top of page

A Tribute to Julian Assange


Chad: Today's episode is my tribute to Julian Assange and the First Amendment, including a special guest to update us on the ongoing Assange saga. You are listening to the Last Gay Conservative. I'm your host, Chad Law.

Intro: Hello everybody, and let's free Julian. Welcome to another episode of the Last Gay Conservative. It's me, your host, Chad Law, America's binary brother, the holiest homo of all time, and the ultimate beacon of truth. All we're doing here is sending common sense conservative politics through the airwaves on our red, white, and blue rainbow. Well, folks, we have a very special episode today. I have a dear friend and colleague that I've worked with for many years. She works in sort of the gray or dark area in helping push our conservative movement. So we're only using her first name, but she is actively involved in the free Julian Assange campaign. And I have to be honest, I am not up to date on it. So I wanted to bring her on and I wanted to do it around the same time as the Bell Marsh Tribune because there are expert after expert after expert after expert talking about why Julian Assange is not a criminal.

This is a big First Amendment issue folks. This is a humanitarian issue. This is an international relations issue. This man has turned everything up on his head for the betterment of us, of humanity. And so I'm very, very supportive of him. So we'll have a full interview for you. I just wanna apologize now, the audio quality is not what you're used to. Unfortunately, doing these interviews over the phone or Zoom really degrade the quality of the audio. So bear with it. The information is great and we'll see you when we get back.

People ask me all the time how I can afford to dress the way that I dress. And the funny thing is that although I have nice pieces, oftentimes when I look put together, I'm not wearing anything extravagant or expensive from day-to-day use. I have started to wear these sweaters because it's been a little chilly by state cashmere. It's an Amazon brand called State Cashmere. The pricing is absolutely incredible. I don't know how they do it. It's entry level, affordable pricing for high quality cashmere. It is soft, it fits perfect. It's true to color, true to size. Obviously, you get the protection of that Amazon return policy if there are any problems, which there won't be. I've been wearing a few of the different sweaters from a cardigan to a Henley neck, and now today I just have on a regular sweater and I am in love.

Traditionally, cashmere is one of those things that's only available in the high end retail stores and very, very expensive. State cashmere has changed the game. Now everyone can look expensive, find them, just go on Amazon and search state cashmere, go to the state cashmere store, pick out anything that you want. It'll arrive next day, prime, and you will absolutely love the way you look. Again, folks that state cashmere, state, like the state of California cashmere on, check it out and let me know what you think.

Chad: Alright folks. I have a very, very special guest for you. One of my dear friends, her name's Donna. I never have guests or do interviews on the show, as you know. So this is a special occasion and my tribute to Julian Assange. Donna is my confidant and go to Information source on all things Assange. She works very, very closely with a group of people that are actively working for his freedom and to find justice for all the injustices that he's suffered, and he knows all about it. So, very excited to have Donna on the show. Donna, how are you?

Donna: I'm good. Thank you for having me. And most importantly, thanks for taking the time to really talk about Julian and his situation and what's going on because it's so important and a lot of the media won't cover it. So it's really good to enlighten people as to the truth of the situation.

Chad: Well, I have to be honest with you, I remember when the Assange sort of roaring happened. I think Obama was still in office at that point, but I haven't followed piece by piece. I mean, luckily I have access to you, so if I have a question, I pick up the phone and call. But I know that there's been sort of a series of events that has led to where we are now, which is what I think is essentially the precipice of he's got to be released. That's the only option. But I saw that there is an event in Washington DC right now called the Belmar Tribunal. Do you know anything about that?

Donna: Yeah, so the Belmar Tribunal took place yesterday in Washington DC in honor of Julian Assange, and it features a lot of notable speakers, expert testimony from journalists, whistleblowers, lawyers, publishers, and it's all about assaults, press freedom, then Julian's honor, because it's so important that he be released because he really is just so much of a figurehead for all of this. But it's about the First Amendment being threatened in this country.

Chad: Absolutely. And so Belmarsh Tribunal. Belmarsh is in reference to where he is currently incarcerated, correct?

