Daniel Liszt and Olivia condemn Julian Assange's embassy arrest as a CIA-orchestrated "miscarriage of justice" involving Ecuadorian President Lenín Moreno, allegedly traded for a $4.2 billion IMF loan. They dismiss Attorney General William Barr's prosecution as a deep state vendetta against WikiLeaks' exposure of Iraq war atrocities and DNC leaks, rejecting rumors of a Trump pardon as junk conspiracy. The hosts argue that extraditing Assange to face weak charges violates constitutional freedoms, framing the trial as a dangerous precedent for global censorship that threatens democratic republics unless public pressure forces the dropping of these phony indictments. [Automatically generated summary]
Transcriber: CohereLabs/cohere-transcribe-03-2026, WAV2VEC2_ASR_BASE_960H, sat-12l-sm, script v26.04.01, and large-v3-turbo
Time
Text
Justice Done or Absurd00:14:43
And we are live.
This is Dark Journalist.
It's great to be here.
It's a fantastic crowd tonight.
And this is definitely one of the most important episodes that we'll be doing, just by the mere fact of the impact of the events that have happened in the past 24 hours regarding Julian Assange, who's the founder of WikiLeaks, and his arrest out of the Ecuador embassy in London.
Of course, as usual, I'm joined by the lovely Olivia.
Hi, everybody.
And she's going to be taking your questions tonight.
For the second half of the program, we're going to do a lot of QA.
So remember to ask those questions in caps so she can string them together into this powerful narrative as only she can do.
I do want to say right off the bat that the responses to this really flagrant miscarriage of justice have really showed who's basically lined up on the side of right and who is just out for the establishment.
And those lines get very, very clearly drawn when we get into the subject.
A lot of people have been trying to paint the arrest of Assange, which I'm going to get into in detail here, as on the mainstream media side, as some kind of like finally justice is done, which is absurd because, in effect, WikiLeaks has been publishing consistently good information over the course of the last 12 years or so, and particularly having a huge impact on the end of Iraq war hostilities and also in the 2016 campaign,
which was quite significant, exposing all of the That were going on there with the DNC and Hillary Clinton, which I believe most of this is based on.
However, we are in a Trump administration, and Trump's strange acquiescence along the lines of kissing up to the CIA on this one is not a good sign for things to come, and certainly will work against him with his base who wants to see Assange free.
I know there's been a lot of online chatter, and we're going to get into some of that tonight.
So much is misleading, actually, as we've Find so often on the alternative side, unfortunately.
You've got the mainstream media on one side, you know, towing the kind of authoritarian establishment line, and then you have these kind of marketing and intel disinformation sources trying to flood the alternative media.
And one of the stories that they have going out there is that don't worry about it because Trump's just getting taken over.
You know, he's bringing Assange over to Mar a Lago and he's going to just hang out there and have a great old time.
No, in fact, he's in a cell and he's subject to.
He's indicted and he's subject to conviction, which would place him in prison for close to a decade.
So, these stories which feed this fantasy tend to dull our resistance, and we're going to get into that tonight, just like the cabal arrests, which we've seen and debunked over and over again, and the Gitmo barges and all that junk.
These are tactics by marketing companies and also by other forces, literally just to keep a narrative going and to get you into some kind of Lulled state where you don't have the facts, and you know, George Soros is in Gitmo, don't worry about it, and Hillary's on trial at Gitmo, and things like that.
This whole thing about Assange and how this is going to be some kind of vacation for him coming here and it's all part of a master plan no, this is literally the deep state reaching in and grabbing Assange out of that embassy.
And with the cooperation of the new Ecuadorian government, and I'm going to show you why they cooperated in this case.
But what's going to be even more kind of powerful in a way than just recounting the details of how he got arrested is to see how this reaction gets spun out and how groups try to take advantage of these narratives in order to get us to lay back to do nothing about the fact that he's being extradited here, which we can stop, by the way, with a loud enough public reaction.
There doesn't need to be any trial of Assange here in America.
We can stop the extradition process.
We can call upon our many viewers and friends in Australia to claim sovereignty over their own citizen, which is Assange's, an Australian citizen.
And for this whole, you know, America grabs this guy out of the UK and brings him over here and subjects him to all these rules because he exposed secrets.
What were those secrets?
We're going to get into those.
Tonight, and specifically what they wanted to tag him for, goes back to the fact of the Iraq War and the inhumanities that were committed during the Bush administration.
And if anything, we should have Bush officials on trial for that, not Assange.
But history has some kind of irony in this sense, which is that the attorney general who was going to be trying the case, Barr, is an inside, you know, he's a Bushy, as they call him.
He's an inside Bush player.
He was, in fact, Bush's.
Bush won Bush senior's legal aid when he was the director of the Central Intelligence Agency and during Iran Contra.
So he's a deep, deep, deep state actor.
And anyone who thinks that they're going to get any kind of liberation out of bars is sadly mistaken.
So we've got a lot of those strange deals going on in the new Trump administration coming into 2019 where there's kind of a move toward the neocons and Trump's base needs to really talk him out of that.
So we're going to get into that tonight.
We're preempting the X series until next week.
And next week, we're going to have Gigi Young on, and we're going to go deep on that.
But this, of course, is a very important issue.
We need to get right into it.
How's it going out there?
It's really busy already.
And I have to say, I wanted to start with this question.
William Klimek said, Is this the day the music dies?
It can be.
We have to be very careful and understand what's at stake and how this could set a precedent.
For silencing journalism around the world that is critical of the establishment, in particular the American and UK government establishment, which seems to have an ironclad rule over the media, mostly based around the Council on Foreign Relations.
This picture may become one of those symbolic pictures of a generation of us shutting up the truth.
That is the picture of him dragging Assange out of the embassy.
And of course, he's holding a book there by Gore Vidal on the national security state, which I find quite interesting.
And the book itself is interesting.
But certainly, the picture that this conjures up is that this thug authoritarian rule is grabbing people out of embassies under the mistaken notion that you can't release things that the government doesn't want you to release.
This would be the worst of all possible worlds.
And we're seeing it over and over again.
All of the deplatforming that we've been talking about from independent groups putting out.
I mean, we've been at risk for this ourselves, and we've had so many things happen with them removing subscribers and views and things.
I don't spend a whole lot of time on it because my big solution is for everyone to go to darkjournalist.com and sign up for the newsletter because that way we have our own pipeline that can't get interrupted by something like a platform taking away your right.
And, you know, we've had some of those notices from YouTube say, well, you know, your content was objectionable according to one, two, and three categories, which is absurd because, you know, the stuff that we cover.
The only thing that is objectionable is that we bring truth to light.
And this is the same.
Case.
It's going on in all different stages because basically, over the course of like the last five years, the establishment feels that it's lost control of the narrative.
And this is so, so important to get to because they're all about the narrative and they're constantly spitting that out.
But I want to say so much of this, what we're talking about, really, it is the free world against the Central Intelligence Agency and Deep State.
It comes around and around and again, and you're going to see how this is actually a battle between the Central Intelligence Agency and Assange here and WikiLeaks.
But it is largely based directly on the Central Intelligence Agency and the media supporting the agency, and that kind of relationship going back and forth, and how that relates to what is truly called the deep state.
Now, we see the deep state thrown around a lot, and I don't think people really understand what it is because it's just thrown out there as this kind of catch all, very much like the cabal, as if there was some big monolith out there that was doing these things.
It doesn't work that way.
So let's quickly review what's going to really help us with this case is to quickly review the three rules of dark journalism, very simple and quick.
First, you've got the regular narrative, which is the establishment line.
You have, that's the official story, as it were.
In this case, Assange is a bad guy giving away American secrets.
Then you have the counter story, which is often called the conspiracy theory by the media and all the rest, but very often turns out to be right.
And in the counter story, you have a lot of Professors, writers, journalists getting it right and putting the information out there.
And so it becomes the counter story, and the media tries to paint it as this wild conspiracy.
So, in that case, him being grabbed because of revealing deep state secrets becomes what the counter story is.
That's the pose that we take.
And then underneath that is junk conspiracy.
And I want to warn everyone in cases like this and with events like this.
That the junk conspiracy is so loud and it's on such an overdrive that we need to be particularly cautious of it.
And the junk conspiracy in this case is that this is all some Trump's master plan to bring Assange over here to testify or something.
It's complete nonsense.
Assange is actually being treated in a hostile fashion.
And they've referred to him as a hostile intelligence, non state intelligence agency.
That's how the CIA is regarding him.
And his treatment will be along those lines.
And that ain't pretty.
So let's get serious.
And, you know, the dreams are fun, the fantasies are fun, but this is the real deal on the ground.
And they've grabbed one of the major titular heads of the alternative independent media.
And we need something better than just fantasy.
We need hard facts on the ground to figure out how to get this situation under control.
And that's what we're going to do tonight.
Now, in a level headed fashion, we're not going to sort of let our imaginations run away with this.
Now, one of the key things that gave us this picture, which I think is, again, going to be an iconic picture for this generation of the forces above trying to silence real, true, independent journalism because it is setting them back on so many fronts and the mainstream media is really losing a lot of credibility, but still has incredible power.
So it becomes very, very dangerous when it's in that situation trying to regain respectability and market share.
That's kind of like trying to put the genie back in the bottle.
You're not going to be able to do it, but the process of them attempting to do it is going to be pretty ugly.
There's no question about it.
And while I'm going to launch into this whole thing about the IMF loan in Ecuador here, which happened right on the heels of this arrest.
But before I do that, Ms. Olivia, how are we doing?
Good.
There's a lot of basic questions.
So, hoping you're going to get into it.
So, some people don't understand the indictment and they want an explanation of that.
I actually have it here and I'm going to read it.
Through and through.
That's a good point, too, to really get to the facts on the ground.
And I'm going to get a little into Assange's history, but fundamentally, WikiLeaks being founded in 2006 and largely tracking the Iraq war, this is where they kind of made their bones.
And also in tracking the war in Afghanistan, I think it's safe to say that they are largely engaged in transparency and that the kind of Let's say the kind of reporting that they did had that feeling very much like the Pentagon Papers and what the New York Times had done in the 60s and 70s, trying to get us inside information about the Vietnam War.
As a matter of fact, Daniel Ellsberg, who released the Pentagon Papers, which showed that we stayed in Vietnam not because there were provocations there, but because we had a number of interests and wanted to escalate the war there.
The Pentagon Papers were a significant sea change in American politics and in journalism.
And there's no question that WikiLeaks release of the Iraq war atrocities in 2010 through Chelsea Manning, giving them the information to do it, also was a massive sea change, very much the way that Snowden was a massive sea change when that information came out through Glenn Greenwald.
So the process acts journalistically like this someone works inside an organization, they collect inside data for something that they see as illegal or is going wrong.
And they speed it and give it over to the media.
And the media takes a look at it.
And if it's responsible media, before they release it, they weigh it out and see will anybody be hurt by the release of this information beyond the actual perpetrators?
And when they feel solid enough that they're on legal ground, they'll release it.
That's the way the Snowden revelations about the NSA worked, it's the way that the Chelsea Manning revelations about the Iraq war atrocities were.
Was that, oh, you're releasing Defense Department secrets.
So let's go into this case a little bit.
It's an upsetting case, there's no question about it.
But in 2007, there was an operation that Chelsea Manning was aware of being a part of this unit in Iraq.
And the atrocity that was committed was from an Apache helicopter.
Collateral Damage in Libya00:15:03
And it was American soldiers firing on.
Non hostile actors.
In this case, the non hostiles were Reuters photographers who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
And the voiceover that was caught for this was also very damning because what had happened with this case, Reuters wanted to know why their own photographers had been shot in what seemed like a non hostile zone.
And they were getting stonewalled.
So even they had questions about it long before we even get into the whole thing about Assange and what he released and how Bradley Manning gave him this information.
These other, you know, very mainstream.
News outlets wanted this information and were absolutely hell bent to get it right.
And they couldn't get anything out of the military except saying, you know, giving them a real stonewall like, hey, our soldiers acted appropriately, tough luck.
So when this got released, it sent shockwaves because what it showed was that while they were kind of targeting and looking around for these militant types in some corner of Iraq, They saw this guy walking around with a camera who was just a photographer, and they shot at him, and then they shot at a van injuring children.
So it's a tragedy all around, and their attitude about it was hey, you know, we got them, they're dead.
And so it was very damning against the Iraq War when it came out, and it embarrassed major elements of the political establishment.
Now, Bradley Manning, who became Chelsea Manning, got into a situation where at the age of 22, She was sentenced to 35 years in prison for releasing classified information.
And what she had done literally, she had initially gone to the media and looked to get this information out through legitimate channels, establishment channels.
And what she wound up doing was getting in touch with Assange, and he had the guts to release the information.
And when the information came out, it sent shockwaves because, you know, it was undeniable.
And The military's position, even after the footage came out, was that the soldiers hadn't done anything wrong.
So they refused to take any responsibility for it.
But this is the case that got Assange on the deep state's target list, and because it embarrassed them and their activities.
Now, I want to say this about military integrity, which is that everyone knows the training that's involved with our military soldiers, just like the training that's involved with policemen.
That if you go into a scene of a crime, there are rules that you obey when you go in there.
Just because you're after a criminal robbing a store, you don't shoot up old ladies in the aisle while you're doing it.
It's just a fact.
Civilian casualties are not acceptable.
And so to just call them collateral damage, and the website that came up was actually called Collateral Murder.
And certainly the rules that they were engaging in there.
And wiping out this Reuters photographer and injuring several people, including somebody who came by to help the photographer who had been shot and killing him.
You know, it should have been treated as a military crime and they should have, like Abu Ghraib, gone after it as an atrocity and had congressional hearings, but they wanted to brush it under the rug and this is the way it worked.
