he London High Court has ruled today the Julian Asssange may appeal his extradition to the US to face espionage charges based on the question of whether he would be granted First Amendment rights regardless of nationality. Is the US case beginning to crack? Also today, former CDC head admits vaccine injuries, says his colleagues must face reality. Finally: senior Israeli and Hamas leadership faces arrest warrants from the International Criminal Court.
Hello, everybody, and thank you for tuning in to the Liberty Report.
With us today, we have Daniel McAdams, our co-host.
Daniel, good to see you this morning.
Good morning, Dr. Paul.
How are you this morning?
Doing well.
Doing well?
Good.
A couple items to visit with you on.
Yes.
I want to start off with Julian Assange.
If you look at it very briefly, you say, good, good, good, and it is good, but not good, good, good.
They're saying that he's been granted by the London courts the right to appeal with extradition to the U.S.
Well, big deal.
He shouldn't have ever been arrested.
But anyway, one thing could have happened if he had done nothing.
It would have moved a movement to get him into the United States, which would be the worst thing.
The worst thing, yeah.
What a tragedy.
The worst thing that could happen is if you put under U.S. justice system.
So that's not going to happen, but nothing else changes.
You know, he was in an embassy for 10 years, I think, and he survived that, but he's having a tougher time now.
And they're saying that even though he gets to appeal this and still in the courts, the London courts, and he has to stay in that horrible prison and suffer the consequences of the horror of that.
So he's still very much in the news.
And I don't know how the courts work over there, whether they respond to public opinion and pressure, or whether they think this is a compromise.
You never know.
There's so much politics involved.
To have a system like this arresting a journalist and going through this determination, and I'd have to say probably 98% of it is all motivated by the United States.
Yeah, yeah, definitely.
Well, it is, yeah, I think you're right, Dr. Paul.
It's a minor victory in a way.
Let's put on the first one.
This happened just this morning while we were getting ready for the program.
There's his Politico's write-up.
Julian Assange wins right to appeal U.S. extradition.
And it's somewhat complicated.
If you go to the next one, this gives you a little bit better of an explanation.
But the courts ruling Monday will further delay any removal of Assange and mean his legal status continues to be disputed.
Legal argument Monday focused on the issue of whether Assange would be allowed First Amendment protections.
Now, as our viewers will remember, the court, the High Court in London, requested the U.S. to give several assurances.
One that he wouldn't face the death penalty, and the other that he wouldn't be denied First Amendment privilege based on his nationality.
Now, that second part is the one that apparently they are not satisfied with.
And in fact, we have Craig Murray, who is a former British ambassador in Central Asia, who's been a very, very strong champion of Assange throughout the years.
He's actually out in front of the court.
We've got a clip of him.
Let's get our earpieces ready.
We've got a clip of him explaining it.
Let's just watch that first minute of him.
And I think he gives a pretty good rundown as to what this is all about.
If we can get that clip of if we have that video, it looks like we don't have anything.
Here we go.
Today, the whole thing has come down to a single point.
And it's a terrible injustice that it has, because a great many extremely important points have been dispensed with by the court.
But today, there's only one point at issue.
And that's whether the assurance which the United States government was asked for on Julian Lysange's right to First Amendment protection will be given.
And that assurance was specifically an assurance that his right to claim First Amendment protection would not be barred solely on the grounds of his nationality.
Right.
And that assurance has not been given.
And what the United States have said is that he will be able to argue in court that his right to First Amendment protection should not be debarred on grounds of nationality.
I think the word seek.
Yeah, we can take it down.
We can seek.
So that was, it seems confusing, but it really is, and we cut it off just before.
It's weasel words that the U.S. government did.
They're very cocky.
They're very assured because they didn't say you can have First Amendment rights, which is what the court demanded.
They said, you can appear before our court and ask for First Amendment rights.
So no guarantees.
And that's the basis for this.
Isn't it sad?
You know, 14 years this has been going on, and it is our judicial system that is the real problem.
Sange is not is not American.
He's Australian.
And yet they're claiming that he broke the law and what he had printed on, you know, in his journalism.
So to me, this is so sad because for a long time, American judicial system had a hybrid reputation.
Some still claim it, but it's not true anymore.
More and more people realize that it is so divided and it's so politicized.