Donna: Yes. So he's currently incarcerated in Belmarsh Prison. And for people who don't know, Belmarsh is the UK's equivalent of Guantanamo Bay or Gitmo in the United States. It's a heavy duty supermax facility where they send the most dangerous criminals.

Chad: That's crazy. And that's where they have him, the journalist.

Donna: Yeah, that's where they have him.

Chad: You mean white guy, Assange.

Donna: Yeah. And he has not been found guilty of any of the crimes that he's accused of right now. He hasn't been found guilty.

Chad: So is that because he hasn't been tried or has there been trials and hearings that have been declared, I guess are ruled in his favor?

Donna: It's because the United States government wants to charge him under the Espionage Act and they want to extradite him. So there have been multiple hearings because they're trying to get him extradited, our Department of Justices to the United States to face the charges that have been created and it keeps getting appealed. At one point the UK denied the extradition to the United States, and yet even at that time, he was not set free even on bail because of the appeal and because of pressure from the United States government to the UK government, they kept holding him in Belmarsh Prison. This is just very frightening. It should be frightening to everyone that he's receiving this kind of treatment when he hasn't been convicted of any of these crimes.

Chad: What's their reasoning, that he's a flight risk? Have they presented anything or do they just expect us all to turn over and say, oh, whatever this is the government telling us that he needs to be in this kind of prison?

Donna: I mean, I believe that is the reasoning that he's a flight risk, but honestly, he's so famous, so well known and so very watched by our intelligence agencies, which I will get into. I don't understand where on earth the guy would flee to. No, he's under a microscope.

Chad: I know, you're so right.

Donna: 24/7, no matter where he is, where's he going to flee to?

Chad: Yeah. Before we got on the interview, you were telling me a pretty disgusting story about DNA collection. Could you share that with my audience?

Donna: Yeah. Things have gotten so out of bounds with this case that the US government actually ordered his baby's soiled diapers to be collected and used for DNA testing. Yeah. And I can get into more details about that, but if I could, can we back up a little bit so that I can try to explain what happened in order to get to that point and then what has occurred since?

Chad: Please do. Because I don't know, and I am assuming that my audience as well because it's so much time has passed, it's left a lot of gaps in the whole story. So yeah, I'd love to hear it from your perspective.

Donna: Yeah, so Julian is the founder of WikiLeaks, and most people have heard of WikiLeaks, but for those who don't know exactly what it is, it's an international nonprofit website that publishes news leaks and oftentimes classified documents. They always keep their sources anonymous, they vet all of their information, they have prevailed in every lawsuit against them, and they have a 100% authenticity record.

Chad: What does that mean, authenticity record? 100% authenticity record. In other words, all the stories that they publish or all the information they publish is authentic?

Donna: It's all authentic and true and well vetted. And every time it's been disputed, there's been a lawsuit filed, they have always prevailed. They do an amazing job of vetting information and making sure that it is true and accurate. And I really wish our media was as thorough and diligent.

Chad: Right, we'd be able to make informed decisions if more people were like, WikiLeaks.

Donna: Yeah, well hopefully we would, you know, but the flip side of that is, well, maybe we'd have no news because they're not as forthright about putting it out there as WikiLeaks is.

Chad: That's true as well.

Donna: So WikiLeaks was actually formed in 2006, but my opinion, what really catapulted them into the spotlight was in 2010 where they released a series of military dispatches. And those were from the battlefields of Afghanistan and Iraq, and they exposed war crimes by the US government. And that was pretty earth shattering. A lot of people heard about this, a lot of people were upset and angry and wanting to know what was going on and why we hadn't heard about this.

Chad: I remember this now.

Donna: Yeah. And unfortunately it also made Julian one of the government's top targets. And what is so upsetting to me and to a lot of people that I work with and that hear about this is our government officials conveniently ignore that we as citizens are supposed to be the ones employing them. They're paid from our tax dollars. So shouldn't we have the right to know how our money is being spent and what's going on and what's being under, I should say, done under our name as the United States of America. We're United States citizens, shouldn't we know how we're being represented out there in the rest of the world and through the intelligence agencies?