Now, WikiLeaks and Manning.
Or in the situation where they had revealed something dramatic, but the military on their side, what they said was, Look, we can use the fact that Manning released this information because he took this footage that the Apache helicopter had shot of them shooting up these guys and he gave it over to WikiLeaks, who published it.
Now, like I said, there is a precedent for this, which is the Pentagon Papers, which the New York Times published to show that the Vietnam War was being.
Extended for no reason, and that it had been for years and years this creation, and they had kind of carefully managed the perception of it basically to keep those military profits rolling in.
So we had a precedent for it there, and so therefore they couldn't go after Assange for that, but they could prosecute Manning, which they did.
And according to the transcripts, if you go over the history of his incarceration, well, Manning's incarceration.
Over the course of, say, those five years that she was in prison, included solitary confinement and all sorts of bizarre treatment, which many call inhumane, and I absolutely agree with it.
Now, at this very moment, Manning is again in prison, even though her sentence was commuted by Obama before he left.
And she came out and was having something of a normal life again and was speaking out on issues.
And they asked her once again to.
Testify against Julian Assange, and she said no.
So now she, once again, is in prison.
So, you know, we're operating way outside of the law in this country on this issue, and it's going to press freedom and war crimes.
And we're going to have to clean up our act on this, but we cannot allow the extradition of Assange to this country stand.
That should not be allowed to happen, and we can't root for a trial where everything will come out and all that.
That is the wrong approach.
And we need to protect.
Independent media around the world, and especially when you have the American Constitution, which guarantees the right of free speech and media.
It's just, it's absurd for us to be even discussing a country grabbing somebody for revealing secrets.
And this is exactly why Assange went into the embassy in the first place.
Now, one thing I want to point out is one character in particular who wanted to give Assange a really hard time, and it came out in the State Department report.
Was that Hillary Clinton had actually considered a drone attack on Assange when he was disrupting her plans and releasing information about Libya and the rest?
And she literally at one point said, Can't we just drone this guy?
So you can see how they think about these people as collateral damage.
If somebody is messing up their game, then they become public enemy number one.
So I think when we look at a situation like this, we have to see what's become of, say, the situation that Clinton left in Libya.
Well, Libya is now a failed state in a civil war.
You know, a lot of their gold has disappeared.
What kind of a solution was that?
Oddly enough, although Gaddafi was a dictator and all the rest, one of the things that he had done before he was unceremoniously killed by these rebel forces that America had supported, and we also went in there and bombed during that whole civilian crisis, but he was giving up his biological weapons program, his nuclear weapons program.
And the weapons of mass destruction.
He was cooperating on that side.
He wanted to kind of improve the situation, and that's what he was doing.
And we had guys like Tony Blair going over there and toasting him and John Kerry.
Well, you know, it doesn't speak too well for us.
And this is another thing, which is American integrity is on the line with this.
And we cannot allow the Trump administration, regardless, you know, whether you're pro Trump or anti Trump, you can't allow the Trump administration to prosecute a journalist for publishing secrets that turned out to be hideous crimes on the other side.
So, you know, this is definitely something that we need on the independent media side to.
Take a very active effort in.
We cannot let it stand the extradition process, number one.
Certainly not a trial, but the extradition, that has to be stopped.
Let's start there.
Now, when I say that also that this is the CIA versus WikiLeaks, that's really how we have to think about this.
But the first thing I'm going to show is something that's not being mentioned very much, actually, in relation to.
Assange and why he was grabbed in Ecuador and the situation that they're in, and the president who is cooperating with American authorities on those.
So let's get into that now.
And as I do, Miss Olivia, how are we doing?
I can't keep up with anything.
It's very intense tonight.
I can absolutely appreciate it.
Well, you know, this is something where we all knew it was possible, but we didn't think that they were going to be so brazen.
But we're seeing, just like with the mandatory vaccinations in New York City, There seems to be something strange going on in 2019 where the gorilla is coming out of the closet.
And it's not very pretty.
And it reminds me of a discussion that I had with former Assistant Housing Secretary Catherine Austin Fitz, where she was saying, well, you know, the old leadership is dying off, the Rockefellers and the Bushes, and, you know, they had their own level of treachery.
But the guys that are coming in to replace them just think we have, you know, they're the tech guys, and they think we have the software.
We have the tech to do this and not be accountable to anybody.
And that's how it's starting to feel.
You know, when you have Jeff Bezos hiring people to listen to our conversations through Alexa, and you have Zuckerberg saying, well, the First Amendment isn't worth much anymore, you know, and requesting Facebook, requesting your email password, which is private to you when you go to log into your Facebook account.
You know, so it's a bridge too far.
And all of these things can be pushed back.
And there's no question about it.
So, but the.
The important thing to do is to get it at the point where it is now, where they've stepped over the line and they need to be pushed right back.
Because the way we do that is through hard hitting journalism and getting the word out there and through real public pressure, which does work in the final analysis.
You know, the whole like trust, you know, trust the outcome or any things like that that you hear so much on the internet means you don't have to do anything.
You don't have to write your congressperson because some phantom has control of the situation.
Everything's going to be fine.
That's a Wizard of Oz situation, never works out.
What you need is real activism on the ground.
Yes.
Okay, so let's start with this.
Mark W. Smith says, I can't figure out if Assange is hero or villain.
I think a lot of people are wondering that.
Well, he's certainly a hero in that he exposed information.
He helped to facilitate information in the case of the 2016 election, for example, where the DNC had rigged the primaries against Bernie Sanders.
It's a fact.
That is, in fact, how, in the final analysis, Hillary Clinton lost the election.
So, that's information that the public needed to know because they were rigging things behind the scenes.
In the case of the Iraq war atrocities, that's information that we need to know because they were keeping it secret.
And it is the military, just like the government, is answerable to the people.
And when they do things in secret and when they do illegal things, they need to be held to accountable standards.
That's what the media is all about bringing information to people so they can decide what to do.
Without the intermediary of the narrative in between.
That's why the government and the deep state try to control the media because when they have that kind of control, they become unaccountable, which is exactly where they want to be.
So, certainly, Assange is a hero.
There's no question about it.
Why do you think they grabbed him?
And as to him being a villain, show me anything where he's a villain.
Where he's saying, well, because he exposed a military operation, you know, they were very careful to extract.
Names and information of anything that would cause somebody harm.
But what they did very well was they explained in detail.
And if you go through Assange's history with WikiLeaks, they have never been wrong.
None of the information that they have put out has ever been bogus.
It's just that large groups object to this information being out there.
And whether you agree with him politically or not doesn't really matter, frankly.
What matters is how is he treated under the law?
And we have the Constitution here in America, and if they're grabbing him, You know, he's an Australian citizen.
So the idea that he's going to be accountable to us is absurd.
But even the Constitution, you know, God, the Magna Carta would protect him under these circumstances.
I mean, this is really an incredible miscarriage of justice.
And I think it needs to be stopped at the source.
Okay.
And on that note, Robert Allen was asking why isn't Australia waiting in to protect Julian?
Kari Nonstad said the Australian government does whatever the USA wants as an answer to that.
What do you think?
No, there's no question about it.
I mean, the Australian government acts as a poodle for the UK and the UK acts as a poodle for the US.
The problem is they do, they have the ability to stand up and say, that's our citizen.
We want to deal with it.
You can't extradite him.
All the people in Australia, you know, we've seen people like Charles Pilger come out and have rallies and things like that, but all the people of Australia should stand up and say, Assange is our guy.
You can't just drag him over to some prison in America to rot.
You know, this is ridiculous.
Essentially, what the guy did is he published secrets that were given to him.
That is, he didn't actively participate in having these secrets taken.
He just, after somebody took them, he got them.
Any publisher would do that.
The New York Times does that, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal.
You know, they all have done this in the past.
Billion Dollar Offshore Meeting00:17:19
So it's absurd.
Now, look.
What's very interesting is that the Trump administration knows this very well because they've just been through two years of a phony investigation Russia collusion, which is MSNBC and all of these different groups trying to get Trump out because he wasn't towing their particular line.
So he can't now turn around and go along with this type of a bamboozle kangaroo court action on their part using the same rules because these very same people, i.e., the CIA and the Justice Department, Use these same rules to go after Trump and to spy on him illegally in what he called an attempted coup.
So, you can't now back up the CIA and Gina Haspel, who has a long history of being W. Bush's torture queen there back in the Iraq War.
This just does not add up.
And I'll tell you a couple of things.
During this meeting with the South Korean president, Trump actually said, I know nothing about WikiLeaks, which doesn't make any sense because, of course, as we heard in the campaign, Ms. Olivia, Trump repeatedly said, I love WikiLeaks and put things on the record about it.
And I have some of those quotes on the record.
And so, if anything, I just think the president needs to, you know, wade through the BS that he's been given by the intelligence sources on this because he knows.
I'll tell you the thing is, it'll absolutely doom his chances in 2020 if he lets this situation stand.
It's a complete no brainer because half of his base, you know, understands the importance of that independent media.
The alternative media voted something like nine out of 10.
For Trump.
So you don't want to lose that, and especially with all these close elections, you don't want to be taking those people out.
Now, the CIA is the one with the real vendetta against WikiLeaks.
And what's happening is that Trump is allowing the CIA's vendetta to flow.
That's what he needs to shut down.
By the way, he can pardon him like that in a heartbeat.
And I highly recommend that he does because it's a phony, trumped up charge, anyway.
No pun intended.
Okay, Ms. Olivia, what do you got?
I'm going to actually read this.
Ben Dover was asking, please ask DJ, is the arrest timed right after Mueller's report?
Exonerating Trump, meaningful.
What do you think?
Absolutely.
It's like a series of events there taking place.
And this is where Barr and Barr's history becomes, I think, Attorney General Barr and his history becomes so important.
Let's take a look at this headline first of all IMF agrees to $4.2 billion fund for Ecuador.
We all know about the International Monetary Fund.
And this is how they kind of control the board with these incredible loans to these countries that they get into financial trouble and then.
Boom, the IMF basically owns them.
But in this case, there's something that a lot of people aren't talking about, so I'm going to get into it here tonight.
President Lenin Moreno, he's the one who's now signaling that he would do this.
The president before him was more of a liberal firebrand and didn't want anything to do with the IMF.
And so this is the statement now.
I want to read this by Moreno.
So, this comes from Financial Times.
Ecuador signed a $4.2 billion program with the IMF, signaling a final break by President Lena Moreno with the policies of his leftist predecessor in a deal that he said saved the country from becoming like Venezuela, i.e., a failed state with runs on the banks and power companies that don't work and all the rest.
The loan to the OPEC country forms part of a larger $10 billion package with other multilateral lenders to support Ecuador's struggling economy.
Moving down, quote, thanks to the firm decisions I have made, this is Moreno talking, we are not what Venezuela is today.
We have recovered democracy, apparently not with the fascist run on the embassy there in London.
Mr. Moreno said in a televised address late Wednesday this money will create work opportunities for those who have not found something stable.
I want to point this out.
The story here.
Really, kind of gives us direct info about what the switch was.
Basically, you can get your loan approved if you give us Assange.
It's pretty simple.
And now there's another little caveat in here which hasn't been brought up much.
I'm going to get into it now.
And it has to do with these INA papers and the INA paper scandal, corruption scandal, which broke out in February about.
President Moreno.
Now let's get into this right off the bat.
On February 19, 2019, an article titled The Offshore Labyrinth of the Presidential Circle was published by La Fuente.
The story details how Ecuadorian President Lena Moreno and his family used offshore companies, primarily INA Investment Corps, to make expensive purchases such as an apartment in Spain, sounds pretty nice, Olivia, and furniture and receive unusual, potentially dubious payments.
I mention that because Olivia has a thing for Spanish decor.
I do.
Shortly afterwards, on March 1st, 2019, a series of documents related to the same corruption scandals were published in the INAPapers.org website.
The INAPapers website explains that the documents reveal that Moreno and his associates have used at least a dozen offshore companies incorporated in various tax havens to commit a series of crimes, including money laundering.
Tax fraud, influence peddling, and the collection of bribes, bribery, to the detriment of the Ecuadorian state.
This guy was on his way out and headed to prison.
Instead, he's sitting pretty, he's still the president, and he gets a $4.2 billion bailout by the IMF.
It's a pretty good deal.
You hand over Assange and you get all that.
Not bad.
Not bad.
He certainly was in a position to make that.
So on March 24th, Ecuador's National Assembly announced that they would meet to discuss the allegations raised in Lafayette.
Fuentes stories.
Two days later, the National Assembly passed a resolution to analyze the INA paper's corruption allegations and deliver a report on their findings within 20 days.
Ecuador's Attorney General also opened a preliminary investigation into Moreno and some of his associates shortly thereafter.
I mean, can you even believe this?
This, when you see something so dramatic on the world stage like Assange getting grabbed, and then we have the guy who's cooperating with the U.S. getting $4.2 billion on the heels of it.
And then we find out that he's headed into a corruption trial, which is probably going to land him in prison for a long time for bribery and tax fraud and all the rest of it.
So, shortly after all this, we have rumors before it actually happened that Ecuador was planning to expel Julian Assange.
And I'll just read this quickly.
There's a WikiLeaks statement on this.
On April 4th, WikiLeaks learned from two high level sources within the Ecuadorian state that Julian Assange will be expelled.
Within hours to days, using the INAP papers.
Offshore scandal is a pretext that it already has an agreement with the UK for his arrest.
So they knew.
They're already publishing this a week before it happens, essentially.
Despite the fact that WikiLeaks did not publish the INA papers, numerous Ecuadorian officials have inaccurately attributed the leak to WikiLeaks and threatened to expel Julian Assange from the Ecuadorian embassy in London.
