Now that Julian Assange has been arrested in London after seven years in exile at the Ecuadorian embassy, many are wondering if anything will happen with the "dead man's switch" that Assange and WikiLeaks have talked about in the past. Read on for more details about the dead man's switch, its history, and what we know so far about the insurance files.
What's still unclear at this time is what might happen with the dead man's switch that Assange has talked about in the past. WikiLeaks has released numerous insurance files as a type of "deadman's switch." Downloaders get an encryption key, but they need a second one before they can actually unlock the file. The insurance files operate as a type of backup. If anything happens to WikiLeaks, the second key is released, giving everyone access to the file, according to comments WikiLeaks and Assange have made in the past. However, these are typically insurance files to ensure that a pending publication is actually released. It's unclear how many (if any) are actually related to Julian Assange's safety or WikiLeaks' existence in general.
"It is true that some of Venezuela's economic problems are due to the ineptitudes of the Bolivarian government's "socialist command" economy, but this overlooks the role played by the United States, the United Nations, and the European Union....".Bingo, with such a low-blow beginning, the uninformed reader is already primed to 'discount' much of the interference by Washington and its minions. Some of the-so-called progressive writers have already been brain-smeared, by calling Nicolás Maduro a "dictator", when in fact, there is hardly any country farther away from a dictatorship than Venezuela.
"I offer you the opportunity to wake up and understand that Hamas and the other terrorist organizations are leading you to the edge of the abyss," Rokon said."Understand this before it's too late, you have been warned."
On 9/11 the imperialists considered themselves powerful enough that they could get away with the biggest false flag event in history, now 17 years later this reality is openly being challenged by Russia.
"The Justice Department memos going back to before Nixon say that you cannot indict a sitting president, you have to impeach him," Giuliani told CNN on Wednesday. "They acknowledged to us orally that they understand that they can't violate the Justice Department rules. So, what does that leave them with? That leaves them with writing a report." said the former New York City mayor, who recently took over representing Trump in the special counsel probe. "They can't indict. At least they acknowledged that to us after some battling."The former New York City mayor, who recently took over representing Trump in the special counsel probe stated "They can't indict. At least they acknowledged that to us after some battling." Mueller's team has declined to comment on Giuliani's statements to CNN.
...on Thursday, Giuliani revealed that the acknowledgement from Mueller's team that they do not plan to indict Trump came from Jim Quarles, a member of the special counsel team. Giuliani said that Quarles had informed Jay Sekulow, another member of Trump's personal legal team, that they are not looking to indict the president.From CNN:
A lack of an indictment would not necessarily mean the President is in the clear. Mueller could issue a report making referrals or recommendations to the House of Representatives.The inability to indict a sitting president has been the position of the Office of Legal Counsel in the Justice Department since the Nixon administration and reaffirmed in the Clinton administration, but it has never been tested in court.And from TIME:
The argument that the President is immune from the criminal laws is just that - an argument.
First is the question of whether an obstruction of justice charge can be brought in this case. The President's supporters argue that key elements of any such indictment could not support a conviction. If everything the President did was legal, they say, he could not possibly be convicted of a crime.
The second question is not whether, but when. Can the President avoid indictment while in office? But again, there is no language in the Constitution saying he enjoys any such protection.
Comment: See also: