Reporter reveals Assange told her leaks came from inside Hillary’s campaign, not Russia

According to an amended lawsuit filed by Texas businessman Ed Butowsky, Ellen Ratner relayed information from Wikileaks founder Julian Assange to  Butowsky regarding Seth Rich’s role in transferring emails to Wikileaks.

According to Butowsky,  Ratner was his source and gathered the information on Seth Rich after her contact with Julian Assange and Wikileaks officials.

Ratner’s late brother Michael Ratner was a lawyer for Wikileaks before his death in 2016.

It is odd that Ratner wasn’t interviewed by Robert Mueller or his team. This information seems important.

FBI Rocked By Public Suicide of TOP FBI Agent Who Investigated Clinton Foundation

No self-respecting law enforcement official tells people to delete video and photographs of a homicide. And this man was investigating the Clinton Foundation. How many FBI agents are on the Clinton bribe-roll? This situation stinks. I would like an independent investigation.

Day

Excerpt:

FBI agents on site and police instructed witnesses to delete any video and photographs of the event and cleared out the bar, according to reports. Likewise, FBI officials instructed Austin Police to not release any details of the death to the media, sources confirmed. Witnesses at the nite club were also told to “stay offline” and “keep quiet” about the shooting, sources said.

Ex Parte Quirin

EyeTheSpy@TrueEyeTheSpy · Jun 15A Reminder. In the hallowed halls of the Department of Justice, down a bit from where the AG resides daily; there is a plaque on a wall, dedicated to the trial of eight nazi saboteurs; who were tried by Tribunal & found guilty. Justice, is coming. Law of War. Ex parte Quirin.

🇺🇸


Nazi Saboteurs

Ex Parte Quirin

Citation. 317 U.S. 1.

Brief Fact Summary. Four enemies of war filed a petition for habeas corpus to contest the right to a civil trial instead of a trial in front of a military tribunal.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. The Court will not set aside acts ordered by the President concerning acts of war, as that power is invested to the President under the Constitution.

Facts.  Four men were captured on American soil and accused of acts in violation of the Articles of War. Under this act, their crimes are to be tried in front of a military tribunal and they were not afforded a trial in a civil court. A military tribunal trial does not afford a person all of the rights afforded under the United States Constitution. These four men were born in Germany and have all lived in the United States. They all received training at a school in Germany which taught explosive methods and secret writings. Each of the petitioners left Germany on boats in civilian clothing, and came to different coast in the United States. With explosives, they planned on retrieving secret information and were instructed to destroy the war industries and war facilities in the United States. The petitioners were caught on shore, and detained.

Issue. Whether a presidential order, which creates a military tribunal to try war crimes committed by war criminals/enemy belligerents instead of trying these cases in a civil court is constitutional.

Held. Yes. Absent clear conviction that a presidential order violates the constitution, the court will not set those orders aside. During times of War, the constitution explicitly states the President may wage war and carry into effect all laws concerning; the conduct of the war, regulation of Armed forces, and all laws defining and punishing offenses against the laws of nations. Laws of nations or the law of war determine the rights and status of enemies of the country, or enemy belligerents. Here Congress passed the Articles of War act which created the military tribunal. The President ordered that all enemies be tried in front of this tribunal and would not be allowed access to civil courts, thus relieving them of the right to habeas corpus. This court states that as long as those crimes are indeed crimes of war, they can be tried in front of this tribunal, and this order is constitutional. If the crime is not a crime of war, then it should be tried in front of a jury. While the citizens of the United States are owed their 5th and 6th amendment rights, it is not clear that these rights should extend to non-citizens and enemies of war. This court will not afford those rights to enemies of war that violate laws of war.

Discussion. The court makes distinctions between prisoners of war and enemy belligerents. It is one thing to be at war and captured; another to sneak into the country to steal information and plan to destroy property there. Depending on the distinction of the criminal can affect his/her rights; however, here it is clear the prisoners are enemy belligerents who clearly violated laws of war.

Ridiculous Impeachment Hearings

Donald J. Trump@realDonaldTrump·1hNewest Poll: Only 11% in favor of starting ridiculous impeachment hearings. Well, let’s see: We have the Best Economy in History, the Best Employment Numbers in History, Most People Working in History, Highest Stock Market in History, Biggest Tax and Regulation Cuts in History,..4.5K7.7K34.7K

Donald J. Trump@realDonaldTrump·1h….Best and Newest Military (almost totally rebuilt from the depleted military I took over) in History, Best V.A. in History (Choice), and MUCH, MUCH MORE. Gee, let’s impeach the President. The “Squad” (AOC Plus 3) and other Dems suffer from Trump Derangement Syndrome. Crazy!