Ann's Mega Dub: Pskai's all about the peen

Tuesday, March 15, 2022

Pskai's all about the peen

BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX & THOMAS FRIEDMAN IS A GREAT MAN & ANN'S BIG MIX-- THE KOOL AID TABLE

WHY DOES SHE HAVE TO WORK BLUE?

WHITE HOUSE CLOWN JEN PSKAKI, DESPERATE FOR THE YUCKS, EXCLAIMED TO THE PRESS TODAY OF THE U.S. PRESIDENT, "BIDEN IS A JUNIOR!'' WE DIDN'T NEED THAT, JEN.

WE DON'T NEED IT.

SIZE IS A PERSONAL MATTER.

WHAT'S NEXT, JEN? PRESS BRIEFINGS WHERE YOU TOSS AROUND WANG, PECKER, SCHLONG, DONG, HEAT-SEEKING MOISTURE MISSILE, BALONEY PONY?

WHY DOES JEN ALWAYS HAVE TO WORK BLUE?

AMERICA DESERVES A LITTLE MORE CLASS FROM THE COUNTRY'S WACKY REDHEAD.

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

Starting with the Ausrlaian journalist that US President Joe Biden continues to persecute. Juilian Assange committed the 'crime' of exposing US War Crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan. Joe Biden wants him to stand trial in the US for practicing journalism. Blustering, bigoted Biden wants Julian to pay for telling the world the truth. Joe most recently -- his State of the Union address -- was caught lying again about how many times he himself had visited Iraq and Afghanistan (doubling the total) so, you understand, Joe will always be on the side of liars and always want to punish those who tell the truth.

He is demanding that the United Kingdom turn over Julian who remains in a British prison because, well, they have no reason to hold him in the UK but like good little serfs, they do what the US government tells them.

Victoria Lindrea (BBC NEWS) reports:

The Supreme Court has refused to allow Julian Assange his latest appeal against extradition to the US.

A court spokesman said Mr Assange's application did not raise "an arguable point of law". The decision is a major blow to his hopes to avoid extradition.

The Wikileaks founder, 50, is wanted in the US over the publication of thousands of classified documents in 2010 and 2011.

His lawyers said he had not ruled out launching a final appeal.

The case will now go back down to District Judge Vanessa Baraitser, the original judge who assessed the US's extradition request.

Haroon Siddique and Ben Quinn (GUARDIAN) add:

Assange’s lawyers will have four weeks to make submissions to the home secretary before her decision. There also remain other routes to fight his extradition, for instance by mounting a challenge on other issues of law raised at first instance that he lost on and have not yet been subject to appeal.

The attempted appeal to the supreme court was specifically on the issue of the US assurances.

In January last year, district judge Vanessa Baraitser blocked extradition on the basis that procedures in prisons in the US would not prevent Assange from potentially taking his own life.

But that decision was overturned by two senior judges, Lord Burnett of Maldon, the lord chief justice, and Lord Justice Holroyde, at the high court. Burnett said the risk of Assange being held in highly restrictive US prison conditions was “excluded by the assurances which are offered. It follows that we are satisfied that, if the assurances had been before the judge, she would have answered the relevant question differently.”

Responding to the supreme court’s decision, a spokesperson for Assange’s solicitors, Birnberg Peirce, said: “We regret that the opportunity has not been taken to consider the troubling circumstances in which requesting states can provide caveated guarantees after the conclusion of a full evidential hearing. In Mr Assange’s case, the court had found that there was a real risk of prohibited treatment in the event of his onward extradition.”

Thomas Scripps (WSWS) observes:

Assange’s life is in grave danger. Neither appeal is likely to be granted and not even such formal legal rights and processes to proceed should be considered a certainty.Assange’s prosecution has always been the “legal” continuation of a lawless assassination-cum-rendition operation organised by the CIA, seeking to silence Assange for good, one way or another.

The timeline has now been dramatically accelerated. The Supreme Court’s decision came suddenly, without any prior announcement. That it refused even to hear Assange’s case is highly unusual. The lower High Court certified on January 24 that a “point of law of public importance” had been raised by Assange, normally prompting the Supreme Court to consider the appeal.

The point of law in question was, “In what circumstances can an appellate court receive assurances from a requesting state which were not before the court of first instance.” Even on these limited grounds, the case was considered worth examining by the High Court and legal experts in the field.

Last month, WikiLeaks cited a report of the case by the highly regarded London law firm Bindmans which noted, “Extradition practitioners largely welcome Supreme Court guidance on this point as late assurances designed to alleviate the court’s concerns about human rights violations following extradition have become a highly contentious issue, especially when provided by States with a poor record in human rights themselves.”

However, having been given the option to go through the motions and apply the Supreme Court’s legal imprimatur to Assange’s effective rendition, the justices instead delivered a one-line rejection: “The court ordered that permission to appeal be refused because the application does not raise an arguable point of law.”

The meaning is clear: the time for charades is over, Assange must be dealt with quickly.

This was a decision reached at the highest levels of the British state, delivered by the President of the Supreme Court Lord Reed and the Deputy President Lord Hodge, alongside Lord Briggs. The NATO-Russia war being waged through the proxy conflict in Ukraine, moving ever closer to a direct military confrontation between nuclear armed powers, has doubtless come as a powerful spur to action, underscoring for the ruling class why Assange must be silenced.

Binoy Kampmark (DISSIDENT VOICE) observes:

Dismay at the decision was expressed by Amnesty International’s Deputy Research Director for Europe, Julia Hall. “The Supreme Court has missed an opportunity to clarify the UK’s acceptance of deeply flawed diplomatic assurances against torture. Such assurances are inherently unreliable and leave people at risk of severe abuse upon extradition or other transfer.”

The next stage in this diabolical torment of the WikiLeaks founder involves remitting the case to Westminster Magistrates’ Court, which will only serve a ceremonial role in referring the decision to the Home Secretary, Priti Patel. Only the most starry-eyed optimists will expect extradition to be barred. (Patel is fixated with proposed changes to the UK Official Secrets Act that will expansively criminalise journalists and whistleblowers who publish classified information.) The defence will do their best in submissions to Patel ahead of the decision, but it is likely that they will have to seek judicial review.

In the likely event of Patel’s approval, the defence may make a freedom of press argument, though this is by no means a clear run thing. It will still be up to the higher courts as to whether they would be willing to grant leave to hear further arguments. Whichever way the cards fall, this momentous, torturous journey of paperwork, briefs, lawyers, and prison will continue to sap life and cause grief.

The persecution of Julian is a threat to the press and not just members of the US press. Julian is not an American citien. He cannot be guilty of treason. No foreigner can be. His actions did not take place on US soil. He published the truth and that, according to Joe Biden, is not a defense. A foreign journalist published the truth and now the US government attempts to destroy the journalist. It sends a dark and disturbing message to journalists around the world. And the US makes clear that for all its pretense about caring for a free press and being appalled by the way other governments attempt to supress journalists is just a pretense. I wonder what 'high tonal' remarks Harvey Weinstein's whore Meryl STreep will have to make about the press now? While she had that bad film to promote she pretended to care about journalism and support a free press. But note that the whore hasn't said a word about Julian. Not surprising when we know her response to the truth about Harvey coming out was to insist to Ronana Farrow that he msut not expose Harvey because Harvey donates to Democratic Party causes.

RECOMMENDED: "