UN Finding a Moral Victory for Assange: Will The WikiLeaks Founder Be Freed?

UK Still Plans to Arrest Him

by Kennedy Applebaum
Quemado Institute
February 4, 2016

Julian Assange, founder of WikiLeaks and acclaimed whistleblower who has published numerous documents revealing crimes of the US government, has been declared, by the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (UNWGAD) based in Geneva, as “illegally detained” during his 3.5 year stay in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London. Assange took refuge at the embassy in 2012 to avoid extradition to Sweden for investigation into what are believed to be false allegations of sexual assault, as well as potential further extradition to the United States for inquiries into possible espionage. The UN finding is both a moral triumph for Assange and a confirmation of the universal right of freedom of the press.

Seong-Phil Hong (–dailysikhupdates.com)

 The UN panel, headed by South Korean academic Seong-Phil Hong, is authorised to investigate complaints from individuals on whether countries are adhering to international legal standards on detention. According to The Guardian, Seong-Phil Hong “has worked as a conciliator for the World Bank and also dealt with North Korean human rights and the issue of second world war sexual slavery. The other members of the panel are from Mexico, Benin, Australia and Ukraine.” The official announcement of the panel is to appear on Friday February 5.

Spokesman Kristinn Hrafnsson, lawyer Jennifer Robinson (–wlcentral.org)

According to an earlier Sputnik News report, the finding that Assange’s detention is illegal means “the United Kingdom and Sweden would immediately have to release him and pay compensation….’In that case we would expect the Swedish and the British authorities to react immediately to lift the arrest warrant on Sweden, and for the UK authorities to return his passport,’ Kristinn Hrafnsson said. According to Hrafnsson, it is expected that Assange should be able to travel anywhere if the United Nations were to rule in his favor. ‘I would simply not want to believe that these two countries, Sweden and the UK would disregard finding of such an important UN panel,’ the spokesman said.”

The verdict of the UN panel, however, is not binding on national governments. As a later Sputnik report says, “The UK authorities still have a legal obligation to extradite WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange to Sweden due to a European arrest warrant in place, according to a UK government spokesperson.”

British officials have stated Assange will still be arrested if he leaves the embassy, despite the UN findings, and extradited to Sweden in a sexual assault investigation, allegations Assange denies. According to NBC News, “The investigation into allegations of sexual assault was dropped in August 2015 because prosecutors ran out of time to bring charges, but prosecutors said they would continue investigation [into] a further allegation of rape.” That these are trumped-up charges is suspected but unproven.

The danger of extradition to Sweden is that the Swedish government may then extradite the WikiLeaks founder to the United States, where possible espionage charges might be brought for Assange’s publication of sensitive government documents. “Assange has expressed fear that if Britain extradites him to Sweden he would then be extradited to the United States to face trial,” reports NBC News.

Mark Ellis (–youtube.com)

The Guardian quotes the opinions of two legal experts on how the UN finding might impact Assange’s case: “Mark Ellis, executive director of the London-based International Bar Association, said: ‘The information seems to suggest that the UN panel has found in Assange’s favour. That decision would seem to contradict a fairly extensive legal process both in the UK and in Sweden. It’s important to maintain adherence to rule of law principles and ensure that individuals have to abide by legal rulings. It’s surprising to think that Assange could be exempted from those principles. The ruling by the UN panel is not binding on British law. It would, however, provide Assange with support for his claim that he should not be extradited. I’m sure the UK is trying to figure a way out.”

In another opinion, according to The Guardian: “Kirsty Brimelow QC, of Doughty Street Chambers, an expert in international law tribunals, said: ‘A finding by UNWGAD against the UK is not binding. It has no enforcement power. However, a finding that the UK has acted in a way which is inconsistent with relevant international standards should not be ignored by the UK. The UK should not act contrary to international law.’”

Julian Assange, August 2014 (–Reuters)

The Guardian goes on to conclude, “A clash between the moral authority of the United Nations and the stalled mechanism of the European extradition against Julian Assange is likely to provoke diplomatic anxiety inside Whitehall. The UN body’s expected ruling, at the very least, constitutes a publicity coup for Assange and his supporters. Both the UK and Sweden are active upholders of the United Nations. Neither will relish the prospect of having to answer to the UN’s human rights council about why they have failed to enforce the panel’s decision.”