So this is just one example of where America has been in the wrong position because, you know, regardless of what he did, where did we earn this jurisdiction?
Well, they said, he disobeyed one of our laws.
Well, there's a lot of people who disobey our laws, our First Amendment laws or whatever.
But it doesn't mean that you should have the clout to galvanize and threaten every other country to do as we tell them.
And of course, the British have gone along with it.
And I don't know whether this represents a major change, but at least the door is still open.
That's the way I see it.
Well, you're right, the politicization, but also he did the unthinkable, which is he opposed the deep state.
WikiLeaks was going okay.
They were going about their business.
They exposed a collateral murder video, and that was devastating.
But when Assange got into trouble was when Wikileaks released the Vault 7.
The Vault 7 was all the capabilities and activities of the CIA.
And as we know from Chuck Schumer, if you oppose a CIA, they've got seven ways from Sunday to get back at you.
And that's exactly what they did.
What Assange did and Wikileaks did is they exposed the CIA's reign of terror around the world.
And that is not allowed.
And that's why he's been sitting in jail.
Right.
Yeah, so.
Anyway, there's one good reaction.
We always turn to Glenn Greenwald because he's always very good on these issues.
And I just pulled up a tweet because I think he actually makes good sense.
He says, I'm always glad when Assange has a legal win inside the U.S.'s dangerous, against the U.S.'s dangerous attempt to drag him to the U.S. to prosecute him.
But the fact that he will still wallow in a high-security prison, more than 10 years in captivity, for no conviction other than bail jumping, is sickening.
That's absolutely right.
10 years so far for jumping bail.
You know, that's worse than murderers get, worse than, you know.
There's no major presidential candidate that will take a position on it other than to say stick it to him.
I mean, nobody's standing up for justice for him.
RFK did say that he'd pardon him, though, so he gets credit for that.
He does get credit for that.
But the other thing that was significant is, from what I read at least, is that he was once again too ill to appear in the court today.
So obviously his health is failing.
He has two young boys that haven't been able to spend time with their father.
It's just, you're right.
It's just such a tragedy.
So disgusting going after him like this.
Sad, sad, sad.
Well, something else is disgusting in our menu on Monday, and that is the CDC.
They're always disgusting.
But we have a little bit of truth coming out, Dr. Paul.
If you can put this next one up, we saw it on Zero Hedge.
It originated at the Epoch Times.
And I would put this in the category, Dr. Paul, of now they tell us, because the headline says, ex-CDC director says it's high time to admit, quote, significant side effects of COVID-19 vaccines.
You know, I was thinking, where was he before?
And he didn't do much when he was able to do something before.
And then it turns out that he aligned himself with a Republican president in order to speed all that stuff up.
And they said, well, I can understand somebody that doesn't see it from a libertarian viewpoint.
The government shouldn't even be doing any of this.
But I can see why they might misinterpret it that something should be done.
But why pick the government to do it and give this authority to government and sacrifice so much freedom?
And that's how we had the lockdowns and all the nonsense that went on there.
But at least, you know, Redfield has changed his tune now.
I will take it because people will say, well, you know, he is in a position now which is better than, you know, if you've opposed it all along, say, oh, you're just, you're just, you know, they won't listen to RFK.
He's not credible because he's had this position all along.
Yeah.
No, it is kind of weasel, though.
I mean, he went on with Chris Cromwell's show.
And the thing that gets me that's, because you're absolutely right.
He was the central part of this machine that churned out this shot as fast as possible.
Anyone who questioned the speed, anyone who questioned the efficacy, anyone who questioned the threat was canceled.
But now he's trying to portray himself as the victim of cancel culture.
He's actually the victim.
Put this next clip up.
This is what really kind of irked me, Dr. Paul.
So Redfield made the remarks in a May 16th interview with Chris Cuomo, during which he lamented the loss of public confidence in public health agencies.
Okay, all right.
I wonder why that happened.
That's so sad.
Yeah.
Because of a lack of transparency around the vaccines, which he said saved a lot of lives, but also made some people quite ill.
And here's the part that gets me, Dr. Paul.
This is a quote.
Those of us that try to suggest there may be significant side effects from vaccines, we kind of got canceled because no one wanted to talk about them.
What are you talking about?
They're the ones that canceled the rest of us.
But now he's playing the victim.
Yeah.
You know, and they don't deal from a principle, obviously.