Chad: Yeah, it's true. And especially when it comes to First Amendment issues. And as much as I hurt for Julian, I also believe that it is sad that he had to be the one to fall on the sword, but he has also forced many more people out of what you would say, like a normal population or people who just wouldn't normally have interest in this sort of thing, to come out and start saying, whoa, my constitutional rights are being violated. The government's spending money on all this stuff. And so he really has mobilized a lot more people to focus on their rights, which I'm very thankful for.

Donna: Yeah, you're absolutely right. And that's why he's one of my heroes and why this cause is so important to me. And keep in mind, Julian published information on WikiLeaks provided to him by confidential sources. And a lot of people are under the impression that he stole or he hacked the information himself, and that's simply not true.

Chad: Okay. Yeah, that's what I was always told, that this guy went in, hacked the US government documents, stole US military documents, and then published them online. And that was always the story. And had I not had you to tell me a lot of this stuff, I probably would've still bought that. So once again, to reiterate, he received the information from someone who wanted it to be made public, just some little things like war crimes. And then he published it after he vetted it. So I mean, he literally did nothing illegal.

Donna: Yeah. Media outlets like the New York Times published information from confidential sources all the time. That's called journalism.

Chad: Well, yeah, and one of the things that I wanted to bring up to you, and not that it's a fair comparison, but if you see all the money and time and effort that's being spent on finding the leak of the Supreme Court potential ruling on Roe v. Wade, that we know which way it went now and they've tried to find the leak and they can't and my thought process is always okay, but even if they did find that person, are they going to go to Guantanamo Bay? Because that's exactly the same. And then the other part of it is why isn't the writer or the people at Politico who accepted the leak and wrote about it getting the same treatment as Assange? Because it's essentially the exact same thing.

Donna: Well, that's true. Being a publisher is part of journalism, and that's what Julian was doing. He was publishing this information and journalism's not a crime. And the New York Times, Fox News, CNN, all of those outlets, they're protected under the First Amendment as our free press. And Julian and WikiLeaks deserve to have that same protection, but it's actually the opposite that's happening. Wikileaks exposed a lot of truths, but they did it about government war crimes, about things going on with the intelligence agencies that they possibly shouldn't have been doing or that were illegal. And so, he, for lack of a better term, pissed off the wrong people. And an international smear campaign against him began, I mean, just a couple of months after those, the Afghanistan and Iraq, the things that I just mentioned were released, Julian went to Sweden to Stockholm to give a speech and he met a couple women when he was there and he had intimate relationships with them.

Well cut to a couple of years later, I think it was in 2012, two of these women, they came out with rape charges against him. One of them has since revealed her name, her name's Anna Arden. And when she came forward, she said that while they were having consensual sex at her apartment, Assange tamper with a condom, and it caused her to have unprotected sex, which is a sex crime in Sweden. And another woman from that same trip, I think she just went by Ms. W, she said that she also had consensual sex with him and he used a condom, but that at one point he penetrated her without it. So that's the same charge they're bringing against him through this woman. And it's crazy because, what does the media say? They broadcast a headline rape charges against Julian Assange.

And people just kind of see these things and we're in such a short term memory society now with social media and everything where people don't really take a look at the details. They just accept that in their head, especially if they see it enough and they think, oh, well he's a rapist and it's so untrue, especially when you look at what they were really saying. They were saying they were having consensual sex and there's an issue of whether or not a condom was used or if it was used the entire time. And that's very much a he said, she said type of thing.

Chad: And I can't believe that would be, because if you look at Julian, he's an Australian, right? He's Australian citizen.

Donna: Yes, that's correct.

Chad: Yeah, so you and I are obviously American. Under American law or under well I shouldn't say Australian law because I don't know, but if you picked up that same situation and you put it in Texas or whatever, there would be no sex crime. American statute does not identify taking a condom off or poking holes in it or whatever as rape. And the fact that it is rape there and they use the word rape as a woman, doesn't that just disgust you as someone? I mean, I'm sure I've known people who have been victims of actual rape. Like I don't wanna put words in your mouth, I'm assuming you do as well. Doesn't that sort of water that down for people who have actually been raped?