Unlike Edward Snowden, who violated his security clearance to reveal damning US documents in an act of civil disobedience, Julian Assange may not be technically guilty of breaking US law, a determination that could involve complex legal arguments.

According to the Legal Information Institute, applicable law is documented in 18 U.S. Code § 798 – Disclosure of classified information:

(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information—–

(1) concerning the nature, preparation, or use of any code, cipher, or cryptographic system of the United States or any foreign government; or

(2) concerning the design, construction, use, maintenance, or repair of any device, apparatus, or appliance used or prepared or planned for use by the United States or any foreign government for cryptographic or communication intelligence purposes; or

(3) concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government; or

(4) obtained by the processes of communication intelligence from the communications of any foreign government, knowing the same to have been obtained by such processes—–

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

In certain previous cases, journalists reporting information obtained from third parties who leaked classified documents have not themselves been charged with espionage, a fundamental principle of freedom of the press. This is in contrast to persons who themselves hold security clearances, such as Hillary Clinton or Win Ho Lee, and violate the terms of their clearance, which is unambiguously illegal.

Wikipedi offers the following summary of Julian Assange’s enterprise:

WikiLeaks is an international, non-profit, journalistic organisation that publishes secret information, news leaks, and classified media from anonymous sources. Its website, initiated in 2006 in Iceland by the organization Sunshine Press, claimed a database of more than 1.2 million documents within a year of its launch. Julian Assange, an Australian Internet activist, is generally described as its founder, editor-in-chief, and director. Kristinn Hrafnsson, Joseph Farrell, and Sarah Harrison are the only other publicly known and acknowledged associates of Julian Assange.

Supporters of Julian Assange who are able to be in London tomorrow are urged to show solidarity: Friday, February 5, 1pm till around 3.30, at the Ecuadorian Embassy, Hans Crescent, London SW1. Click here for more information.

© 2016 Kennedy Applebaum, Quemado Institute

US Warmongering in Libya Escalates World Catastrophe: Is there hope?

Introduction by Karl Pomeroy

Quemado Institute

February 3, 2016

NATO Pan-Arab Terrorist Blitzkrieg (–orientalreview.org)

Political analyst Adam Johnson paints a stark picture of sociopathic US and NATO policy on planned military operations in Libya and Iraq, underscoring the cheerleader role of the mainstream media in the perpetuation of a mob consciousness that craves ever-increasing slaughter and chaos. In the article reprinted below, Johnson is understandably pessimistic about the world’s future. Yet he ignores certain optimistic outcomes that may be possible with the next  US President.

Overlooking the positive potential of Republican front-runner Donald Trump, Johnson laments, “None of the major presidential candidates, including the most progressive member of the U.S. Congress, Bernie Sanders, outwardly opposes the U.S.’ current anti-ISIL efforts, including the once-unpopular drone program.”

Fortunately, Johnson’s statement is not quite accurate,. Trump, in his book Crippled America: How to Make America Great Again, expresses unqualified opposition to all current US foreign policy, and advocates an entirely new approach to stopping the Islamic State, namely by destroying ISIS-controlled oil fields.

According to Trump, ISIS oil amounts to less than 2% of the world supply. Its destruction would cut off ISIS from its source of income, while having little impact on the global economy. This surgical tactic would also avoid civilian casualties. Trump suggests earnest cooperation in this effort with Russian President Vladimir Putin, a partnership that would lend itself to pragmatic solutions and ultimate success.


Nevertheless, Adam Johnson’s hard-hitting commentary sends a crucial message of warning to the American public:

Obama Plans Massive Military Escalation
and the Media Barely Seem to Care

U.S. troops are going back into Iraq, our presence in Libya is escalating, and Obama has widened the war in Afghanistan—all without much of a public debate.

By Adam Johnson
Source: Information Clearing House
February 2, 2016

Almost five years after the United States and its NATO allies launched a campaign in Libya to overthrow Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, the United States is on the verge of massively escalating its military operations in the war-torn country. According to the New York Times, the new effort is “expected to include airstrikes and raids by elite American troops.” It is unclear how long this newest effort will last.

