by Jerome Corsi, Infowars:

British tribunal to rule on lifting U.K. arrest warrant, freeing Assange to leave Ecuadorian embassy

WASHINGTON, D.C. – As an apparent result of President Trump’s meeting on Thursday with U.K. Prime Minister Teresa May, a British tribunal is set to rule on Feb. 6 that Julian Assange is free to leave the Ecuadorian Embassy in London without fear of being arrested.

Assange’s lawyer Mark Summers told Westminster Magistrates’ Court that the withdrawal of the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) meant the British bail arrest warrant no longer applied.

According to Reuters, Summers’ argument to the Westminster Magistrates’ Court was a technical argument that the purpose of the arrest warrant in the U.K. was to allow the underlying legal proceedings in the Swedish rape case, assuring that Assange would appear in the Swedish rape case as required, not bail intended to assure Assange would appear in a British court for a separate offense.


In 2012, Assange fled to the Ecuadorian embassy in the Knightsbridge district of London to avoid being extradited to Sweden.  By seeking refuge in the Ecuadorian Embassy, Assange skipped the bail he posted in London.

“In all the circumstances, it is respectfully submitted that any public interest in maintaining this warrant … has now been spent,” his lawyers said in written papers to the court.

Reuters further reported that when asked if a successful ruling could enable Assange to walk free, a spokesman for the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) said, “Hypothetically yes, that would be our interpretation.”

Reuters noted Chief Magistrate Emma Arbuthnot said she would make her ruling on Assange’s U.K. arrest warrant on Feb. 6.

Ecuador extends diplomatic passport to Assange previously reported that at a press conference heldThursday, Jan. 11, in Quito, Ecuador, the Ecuadorian Ministry of Foreign Affairs affirmed both that Ecuador naturalized Julian Assange in granting him citizenship, and that Ecuador had extended to Assange diplomatic status as well.

With diplomatic status, Ecuador would be in a position to grant Assange an international passport that would give Assange the right to leave the United Kingdom with immunity.

During the course of the press conference in Quito, the Ecuadorian Ministry of Foreign Affairs further revealed that Assange was naturalized an Ecuadorian citizen on December 12, 2017, some one month before the official announcement was made yesterday.

In the course of a 20-minute press conference, Ecuador’s foreign minister Maria Fernanda Espinosa made clear Ecuador has appealed to international authorities to intervene in finding a solution for Assange to leave the asylum he has sought by remaining inside the Ecuadorian Embassy in London since 2012.

“Julian Assange was granted naturalization on December 12, 2017,” Espinoza confirmed, adding that as a result of also extending diplomatic immunity status to Assange, Quito asked London to be recognized as an Ecuadorian “diplomatic agent”.

“We have asked the British government to deal with Assange as if he were part of Ecuador’s international diplomatic corps,” Espinoza stressed.

This revelation fueled speculation that Assange has already been extracted from London and transported to Switzerland under the protection of the United Nations and international law.

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

In a motion filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on Dec. 29, 2017, in the case Roy Cockrum vs. Donald J. Trump for President, attorneys for President Trump argued that Julian Assange had a right under the First Amendment to publish the DNC and John Podesta emails, even if the emails were stolen.

The case was orchestrated by Project Democracy, a group run by former attorneys from the Obama administration, arguing that then former Trump campaign adviser Roger Stone had conspired with the Russians to publish the DNC and Podesta emails.

In a 32-page motion defending the Trump Campaign, Michael A. Carvin of the Jones Day law firm and the attorney of record representing President Trump, argued that the Trump campaign – and by inference Julian Assange at WikiLeaks – could not be held liable under the First Amendment for a disclosure of stolen information if the information published deals with “a matter of public interest” and the speaker was not “involved” in the theft.

In making the argument, Trump’s attorneys relied upon Bartnicki v. Vopper. 532 U.S. 514 (2001), a labor union case in which the Supreme Court ruled a radio station had a right to broadcast a stolen tape of a phone call between the chief union negotiator for a Pennsylvania high school and the chief union negotiator together with the union president.

Technically, Assange has not yet been indicted of any criminal offense in the United States, nor is it clear he has committed any crime.  Under the Supreme Court Decisions New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), and in the Pentagon Papers case, New York Times v. U.S. 403 U.S. 713 (1971), a journalist is allowed to accept and publish classified documents provided by other sources.

Read More @