Specifically, he mentions USAID vs. Alliance for Open Socieyy International II.
The case centered around this requirement for funding to be given:
As a condition of this funding, entities were required to also promote an anti-prostitution pledge requiring them to establish "a policy explicitly opposing prostitution and sex trafficking", a term known as the Policy Requirement.
We know why NGOs would be against this, unfortunately, but it’s weird that this is what Lauria is directly mentioning here regarding SCOTUS rulings that affect his appeal….
However the denial of his rights in an American courtroom would go beyond the First Amendment to all of his U.S. constitutional rights, according to the 2020 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in USAID v. Alliance for Open Society International Inc., which says that a non-U.S. citizen acting outside the U.S. has no constitutional protections at all.
Is this a correct statement in terms of the law? Or does Lauria have no clue what he’s talking about?
Either way, it’s interesting that human trafficking is once again coming to the fore in the Assange case.
The second is either just for show, or proof Xiden is controlled by the white hats. It is otherwise the very last thing Biden would do. I can't find it but I saw a petition by RFK urging Biden to pardon Assange. I thought it was just virtue signaling because every knows that's the last thing Xiden will do. Now this? I don't get it. Why does the left want to give the impression that they will release the man who will incriminate them all?