Ash Carter (–cnn.com)

The announcement comes on the heels of U.S. Secretary of Defense Ash Carter announcing combat troops were going back to Iraq last week. While U.S special forces have been conducting “clandestine reconnaissance missions in Libya to identify militant leaders and map out their networks” over the past year, the New York Times report marks the first time overt combat troops will be deployed in the North African nation.

The 2011 campaign was itself something of a bait and switch. What was originally sold as simply a no-fly zone quickly became regime change. A few weeks after the UN-sanctioned bombing of Libya’s infrastructure and air capacity, the scope of the campaign pivoted when President Obama, along with Presidents Sarkozy and Cameron of France and the UK respectively, announced the entirely new objective: NATO airstrikes, in concert with ongoing CIA support of rebels, to overthrow the Qaddafi government.
After this was quickly achieved, the pundit classes rallied to congratulate a job well done. As Glenn Greenwald at The Intercept noted Wednesday: “War advocates such as Anne-Marie Slaughter and Nicholas Kristof were writing columns celebrating their prescience and mocking war opponents as discredited, and the New York Times published a front-page article declaring: “U.S. Tactics in Libya May be a Model for Other Efforts.”

It was widely expected that Hillary Clinton, one of the leading advocates for and architects of the bombing campaign, would be regarded as a Foreign Policy Visionary for the grand Libya success: “We came, we saw, he died,” Clinton sociopathically boasted about the mob rape and murder of Qaddafi while guffawing on 60 Minutes.

Despite the fanfare at the “overthrow” of Qaddafi (who suffered a brutal death at the hands of a mob), not much has been made of the U.S. military’s slow escalation of its involvement in Libya over the past year. This time the objective, much like in Iraq after the U.S. deposed its leader, is destroying the presence of ISIS, a process that could take, in the words of former Defense Secretary Panetta, “thirty years.” And it’s an escalation that has largely gone under the public’s radar.

Slowly trickling wars are a common feature in U.S. policy. The latest war in Iraq against ISIS was originally sold as “limited,” “humanitarian” airstrikes to save the Yezidi trapped on a mountain from ISIS, and it has now gone on for over a year and a half, spans two countries, and soon will include “boots on the ground.” All this with neither the corporate media nor Congress, which hasn’t yet brought military authorization to a vote, paying much attention.

This new level of indifference on the part of the public about what is an ISIS war spiraling into a massive global effort has even bothered the normally hawkish Times. In the context of Libya, it wrote: “This significant escalation is being planned without a meaningful debate in Congress about the merits and risks of a military campaign that is expected to include airstrikes and raids by elite American troops.”

That is deeply troubling. A new military intervention in Libya would represent a significant progression of a war that could easily spread to other countries on the continent. It is being planned as the American military burrows more deeply into battlegrounds in Syria and Iraq, where American ground troops are being asked to play an increasingly hands-on role in the fight.

It’s always difficult to tell if public indifference is what leads to a media blackout or the other way around, but the Times is correct that a broad public discussion about the wisdom of committing to potentially decades-long military efforts is disturbingly absent.

When the U.S. began its anti-ISIL efforts in August 2014, ISIL was in two countries. Now, after tens of thousands of aerial ordinances have been dropped on two continents, ISIS now has a presence in over 20 countries. The U.S. has even expanded its war in Afghanistan to include ISIS, the White House announced last Thursday. None of the major presidential candidates, including the most progressive member of the U.S. Congress, Bernie Sanders, outwardly opposes the U.S.’ current anti-ISIL efforts, including the once-unpopular drone program.

Over the past two weeks, the Defense Department and the Obama administration have been peppering the media with their plans to massively increase the war effort in Libya as well as Iraq, Afghanistan and potentially elsewhere. All the evidence points to the fact that war-makers in Washington and Brussels are gearing up for a major effort that could very well last a long time. The question is, will we ever have a public debate about it?

Adam Johnson is an associate editor at AlterNet. Follow him on Twitter at @adamjohnsonnyc.

