Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

International

Julian Assange breaks silence, slams Mike Pompeo for wanting to assassinate him

Published

6 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By Stephen Kokx

The WikiLeaks founder told the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe that ‘the CIA drew up plans to kidnap and assassinate me within the Ecuadorian embassy in London and authorized going after my European colleagues.’

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is standing by his assertion that the U.S. Deep State sought to assassinate him while he was detained.

Assange, 53, was in Strasbourg, France today making his first public appearance after being released in June from London’s high-security Belmarsh Prison, where he had been confined for five years.

Speaking to representatives of 46 countries at the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, the Australian journalist reiterated that Mike Pompeo, Donald Trump’s CIA director, planned on killing him.

“It is now a matter of public record that under Pompeo’s explicit direction, the CIA drew up plans to kidnap and assassinate me within the Ecuadorian embassy in London and authorized going after my European colleagues, subjecting us to theft, hacking attacks, and the planting of false information,” Assange said.

“My wife and my infant son were also targeted,” he continued. “A CIA asset was permanently assigned to track my wife, and instructions were given to obtain DNA from my 6-month-old son’s nappy. This is the testimony of more than 30 current and former U.S intelligence officials speaking to the U.S. press, which has been additionally corroborated by records seized in a prosecution brought against some of the CIA agents involved.”

After founding WikiLeaks in the mid 2000s, Assange came under intense scrutiny from Western governments after he helped expose war crimes committed in Afghanistan and Iraq. He sought refuge in the Ecuadorian embassy in the U.K. beginning in 2012.

In total, Assange spent 14 years of his life as a political prisoner until he struck a plea deal this summer with the U.S. government, which had charged him with 18 counts of violating the Espionage Act. He says that he chose to make the deal as the likelihood he would ever receive justice was nearly impossible.

Reports of the CIA’s plan to take Assange out surfaced in 2021, when Yahoo News revealed that intelligence agents had stated that Pompeo had been looking into possible methods of assassinating Assange following his release of “Vault 7” in 2017, which the agency described as “the largest data loss in CIA history.”

Last year, an uncomfortable Pompeo told libertarian journalist John Stossel that it “would have been illegal” for him to draw up plans to kill Assange, who he said is simply “trying to save his tuchus.”

Click to see on instagram

In November 2023, Tucker Carlson announced on X that he had visited Assange at Belmarsh. A photo he posted to the platform showed Carlson walking with Assange’s wife Stella, who was at the event in Strasbourg today.

Among other notable moments in WikiLeaks history is its releasing of emails from high-ranking American political actors, including longtime Clinton associate John Podesta. Podesta’s bizarrely worded emails about “President Obama,” “hot dogs,” and “cheese pizza” are believed by some to be coded messages about Washington elites engaging in pedophilia and human trafficking. Other Podesta emails indicate he had an extensive plan to liberalize core teachings of the Catholic Church under the auspices of a “Catholic Spring.”

In August 2016, Assange implied that one of his sources was slain Democratic Party staffer Seth Rich, who was found dead on the streets of Washington, D.C. in 2016 at 4:20 a.m. after being shot in the back. Some contend that the 27-year-old Rich, who was a Bernie Sanders supporter, was murdered for leaking emails about how the party rigged the presidential primary in favor of Hillary Clinton. Rich’s family – perhaps under pressure from clandestine forces to remain quiet – have stated that such accusations are untrue.

Assange and his supporters have repeatedly maintained he has done nothing wrong, stating that he is a journalist and that the public has a right to know what their corrupt leaders are doing. Governments have maintained that the data he published is top secret and that his actions did and does endanger lives.

Automotive

Major automakers push congress to block California’s 2035 EV mandate

Published on

MXM logo MxM News

Quick Hit:

Major automakers are urging Congress to intervene and halt California’s aggressive plan to eliminate gasoline-only vehicles by 2035. With the Biden-era EPA waiver empowering California and 11 other states to enforce the rule, automakers warn of immediate impacts on vehicle availability and consumer choice. The U.S. House is preparing for a critical vote to determine if California’s sweeping environmental mandates will stand.

Key Details:

  • Automakers argue California’s rules will raise prices and limit consumer choices, especially amid high tariffs on auto imports.

  • The House is set to vote this week on repealing the EPA waiver that greenlit California’s mandate.

  • California’s regulations would require 35% of 2026 model year vehicles to be zero-emission, a figure manufacturers say is unrealistic.

Diving Deeper:

The Alliance for Automotive Innovation, representing industry giants such as General Motors, Toyota, Volkswagen, and Hyundai, issued a letter Monday warning Congress about the looming consequences of California’s radical environmental regulations. The automakers stressed that unless Congress acts swiftly, vehicle shipments across the country could be disrupted within months, forcing car companies to artificially limit sales of traditional vehicles to meet electric vehicle quotas.

California’s Air Resources Board rules have already spread to 11 other states—including New York, Massachusetts, and Oregon—together representing roughly 40% of the entire U.S. auto market. Despite repeated concerns from manufacturers, California officials have doubled down, insisting that their measures are essential for meeting lofty greenhouse gas reduction targets and combating smog. However, even some states like Maryland have recognized the impracticality of California’s timeline, opting to delay compliance.