Now, this is fascinating.
This is like retribution.
But in fact, you can see, like, the CIA coming in and saying, Hey, he was the one who leaked this stuff.
This is how it got out.
And this Ecuador president realizes he's heading to prison and that also he can get this money.
And so he cooperates with the US where even where he wasn't before.
So this gives us a much better snapshot.
I don't know why this isn't on the cover in the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal, but this is really where the story is at.
You know, this whole idea about like, Oh, what are they going to do with Assange and all the rest of it?
Let's get to how he was grabbed.
That's the first stage.
That's the first kind of snapshot that we need.
And also, I think, how did they get Trump to go along with it?
And as I pointed out, you know, stories, fantasy stories that Trump is employing some kind of master chess match to get Assange here.
No, you know, he's, he's, Assange is heading to prison.
Do you understand?
And he's heading to prison for the crime of committing independent journalism, bringing facts to.
I mean, it's absurd.
So let's kind of keep our head on the ground with that one.
This is an interesting picture, which this is a meeting that happened fairly recently, which is Pence over there with Moreno.
And Pence, now, later in the conversation, when they were speaking to the press, did mention that they talked about Assange.
So I wonder if the deal wasn't struck right there and then.
But it's not good optics for the United States of America.
And I feel like they need to retreat from the perilous course of trying to prosecute WikiLeaks founder Assange.
It is so wrongheaded and it is spearheaded by the Central Intelligence Agency.
And as we'll find out as we go along here, they're largely covering up for their own next thing that they don't want WikiLeaks to release.
Now, we hear very often that WikiLeaks has the dead man's switch and that if Assange gets thrown into prison, All the dominoes will fall.
I do feel like there are forces inside the establishment that just don't like living with that sort of Democles over their head.
And they would rather go to them and try to get those sources.
But I think that that's a losing battle.
And I would think that the dead man switch in this case with Assange will be used.
So you could see a whole series of things happen as a result of this.
That won't be pretty on the establishment side.
But remember, the way that they're acting, this irrational, kind of freaked out way that they're acting, they might shut down any channel that would try to get this information out.
So we have to be particularly conscious about the press freedoms that are being violated here and stand up against them collectively.
And I think the best way to do that again is through public pressure and through public awareness about it.
Get into some of that that we're seeing tonight, and I'm going to show some examples in history where this has worked really well, even though the stakes seemed, you know, the conditions seemed all but lost.
Okay, so one thing I did want to.
Can I just throw out a wild question right here?
Absolutely.
Coldassi wants to know Do you think that the Assange they have is just a decoy one since the other one could be dead?
No, I don't think there's a double involved with Assange at all.
I never have.
Okay.
No, I will say this though.
WikiLeaks was aware that the CIA had assets placed outside of the embassy.
And at one point, there were reports of people who'd scaled the building trying to get in there who were never caught.
And it was just the whole thing is very mysterious.
But there were WikiLeaks people who went out and filmed the CIA people waiting in cars, and they just put the hoods over their hats.
And so you couldn't see their faces at all in those cars.
But it was interesting to me that they were doing this about 48 hours before he got grabbed.
So the CIA was definitely closely monitoring the situation and probably actively setting the whole thing up, frankly.
Because the justice is that even in question?
So, you know, we have to understand the element of the CIA that's involved here, also.
So, we're going to get into that.
Before we do, this is kind of bizarre.
I want to show you this too, Olivia.
Hillary Clinton shows signature style as she chuckles over Assange's arrest.
Just look at these weird, like, purple, shiny jacket people, you know, and they're strange, you know, unsold out.
Appearances and the way that they're just hanging in there.
Unsold house.
I mean, look at Clinton.
Bill Clinton just looks like a ghost.
I mean, is there anyone inside that suit?
It's just freaky.
And what's fascinating is she's applauding the Trump administration for grabbing him.
It's like this is probably the only compliment she's ever given Trump in her entire life.
I want to remind everyone that you're watching the Dark Journalist Show.
We're doing a special live stream here on the arrest of Julian Assange and the general.
Crisis that we've been plunged into with them basically grabbing the titular head of the independent media, in this case Julian Assange, and threatening to just unceremoniously throw him into prison for revealing their secrets and being like, hey, deal with it.
He's not a United States citizen and he is not subject to our laws here in America.
It's very, I mean, it's against international norms.
It's going to cause an international incident, I'm sure of it.
And if anything, it's a true watershed moment, and it is going to show that the incredible shutdown that the Davos crowd is engaged in against the alternative media, whether it's on YouTube, Facebook, in traditional media circles, this is part of this drive to put the genie back in the bottle to get their power back.
That's never going to work on one hand, but the vicious tactics involved that they're getting to need to be called out, and they need to understand that it's a losing strategy because if they keep up with it, They're going to have more trouble than they know what to do with.
So, the public pressure, I think, does need to pick up in awareness against this.
And the first thing that we can do is, you know, there are a number of petitions and things out there, but the idea is simple, which is no extradition.
We don't, we free Assange and there's no extradition.
They drop the indictment, which is a sealed indictment.
It's so funny, right?
Because we have these groups out there on the internet saying, oh, there's sealed indictments and like, Soros is going to Gitmo and all that.
And it turns out the sealed indictment is grabbing one of our guys, right, Julian Assange.
So I guess it goes to prove you can't trust everything you read on the internet.
Okay.
So with that said, I do want to.
Wow.
They're at the greatest questions in the chat tonight.
I think we have a chance to get to them.
Oh, absolutely.
No, we're definitely going to do it.
And like I said, in the second half of the program, we are going to get deep into the questions on this.
And just make sure your question is all in caps.
And if you want to ask it now, it's all right because we'll get to it.
Oh, they're asking.
That's good to hear.
And we have a fantastic crowd tonight, it's a huge house.
And this couldn't be a more important topic, I think, that we're tackling here.
One of the main things that we have to realize one media news outlet at a time is that the situation, when it calls for it, is kind of an all hands on deck thing, and that there needs to be, even if groups in the independent media don't get along or whatever it happens to be, there needs to be a kind of consensus on this one, which is.
It can't stand the extradition and indictment of.
We need to send a really loud message that the WikiLeaks, shutting down WikiLeaks and getting into this extradition of Assange was not going to be acceptable in a normal republic or democratic republic.
And the world is watching.
And President Trump should take the words from Tulsi Gabbard, who was saying this is a message to.
All journalists and all Americans to shut up and toe the line.
America's Middle Position00:06:21
That's what President Trump should have said.
I was waiting for him to say it.
And he was just saying, hey, you know, there was almost a coup against me.
And then he's quiet when they grab Assange.
I think it's a bad deal.
And part of it is that there are people in his administration and leftovers, deep state leftovers, who, like Mike Pompeo, for example, who's Secretary of State now.
But remember in 2017, he was CIA director.
And he made a big speech against Assange and called him a hostile non state actor, intelligence service.
So Pompeo is also beating the wardrobe against Iran, as is John Bolton.
And I want to say this as someone who really believes that this administration can have a future.
The minute, the day, the hour that you fire a missile towards Iran at the behest of Netanyahu or John Bolton or Any of these characters in the administration like Pompeo, who are just going in a neocon direction, that's the end.
That's the end of your legacy, and that's the end of any good that can be done.
So do not, do not listen to those neocon voices like John Bolton and like Pompeo.
They are leading you down a totally different track.
And as far as I can tell, Netanyahu is no friend to the United States.
So I think those voices and those people wanting us to get.
Involved in their wars and their skirmishes, really, you know, it sends the wrong message.
And there are so many people inside Israel who don't like Netanyahu and his policies.
As a matter of fact, he's under a corruption indictment.
So, if anything, I would not be paling up with him or paying attention to him in any way.
If anything, I think his fortunes are on the wane, shall we say.
So, you're watching The Dark Journalist Show.
Everyone, go to darkjournalist.com, sign up for the newsletter.
It's free and it keeps you and I in great touch.
We are going deep tonight on Julian Assange and his arrest, unceremoniously being dragged out of the Ecuadorian embassy in London, and the acquiescence of the president of Ecuador and all the things that he was in trouble for and just getting this incredible loan, and now he's not in trouble anymore.
You know, this is, I think, it gives us incredible cause for pause to look at the situation to really see what's going on here.
It's not pleasant.
But America now has put itself in the middle of it.
It's a terrible idea.
Give Assange back, have him go to Australia, whatever it happens to be, but do not bring him over here and extradite him for some kind of circus trial where these members of the political establishment try to get him back for releasing their secrets.
Trump cannot be the host for this kind of an event.
And it's his Justice Department, he's got the power.
The minute they have him indicted, just with his indictment, Go ahead and say that I'm announcing a pardon and they won't even bring them over here.
Just do it.
That'll make you a hero.
There are a lot of questions where it seems to me that people want to comfort themselves.
Yes.
I don't mean this in any disrespectful way.
Oh, no.
This is okay.
That there's a master plan.
Yes.
That where they don't have to get upset.
Yes, yes.
Trust the process and all this other stuff.
This is just one of the things, this is an example of it.
Do you see a chance?
For Julian Assange being extradited to the US and being given time served for the seven years he's been self imprisoned, as the sentence for the original crime has a max sentence of five years.
Well, it'd be nice to imagine all these scenarios where he comes over and everything's hunky dory.
But, you know, I mean, fundamentally, if you go through all this trouble to grab a guy, it generally means you want to incarcerate him.
So, you know, he's not the kind of person who's going to make a deal or give up information.
So that's not going to fly.
And as far as I can tell, the aggressive nature of grabbing him out of the embassy the way that they did.
Along with the aggressive language of saying he's a hostile intelligence, non state intelligence service, and the vendetta that the CIA has against him, he has a vendetta on all sides here because the Clintons hate him, the establishment hates him, the war people who were warmongers in the Bush administration hate him.
And Barr is the attorney general, friend of the Bushes, who is grabbing him, let's remember.
So, no, there is no positive scenario, in my opinion, from him being grabbed.
Someone else suggested online.
That this was part of a good thing where they want to bring him over and have him hang out at Mar a Lago and reveal secrets and stuff.
You're dreaming.
There's nothing, I mean, zero on the record to support anything like that.
So it's nice to have fantasies, but this is the real world.
And when you get into it, I mean, the real world is so fantastic anyway and the connections around it.
But the fact on the ground is he's been indicted.
I have the indictment right here.
Some kind of a nice fantasy to comfort ourselves with is tough.
It's understandable, but it doesn't, it ruins our faculty to discern reality from the things that we want.
And that's what a lot of these marketing and intel groups do.
That's junk conspiracy.
And I've seen it in everything from Flat Earth to Galactic Ambassadors.
And it's fine for entertainment, but it does not, when it comes down to reality, it does not serve us well.
It ruins our own faculty of being able to sort.
Real facts from just the things that are put out there.
So, in fact, it gives us a, it impairs our ability to critically think, which is incredibly dangerous in an environment like this where large corporations are wholesale taking human rights away and you're getting things like mandatory vaccinations for religious groups.
Traumatizing Entire Process00:04:35
I mean, you know, we're getting into a situation here.
Okay, everyone, we're watching the Dark Journalist Show.
It's great to have everyone here.
I'm very excited.
What I'm going to do actually is read aspects.
Of the actual indictment that was released.
And let me recommend if you go to theblackvault.com that you can read this whole indictment that our friend John Greenwald has put up.
Okay, Julian P. Assange, 47, this is the indictment now.
The founder of WikiLeaks was arrested today in the United Kingdom pursuant to the US UK extradition treaty in connection with a federal charge of conspiracy to commit computer intrusion for agreeing to break a password to a classified US. Government computer.
Now it's interesting the angle they're coming in on because this is something that actually happened that Chelsea Manning did in order to expose the Iraq war atrocities.
And she gave that information to Assange.
But what they're trying to say is no, we're going to give him the same sentence that we gave to Manning because he participated in her doing that, basically.
According to court documents, unsealed today, it's an unsealed indictment that you didn't expect there.
The charge relates to Assange's alleged role in one of the largest compromises of.
Classified information in the history of the United States.
Quote The indictment alleges that in March 2010, Assange engaged in a conspiracy with Chelsea Manning, a former intelligence analyst in the U.S. Army, to assist Manning in cracking a password stored on the U.S. Department of Defense computers connected to Secret Internet Protocols Network.
Moving down, during the conspiracy, Manning and Assange engaged in real time discussions regarding Manning's transmission of classified records to Assange.
This is going to be very hard to prove.
The discussions also reflect Assange actively encouraging Manning to provide more information.
During the exchange, Manning told Assange, After this upload, that's all I really got left, to which Assange replied, Curious eyes never run dry, in my experience.
You know, it's kind of funny, right?
They're saying, Hey, he was encouraging Manning to give these passwords away.
That's not a very strong case.
He's not actually doing anything.
You know, he's receiving material.
I mean, every publisher, when they work with a journalistic source, is going to work with that source to get more information.
So basically, you'd have to throw the publishers and the editors of the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, USA Today, the Los Angeles Times in jail using that standard every time they came up with a story that you didn't agree with.
Assange's charge was conspiracy to commit computer intrusion and is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
Oh, gee, thanks.
That's in the Constitution, I think, as I recall.
He faces a maximum penalty of five years in prison if convicted.
Now, this is interesting because as soon, like you can see with Manning, as soon as they let Manning out, they put Manning right back in.
And this is a little bit of that tease where, like, they're in prison for five years.
We let them out.
We track their contacts.
Then we grab them and put them back in.
Yeah, how did that happen?
Well, they wanted Chelsea Manning to turn evidence again against Assange.
And they set her up before a grand jury.
And she said, no, I'm not doing it.
I have no interest in doing that.