Donna: Yes, it does. And I, myself was in the past a victim of sexual assault and it's very, very hurtful because I know what sexual assault really is and it was a lot worse than that. And it's watering down how egregious of a crime rape really is and what they're doing to him by putting out there to the world that he committed this heinous crime and he did not. But they're putting that in people's minds as part of this smear campaign. It's very frightening. It's just, it's very frightening because they could do it to anyone and they probably do. This world is becoming more and more divided through social media, through politics, even by the news outlets that people watch. And people are always wanting to smear and take down people that don't agree with them and take down the other side.

And he's kind of a prime example of what we can all look to, what the future is if we continue down this path. So it's important to me not only that he's released and that he's free, number one, but also that his name be cleared because what has gone on here is horrific.

Chad: Yeah. It's interesting because on one hand you have something again that's so terrible. On the other hand, you've got a guy that normally I would think that with all the resources and the effort that the different American, the United Kingdom, the Swedish government has done to destroy this guy, he still has millions of people supporting him that can see through all of that, which I think is really, really cool because to me 20 years ago that would've never happened.

Donna: Yes. It's very uplifting. And that's the other activist that I work with and myself. That's why it's so important for us to get the word out about the situation so that we can enlighten people about it. Because once people see what's really going on, the lights go on and they see the truth, the more and more people stand up for him. And we need to save this man's life because I will get into the plots to have him killed as we're talking, but it seems like they're trying to make his life end one way or the other. If they don't do it, literally they want it to happen inside of a prison.

Chad: So he's living in the UK. The Swedish are trying to extradite him to face these phony rape charges. And so then the Ecuadorian president allows him to have asylum at the embassy from 2012 to 2019. You're telling me that while he was there, he was still releasing documents and running WikiLeaks from that embassy, correct?

Donna: Absolutely. Yes.

Chad: Okay. That I didn't know. So what kind of things did he release while he was at the Ecuadorian Embassy?

Donna: One of the most notable was Vault 7, and that exposed hacking tools and spying tools by the CIA, that were used against American citizens. One was called Weeping Angel, and that's one which places smart TVs in a fake off mode. So people think their TV's off and then it acts like a bug in a private citizen's own home. And that got a lot of coverage when Vault 7 was released. People were going, oh my gosh, you're telling me my own TV could spy on me? And it's true.

Chad: All these things that you would never think are real. That stuff is in movies. And WikiLeaks has essentially brought it to life and especially for me, has made me so aware that so much of this and we're seeing it all over now, but he really was the original exposure of conspiracy theories being true. I don't know how I'm trying to say it. You understand what I'm saying? It's like today, all the time today, all these conspiracy theories we grew up with or whatever are like, oh, well that was true. That wasn't a lie. And I feel like he's brought to light a lot of that stuff. Like people using your smart TV and phones to spy on you, he brought that to life when for a lot of people that was just a conspiracy.

Donna: Yeah. Well, the line between the truth and conspiracy theories is getting thinner and thinner all the time as more truth is revealed.

Chad: That's true. So we know he was there until 2019. He's running WikiLeaks, what led up to the 2019 removal from the embassy?

Donna: Okay, so when WikiLeaks release Vault 7, at that time, that was in 2017 Mike Pompeo was a newly appointed director of the CIA. I think he'd only been in the position for maybe a couple of weeks, and it had to make him very angry that the agency was embarrassed like that and got exposed with him as a new person at the helm of it. And actually in his first public appearance, Pompeo declared WikiLeaks a non-state hostile intelligence service.

Chad: What is that?

Donna: Yeah. Well, the reason you asked that question is because that was a new term that hadn't existed before.

Chad: Well, Pompeo just made that up.

Donna: I don't know if he made it up or think he made it up or a government entity made up made it up. I'm not positive about that. But that was not something that had been used before.