And this means that they totally rejected and never considered that medicine should be practiced by freedom of choice.
And that the government doesn't have monopoly control.
And the longer corporatism lasts, the more control these corporations have.
And then the pharmaceutical companies have, just like in the military industrial complex, they get more control of the foreign policy and all these things.
So this, just a simple person, if you did a poll in this country to find out an individual, do you believe that medicine should be based on freedom of choice and the doctor-patient relationship should be honored?
Well, how many people would say yes?
Probably a good many.
But then you say, well, why don't they wake up?
Well, there's this momentum and this social thing that goes on that puts pressure on people to do it, and they go along with it.
But how long did it take the Soviet system to collapse?
A long time, but eventually it killed itself.
But we shouldn't have enough time to do this.
This is the way not only do I think people should wake up and cancel them, and you just pointed out a good one, they cancel them, it's the fact that they should even have a go at this stuff.
They shouldn't be allowed to be involved in the practice of medicine.
But, you know, that's taboo.
How are the poor people going to be taken care of?
Well, maybe they, in some instances, we might prove that if it had had less government intervention where they could have made a choice on their medication for COVID, maybe less of them would have died.
Yeah, you know, the member of the CDC wanted to have it both ways.
Oh, we're not your doctors, but we just make recommendations.
You know, and then everywhere you go, according to CDC recommendations, you must stand six feet.
And actually in that same interview, I didn't bring it up, but he admitted in that same interview that the whole six-feet thing was a complete, just out of thin air.
We had no idea what we were doing.
We just thought we needed to say something.
And we've said that on the show before.
Yeah, but there's one catch.
That suggestion.
We only make a suggestion.
But if you don't take them, you're going to be canceled.
And everybody knows it.
Yeah, that's right.
It intimidated the doctors.
And that's a real tragedy.
I can sort of, you know, I understand that, and it's a shame.
And it would be tough fighting the whole establishment, the whole medical field.
You know, when I was in medical school as a resident, I had a lot of regard for my teachers because I knew they were way ahead of what I was doing.
I wanted to learn from them.
And most of them were pretty good.
And most of them were not real strong into the political medicine.
But it was creeping along the whole time.
But now it's just out of control.
And people have a hard time understanding that there is such a thing as private practice of medicine.
And I happen to believe in that very strongly.
Well, you made a good point.
You said the Soviet Union killed itself, you know, and that was a good thing.
I think our public health system killed itself, which is also a good thing.
The fact that people don't trust them anymore, well, that's what they get.
People are on the verge of that for treating veterans.
We coerce veterans sometimes by drafts and sometimes by political pressure.
And you must go and help.
It's 9-11.
Everybody join up and we'll give you all your health care that you need.
And then all of a sudden, these stories are true.
Illegal aliens get in the front of the line of people that were promised this and maybe in a way have a contract.
Veterans have contracts in a way that they're supposed to get their medical care and they're set aside.
And they've emptied some of these hospitals to house how illegal.
That is so disgusting.
And of course, on that issue, I just think that somebody should be charged with the idea that they cooperated in the takeover.
That this was truly a takeover of the United States with the illegal immigration.
Yeah, absolutely.
Well, I want to do a couple final quick clips on this interview.
Netanyahu's International Arrest00:07:42
If you go to the next one, this is Dr. Redfield admitting, he says, I have a number of people that are quite ill and they never had COVID.
But they're ill from the vaccine, he said.
And we just have to acknowledge that.
Again, it's now you tell us, because I remember when this first thing was started, Dr. Paul, you were talking about the swine flu vaccine.
couple people got Guayambar syndrome or what have you and then they just pulled it immediately.
Here we have thousands of people perhaps that have died in this.
We finally have to admit there's a problem.
You know, back then on spine flu, that would have been my first year.
I was there in 76 and there were two of us that voted against it, another doctor.
Yeah.
And that sent a message, but it wasn't very loud.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Well, the other news that we're following today also happened.
Usually Mondays we get up and we're like, what are we going to talk about?
Nothing has happened.
Well, a lot has happened and a lot we could talk about.
You know, there's the plane crash in Iran that we're not going to talk about today, but a lot of stuff happened over the weekend.
But something that happened this morning that is big news around the world.
And that's if you put up, go ahead to the ICC one, skip that next clip.