And I have to say, I mean, Chelsea Manning's bravery and all this really comes out very, very strong, very sharp.
And this is a recent shot of Chelsea Manning.
And Chelsea talked about things like running for office and raising awareness about the things that she learned.
I think the entire process has been very traumatizing.
And now they've doubled down and grabbed her and put her back in prison.
How long is she in there for?
Well, this is all to be decided, but right now they're holding her in there for a good period of time, and she's already been in for five years.
So, you know, Obama commutes your sentence, and boom, you're right back in because you're dealing with, you know, William Barr and the Bush Justice Department that now has shown up in the Trump administration.
Helicopter Engaged Firefights00:02:45
I mean, this does not equate with.
The things that Bush came in, that Trump came in to do, and he was kind of the anti Bush, getting a lot, a lot of Bush people around the Trump administration, and that does not feel good.
And I feel that Trump has the ability to really, as we know, he can turn on a dime.
And I think when he turns, he should get rid of Bolton, Barr, and his tight association with Netanyahu and just wipe that slate clean.
Get rid of Pompeo, who's a terrible Secretary of State, the Pitts, and who just wants war with Iran.
Oh, gee, that's a good idea.
That's all you've got?
One more war.
Great.
Yeah, that's not going to fly.
So far, Trump has been smart enough to avoid that, but let's see what happens.
I do some of the camera footage that Chelsea Manning caught.
I want to show this here just to give you an idea.
This was the picture that the Apache helicopter had.
This is the atrocity that Chelsea pointed out.
And so the Apache helicopter is looking at these individuals.
Now, They were looking for militants and things, but as you can see, these people aren't holding machine guns.
And the target that became here, the photographer, a 22 year old photographer, Reuters photographer, gets killed.
And what he's holding is a camera, not a gun.
And these guys are trained to know these things.
So this is definitely a situation that got out of control and they got shooting happy.
And here, this is the dialogue that was caught.
It says, Light them all up.
Come on, fire.
And they're all just standing around there, like, you know, basically not firing at the helicopter.
So it's definitely aggressive action, and it wound up killing a lot of innocent people.
Were, you know, was the Apache helicopter engaged in firefights and things like that, you know, in different stages before this and after this?
Of course.
But in this particular instance, They made a mistake and they shot civilians and they shot photographers instead of militants.
The military should have dealt with this and been open about it.
The United States military, who at the time, you know, we had Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld, who had gone through the Abu Ghraib scandal for all the atrocities with the Iraqi prisons.
I mean, so we had some serious, serious issues there that should have been dealt with.
And this should have been handled and taken care of in a similar fashion.
Lame Comedy and Whitewashing00:03:25
But instead, what happened is they tried to whitewash the entire thing and what we got.
Is this incredible blockade of information?
And Chelsea Manning, becoming aware of this as an Intel analyst at 22, tries to get the information to traditional media outlets who will not accept it because they're apparently in cahoots with various aspects that want to hide these things.
And what we get instead is WikiLeaks has the guts to publish it.
And they kind of made themselves a lightning rod there.
And it's true, when you put yourself in the line of fire in this business, it's a dangerous occupation, which is why.
Assange has been in that, you know, incredible that he's been in there in that embassy for over seven years.
It's remarkable.
So, you know, and all we have to offer, all our late night comedian shows, you know, and the dumb thing of the Tonight Show, I don't even know what they call that anymore.
But all they have to do is say, oh, he looks like Rip Van Winkle, or, you know, hey, look, it's like Santa Claus, ha ha, you know, or like, hey, you should have gotten a shave or whatever.
It's like you have no brains left.
And if that's right, and you have no heart.
Yeah, well, you have nothing to offer that's like lame comedy anyway, but now you're showing that you're just.
You know, some kind of a slave for the establishment.
And we saw people like Colbert doing that during the whole Russian collusion thing.
So, this weird thing about deep state control over comedians, I think we're going to have to do a show about it because it's getting pretty trashy out there.
And I was just appalled when they played those.
I was like, this is really a joke.
So, I think what we got from the indictment is basically their plan is they're going to try to use.
The exact thing that worked when they prosecuted Manning.
And what they did there was very interesting they used this idea that you monkeyed around with government passwords.
They figured that's the easiest angle.
Now, what Obama did was he opened up a very strange loophole, which is the Espionage Act from 1917 to prosecute.
And he used it more than any president, interestingly enough.
Mr. Wonderful Hope and Change Obama, who was really the clerk for the bankers, let's not forget.
With the gigantic bailouts.
But I will say this in relation to Obama they were smart enough in relation to Assange that they knew the espionage charge couldn't stick.
And they felt this idea of grabbing him and prosecuting him here was absurd.
And they were right.
They wanted to do it.
And certainly for Hillary Clinton's behalf, she wanted to drone him, as we know.
But Obama was enough of a calculating politician that he knew that this was going to go poorly because there was no way to prosecute it legally.
And so, for the Trump administration to listen to the CIA and Gina Haspel and Mike Pompeo, formerly at CIA, now Secretary of State, and William Barr, the Bush guy who's now Attorney General, and let this circle distort his own judgment making to the point that when he's sitting there and they ask him, Hey, do you still love WikiLeaks, like you said during the campaign?
Deep Politics and CIA00:08:17
And he says, I don't even know what it is.
I mean, you know, they say that.
Ivanka Trump is pretty good at wising him up.
So maybe Ivana or Ivanka can do it.
Just sit him down and say, this is bad for your image.
And this huge independent swath of independent media, who you have not been actively protecting since they helped you get in the White House, you haven't gone ahead and said, hey, Facebook and Google, you need to stop that big, incredible clampdown on independent voices, or we're going to break you up as basically the monopoly that you are and that you should be broken up.
So, there's a lot of things going on here, I think, politically that we're going to have to get to the bottom of.
And the only way I think we're going to be able to do that is if somebody sits down with Trump and says, Hey, remember why you got here in the first place.
It was not to play ball with the CIA.
Okay, remember the CIA is an extra constitutional force and organization and was never given any of the powers under the Constitution that they have.
So, the person who created them, Harry Truman, also.
As I dramatically read last week, he made a very special op ed a month after the Kennedy assassination saying, basically, fix the CIA or end it.
And he stuck by it because that is not a control organization, which is extra constitutional, but it has also gathered so much power and controls, you know, as Trump said, hey, you know, basically this was an attempted coup.
There were CIA.
People like Brennan and people like Clapper, who was in charge of intelligence, these people were taking an active role in trying to remove a president again, as they have done before multiple times.
So I think when we look at this situation, we have to see just how important it is that we get a handle on who the actors are here and what their goals are.
Let's take a look at a couple of quick things.
I want to remind you, too, that in terms of the Central Intelligence Agency and why this is the Central Intelligence Agency versus the world, and we need to understand it that way.
Look, this is a headline from the Huffington Post, which is denied in full federal judges grill CIA lawyers on JFK secrets.
Okay, this is a case now, the assassination this November that will be 56 years ago.
They still are keeping details, and federal judges are grilling them to get the details.
What kind of an organization has power like that?
It's absurd.
In a democratic republic, no way.
Five of the most important JFK files, the CIA is still hiding.
Well, I can give you a hint the Garrison files are a big piece of that.
But why does the CIA have the ability to hide any files, especially when they were mandated by Congress in 1992 to give all the files up 25 years later in 2017, which they did not do?
So they are errant of the law.
So for them to be, you know, Now, picking off random journalists because it doesn't fit in with their view, and they don't want this kind of other media force out there that can change the narrative from what they're creating.
Well, that's, you know, those aren't, sorry, you're not the king of the world, CIA.
You're an extra constitutional force, and you also have run afoul of American laws of justice over and over again, and here we are again dealing with you.
WikiLeaks accuses powerful actors, including CIA, of a sophisticated effort to dehumanize Julian Assange.
WikiLeaks has identified who they feel is doing it.
It's the Central Intelligence Agency.
That's who we're talking about.
The Central Intelligence Agency who lied us into the Iraq War.
In the first place, the Central Intelligence Agency, who ran afoul of American justice.
It's a major force that has to be dealt with and reformed.
And over and over again, when we get into these stories, it's always the Central Intelligence Agency that's in the heart manipulating these things.
And we find that even when Trump got rolled into office, the people who were trying to oust him were all from CIA, retired CIA directors.
So now we have them playing a major role in the capture.
Of basically an independent Australian citizen and dragging him over here, maybe dragging us into an international incident.
We have former CIA Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who was after Assange and said they were a hostile intelligence force trying to start a war with Iran.
I mean, the CIA is getting us into a lot of trouble here.
And I think that this is where the emphasis needs to be, not just picking off some random politician being like, we'll get Hillary.
That's not it.
Go to the heart of the matter.
Yes.
How much of the deep state is controlled by the CIA?
Well, this is only a question that I can kind of go from the work of Professor Peter Dale Scott, who gave us the term deep politics and the deep state.
And it's interesting because the deep state, to get this on the record, there was a term in Turkish that came about because there was a large car crash, and inside the automobile was someone who was a major.
Head of this drug cartel.
There was a member of parliament, there was the chief of police, and there was a beauty queen.
And they all died in this one major car crash.
And so there we had this kind of what you wouldn't expect to see altogether, which is the head of parliament, a drug dealer, and all this stuff.
So this term that came out of that was the equivalent to deep state.
And Professor Peter Dale Scott had been using.
And he had created the terms deep politics and deep events.
And when he moved and called, using this Turkish definition, deep state, then everyone started to use the term, and somehow it got picked up by Breitbart and all this stuff and became something else where people just started to think deep state are all the leftover bureaucrats who didn't go away during different political administrations.
That's not actually the case.
The way President Professor Scott, who is a professor at Berkeley, and his book is The American Deep State, also Deep Politics and the Death of JFK, along with a series of other really great books, including Cocaine Politics, which is about drug running.
But the way that he describes it is that it's a system, and it's a system that operates kind of right alongside, in a covert fashion, the regular public system, then breaks into that system and does something when it needs to change public policy and then goes back underground.
But he does not basically think of it as just one other shadow government.
It's not a complete structure like that.
It's actually a system that coalesces.
But one of the chief groups inside of the deep state are the intelligence agencies, particularly the CIA.
And the other forces are the contracting groups that the CIA employs, so like the Booz Allen Hamiltons, which, by the way, is where we got Edward Snowden from.
So I guess the.
That would have been the long answer to your question.
Anonymous Testimony Crazy00:11:08
The short answer to your question is the CIA forms a major piece of the deep state, but it isn't by no means the whole by a long shot.
Everyone, you're watching the Dark Journalist Show.
We're doing a special live broadcast on the arrest and abduction of Julian Assange of WikiLeaks, who has released information all the way back to 2006, but certainly more recently in the 2016 election, played a major role by releasing on a weekly basis.
These emails showing how Hillary Clinton had manipulated the DNC in relation to the primaries and Bernie Sanders and a whole series of other things.
So, we got a great insight there from his work.
And he had acted as a conduit from these whistleblowers who had this information and had obtained it through various means.
And of course, like any publisher, he had the opportunity to review the information and make sure that it was correct.
And he handled it responsibly.
And their batting average, again, over a decade, they never came up with information that was false or misleading.
So that's, I think, pretty significant.
And so, those are the types of things that in our society we need to protect the ability for people to be whistleblowers and to give that information and to give those risks.
And when they take those risks, they give them to somebody like Assange, who is not some anonymous board poster or something like that.
He's a real person and he has to stand behind the work that he presents.
And this is important.
Real transparency can't come from an anonymous source, it doesn't work that way.
Somebody has to be there.
Representing the information.
In the case of Snowden, it was Glenn Greenwald.
In the case of Chelsea Manning, it was WikiLeaks.
It can't just be some, you know, the deep state could easily just make up some anonymous character to lead you in all kinds of crazy directions, but that doesn't make a difference to anything that's happening on the ground.
And this is definitely an on the ground situation where the Central Intelligence Agency, by grabbing Assange for our Justice Department, is, I believe, on the brink of creating an international incident.
So, For our side, looking at it from the independent media, there's no question, in my opinion, that Assange is the titular head of the independent media because he is somebody who's come forward and made a huge impact in the world by bringing that transparency forward.
And he's made a lot of enemies in the process, for sure.
But I think he's demonstrated the kind of bravery that's involved when you're trying to get this work done.
Yes, Miss Olivia.
So this is a test case.
To see our reaction, what we're going to do about this.
Look, if they can grab Assange and put him in prison for printing the truth, they can grab me, they can grab you, they can grab anyone who's putting out that information.
You know, Alex Jones, of course, he's somebody who people have a lot of different opinions about, but nonetheless, throwing him off platforms and taking away his free speech.
Was already a bridge too far.
So the attack on the independent media, trying to get the narrative back, trying to get the market share back, trying to silence the voices, America doesn't work like that.
America was founded on the idea of free speech because they understood the king controlling free speech and putting people in prison with no trials and all the rest of it is the reason they wanted to leave in the first place.
So we're not going to go back to that now.
It's too many 200 some odd years later for us to do that.
And in the UK, therefore, you know, this is even beyond the Magna Carta, really, if you think about it.
But this is really the Central Intelligence Agency and the Trump Justice Department against the world, in my opinion.
And I highly recommend that they step back from this reckless legal action.
But I will say, barring that, I feel that we should make it a huge public pressure issue at every single opportunity.
And that's certainly what we're going to do on this show.
Because of the important work that Assange has brought forward.
Also, for the protection of Assange, who really has taken incredible risks to get us that information and may have saved us from a complete deep state takeover in 2016 under false pretenses.
Let's think about that.
So, I'm going to say that we own him here.
Now, I'm going to point this out that the Washington Post, who's owned by Jeff Bezos now, who is building the CIA's cloud for them, and remember, the Washington Post has a long history as a CIA newspaper.
This is their headline Julian Assange is not a free press hero and he's long overdue for personal accountability.
That's the CIA's version.
This is your free press going after one of their own, in a sense.
They should be after, think about 10, 20, even 30 years ago, how the media would have handled that.
You know, we're looking at a situation where, hey, our light's going crazy as I speak.
Let's see if I can handle that one.
It must mean we're on the right track.
That's the way I look at it.
But we have this theme that's coming out of the Washington Post.
Let's go a little further with the Washington Post.
Of course, this is Jeff Bezos.
For those of you who watch the X Deganography series, this is quite a shot.
It's a great shot.
But there is Bezos, and Bezos is in Davos making these deals, basically.
And of course, he's a regular to the Bilderberg groups and all the rest.
And now he wants to go into space.
He's taken over Whole Foods and all the rest of it.
And what they're doing when they get together at Davos is they're figuring out basically how they can carve up more and more human rights to make the corporations the kind of all seeing technocrats.
And that this technocratic rule should really be in place.
Now, one of the things I saw that Rand Paul suggested was granting Assange immunity in exchange for congressional testimony.
He does not explain.
What kind of testimony he's talking about, which I find very interesting.
But I think it's an unusual trial balloon that he's moved out there.
The only other thing I want to say in relation to the Washington Post is that, you know, all the way back to Catherine Graham and Ben Bradley and all the things, they've been responsible for really manipulating stories, everything from the Kennedy assassination to Watergate.
But nonetheless, the Washington Post.
And the New York Times of the 70s definitely stood up for Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers and all this type of approach.
For them to shun someone who's bringing information forward means that they are just a pure CIA mouthpiece now.
So, therefore, any allusions to any normal kind of media journalism are completely gone.
And they literally just want the narrative.
And they've gone crazy.
I actually want to make a case that Facebook and Amazon and You know, they all really need a head shrinker because they've just gone off in trying to control things, and their control freakish qualities are going to come back and bite them, I guarantee you.
Now, I want to see if we can get some words from Assange himself.
Now, after the CIA director, Pompeo at the time, now it's Gina Haspel, after he went after WikiLeaks, Assange actually penned an op ed in response to it, and I want to read just some parts of it here.
By the way, you're watching the Dark Journalist Show.
It's fantastic to have everyone here.
What a huge crowd.
The issue is so important, and the questions are great.
We're going to get to your questions in about 10 minutes.
And I can just see Olivia is really, you know, stretched out.
She's lining them up.
It is certainly a stressful topic.
But when we get into these situations, we have to take the challenge of not abandoning our principles in the face of a massive assault on democratic values.
And when they grabbed Assange and when they're dragging the independent media, Because they're saying the truth and they don't want voices to be kind of heard that are saying anything different from the establishment because they start to lose control.
So when they drag us through the mud and deplatform us and all the rest of it, we get into a situation where we have one or two choices.
You know, one choice is to lie down and take it and let the bad guys win or to stand up to the difficulty and overcome it with the truth.
This is no, there's no question that many of The heroes that we hold dear now, many of them from the 60s, actually, like Martin Luther King, who I have his letter to Birmingham here, I'm going to read in a minute, John F. Kennedy,
Robert Kennedy, these people understood that they were taking tremendous risks, but they also understood that there was going to be this way or no way because there was no way to back off on the principles they had committed themselves to in relation to America and the world.
So I think that we also have to look at the situation with Assange that way.
And also to protect Assange, who put himself in substantial risk to do this.
So we cannot let him fall into the clutches of the CIA and the deep state and just ignore the situation and hope it goes away or hope that Trump has a 3D chess plan or some nonsense like that.
No, we need a real public pressure campaign, and that's what we're going to do.
Okay.
Julian Assange, the CIA director is waging war on truth tellers like WikiLeaks.
That's a pretty eye catching headline, wouldn't you say?
Mm hmm.
What have you got there?
Well, I do want to ask this question, but not right now.
Okay, well, I'll read this and then you can ask it.
Good.
I like your timing.
Your timing is always unbelievably good.
Pompeo Declares War on Speech00:06:41
Julian Assange is the editor of WikiLeaks.
Okay, here's his article.
Mike Pompeo, in his first speech as director of the CIA, chose to declare war on free speech rather than.
On the United States' actual adversaries.
He went after WikiLeaks, where I serve as editor as a non state hostile intelligence service.
That's what Pompeo called them.
Let me read that again non state hostile intelligence service.
In Pompeo's worldview, telling the truth about the administration can be a crime.
As Attorney General Jeff Sessions quickly underscored when he described my arrest as a priority.
This is 2017.
News organizations reported that federal prosecutors are weighing whether to bring charges against members of WikiLeaks, possibly including conspiracy, theft of government property, and violating the Espionage Act.
There's that weird, obscure Espionage Act that Obama got back on the books after it hadn't been used since 1917.
Wait, can I jump in there?
Yes.
So, isn't an Espionage Act only for U.S. citizens?
How can Assange be accused of espionage when he's not a U.S. citizen?
Well, there's a lot of little connections to that because you can participate in espionage.
And be tried.
But there's also a piece of this I want to bring up, which is about the Smith Munt Act, which is also something that took place under Obama.
But I'm going to keep reading.
All this speech to stifle speech comes in reaction to the first publication in the start of WikiLeaks' Vault 7 series.
Vault 7 has begun publishing evidence of remarkable CIA incompetence and other shortcomings.
This includes the agency's creation at a cost of billions of taxpayer dollars.
Of an entire arsenal of cyber viruses and hacking programs over which it promptly lost control and then tried to cover up the loss.
This is very serious, actually, what he's getting to here.
And I think the Vault 7 information could largely be a good motivation for the Central Intelligence Agency to try to shut them down, because I think it might also show their own breadcrumbs trying to link Trump to Russian collusion.
I think that there was some kind of an attempt to pull off this kind of phony op.
But anyway, back to Assange here.
These publications also revealed the CIA's efforts to infect the public's ubiquitous consumer products and automobiles with computer viruses.
This is very important.
When the director of the CIA, an unelected public servant, publicly demonizes a publisher such as WikiLeaks as a fraud, coward, and enemy, it puts all journalists on notice or should.
Pompeo's next talking point, unsupported by the fact that WikiLeaks is a non State hostile intelligence service is a dagger aimed at Americans' constitutional right to receive honest information about their government.
This accusation mirrors attempts throughout history by bureaucrats seeking and failing to criminalize speech that reveals their own failings.
There's no question that they always try this and they always fail, usually.
So the fact that they're having any success now is very, very interesting indeed.
Words matter, and I assume that Pompeo meant his when he said, quote, Julian Assange has no First Amendment freedoms.
He's sitting in an embassy in London.
He's not a U.S. citizen.
As a legal matter, the statement is simply false.
It underscores just how dangerous it is for an unelected official whose agency's work is rooted in lying and misdirection to be the sole arbiter of the truth and the interpreter of the Constitution.
No question, of course he has rights.
It's idiotic for Pompeo to have said that.
But I do want to point this out that In 2013, something very unusual happened in relation to the Central Intelligence Agency and the government, and it happened under Obama, which is again very, very shocking, but not so shocking.
But let's try this on for size.
It's called the Smith Bunt Act, and what it did was the CIA had the ability to propagandize different cultures abroad based on.
Things that the American government wanted to achieve.
So, if they had an objective to bring democracy in an area that wasn't known for that, then they had the ability to create propaganda campaigns.
And many of those were highly funded out of the black budget.
And we'll never know just which ones the CIA were behind because they're so super secret that whenever somebody gets even a little bit of their plans, they get grabbed and dragged out of an embassy in London.
So much for sophistication there.
But what I think is important is that Smith Munt.
Gave them the ability, that is the Central Intelligence Agency, to now propagandize directly the American people.
They had never had that ability on paper before.
Certainly, they had done it in cases like the JFK assassination, 9 11, Watergate, Iran, Contra, and all of these different things that happened.
There's no question that they had tried propaganda, but this gave them the ability to do it and be funded to do it.
So, suddenly, we came out and we started seeing all this kind of pro CIA stuff on these shows like Homeland or in Hollywood and all the rest of it.
And that was part of it.
But also, an incredible drive inside the media to pump up the CIA as this kind of angelic good guys that we needed, including a very strange push inside the UFO community to say that these UFO people, like Elizondo,
who I did a report on, who I want to point out is a senior counterintelligence official for the CIA, that he had some kind of a great thing, truth about UFOs that he was going to bring out.
So, these are the levels that they were.
Creating these different ops of the CIA with.
But Smith Munt aimed that dagger at us directly, where it had only been aimed at foreign governments before.
That's something that happened under Obama in 2013.
And I think that we're seeing over the past five or six years, these strange ramifications of it.
And I think that that's another thing that needs to be rescinded and immediately, if possible.
Constitutional Judge Freakier00:10:23
Okay.
And with that, Ms. Olivia, I'm going to turn to your questions.
Okay.
They're going to be all over the place.
All right.
So I'm going to just start.
Ron in return says I started a petition for the White House yesterday at the We the People website.
The title is We the People Call for the Immediate Release of Julian Assange from Custody.
100,000 signatures are needed.
So if anybody wants to go do that, someone suggested that if he is released, then he's a dead man and he's safer in custody.
There's no question that if you can get enough, they will deliver it to the White House if you can get enough people to join it.
And there are a few.
I know Pamela Anderson.
Had one because she is a huge fan of Assange and she actually visited him in the embassy.
But her kind of celebrity star power, I think, gets a lot of positive attention around this, especially where none of his media colleagues are standing up for him at all.
And we should be seeing all different people from all walks of life saying, This is an outrage.
We're reporters.
We should be able to do this.
You know, Jake Tapper and, you know, Anderson Cooper at CNN should be doing that.
Instead, as Olivia and I noticed, they were doing these weird things where they're doing close ups.
On Anderson Cooper and his strange glasses, and he's like, This man has embarrassed our country, our great leader country.
You know, like it's like weird.
It's like the last days of communism or the end of the Nazi regime when they were trying to propagandize the population.
It's very, very disturbing.
And, you know, it was Anderson Cooper freakier than before, freakier than usual.
But those guys, all of those people, if they were real reporters, right, if you were Rachel Maddow and you weren't pushing a phony story of Russian collusion for two years and collecting millions of dollars for doing it, You'd be out there saying, hey, how dare they do this to Assange?
He's a media guy.
I'm a media guy.
I protest.
I'm there.
That's how it should be.
But because they're just a bunch of corporate hacks collecting a paycheck from these people and part of the establishment and kissing up to them.
And like I was saying, it's one big circle because you have all these comedians and things and they're doing this stuff.
Ha ha, finally got Assange.
Our audience knows they're all sellouts.
Well, it's important, I think, to point out, but it is a good point.
I would say that what's important about that whole way of looking at things is we're in an incredibly propagandized environment, and we need to be very savvy on the ground.
We can't fall for it when it reaches into independent and alternative media because there's so much of it that's pounding at us from the mainstream media side.
So I want to put this on the record.
It's speaking from the position of dark journalism, which is when you see people making up fantasies about Assange is going to be okay and playing tennis over here and he's just here to give intel to Trump, but he's not going to be facing a prison sentence and all the rest of it.
Shut it off.
Get rid of it.
Wake up.
Because the facts on the ground are that they're taking this guy to be indicted, put on trial, and put in prison as payback for telling the truth to us.
So, if you really care about independent media, get behind him, get on his side, and get against the CIA, which is watering down things like patriot movements and all the rest of it, with a bunch of junk like promises of cabal arrests, which never arise.
Let's get real.
Let's get on the ground.
Okay.
Okay.
So, a lot of people are asking about the symbolism of the book and why he was allowed to carry the book in the first place.
When you're arrested, you're not usually allowed to carry anything.
True.
Well, there's a couple of things there.
Judge Napolitano, who does excellent things on Fox News for years, but he's just one of the best.
And he's a constitutional judge.
He's a constitutional judge.
And he said that the style in which they were taking Assange, that Assange knew that it had to be unlawful arrest that he was going to claim, so that he wouldn't participate with them at all.
So they literally were going to have to drag him out the way that they did.
And this was.
This was a created quite a picture, and they seem to be very much enjoying it.
But I think it'll play against them in the end.
The book, I think, is absolutely important for a number of reasons.
The book contains an overview of the national security state, and Gore Vidal is particularly cutting with his dialogue.
He was a brilliant writer.
But the fact that Assange was seen with the book on his way out and in court says that either he's using it as a Bible or there's something deep.
In it that is very symbolic for him and his followers, that we need to tune into about it.
So, I do think it's fascinating.
The book itself is interesting enough, but its presence there with Assange is the one thing he was carrying speaks to its importance and maybe something else.
Yeah, absolutely.
Okay.
Okay.
So, Carol Casa says, Why did they carry Assange out so he would not set foot on UK soil?
Oh, interesting.
Yeah, I think, in fact, he probably did.
But the whole thing was very strange, the way that they did it.
And you got that little thing of him just being sold out.
And you just got that whole Judas vibe going of the president of Ecuador collecting his 20 talents of silver.
And as we can see, maybe dodging a prison sentence for the INA papers scandal.
The combination of those two things with him delivering Assange to us always says that there was a deep state deal in place.
I actually think that Assange's life is in danger, which is why I don't think he should be extradited to the United States.
I think, if anything, the situation should be worked out there where he is.
By the way, they grabbed him on the pretense that he had jumped bail in 2012 when he went into the embassy.
So that was a phony charge.
The next thing was, as soon as they had him there before the extradition bit, the phony Swedish case about the woman who had.