Chad: It's so typical, these bureaucracies to just make up these official names, to make people worried and scared when really it's intern in a break room writing the stuff down on a napkin

Donna: Probably. And they make a habit of changing definitions to suit them as well. But that's another story. But when Pompeo made that announcement, this effectively made WikiLeaks an enemy of the United States and that allowed the CIA to use any and all means necessary to overcome WikiLeaks. And that's very scary, that whole situation was created. But really it's even more scary that with that declaration now any publication or any group in the world speaking out against the USA could now be targeted by the CIA.

Chad: Wow. So essentially this is a Chinese Communist party style law enforcement measure that seems and is marketed as this truly official thing, whereas the term is made up and it gives them blanket power to target anyone they want. And if anyone speaks out against the USA, they can go to reeducation camps. I mean, it's very, very scary. It sounds like we're talking about China, not the United States.

Donna: Yeah. Well, if anyone's listening to this and they are just thinking, ah, conspiracy theory, I highly suggest they read the book 1984. But seriously, because it's not that we need to watch out for Big Brother anymore, big brother is here. And anyway, the CIA went after Julian relentlessly, and it was actually reported by both Yahoo News and Newsweek that the CIA ordered plans to be drawn up to kidnap Julian from the Ecuadorian Embassy. Okay. So if you look at that, that means that the United States CIA in the UK, acting in the UK would invade Ecuadorian sovereign territory in order to kidnap or kill someone under the Ecuadorian embassy's protection. And the CIA also ordered plans to kill us, kill Julian.

Chad: Wow. You know, as you're saying that and talking about conspiracy theories, as a political pundit, someone who's lived and breathed conservative politics their whole life, but immediately my spidey senses, when you start talking about invading the sovereign territory of Ecuador kidnapping, I go conspiracy, conspiracy. Stop. Let's back out of this. But you just said Yahoo and Newsweek reported on this, so this is like public information.

Donna: Yes. And I really commend Yahoo and Newsweek in that instance because they are media outlets and they saw the importance of this to the First Amendment, and this time they stepped up, they did the right thing, and they got this information out there to the people about what was really happening.

Chad: That's so important. So, he's doing all this. Everything seems fine. So what happens now where he's starting to get removed, why did he get removed out of the Ecuador embassy?

Donna: Well, things were done covertly. So there's a guy named David Morales, and he's from a company called UC Global, and that's a Spanish security company whose biggest contract was to provide security in the Ecuadorian embassy in London. So this David Morales attended a security conference at the Sans Hotel in Vegas, Las Vegas. And then soon after that UC global receive contracts to begin spying on Julian at the Ecuadorian Embassy. They were provided with cameras, microphones, modems, and they searched all of Julian's visitors, even like when they got their phone, they would take it apart and get the IMI numbers from inside the phone, which would allow the CIA to get all the data from those devices. And here's when we get back to what you were talking about earlier. They even went so far as to order the collection of the soil baby diapers of Julian's baby. So that DNA testing could be done to determine if he was actually the father of his baby because his baby had been brought in to visit him.

Chad: Why would that matter anyways if he was as a bio father or not? I mean, what does any of this have to do with this espionage case that is being made up?

Donna: Well, I can't get inside the minds of intelligence agencies. Maybe they wanted to see, the child was being brought in for some other reason or just, I hope it's not for something more nefarious like they wanted to harm the child, God forbid. I hope that's not when it was. But one of the security guards was actually so taken aback by this when they ordered the DNA testing of the diaper, he tipped off Julian's wife Stella.

Chad: Oh wow.

Donna: That that was going on, because these people that were working for this UC global were getting creeped out at how far things had gone with this.

Chad: Wow. Okay. So they're stealing his baby poop for whatever reason, and he's stuck in the Ecuadorian embassy. Things are getting obviously a little bit more tense if you will. What happens next to the guy?