Trump Victory Likely to Hurt Ukraine, Empower the US and Russia

HOME PAGE

by Kennedy Applebaum

Original Source: Quemado Institute

Donald Trump (–linkedin.com)

Even though Donald Trump lost 28% vs 24% to Ted Cruz in the first US Republican primary event in Iowa on February 1, Trump still boasts an overwhelming lead in nationwide polls, with some estimates as high as 55% or 62% of potential voters favoring the billionaire businessman. Trump’s projected impact on world affairs, should he win the American presidency, is a pertinent and fascinating question today.

Donald Trump, like Vladimir Putin, is a pragmatic realist capable of solving the world’s problems in peaceful and practical ways. This entails restoring law to international relations, preserving Western civilization as we know it, promoting self-sufficiency, and upholding the sovereignty of nations. It is hard to criticize such a reasonable approach. Trying to vilify Trump, like trying to vilify Putin, is a tough challenge for Western journalists who serve the interests of the ruling elite—that infamous club of wealthy corporate owners obsessed with imposing their One World Government on an unwilling populace.

Bradford Richardson, commentator for The Hill, is no exception. In the September 11, 2015 report below, he  faults Trump’s foreign affairs expertise by attaching undue importance to knowing the names of terrorist leaders, rather than highlighting the front-runner’s strategy for bringing an end to ISIS, which calls for destroying their oil fields.

As Trump notes in his book “Crippled America: How to Make America Great Again”, ISIS-controlled oil comprises less than 2% of the world’s supply. Knocking out the oil fields would cut off ISIS from its source of funds, while having little impact on the global economy. This tactic—even more surgical than Putin’s bombing of  oil transport vehicles—would finish off the Islamic State with minimal civilian casualties, a moral requirement the US has long abandoned.

In the article below, Richardson discusses a video in which Trump presents his Ukraine policy to the corrupt Ukrainian oligarch Viktor Pinchuk. Ignorant of Trump’s foreign affairs strategy, Richardson misinterprets the GOP candidate’s intent. Yet it’s hard to twist Trump’s meaning, and his principles shine through regardless:

Awkwardness Abounds at Trump Ukraine Speech
By Bradford Richardson

The Hill
September 11, 2015

Donald Trump delivered an address at a pro-Ukraine conference on Friday, calling President Obama “not strong” and saying Russian President Vladimir Putin “does not respect our president.” More notable than what he said, however, was the way he said it. Giving his speech via satellite feed, Trump spoke slowly, put heightened emphasis on his words and took long pauses between each sentence, evidently under the impression that he had to wait for translators to interpret his remarks to the audience. “You need not wait for any translation,” one of the conference moderators said at one point. The video feed also apparently cut out several times on the businessman’s end, with Trump muttering “it cut out” and “it just cut out again, there’s no sound.”

“The sound system is terrible, because there’s a huge delay and there’s also a lot of feedback but I think everyone understands what I’m saying, I hope,” he said. In the speech, Trump said that Putin’s lack of respect for Obama is indicative of the United States’ fallen status around the globe. “It is a big problem… and it’s a problem that is taking place all over the world with respect to the United Sates,” he said. “There is a lack of respect for our president and there is a lack of respect for the government itself.”

The speech, given at the 12th annual Yalta European Strategy conference in Kiev, was touted as a major event at which the GOP primary candidate would show off his foreign policy credentials. The conference, normally held in Yalta but moved to Kiev due to the Russian annexation of Crimea, was attended by pro-West diplomats, officials and scholars. Trump’s foreign policy expertise has come into question recently, after he was unable to identify the heads of major terrorist organizations on Hugh Hewitt’s radio show. Trump accused Hewitt of asking him “gotcha” questions. The real estate mogul also called Hewitt, who will take part as a questioner in the GOP primary debate on CNN Sept. 16, a “third-rate radio announcer.”

[Video available at source.]

Viktor Pinchuk, who is seated beside the moderator throughout the video, boasts a glorified biography in Wikipedia:

Viktor Pinchuk (-Forbes/Alexander Techinsky/Kommersant)

“Viktor Mykhailovych Pinchuk; born 14 December 1960) is a Ukrainian businessman and philanthropist [sic]. As of January 2016, Forbes ranked him as 1250th on the list of wealthiest people in the world, with a fortune of $1.44 billion. Pinchuk is the founder and main owner of EastOne Group LLC, an international investing, project funding and financial advisory company based in London, and of Interpipe Group, one of Ukraine’s leading pipe, wheel and steel producers. Pinchuk is the owner of four TV channels and a popular tabloid, Fakty i Kommentarii. He has been a member of the Ukrainian parliament, the Verkhovna Rada, for two consecutive terms from 1998 to 2006. He is married to Olena Pinchuk, the daughter of former Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma.”