A major legal hurdle complicates the path forward. The Government Accountability Office ruled in March that the EPA waiver issued under former President Joe Biden cannot be revoked under the Congressional Review Act, which requires only a simple Senate majority. This creates uncertainty over whether Congress can truly roll back California’s authority without more complex legislative action.

The House is also gearing up to tackle other elements of California’s environmental regime, including blocking the state from imposing stricter pollution standards on commercial trucks and halting its low-nitrogen oxide emissions regulations for heavy-duty vehicles. These moves reflect growing concerns that California’s progressive regulatory overreach is threatening national commerce and consumer choice.

Under California’s current rules, the state demands that 35% of light-duty vehicles for the 2026 model year be zero-emission, scaling up rapidly to 68% by 2030. Industry experts widely agree that these targets are disconnected from reality, given the current slow pace of electric vehicle adoption among the broader American public, particularly in rural and lower-income areas.

California first unveiled its plan in 2020, aiming to make at least 80% of new cars electric and the remainder plug-in hybrids by 2035. Now, under President Donald Trump’s leadership, the U.S. Transportation Department is working to undo the aggressive fuel economy regulations imposed during former President Joe Biden’s term, offering a much-needed course correction for an auto industry burdened by regulatory overreach.

As Congress debates, the larger question remains: Will America allow one state’s left-wing environmental ideology to dictate terms for the entire country’s auto industry?

Continue Reading

COVID-19

Former Australian state premier accused of lying about justification for COVID lockdowns

Published on

Daniel Andrews, Premier of Victoria

From LifeSiteNews

By David James

Monica Smit said she is launching a private criminal prosecution against Daniel Andrews based on ‘new evidence proving they enforced lockdowns without medical advice or evidence.’

The fiercest opponent of the former Victorian premier Daniel Andrews during the COVID crisis was activist Monica Smit. The government responded to her advocacy by arresting her for participating in anti-lockdown protests. When she refused to sign her bail conditions she was made, in effect, a political prisoner for 22 days.  

Smit subsequently won a case against the Victoria Police for illegal imprisonment, setting an important precedent. But in a vicious legal maneuver, the judge ensured that Smit would be punished again. She awarded Smit $4,000 in damages which was less than the amount offered in pre-trial mediation. It meant that, despite her victory, Smit was liable for Victoria Police’s legal costs of $250,000. It was not a good day for Australian justice. 

There is a chance that the tables will be reversed. Smit has announced she is launching a private criminal prosecution against Andrews and his cabinet based on “new evidence proving they enforced lockdowns without medical advice or evidence.”

The revelation that the savage lockdown policies made little sense from a health perspective is hardly a surprise. Very little of what happened made medical sense. For one thing, according to the Worldometer, about four-fifths of the people who tested positive for COVID-19 had no symptoms. Yet for the first time in medical history healthy people were treated as sick.  

The culpability of the Victorian government is nevertheless progressively becoming clearer. It has emerged that the Andrews government did not seek medical advice for its curfew policies, the longest in the Western world. Andrews repeatedly lied when he said at press conferences that he was following heath advice. 

David Davis, leader of the right wing opposition Liberal Party, has made public a document recording an exchange between two senior health officials. It shows that the ban on people leaving their homes after dark was implemented without any formal input from health authorities. 

Davis acquired the email exchange, between Victorian chief health officer Brett Sutton and his deputy Finn Romanes, under a Freedom of Information request. It occurred two-and-a-half hours after the curfew was announced. 

Romanes explained he had been off work for two days and was not aware of any “key conversations and considerations” about the curfew and had not “seen any specific written assessment of the requirement” for one. 

He added: “The idea of a curfew has not arisen from public health advice in the first instance. In this way, the action of issuing a curfew is a mirror to the State of Disaster and is not occurring on public health advice but is a decision taken by Cabinet.” Sutton responded with: “Your assessment is correct as I understand it.” 

The email exchange, compelling evidence of the malfeasance of the Andrews government, raises further questions. If Smit’s lawyers can get Andrews to respond under oath, one ought to be: “If you were lying about following medical advice, then why were you in such a hurry to impose such severe measures and attack dissenters?” 

It remains a puzzle. Why did otherwise inconsequential politicians suddenly turn into dictatorial monsters with no concern for what their constituents thought?  

The most likely explanation is that they were told it was a biowarfare attack and were terrified, ditching health advice and applying military protocols. The mechanism for this was documented in a speech by Queensland senator Malcolm Roberts.  

If so, was an egregious error of judgement. As the Australian Bureau of Statistics showed, 2020 and 2021 had the lowest level of respiratory diseases since records have been kept. There was never a pandemic. 

There needs to be an explanation to the Australian people of why they lost their liberty and basic rights. A private prosecution might achieve this. Smit writes: “Those responsible should face jail time, nothing less. The latest revelation of ‘document 34‘ is just the beginning. A public criminal trial will expose truths beyond our imagination.”

Continue Reading

Trending

X