Donna: Well, in 2018, Ralph Coria ran out his term as a president of Ecuador. Then his successor took over, and when that happened, his successor secured 4 billion in loans from the United States for Ecuador. And right around that time, or in 2019 Julian got it expelled from the embassy and he was immediately arrested.

Chad: Alright. So basically Ralph Carrera, who was the president of Ecuador, saw the importance of the freedom of press, protected him until 2018. He, again, was no longer president. The new president came in and it sounds like leveraged Assange for 4 billion in loans for their country.

Donna: Well, you know, we can let everyone draw their own conclusions, but it sounds awfully suspicious to me.

Chad: Yeah, I mean, there's no conclusion to draw. That just is what it is. You always follow the money. And as if anyone has seen all of these different things going on right now from classified documents to the Roe v. Wade Leak, etcetera, the best journalists and pundits follow the money, and the money always gives you the result. So he gets expelled, arrested, what's transpired since then?

Donna: Well, that brings us back to where he is now in Belmash Prison, and he's in this facility with brutal murderers, just the worst of the worst violent criminals. He's been in solitary confinement a lot of the time and let out for only an hour a day. And his health has declined seriously since he's been there. He has lost an alarming amount of weight. He had covid at one time, he had a TIA stroke and his mental health, I mean, as resilient as this man is, you know, a person can only take so much. So obviously that's going to be deteriorating as well. And that's where this is really a human rights issue because at this point, if he were to be extradited to the United States to another supermax prison, psychiatrists have weighed in on this, credible ones and it's going to be terrible for his mental health.

Chad: I don't even know how long his mental health would be. I mean, I think personally, the second he gets put into an American jail, the second he gets the Jeffrey Epstein treatment, he knows way too much and they'll just have him killed. I mean I think that's a very real possibility. What do you think?

Donna: Yeah, and I, I think he'd be locked up in his supermax facility and it would be very hush hush. The press wouldn't be reporting on it. Information wouldn't be released about what's going on. People wouldn't really know what was going on with his trials or when it was and they would try and make him fade from the spotlight and have people just forget about him and what was going on. And he probably would meet an unpleasant end. And we can't let that happen to someone who has stood up for truth and it has been a Wayfair for that.

Chad: Well, like I said, I really believe that he's been the catalyst because now we're seeing all these other outlets coming out with information about the government that we would've never heard before, like when I was a kid growing up. You would never hear that stuff because they kept our politicians and they kept our government and people in power, protect it. The press did. That's what they were in place for. And now that there's so much information available, and he was really at the precipice of all of that information coming to light, he really inspired the whole movement now of us getting this, all this breaking news and these large revelations. He really inspired that movement and I think he continues to sort of act as that inspiration. The problem that I have with all of that is that we need him to complete that mission, but we need him outta jail in order to do it.

Donna: Yes. He needs to be released. And there are a couple of quotes. Julian has said some of my favorite quotes ever that I've ever heard, but you had mentioned how there's so much more information with the advent of the internet that became more and more available while before that it wasn't as readily available to the public. And one of his quotes is by bringing out into the public domain how human institutions actually behave. We can understand frankly, to a degree, for the first time the civilization that we actually have. Pretty profound.

Chad: Profound words that are absolutely true. And more and more people are seeking the truth and it's becoming more and more available, which is why I think we are in such a divisive and tense time in the world right now, because people are getting the truth. And when truth comes out and it goes against the grain or against the way you were taught, a lot of things can erupt. But the biggest thing that I love about this Assange movement is it's very nonpartisan. As a Republican and as a conservative pundit, I support Assange a hundred percent. My liberal friends across the aisle support Assange a lot of them, a hundred percent. It's seeming like the anti Assange focus or groups if you will. We would hear it on the news and hear all these people, are actually lowering in population while pro Assange, free Assange groups are coming together and increasing. Is that a reality or is that just a perception that I have from what I'm seeing?

Donna: It is increasing, and that's part of what the group that I have worked with for a couple of years has been seeking to do, is to get the knowledge out there to people so that they can make an informed decision and see what's really going on with him instead of just blurbs or headlines that they see in the news because it's not accurate, the information that's been put out there in this smear campaign.