Accused him of sexual impropriety in Sweden in 2012, which was another case that just came up out of the blue and then went away and suddenly it was back.
So they wanted to stack all hands on deck in case one of their little operations didn't work.
But I will say this that I think that Assange, with the information that he has, see, we're looking at him as the past and the things that he's presented, but this is somebody who probably has an incredible trove of info.
And when somebody has that kind of information, it puts their life significantly in danger.
So, therefore, I think the situation has to be watched very carefully.
And the first thing, when we talk about free Assange, the way to free him, first of all, is to not have him extradited to the United States.
That's the first thing.
The second thing, I think Australia should step up and protect his sovereignty.
So, absolutely.
Wow.
Yeah.
Right on.
Everyone, we can see we're all on the same page.
Keep rolling.
Okay, so Bernard Evans is asking thoughts on WikiLeaks promised phase three releases that never came in 2016?
Well, those are interesting.
I always felt that he realized that the stuff that he had released had kind of done the job and he didn't need to put anything else out.
So, and in fact, it turned out to be true.
And I think that he gave an incredible edge to the Trump.
A campaign by revealing the shenanigans behind the Clinton campaign.
I don't think it's surprising that the Trump administration would allow such an aggressive stance against Assange.
Someone in there has a vendetta inside the Justice Department and inside the CIA, and a lot of heads are going to roll around this.
I don't think for a second that there's any kind of.
Incentive thing going on with Assange coming over here.
I think that they are bringing him over here to get him.
And I think that that's the, you know, forget about the fantasy about it.
They're bringing him over here to put him in prison.
And by putting him in prison, they're locking all of us up because we're all engaged in the truth telling business and we are engaged in the business of independent media.
And if the guy who has done it the most effectively over the past decade, Gets grabbed by a government and thrown into jail for revealing, honestly, government secrets, then that's a huge crisis.
It's a constitutional crisis, it's a world crisis.
So, this is the state, this is where we find ourselves the day after Assange has been arrested.
Yes.
Okay.
Scarlet Fire says, Are HRC's missing emails part of the Wiki records?
And Fuber Fighter said, Rand Paul is right.
Assange has the goods on 33,000 emails, and that's the game right there.
What do you think?
I'm sure he has a lot, but the game is they want to put him in prison.
So the whole Trump 4D chest and all that, there's no evidence for any of it.
It's a complete dead end.
What you have is a real situation of somebody being grabbed and the attempt for a kangaroo court and then thrown into prison.
So they want to defeat the efforts of that kind of media coming forward because.
Covert Arm of Government00:08:01
They lose control of the narrative.
And when the CIA loses control of the narrative, they've lost control.
And the CIA's whole thing is controlled to the point where they've removed presidents over the course of the past 70 years that they've been in office.
Now, remember this the Central Intelligence Agency originally wasn't even supposed to operate domestically ever.
They were supposed to collect international information and feed back to the president about tough situations.
Instead, they started to deal with those situations.
On their own without word from Washington.
This is where we've had problems with it.
And if you study it, the kind of radical arm of the CIA, the covert arm that would do all these things like blow up trains and fix elections, they were called the Office of Policy Coordination, OPC.
And that arm of it was so out of control that Eisenhower and Truman, both presidents, said, we have to get our hands back on that.
Go out there and integrate those guys into the umbrella of the CIA because this is becoming a nightmare.
And the way it's played out is that that element, which went for power on its own accord and who answered more to Wall Street than to DC, they got the upper hand in the CIA.
And that's why the CIA has become extra constitutional because they're outside the mandate, according to the person who created them, Harry Truman.
So, you know, how many times have we had to drag the CIA before committees for secrecy and lying?
I want to point this out actually because John Brennan's come up a lot in my reporting recently.
But this is a very important article by Victor Davis Hansen.
And he writes for a lot of conservative publications.
But he's talking here about Brennan and how when he wrote an article about Brennan, he got attacked by all these different media assets.
Very quickly, he goes through the various things that director of the CIA, John Brennan, lied about, who was Obama's CIA director and also the boss of.
Louis Elizondo, who we've covered in this program many times in relation to his claims for the TTSA, he's known as the drone king because what he would do is he would drone a party in Afghanistan that was at a wedding of a number of civilians to get somebody who he thought was a major terrorist, maybe.
And then he'd send a drone in to do that, wipe out the party, and say, hey, we got our guy.
And then they'd say, what about all these people who died at the wedding?
And he'd say, oh, it's the cost of doing business, it's collateral damage.
This is the problem.
This is the mindset.
Of these people, that they don't understand human rights and they just are basically working in the interests of the deep state.
And this is the struggle that we've had in our government, especially since the Kennedy administration tried to get his handle on them.
And what did he say?
I'm going to smash the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the breeze.
Well, there's a reason why he wanted to do that because they were taking extra constitutional actions that the government had not approved.
And they were working on behalf of shady arms, having to do with oil companies, a Wall Street element, aerospace companies.
They were outside of constitutional government, so they represented a covert arm of the government.
So when we talk about the CIA, we have to understand it that it's a force that needs to be reined in to start with.
So when they start acting out against their enemies, like WikiLeaks, in America in particular, we have to stop them.
But the reaction worldwide has to be.
That we can't prosecute journalists for bringing forth truthful information.
I mean, you know.
So, very quickly, Victor Davis Hansen writes something very interesting here.
He shows the various stages of Brennan lying while he's in office.
In 2011, Brennan, then the country's chief counterterrorism advisor, had sworn to Congress that scores of drone strikes abroad had not killed a single noncombatant.
At a time when both the president and the CIA were both receiving numerous reports of civilian collateral deaths, Brennan swore to it.
In 2014, John Brennan, now a CIA director, lied emphatically that the CIA had not illegally accessed the computers of U.S. Senate staffers, who were then exploring a CIA role in torturing detainees.
Or, as he told Andrea Mitchell, As far as the allegations of CIA hacking into Senate computers, nothing could be further from the truth.
We wouldn't do that.
I mean, that's just beyond the scope of reason in terms of what we do.
Brennan's chronic deceptions drew the ire of a number of liberal senators, some of whom echoed the Washington Post's call for his immediate resignation.
After months of prevarications, but only upon release of the CIA inspector general's report, Brennan apologized to the senators he had deceived.
He lied to all of them about the drone casualties, and he lied to Andrea Mitchell, saying, We had, you know, this isn't the kind of stuff we do.
So that's the CIA director lying in 2014.
And now we have the CIA pulling off this operation against Assange.
We have them lying over the course of 70 years.
You know, so we find ourselves in a situation where it literally is becoming a democratic, free loving people against the Central Intelligence Agency.
So I think that this is where we have to kind of.
Take a snapshot of the history and things.
You have to kind of draw a line in the sand at some point if you're going to maintain constitutional freedoms.
And you're going to have to draw serious government reforms in relation to the intelligence agencies.
And now they're in the middle of causing a huge, and I mean a huge international incident by grabbing Assange.
And then are they leading us into a war with Iran also?
These are the questions that need to be asked.
And these are the serious questions that the independent media needs to put forward.
Okay, yes.
Okay, Ronan returns again.
Trump said on the campaign trail in 2016 that WikiLeaks is great.
Now, this arrest, what has changed in DJ's opinion?
What he said was, I love WikiLeaks.
We played that over and over again.
See, the thing is, they helped him dramatically by the thing was, Clinton had a trail since she was Secretary of State.
And that trail was that she was deceptive.
And by releasing that series of emails with her and the DNC, it showed that level of deception.
And then the 33,000 emails and all the rest of it.
This is what really made the public not trust her.
But even still, it was an incredibly tight election.
And without WikiLeaks' help, certainly Clinton would have won.
Now, but fundamentally, all they did was release the truth.
It's not like they made up some campaign about her.
So then they try to tag Assange and all that as a Russian agent, and Trump's a Russian agent, and all the rest of it.
And they tried to, in President Trump's terms, stage a coup against him.
Podesta Data Dump Truth00:13:20
Now, when we think about this, this is quite interesting, actually, because.
He has to put those pieces together because he has to understand it was through WikiLeaks that he got this intel.
And the fact that the intelligence agencies try to set him up and set Assange up should make him in league with, you know, even if it wasn't on the surface, it should make him in league with WikiLeaks and the work that Assange was doing.
He must be aware of the value.
So for him to go along with it, And not say what Tulsi Gabbard said, which was that this is a message to basically everyone to keep quiet and to watch it, or we'll throw you in prison.
That can't be in America.
America does not roll with those rules.
And that cannot stand, which is why I think at the root of this, what we're saying is that Assange can't be extradited.
That's the first rule.
Can't be extradited, one, and that the phony indictment needs to, the Justice Department needs to say, we were in error.
And let that go.
And Australia needs to stand up and say, you know, we declare his sovereignty and autonomy here in Australia.
That's how things should play out.
And instead, we're getting a bogus CIA kangaroo trial set up.
And the response in certain avenues, you know, the mainstream media is great, he's going to get what's coming to him.
And then you have other avenues.
Like Glenn Greenwald and other people who are aware of the situation, they're calling it out for what it is, which is basically a fascist act to silence the alternative media to regain control of the narrative.
So it's a real battle, and we're right now in the very heart of it.
And I can tell you that the journalism doesn't get any more dark.
There's no more dark journalism than what we're in the middle of here.
Yes.
I guess there was a data dump while we've been live tonight.
Nobody's saying what's in it.
Okay.
There was a substantial data dump.
Fantastic.
Okay, that's great to hear.
I can see that this might be, this just might be, we might start to see this avalanche of information if they, you know, there's a kind of blinksmanship going on here or brinkmanship where, you know, are they going to basically just throw out the Constitution and grab this guy?
And in response, is this guy just going to let down the establishment and just let loose with the information?
I don't know how it's going to play out, but.
That data dump is interesting.
I'm going to be very interested.
I want to see where that goes.
Yes.
Okay, so right here, I wanted to ask you.
Yes.
Grant Alexander said, Why did Assange not mention the UFO file?
And what about the UFO file?
Since we're talking about data dumps.
There's no question.
Grandma Tippy Toe says, please ask DJ if the deep state pursues Assange extra hard because they think he will release X information.
Well, it's the logical next place to go.
Look, Gary McKinnon got into some computers at NASA, and that's where we got the Secret Space Program.
It wasn't a Gaia TV show.
When we did our conference, the Secret Space Program conference in 2015, that was.
With all the information that Fitz had developed around the missing money relating to aerospace and all the various factors.
But it all really grew out of Gary McKinnon's revelations from 2002 that there was an off world officers list that is already a space corps, a space force, and that it was secret.
So now we're talking about very, very sophisticated secret information going on there.
And there's no question in my mind.
That Assange has seen things relating to the UFO file.
There's no doubt about it at all.
He hasn't said very much about it publicly, for sure.
But if he has that kind of access, he's a real good go to person.
So, you know, the UFO file and the ex tech that it represents, there's no question in my mind at all that they see him as a very significant threat and they'd be very happy to remove him for that reason.
Yes.
A cult fan wanted to know how long has this been in the planning stages before it was activated?
Is it a distraction?
A lot of people are asking if this is a distraction.
That seems staged.
No, I don't think it's staged.
It's a real, I think they have been waiting to get him, and I think it took being able to bribe the Ecuadorian president with the loan and the fact that the Ecuador president was in trouble.
So he is going to have a very different future from the president of Venezuela.
But I will say this that there are distraction elements in this sense, which is the timing.
There are entertainment factors like Game of Thrones, right?
Exactly.
Isn't that?
That's this weekend.
That is Sunday night.
Okay, there's timing there.
There are things out there that will wipe out the public's thought process for a while while this is happening.
There were a number of other little strange things leading up to this, but certainly they saw it coming, which is good.
And second of all, it's a tremendous miscarriage of justice in public.
And so the public needs to stand up in protest against it worldwide.
And I think we're going to see more of that.
And I think when we see those moves, we should support them wholeheartedly and avoid the junk conspiracy, which is going to water down any real response from our side by saying, hey, everything's OK.
Trump's just waiting at Mar a Lago for Assange to show up.
There's no evidence that supports that.
So, in my opinion, it's a junk conspiracy.
Yes.
Now, John Mondry wants to know how has Julian stayed alive this long?
Wouldn't have made sense after the Bush leaks.
Well, I'll tell you.
But it's the dead man switch, right?
Isn't that it?
Yeah, it's a great question.
It's funny because it makes me think of this thing that this guy who was visiting him, a friend of his, said when he would go into the embassy, they would blare space oddity really loud.
So, when they had conversations, he could say things without the Ecuadorian officials listening in.
It gives you an idea.
It's kind of a cool thing to do.
Now, why that song, do you think?
That's a good point.
On that note, William Kleinbeck was asking, what has Assange made public about Antarctica?
Ah, well, I think what's important is that, really, if you want to tie this down, Assange made a lot of exchanges between John Podesta and Tom DeLong public.
And that goes to the TTSA BS UFO release that they're doing.
And, you know, Luis Elizondo, who's a CIA senior counterintelligence officer, is leading a Program on the History Channel saying unidentified America's UFO program.
You have nothing to do with UFOs, in my opinion, and definitely not American UFOs.
That's a whole staged thing.
And as we found out, the program that he promotes, John Greenwald at the Black Vault has done extensive information on this.
There's no public information that says the program ATIP that he was a part of, working with people like Harry Reid, other illustrious characters, you had anything to do with UFOs at all.
So, this character Elizondo showing up on the scene with DeLong after WikiLeaks released the DeLong exchanges with Podesta show that they were planning some kind of weird UFO op for when Hillary got in.
That's why she was showing up on late night TV shows and going, I believe in UAP.
What does that mean again?
You know, so she was going to become the disclosure president to make her hip or something, but they had something going on there.