This glowing portrait of oligarch Viktor Pinchuk overlooks the businessman’s penchant for corruption, not to mention his complicity in Kiev’s war crimes against Donbass civilians.

The video is meaningfully entitled “Donald Trump’s Embarrassing Remarks to a Pro-Ukraine Conference.” And indeed, they are embarrassing—to Pinchuk, not to Trump.

A rough transcript of the video shows that Trump is keeping his cards on foreign policy close to his vest. Amidst long delays due to a poor VTC sound system, he says roughly the following about Ukraine policy: “With respect to training, people have to band together from other parts of Europe to help. I don’t think that the Ukraine is given the proper respect from other parts of Europe. Ukraine deserves respect and they’ve proven this over the years. But it’s a respect they absolutely deserve from Germany and other countries. I don’t think you’re getting the support you need. The US has been supportive, but more verbally than anytyhing else. Our president is not strong, and he’s not doing what he should be doing for Ukraine. So far all we have is lip service in this country. Part of the problem that Ukraine has with the US is that Putin has no respect for our president whatsoever.”

When the moderator asks him to elaborate, Trump doesn’t waver, saying, “You know, it’s just one of those things where it’s not happening and we’re talking about many many different elements but it’s a big problem and it’s a problem that is taking place all over the world with respect to the United States. There’s a lack of respect for our president. Frankly, the US itself is a problem. There’s a lack of respect for the government itself.”

At this point, the moderator presses Trump about how his presidency will affect the world, but Trump gives away no further secrets about his foreign policy objectives.

Meanwhile Viktor Pinchuck, seated silently on the stage beside the moderator, continuously rolls and shifts his eyes, as if disturbed by what he is hearing. His facial contortions convey stunned displeasure, which is no doubt why Richardson called the exchange “embarrassing”.

Donald Trump (–yourdailydish.com)

But Trump’s remarks are embarrassing only to backers of the Kiev regime. He is blunt, politically incorrect, and averse to appeasing the oligarch in any gracious way. Trump no doubt sees Pinchuk for the crook that he is, a trait Trump is an expert at spotting. This is in contrast to Joe Biden, who gushes affection for Kiev’s war criminals.

The Republican front-runner has deprived the shifty-eyed Pinchuk of the satisfaction of a promise of US assistance. Far from being an embarrassment, Donald Trump, always on top of his game, is adhering to the strategy advanced in his book—that of keeping his cards close to his vest when it comes to foreign policy.
It is clear Donald Trump plans to extend no favors to Ukraine. He expects Kiev to rely for support on Germany and other neighboring countries. Meanwhile, Europe has grown tired of trying to help Ukraine, which is nothing more than a corrupt failed state. The EU after all has problems of its own, with the migrant crisis and the threat of ISIS terrorism. If the US abandons Kiev, Europe will follow suit. The Normandy Four will soon lose interest, and the charade of the Minsk standoff will finally come to an end. Kiev can’t afford to launch an offensive on its own, so this is good news for Donbass.

If the Donetsk and Lugansk Republics can hold their ground for another eleven months, the scenario of a Trump presidency offers a chance for independence. Meanwhile, a Trump victory would also foster a constructive partnership with Russia, the two superpowers wielding sufficient influence to restore peace to the world.

In the Breitbart article below, author Ian Hanchett, marching in the footsteps of Richardson, tries to downplay Trump’s effectiveness, portraying his stance as less reasonable than it is:

Trump: ‘Always Felt Fine About Putin,’ US ‘Does Plenty of Killing Also,’
Maybe We Should Follow in Ukraine
By by Ian Hanchett

Breitbart News
December 18, 2015

Vladimir Putin (–ocl.org)

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump stated that he has “always felt fine about Putin” and that while he “absolutely” condemns Putin killing journalists and dissidents, “He’s running his country, and at least he’s a leader” and “our country does plenty of killing also,” further stating that instead of being “at the forefront of leading the charge” “maybe we should do a little bit of following” in Ukraine on Friday’s broadcast of MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.”

