, even if it can be shown he published U.S. national security classified documents.

Specifically, Nauert said the following:

“We support a freedom of the press here in the United States. We support the right of voices to be heard. And when a nation clamps down on social media or websites or Google or news sites, we ask the question, “What are you afraid of?” What are you afraid of? We support the Iranian people and we support their voices being heard.”

Trump’s attorneys argue Assange’s First Amendment right to publish

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, Trump’s attorneys 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.

In a 32-page motion defending the Trump Campaign, Michael A. Carvin of the Jones Day law firm and 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 involves “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 the 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 of any criminal offense in the United States, nor is it clear if he 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.

While Roger Stone’s case is still pending in the District of Columbia District Court, the opinion submitted by President Trump’s attorneys can be seen to have established the basis for pardoning Assange as a pre-condition of allowing Assange to leave the Ecuadorian Embassy in London without U.S. federal authorities seeking to arrest him.

Sweden drops charges against Assange

In May 2017, the government in Sweden dropped the rape case against Assange, ending the four-year long attempt by the Swedish government to arrest Assange via a European Arrest Warrant.

A recent decision by a United Kingdom tribunal also appears to have vitiated the arrest warrant issued by a British court in 2012, after Assange violated his bail conditions to take refuge in the Ecuadorean Embassy.

On Dec. 29, 2017, Assange posted a tweet that referenced an article published by the Guardian on Dec. 14, 2017, citing a United Kingdom tribunal that declared WikiLeaks to be a media organization and a free speech advocate – designations that could carry a legal importance in placing Assange under “free speech” protections both in the UK and in the United States.

Read more….