And on the Trump side, they have the Space Force idea.
So both sides are vying for this narrative and this information and the technology around the UFO file.
There's no question about it.
One thing I wanted to point out, though, this fellow, Elizondo, I just happen to have one of his images here because we kept this handy.
This whole thing is a huge CIA narrative, and that did get revealed.
The whole DeLong aspect in WikiLeaks.
So that's to me that that part was intentional because I don't think there'd be any other reason to do it.
Oddly enough, Edgar Mitchell showed up in some other emails around this and there was Podesta talking about UFOs.
And we know that Podesta takes a great interest in the subject.
But we all know that Podesta running Hillary's campaign and largely having very, very questionable emails come out about him, I think.
If anything, this is somebody.
The types that are around the UFO file are pretty sketchy.
There's no point in denying it.
One quick thing I wanted to read, Ms. Olivia, because you've got something new there.
I have a series of questions I want to ask you.
Well, what we'll do is we'll read a couple of quotes and we'll get back to your questions.
You're watching the Dark Journalist Show.
We're doing a special live stream broadcast here to really focus in on this incredible thing that's happened with how they've abducted and arrested Julian Assange.
Of WikiLeaks from the Ecuadorian embassy, and that the president of Ecuador allowed this to happen and allowed the UK and US officials to grab him.
This is a huge sea change and it needs to be addressed.
And we need to really engage the narrative on this because they're going to be putting out a narrative that he's just getting what's coming to him for revealing American secrets when in fact he didn't go in.
And hack anything himself.
He literally took information from whistleblowers who had done this like any publisher would.
So, if you're going to throw him in prison, you're going to have to line up the New York Times guy, the Washington Post guy, and all the rest of it.
So, let's get real about what the narrative is here.
Yes.
Okay.
And on that note, I wanted to ask you Le Chat wanted to ask what is the actual difference between the actions of Assange and Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward?
Yes.
Absolutely.
Bernstein and Woodward uncovered the Watergate scandal, and they had Deep Throat helping them.
Assange had Manning helping him.
Deep throat was never found out who it was.
But in fact, the traditional Watergate story is that Nixon was guilty of these crimes because he had these people break into an office at the DNC to try to get information and dirt on the Democrats.
And if you go deep into that story, however, you'll find that the CIA was monitoring a lot of this and wanted to oust, and the deep state wanted to oust Nixon at that point, who was not playing ball on things like Gap, much to the disfavor of the Rockefellers.
So we get.
Kind of a sense there of the political game that was being played.
But I would say, just traditionally in history, we think of Woodward and Bernstein as these heroes who uncovered Watergate.
And on some level, you know, they played this gigantic role in it.
But the point is, what is Assange doing that's any different?
How did the rules change that you could be this hero and reveal these things on a media front?
But because you're hitting out of the deep state now, you are in a totally different thing because with Facebook, With Amazon, with Google, with Apple.
These corporations have become too powerful and they're controlling the narrative and they're controlling the political scene in very many cases.
And remember, their solutions on the corporate side are not very humane.
Let's recall that Apple, when they had this incredible workload and they were working these Chinese workers 12, 14 hours a day, and they found they had a high suicide ratio among the workers.
They went in there and they did a A plan to figure out how to stop this.
And the guy came out, and instead of giving them less hours or psychological care or something, they built nets around the factory where they were working.
So when they jumped out the building to commit suicide, they'd be caught in the net and go back to work.
This is how these people think.
And so the corporate superstructure, Davos crowd, is really what needs to be spotlighted here.
Turning Point for Freedom00:06:03
That relationship on one side you have growing, and then you can see those relationships to that deep state.
Aspect, which is Bezos is working with the CIA.
He's building their cloud system for them.
He purchased the Washington Post, which was a CIA newspaper.
So we're looking at these relationships, and closer and closer, we're getting two things billionaires, corporations, and the CIA.
I mean, if you want some kind of a snapshot of the deep state, you're pretty close right in there.
So absolutely, yes.
You're about to read something.
Okay, you want me to go for that?
Good.
Martin Luther King came up a lot.
I was thinking about jail, this whole idea of Assange is going to jail.
And I was thinking about these figures in history like Gandhi and Martin Luther King who had to face that and understood it was important to be willing to risk going to jail for what you believed in.
And there were a few quotes that Martin Luther King used in a letter from Birmingham jail.
One of the quotes that he used was this one I will stay in jail.
To the end of my days, before I make a mockery of my conscience.
And that's Abraham Lincoln.
When they asked King, you know, why are you doing this?
Why are you in jail?
And why are you leading this movement and all this stuff?
And King had read this letter of these eight religious leaders who were kind of saying about him, I don't understand why he's doing this.
So he decided, hey, I'm in jail.
I'm going to write this incredible letter to them.
And what he says is, I'm cognizant of the interrelatedness of all communities and states.
I cannot sit idly by in Atlanta and not be concerned about what happens in Birmingham.
Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.
We're caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny.
Whatever affects one directly affects all indirectly.
Never again can we afford to live within the narrow provincial outside agitator idea.
Anyone who lives in the United States can never be considered an outsider.
And I would say that now that encompasses the world.
In this regard, JFK also made a quote, and also Lincoln came up in relation to it, so I thought it was kind of good, Kismet.
I'll read that.
In this town, in the square, the last of the Lincoln Douglas debates was held.
And in this debate here in this town, Abraham Lincoln repeated a speech which he had made earlier.
And in that speech, he used the same lines.
A house divided against itself cannot prevail.
That this nation cannot exist half slave and half free.
I think a hundred years later, the issue is still the same, but this time it is written on a wider horizon.
The question of whether the world will exist half slave or half free, and what contribution we in the United States can make to maintain the world in a state of freedom.
That is the issue before the American people.
In 1960, how the United States can be strong and how we can fulfill our historic destiny to contribute to the cause of freedom around the globe.
That's John Kennedy.
I'm afraid in 2019, the question is can the world exist 99% slave and 1% free?
So, this is the past that we're coming to.
And I have to say, in terms of How we can fulfill our historic destiny to contribute to the cause of freedom around the globe.
Grabbing Assange with the incredible power of the United States out of an embassy with a tricky backdoor deal of an IMF loan is about as sleazy a thing as I can imagine.
And in terms of our image around the world, I can only imagine what people would think of us for doing it.
So I highly recommend that the public.
Force it to President Trump's attention that he needs to reverse course and have his Justice Department drop the charges against Julian Assange and WikiLeaks for revealing the truth to the people.
Yes?
Najat Madri says, We are at a turning point.
It's freedom or slavery?
Oh, yeah.
I think it definitely is a turning point.
And it's very interesting when you think about freedom, too, because.
It gets back to the reason why America was founded in the first place.
So, we have to recall this when an occasion like this comes up, and this whole idea that we were getting away from this repressive king and we were going to start something that was a free and independent state and colonies.
And here we're faced again with that repression, but it's from the inside out.
So, and of course, we're talking about a global community now.
So, when we get into this situation, we have to find ourselves.
With the kind of moral fortitude to be able to resist something like this.
And, you know, to the point where, as Martin Luther King put it, to be able to march together, to protest together, to go to jail together.
In the end, that's a lot better than having some weird fantasy that Trump is taking care of everything and it's A OK.
Moral Fortitude to Resist00:03:42
Well, I'd rather be wrong and stand up and do something and then be proven wrong later that I didn't need to do it because everything was.
Being managed from behind the scenes than the reverse, than just sit on my butt and say, oh, you know, trust the plan.
And then, you know, hell breaks loose and I didn't do anything.
So, no, no.
By the way, I just want to say, Brandy Burchard said the White House.gov is not letting people sign the Assange petition.
Oh, interesting.
So, that's concerning.
We're going to look into a number of those, actually.
But tell them to send me at info, I guess I can tell you, Randy, info at darkjournalist.com.
Just send me the link to that and any information that you have about what you're doing with that, and we'll take a look at it.
Everyone, you're watching the Dark Journalist Show.
We've been getting deep, deep, deep into the arrest of Julian Assange.
It's a very serious matter, and we take it very seriously on this show.
And as we've promised you before on different issues, on this one, I'll make this promise again, which is we're going to keep the closest possible eye on the situation and report to you the details of it in breaking reports.
Really, just stay right on top of the issues.
I do want to say that the questions have been outstanding tonight.
We have great people out there.
Groovy Bean is out there.
Thank you.
Thank goodness Groovy Bean is out there.
I saw Carly from Dimensions Beyond is out there, but she's in the UK, so I can only imagine.
It's great to have everyone here.
Of course, Carl Young is out there, Charlotte Knight, Soft Alloy.
Fantastic crowd tonight.
And we'll take a couple more questions now and then.
We'll leave it off to that.
I want to remind you to go to the Dark Journalist website, sign up for the newsletter.
That keeps that pipeline between us going.
And if you go to darkjournalist.com, what will basically happen when you sign up is you're going to get an email about once a week letting you know what shows are coming up and what guests.
Like next Friday, we have Gigi Young in the Hot Zone.
That's going to be an incredible episode.
You don't want to miss it later in the spring.
Catherine Austin Fitz, of course, and other just Fantastic guests and shows for you, including Graham Hancock as well.
Now, while you're at darkjournalist.com, subscribe to the show.
We've made it incredibly affordable.
That's getting behind the kind of work that we're doing.
And we can see with that type of support that it makes all the difference.
So, you know, you'll get access to more things.
A lot of people were, oh, I don't know, disappointed that the Graham Hancock show had sold out so fast.
You know, we did have that ability to tip our subscribers first, and that's part of the reason that the show was sold out so quickly.
But I will say this that we make it very easy to become a member, and we appreciate that kind of support.
And when you do that, it really makes a big difference.
Okay, Miss Olivia, we'll take a couple more questions.
There are quite a few questions about Assange's relationship to Russia, and I wondered if you could cover that.
Yeah, no one's ever been able to.
I mean, you know, RT, for example, is like the BBC, and they have different people on there, and they've had Assange on a lot.
And, you know, they have their own kind of.
Agenda with that.
And certainly, since Assange is anti Western imperialism, certainly a country like Russia would try to think, how can we use that for our own PR purposes?
Russia and WikiLeaks Ties00:06:05
But I've never seen any evidence that suggests that he's done anything in concert with Putin.
And as far as I can tell, you know, he's very good at calling out the autocrats.
And it doesn't strike me that, you know, he's Basically, playing to any government in particular.
So, I think he's got a pretty good track record.
I mean, when you have accurate information over the course of 10 years and you take those types of risks, I think, however, you think about his politics, you have to kind of give him credit as a journalist for doing that.
So, certainly, you don't have to agree with him, but I think you can agree with the fact that he has the right to be a journalist on the level that he is a journalist.
Yes.
Justin Thomas says, I support Assange, but why hasn't he hacked Russia and Putin?
Well, he's done, I mean, there's been a lot of things that have come up in relation to the work that WikiLeaks has done.
And I have a timeline here, which gets into the various things.
And when you look at it, it's extraordinary.
So, you know, I mean, it'd be nice.
Yeah, would it be nice if you could cover everything?
Sure.
But let me see.
You know, just some of the real basics here.
In 2012, WikiLeaks started posting a trove of what it claims are 5 million leaked emails from Stratford, a private company that describes itself as a global intelligence company.
This is basically like the CIA Incorporated.
And so this is really how he pissed off the American establishment.
There's no question about it.
In June 2012, Assange took refuge in Ecuador's London embassy, where he sought political asylum.
In July of that year, he began posting more than 2 million leaked emails.
Dating back to 2006, from 680 Syrian government officials.
So you got Syria in there.
In July of 2015, WikiLeaks posted National Security Agency documents revealing American surveillance at German Chancellor Angela Merkel, French President Hollande, and UN Secretary Ban Ki moon, as well as two prime ministers, Netanyahu and Berlusconi.
Now, this is interesting because we were spying on our own allies there.
So, I mean, he definitely has taken chances and done outside the box work.
And I think, if anything, that's been good for democracy.
That's been good for freedom around the world.
That's good for transparency.
We need that kind of transparency.
That's what the Fourth Estate is supposed to be all about.
Here we go.
This is interesting, too.
There has to be outgoing, so this is January 2017.
I think it's important to get this on the record.
Outgoing President Barack Obama commutes Chelsea Manning's prison sentence, allowing her to be freed in May of 2017.
So, it only took them a year and a half basically to put her back in prison.
I guess that presidential pardon doesn't go as far as it used to.
Yes.
What do you got?
Actually, he has released Russian drops.
Yes.
Just people do not read them, supposedly.
Yeah, there is.
I just was trying to get into some of the international ones.
Absolutely.
So, has the Russian government ever offered Julian asylum?
Why did he go to the Ecuadorian embassy?
Do we know?
You know, he's reached out to a lot of different.
He found Ecuador was the best deal in the sense that he felt that they had the best interest at heart.
And probably with Snowden going to Russia in 2013, I don't know that Russia was a really good place because then he would look like he was under some kind of Russian influence.
So I certainly think that Russia would be interested in someone like Assange, but I don't think that's a two way street.
JJK was asking Has there been any reaction from the Russians for Putin?
On Assange's arrest at all?
I think we'll have to look through all those.
It's been widely condemned by a number of different figures, and it's been widely celebrated by U.S. senators and other crackpots.
So I think it really is, you know, you're going right down the middle there.
I think people are really revealing themselves by how they respond to this.
And I do think that one thing that should be said, which is the thing that they're trying to pull on Assange now.
The Obama people rejected because they thought it was on very shaky legal ground and they didn't want to mess with a failure.
And the people around Trump are kind of, they like to feed him this idea that everything is hunky dory, even if it's legal.
And this is definitely an illegal grab.
There's no question about it.