So this happened this morning.
ICC seeks arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Hamas leader Sinwar for crimes against humanity.
So the chief prosecutor, Karim Khan, requested that the court issue arrest warrants for Netanyahu, for his defense minister, Yoav Galant, and for the head of Hamas.
The U.S. had been fighting tooth and nail for weeks, doing whatever it could to try to convince the ICC, do not do this, do not do this.
You know, you can't do this.
Now it turns out that they've done it.
So it's a really big deal.
And no matter your position on the ICC, it is significant on the international field.
We spent a little bit of time when we were in Washington trying to stop some of this nonsense with the International Crime Commission, Criminal Court.
And this is something that should be obvious.
In the United States, when we originated, when our country was put together, it was never intended that the federal government would have universal monopoly control of what goes into grade schools, K through 12, plus all the universities.
And in medicine, it was the same way.
It was not to be a government system.
Also, the police act, it was well said back then that we don't need a national police force.
You weren't supposed to have a national government.
There was a police force.
But that has changed a lot with the FBI and the CIA and all this other stuff that goes on.
But this goes one step further.
This is an international police force because I was just talking about it with you a few minutes ago.
Where did these policemen come from?
How are they going to?
Oh, they signed their rights away.
They joined the police force and they will do their own policing.
And everybody must listen to what they do.
So if anybody wants to come to that country that has joined this national police force, even some people, you'd be surprised signed on to this, would go along with that.
And therefore, it has authority, but in a way, it's the system that's wrong.
We don't want a federal government police force, and we don't need a national.
International, yeah.
So the last thing we need is an international court that instructs, you end up with cases that are way out of whack, and you have Assange type people going to prison.
Yeah, I mean, the argument that we had in your office at the time was that, well, we have the American system of justice.
We happen to believe, or at least at the time, we believed it was a superior system, and we don't want American soldiers or anyone else subject to an international court that doesn't have the same constitutional protections as we're supposed to have.
You know, the idea was: hey, if there's a soldier over there who commits a war crime, he's going to come to trial in the U.S. and he'll have U.S. protections, and he'll face U.S. justice.
So it's a good argument against it.
But when you have a situation like this now, there are a lot of political implications, you know, because there are a lot of countries that are party to the ICC.
Now, the U.S. is not, and neither is Israel for that matter.
But as you point out, a lot of countries, I don't have the number in front of me, but a lot of countries throughout the world are a party to the ICC, and they will be obligated to arrest Netanyahu if he goes to their country.
That's under the treaty.
And that's the reason actually, when President Putin of Russia was issued an arrest warrant last year, he didn't go to South Africa, even though South Africa is an allied country.
It could be awkward because they're a party to the ICC.
So it does have real implications.
It will have implications, serious implications for our European partners who are party to the ICC but have been supportive of Netanyahu's government because they will not be allowed to do that anymore if there's this outstanding arrest warrant.
So it will change the way the rest of the world deals with Israel.
It may even the way we do too.
But some will say, well, this is good.
You know, there's some people in this country that might want to arrest Netanyahu.
Like there's probably a few Americans that have a Palestinian background might say, well, we should arrest him.
So they might want to do that.
But this is the problem with that.
And then in the process, you have the ICC, and the reason why we posed it is the judge and jury in many ways.
And at the same time, they lose the benefits that we're talking about, just as since it's our fault in a more major way with Assange, because he's lost, even with the United States pretending it's involved in Abbas, they're the ones who are canceling his rights.
He doesn't have any First Amendment rights.
I think the other thing that will continue to happen now is the U.S. reputation will suffer because I don't see the U.S. turning against Netanyahu or his government over this.
On the contrary, they're very aggressively opposing it.
And I think in the rest of the world, and the rest of the world is pretty obviously turned against Israel over what's happening in Gaza.
And so they're going to see the U.S. once again being hypocritical, once again being out of step and out of tune with the rest of the world.
So interestingly enough, our interventionism has made us isolated.
And this makes us very isolated in the world.
We're basically the sole backer of Netanyahu and Israel in the world right now.
I have one other short thing.
Do you have any more on that one?
I was going to, if I could just do one quick thing.
Skip ahead to the BBC article.
I just always love to show hypocrisy because if you remember, I mentioned last year when Putin was issued an arrest warrant.
Putin arrest warrant.