Chad: Well, and I think another thing, as my listeners know, you know, I'm a constitutional conservative. This espionage act, for example, is similar to the Patriot Act. Why these bureaucracies think that their little acts and little court judgments supersede, are constitution are insane. You can't charge a journalist with an espionage act for publishing information under the First Amendment. You can't do it. But for whatever reason, we've become accustomed and allowed the people in Washington to create all these laws and regulations that they use to circumvent or supersede the constitution. Under the Constitution, the true law of the land, Julian Assange is an innocent man. Bottom line, any lawyer can tell you that.

Donna: Yes, he is.

Chad: But these made up bureaucratic, BS acts and laws and titles and all of this make people think that the guy is a criminal and he's not. Those are made-up things to create criminals, to give more power, not to actually follow the law of the land.

Donna: You just hit the nail on the head right there. And this is the scariest thing. These intelligence agencies, they work for themselves to serve their own purposes, and they are trying to set a precedence with this case and with Julian Assange that anyone who speaks out against them or against the US government can be prosecuted. And that's the most frightening thing of all. It will start with the press, but it won't stop there. It will extend eventually all the way down to private citizens who can be arrested for speaking their minds about these institutions. And that's what makes me Julian Assange. That's what makes you Julian Assange. This is a case about all of us, and unfortunately, he's the one that's locked up in a horrible prison right now.

Chad: Absolutely disgusting what's happened to him. I think in my faith, something will come of this for the better. I don't know what it is yet. But from your perspective, Donna, has the smearing and the fighting and the attacks on him subsided, or have they taken more of a covert cover-up approach now because they realize people don't necessarily agree with them? Because honestly, other than the Belmarsh Tribune and Belmarsh, there was a time where you heard about Julian Assange all the time, and I feel like the coverage has really sunk, but they're still actively working to get him extradited out of the UK. So is he still a priority for us intelligence agencies or have they kind of given up?

Donna: Oh, I think he's their number one priority. I do but I think the coverage on him has subsided so much because the other side rose up, the people in support of him. That's what I mean when I say that. There was such a smear campaign that people bought into before and now more awareness has come out about what's really going on and what is happening to this man. And once that happened, once the tide kind of turned and public pressure went the opposite way of what the government and the intelligence agencies wanted, oh, the media's not going to go there so much anymore because they take direction from these institutions most of the time, even though they [41:22 inaudible] that's what's going on.

Chad: Even though the press should be molding the institutions, instead the institutions are controlling the press. We're getting a little low on time. I want to ask you one last question and then I want to hear about the group and how we can donate and help you guys out. A lot of us, well, I can't say me because like I said, I haven't been involved in the movement. I'm going to be a lot more now. But a lot of people, and I think including yourself, if I remember correctly, thought that there was a good, strong possibility that President Trump would pardon Julian Assange before he left office. Why do you think that didn't happen?

Donna: Well, I have things, I think that President Trump was threatened with a lot of things. I think he did want to pardon Julian. However, again, I wasn't in the room, but I have heard that a certain prominent Republicans were going to support his second impeachment if he were to pardon Julian Assange. And again, I'm speaking not.

Chad: I get it. It's just my opinion. I'm asking just for your opinion as a person, not an expert, but that makes a lot of sense, it does, and it really worked out for Trump because they didn't end up impeaching him the second time. Oh, oh wait, nevermind, that's what happens when you fall to the pressure of other people. They're going to do what they're going to do anyways. So to me, it's a travesty that Donald Trump did not pardon Julian Assange. And I'm hoping that if he's elected, he will do that because when you hear him. I know Trump on a different level because I listen to him every single rally, every single press conference, every single week. So I've learned really to know how to pick things up. And I can tell you for a fact, Trump is pro Julian Assange. Why he didn't act on it is a whole different animal. But Trump is pro Julian Assange. I can't say the same about DeSantis, but I hope one of the things that comes out of this next election is a pardoning of Julian Assange. I also know Mike Pompeo and Trump, there could have been an issue there. But anyways, tell us about the group you're in. Tell us how to follow, who to follow, who to donate and anything else that you need before we sign off.