Internationally, it makes us look bad.
And I highly think to restore the image of the United States, that the entire indictment should be dropped immediately.
And William Barr.
Should either be dropped along with it or they should give him a big talking to because, you know, he's Bush.
He's Bush's guy.
And that's a weird thing, too, which is when the Trump Bush forces get together, I think that it ruins Trump's independent streak.
Put it to you that way.
Yes.
Okay.
Esoteric 369 Wall wanted to know could this possibly be a distraction about the Israeli rocket crashing on the moon?
I think that was very unusual.
Yeah.
I don't think this has anything to do with it, but wow, that was very strange.
Junk Conspiracy Wake Call00:07:29
And for the X Steganography followers, that thing had a big X on it, and it was part of the X Prize, and they awarded the people the money anyway, even though it crashed.
Very unusual.
Very unusual timing.
Yes.
On that X note, David Tormina noticed that the WikiLeaks logo is the hourglass, and the hourglass is a hyperboloid which forms an X pattern.
Interesting.
Well, it's interesting.
David Tormina has always done good things with physics and.
I've cited him, he does open source stuff on Twitter, open source research, which is very interesting to see on Twitter because Twitter isn't usually used as a format like that.
So I think that the consistency of that is very interesting to look through.
He's challenging us all to be more scientifically aligned.
Yeah, it's good to look through his threads and see what he's come up with.
And I want to say, in relation to the series and the ex steganography aspects that people have sent me, it's extraordinary the things that people find.
And I think as we get deeper into it, when it comes from different angles, whether it's ancient work or in modern programs and aeronautics and aerospace, we're definitely getting a feeling now of how they're using it.
And when we talk about it on the show, I really refer to ex steganography as the Rosetta Stone of the 21st century because there is this footprint.
That we're seeing.
And I can tell you that a lot of researchers now are getting on the ex steganography aspects behind the scenes.
So we're going to be seeing a whole lot more.
And we'll be back, of course, next Friday with a new ex episode.
Yes.
I want to make sure we have time for this question.
Michael Wise was saying they're asking for another yellow jacket revolution in America.
The question is, what are you going to do about this?
How about rage on the streets?
I got the sense that this is going to be a very hot summer.
Across the world, that things are really heating up here.
People have just had it.
And what do you think about this?
I think the combination of corporate power with state control has reached a point where the leadership has made a lot of foolish decisions.
And by going after the populace and forcing them to, and the vaccinations in the religious, Hasidic religious communities in New York, And the strange things that we've been seeing on the corporate level about spying on consumers.
It does feel like things have reached a point where there has to be an open public discussion and public pressure and changes and reform.
Rage can often get you the opposite.
So I prefer the idea that it's a level headed, Thing where you direct it to the facts.
The facts are obvious as we've laid them out in the past two hours.
But basically, the deep state and the CIA are behind the whole trying to shut Assange up, along with the corrupt aspects of the political establishment, and the American people and the world should not put up with it.
And I think the way that we get to that is through public pressure and by eschewing the junk conspiracy.
So, yeah, there's a lot of room for maneuver in there.
And I hope in the case of any Summer agitation or whatever, that we be able to resolve things with a real public push in a peaceful fashion, as Martin Luther King and Gandhi showed, it was pressure that made the difference.
But we have to be awake to have pressure, and we can't, our faculties can't be impaired by junk conspiracy.
So, junk conspiracy becomes a very real danger when you're dealing with a major political problem.
So, the junk conspiracy that we've covered on the show before and the highlights around it.
When we see those types of things, when they shut down people's thinking process, we have to provide that kind of wake up call.
So the world needs a wake up call, and we're going to phone it in.
So clever indigo dolphinism says, is this a measure to incite social unrest to invoke martial law?
I've been concerned about this for a very long time.
And I will say, I will use the letter Q, that I feel like no matter what you think Q is or was, that it could be utilized in that way by intelligence agencies.
Oh, well, they have so many problems now with those groups and what they're doing.
I'll tell you what's interesting about all this.
When we really think about it, fundamentally, what we're talking about is regular abilities to be able to bring media to the public, being interfered with, being impeded by technocrats and authoritarian politicians, and now the U.S. Justice Department.
So.
That is a situation that cannot stand because, you know, one, we're a nation of laws, but the world in relation to media has a kind of a certain type of norm at this point.
You're not going to be able to put that genie back in the bottle.
You can't revoke the internet, it's already been out there.
And these attempts to do it show the tin air of the leadership and create a cycle of disrespect between the citizens and the political leadership.
That can only go to a bad place.
When seen in the light of the incredible disparity in incomes that's been growing.
So, if I were the leadership, I would certainly use this as a wake up call.
And I think instead they're pressing their advantage.
And what we're looking at is something that looks incredibly un American and on our side.
And then, in terms of the world, just looks like authoritarians closing in.
On normal regular journalism for the people.
So, therefore, I think that it is building to a certain type of crisis.
I don't think there's any doubt about it.
And I think, you know, the severity of that crisis depends on how tin the ear of the leadership is.
And so, if anything, I would appeal to people in the leadership to backtrack from this reckless type of action.
You have more faith in the leadership.
Than I do.
No, it's not that.
It's not that I have faith in them.
It's that, you know, we really are in a situation where, you know, they're making such foolish decisions that they're inviting incredible wrath upon themselves.
If anything, I'm trying to appeal to the reason there.
But I think that we're in a situation where certain things can't stand.
And if you're going to grab the leader of WikiLeaks because he's reporting honestly about government secrets and Misdoings and illegal acts, and in a sense, you're going to say it's illegal for you to reveal our illegal actions, then the world is upside down and there is no rule of law.
Signs Assange Should Be Free00:11:48
So, if that's the kind of world that you want to invite, then you'll agree with the Assange arrest.
And if you want a nation of laws and a world of laws and a free and open media, which is so vital to the functioning of any world, that kind of honest transparency.
Then you're going to push back and you're going to say, no, we're not going to allow you to take our leaders and throw them in prison or assassinate them.
Need I remind you, both of these guys said, well, you know, the CIA has too much power.
What happened to them?
Let's think about that.
I mean, we have a problem here, it's been endemic, and we've had that problem for over 50 years.
So maybe the arrest of Assange is the signal to solve it once and for all by exposing it.
And I certainly hope so.
Yes.
Okay, Miss Olivia, we will take the last question.
I do not have the last question.
So, well, I'm going to ask you both of these related.
Okay, so Tony Kistner says, Do you think that Trump will put Julian Assange on trial to bring about evidence of the deep state?
And George Huxley is asking, If Assange ends up in the U.S., charged with a crime in the U.S., and is jailed in the U.S., then the U.S. president can pardon him?
Yes.
Well, I like the second question.
The first question is easy.
Trump and the Trump Justice Department is taking Assange over here to put him in prison.
Let me repeat it.
They're grabbing him.
To take him over here to put him in prison.
That's the fact on the ground.
Other things are nice to think about, you know, that he's going to Mar a Lago for a vacation and all the rest.
It's not the case.
Trump, from his position, could have easily reached out to Assange.
They could have done all kinds of things from his position in the embassy through ciphers, through codes, through individuals, or whatever.
Kennedy was sending people over to Khrushchev who were journalists, and he was negotiating things with Castro through.
New Yorker reporters and such.
So there are ways and means and channels.
You don't need to arrest somebody and bring them over here unless you plan to put them in prison.
So it's payback on the establishment side for the things that Assange has revealed.
And it's a dire situation.
And I don't feel like there's any 4D chess going on.
I've seen zero evidence for that.
Yes, Ms. Oliver.
Well, Bo Krills is just dying to ask this question.
Okay.
Asked in a bunch of different ways.
So Assange is an apology.
They attempt to.
Placate Trump from demanding Stefan Halper and Chris Steele to make up for Five Eyes spying on campaign?
Yeah, well, I'll tell you, there's a lot of interesting things there.
Basically, what happened was there were a group of intelligence and FBI officials working during the time of the Trump campaign and after he got in to, one, prevent him from getting in office, and once he got there, to oust him with the Russian collusion story and with the phony Steele dossier and all the rest.
What happened instead is that their actions got exposed, and WikiLeaks certainly helped with a great deal of that.
So, what's strange is that Trump was exonerated from the Russian collusion thing, basically, that Mueller was pushing, and Mueller grabbed a few people around Trump, like Manafort, so they got a few, and now it looks like the Trump people will get a few, like this counsel to Obama that they're indicting.
But, you know, I don't.
It doesn't look to me like Trump is giving WikiLeaks and Assange the props for the same reason, which is that the Russian collusion story was a phony and they wanted to prosecute Trump with it.
And now this WikiLeaks prosecution is also a phony, but he's willing to let his attorney general prosecute it.
It seems to me that somebody's given him really bad advice, and my bet would be it's.
Secretary of State Pompeo and John Bolton, who I think should both be bounced out of the administration as fast as you can say, Hurry, hurry.
Okay.
This last question.
Okay.
All right.
David Donowick.
Will Assange be tested common law, Magna Carta, UN Convention on Human Rights, EU Convention on Human Rights, and American Constitution, as well as Trump's integrity?
Will Assange be the test of William Barr's legal integrity and autonomy and be the stumbling block many trip over up to 2020?
Wow, that's a great question.
And it's well put.
I mean, in the 21st century, can we still support our constitutional ideals and can we support the Magna Carta and worldwide rights norms?
Or are the corporations and the deep state trying to get together to remove that?
And as Zuckerberg recently said, you know, oh, you know, something like free speech is overrated.
I mean, in the 21st century, you can't really have that.
I mean, I really think.
That some of these platforms have just lost their minds and they think that they're more powerful than they are, and that the people have the ability to wake them up.
I also think the massive wealth inequality has also caused a kind of psychosis to set in.
But the CIA has always been a manipulator of public perception and public policy.
And I think if you start with reforming the CIA and dropping the charges against WikiLeaks, that's a good start.
But the WikiLeaks case, let's get real, I don't think they are going to drop it.
And so I think what we're looking at is there has to be an intense public outcry.
We're starting to see signs of that Assange should be set free.
And as a society, until we achieve that, we can't really call ourselves anything close to a democratic republic.
So we need to step back from this incredibly reckless action.
It's so obvious how just what a personal vendetta is being carried out here by the CIA.
I think it's really despicable for us to have to be dealing with the details of a trial of a journalist for bringing forward information.
I mean, hello, you know, we've seen some of this before with people like Cheryl Atkinson under the Obama administration, which had a terrible track record in relation to independent journalism.
So, but I think that fundamentally, As a country, as a constitutional republic, and as the world is watching, and this, of course, goes for the UK and the way that they grabbed him, we're looking at a situation which is a major sea change.
And we cannot allow this kind of deep state censorship to take over by grabbing the head of the independent media and throwing him in solitary confinement or some maximum security prison and deplatforming other major people in alternative media like Alex Jones.
Regardless of what we think of their politics or their presentations, their ability to put that out there and to make that difference has to be protected.
Those are fundamental human rights, and those are the things we need to stand up for.
Yeah, it's up to us.
It is indeed up to us.
It's the will of the people.
I have to say, it's been great talking to you about this.
We're going to do many more reports tracking this down and watching developments on it very closely.
And I'll make my personal pledge to you to keep the closest possible eye on the situation.
Thank you very much for joining us.
We had a great time and it was great to have everyone out there.
So good to see so many good people in the chat.
Occult fans out there, Justin Thomas.
And we will see you next week on Friday at 8 p.m. with Gigi Young.
And we're going deep, deep into the Hot Zone mystery.
Yeah, right.
Well, there may be some other reports that come up in between.
I also wanted to mention that you should go to darkjournalist.com.
I see Nish out there.
Nish, it's great to see you out there, Najat.
Go to darkjournalist.com, sign up for the newsletter, and keep us in touch with each other.
Also, subscribe to the site and support our efforts here.
It's the kind of thing I think, you know, it's interesting because we support WikiLeaks, but I think it's important now for everyone to really take the things that are bringing you information that you can use and things that can expand your mind and your way of thinking about particular topics and really get behind them, really support them.
It's so tempting to just get into Game of Thrones this weekend and just, you know, forget this ever happened.
Actually, somebody in the chat was saying they're depressed now and they were going to go watch something else.
And I know that temptation myself, but it, you know.
Well, in any major news story, you run the risk, but it's a great opportunity for the public to show and for the independent media to show what they're made of against this incredible corporate giant media and the incredible powers of the U.S. Justice Department.
So it's an opportunity for all of us.
And remember how people like Kennedy and King and Gandhi and the people that we've quoted here tonight, and Abe Lincoln.
Stood up against these types of situations.
And yes, they are larger than life political figures, but the situations that they faced were incredibly stressful and they were incredibly rife with danger.
And that's what made them larger than life.
So if we can just take a pinch of that, I think that we'll be doing a whole heck of a lot better.
So, but yes, we will see you next week.
Thank you for joining the show.
BB, I see BB blog out there.
Uh, Mod Wiz, fantastic to see you.
Grootie Bean, again, got to catch up with you soon.
And, uh, we will see you next Friday.
I'm going to say one thing if, uh, if somebody has some information for you, how should they reach out to you?
Yeah, adinfo at darkjournalist.com is the best way, uh, to reach me.
And certainly do if you have anything in relation to what's happening over there in the WikiLeaks organization.
Uh, for WikiLeaks, we support you and we support your efforts to get your founder back out of prison.
And, uh, for Julian Assange, we hope for your safety.
And we hope, uh, For this incredible travesty of justice to be lifted, along with this phony indictment from the U.S. Justice Department.
So we are on your side.
And we will see everyone next week.
It's very encouraging to have so many people out when it's so very important.
And next Friday, it is the last question, Miss Olivia.