Biden welcomes ICC's war crimes charges.
The U.S. government was thrilled.
They were so happy.
The ICC is the greatest thing in the world.
Fantastic.
And then here's the reaction today: ICC faces reprisal threats from Congress over Netanyahu arrest warrant.
And if you read down, you'll see that they're talking about how it's illegitimate and has no authority.
And so it just shows how they speak out of both sides of the money.
Sort of this idea that you don't know truth.
Hypocrisy In Action00:05:38
Yeah, yeah.
One week it's this is the truth and we'll do the right thing and the next week it switches around and that's not the way it works.
That's not the way it works.
But another item item here.
I've always believed that sports were a good way to bring people together.
I think there's an example in Major League Baseball where integration of baseball players started a long time before the federal government mandated it.
And I've always liked stories like that.
There was another story that, you know, when I wrote a dissenting view or a view when I was leaving Congress the first time, I pointed out that playing baseball with the Democrats was one of the most positive things we did.
You know, we did it.
It was a sport.
There was no politics in it.
We became friends with people who were a baseball player.
But right now, there's not so much of that.
And there was a proposal here by Macron.
He's not exactly a libertarian.
And his approach was, but Macrone's proposal for an Olympic truce with Russia.
You know, the Olympics are coming up, but can't happen.
Zelensky said, no, I'm not fundraising.
Yeah, he's out fundraising.
He didn't think he could win that much there.
So find much there.
But that to me is sad that they can't even pause for a little bit.
Maybe peace would break up.
Maybe there should be more soccer games or something like that.
But it doesn't seem to be on the record for it.
Yeah.
Well, I'll just thank our viewers for watching.
Again, Mark, August 31st on your calendar for the RPI conference in Dulles, Virginia.
I'll have those tickets on sale this week to get yourself started.
It's going to be a fun conference.
We've got a lot of great themes.
I'll talk a little bit more about it coming up here soon, but it's always great to get together.
I'm going to turn it over to you, Dr. Paul.
Very good.
And I, too, want to express my appreciation for our viewers tuning in.
Because the number of viewers is on the growth.
We're increasing in numbers, and that's very good.
They're not huge, like some people can get a huge crowd, but we're looking at quality as well.
Because leadership and the defense of liberty in a consistent manner is worth a whole lot than just getting numbers.
But eventually you have to have the numbers.
You have to have prevailing attitudes where the convictions are that liberty is much greater value than authoritarianism.
And we've had examples of it.
We've had a taste of it.
We know what's right.
History has shown what happens to authoritarian groups.
We have history, very clear history, thousands of years, on how stupid and evil it is to allow governments to counterfeit money.
They abuse it.
And believe me, the world's living with that now, and we're the biggest counterfeiters.
So it takes a long time for people to wake up.
And the founders tried to prevent some of those problems in our Constitution.
But still, it takes a while to drift off.
And then you do need, you need a lot of educators to get people to understand.
And that's why education and universities, when they're teaching that socialism and corporatism and all these fake philosophies that claim that they're going to take care of the poor people, they have to be exposed.
But eventually, the attitude has to be supported by a large number of people.
And that is the important thing.
One thing that we try to do is convert people away from authoritarianism and accept the principles of liberty, volunteerism, sound money, and personal liberty.
And even with the shortcomings, which are a few, in our Constitution, is to commit to the Constitution.
Right now, we have probably 98% of our legislation.
This is going to be an extreme statement.
So I'm sure somebody will challenge me.
Probably 98% of what we did while I was there.
It's probably just as bad or worse now.
Technically is not constitutional.
We're not supposed to be doing all those things.
We're not supposed to be in all these wars that are undeclared.
We're not supposed to have fake money, so all the economic conditions.
We shouldn't be in education at the federal level.
We shouldn't be running a federal medical service.
So, yes, we're involved in that, but we have to convince people philosophically on principle of individual liberty.
And then we also have to convince the people of the practicality of it.
There's a utility of how liberty provides.
The defeat, so some of these big, the large systems, like the Soviet system, it'll defeat itself.
And so we don't have to worry about, you know, how are we going to invade Russia and Soviet Union and dispose of that evil system.
Well, it'll self-destruct.
And quite frankly, I'm upset because I think right here in this country, we're doing a lot of self-destruction that will not go well if we continue to do that.