Donna: Okay, there's one more interesting thing that's happening. And by the way, I really agree. I hope that Trump pardons him if he's reelected, but we're hoping to get Julian fried before then. And there is an interesting case going on because when Julian was spied on in the Ecuadorian embassy through surveillance and recordings, he was having conversations with his attorneys and that violated laws. So now his attorneys are seeking to sue the US government or the CIA. I'm not sure which specifically that would fall under, but they are filing a lawsuit because their rights were violated and the attorney-client privilege that they are bound under was violated. And just yesterday there was a court call about that because the CIA was seeking to get this case dismissed and it was not dismissed. So at this point that case is still moving through the courts and that's going to be something very interesting to follow as well.

Chad: Yeah, I wonder who that judge was on the bench because that is one brave judge to deny an appeal from the CIA. Thank God.

Donna: To deny a dismissal. Yeah.

Chad: Excuse me. Yes. Great, well I will watch that case very closely, but I know my audience is dying to know how they can help you.

Donna: Okay, so I would ask your audience for prayers for Julian and his family, obviously. Public pressure does work, it does make a difference. So calling the Department of Justice comment line and telling them how you feel about Julian's mistreatment is a great way to contribute. And that number is 202 353 1555. And if they want to send an email, they would send that to NSD as a National Security division dot If they have a little bit extra that they'd like to donate towards Julian's legal defense, the place to do that, there's a website, it's defense.

Chad: And folks, we'll have all this information on I will make sure that the show places a donation for Julian Assange. I am so thankful for you, Donna, I have learned so much just in the last 45 minutes. I think you are doing amazing work and I know my audience and myself thank you for your time and for educating us and we will all keep praying to free Julian Assange.

Donna: Thank you so much and thank you for helping get the word out there. And thank you for your donation, Chad.

Chad: Folks, are you like me spending time switching between Fox newsmax, the Gateway pundit, American Wire News, et cetera, just to try to find the right stories with the right amount of truth in them? Well, I've got good news. Literally good news. I'm launching my Gailey news. Chad's Gailey News. You sign up, you get two emails a day with stories handpicked by me for you that are vetted for truth, fairness, and relevancy. Again, go to You can click the Gailey news tab at the top of the page to get a sneak peek of what those emails will look like. I know you folks, my last gay conservative listeners are already the smartest people out there.

This way you will be the smartest and most informed, which is the deadliest combination against our liberal enemies. Last gay, enter your email to receive Chad's Gailey news morning and afternoon so you can stay informed and be the most intelligent and knowledgeable person in any room. Service is 100% free as a gift from me to all of my loyal listeners. Don't forget to sign up.

Well, I don't know about you folks, but I am super pumped up on this Julian Assange stuff. I had a lot of fun doing the interview. Donna is great. I wish I could give you guys more details about what she does, but she is an integral part of our conservative movement and I plan on having her back on the show when I can. She's hard to pin down. Thank you very much for listening and enjoying the interview. Let me know what you think. You can send an email to podcast This is Chad Law reminding you of what Reagan once said, one of the traditional methods of imposing stateism or socialism has been by the way of medicine. If you don't do this one of these days, you and I are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was like in America when men were free. We see that happening every day with this trans terrorism guys. I couldn't have said it better myself. God bless you President Reagan and may God save America.

Outro: You just listened to the Last Gay Conservative podcast hosted by Chad Law. Please visit us at for this episode and others. We're also on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, U2, and wherever you listen. If you like the show, please like, subscribe and share. Find us on Social at Last Gay Conservative. We proudly support the following causes, the Convention of State's action, the National Rifle Association, the Heritage Foundation and Big Brothers Big Sisters of America. Disclaimer, the views and opinions expressed in this program are those of the speakers and do not necessarily reflect the views or positions of any entities they represent. The last gay conservative is a production of Pen Write Media. All rights reserved 2022.


bottom of page