Trump, when asked if he liked Putin’s comments about him, said, “Sure. When people call you brilliant it’s always good especially when the person heads up Russia.” He was then asked about Putin’s killing of journalists and his political opponents and invasion of other countries would be “a concern.” Trump responded, “He’s running his country, and at least he’s a leader. You know, unlike what we have in this country.”

After he was asked again about Putin killing journalists that disagree with him, Trump stated, “Well, I think our country does plenty of killing also, Joe. So, you know. There’s a lot of stupidity going on in the world right now, Joe, a lot of killing going on, and a lot of stupidity, and that’s the way it is.” Trump did add that he “absolutely” condemns Putin’s killing of journalists and political opponents.
When asked how US-Russia relations would change if he became president, Trump answered, “Well, I think it would be good. I’ve always felt fine about Putin. I think that he is a strong leader. he’s a powerful leader. he’s represented his country—that’s the way the country is being represented. He’s actually got popularity within his country. They respect him as a leader. certainly over the last couple of years they’ve respected him as the leader. I think he’s up in the 80s, which is—you see where Obama’s in the 30s, and low 40s, and he’s in the 80s.”

The discussion then turned to how Trump would push Putin’s forces out of Crimea and Ukraine, and prevent further western movement by Russia. Trump said, “when I look at the Ukraine, and I see Germany doing nothing, and I see so many other countries over there not really engaged, and we’re totally engaged, and I ask myself, here’s this big monstrous country, Germany, and they hardly speak up. They accept his oil and gas and lots of other things and here we are fighting like hell, and we owe 19 trillion in debt, and we have nothing but problems in this country, and we’re sitting on a big fat beautiful bubble that’s ready to explode, financial bubble, I’m talking about. And we’re always at the forefront of leading the charge.

I think that other countries have to get involved with that, Joe. You have the Ukraine and it effects other countries a hell of a lot more than it effects us.” He added that he would “consider” giving Poland a missile defense system, and “maybe we should do a little bit of following, and let the neighbors sort of tell us — like let us — let the neighbors take more of an active roll in the Ukraine, because I don’t see a lot of active roll from the neighbors around the Ukraine. I see us always saying get out of the Ukraine, and frankly, I would like to see a little enthusiasm from the people that are most directly effected, Joe.”

Trump further argued, “I don’t think it’s leading from behind. I think I want to see our country get rebuilt again. Our country is falling apart, frankly. Our infrastructure’s a disaster. our bridges are falling down. 61% of bridges are in danger. our whole country’s a mess.” He was then asked about how he would pay for his plans to rebuild the military. Trump responded, “We’ve spent $5 trillion in the middle east, okay? If you add it all up, $5 trillion, probably close to 3 trillion in iraq. We have nothing.”

The fact is, Trump has said in other contexts that Putin probably has not killed journalists. But the truth is irrelevant to Ian Hanchett, who would rather paint Trump as outrageous.

If Hanchett has quoted Trump correctly, which Western journalists seldom do, the Republican candidate is advocating that America mind its own business, that it fix its problems at home and leave other countries to solve their own crises. This is a major step toward world peace and stability. After all, it is US meddling, under the guise of “humanitarian assistance” and “promotion of democracy”, that has catastrophically disrupted Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen and Ukraine; created the migrant crisis, a threat to European civilization as we know it; and sparked the massacre of thousands of innocent people.

Trump’s policy of noninterference can only restore sanity to a world torn asunder by America’s exceptional arrogance.

Update February 2, 2016
Upcoming Primaries and Caucuses February 9 – March 1, 2016

The next Republican primary is scheduled for February 9 in New Hampshire, with 23 delegates. After that are South Carolina, February 20, with 50 delegates; Nevada, February 23, with 30 delegates; Alabama, March 1, with 50 delegates; Alaska, March 1, with 28 delegates; Arkansas, March 1, with 40 delegates; Colorado, March 1, with 37 delegates; Georgia, March 1, with 76 delegates; Massachusetts, March 1, with 42 delegates; Minnesota, March 1, with 38 delegates; North Dakota, March 1, with 28 delegates; Oklahoma, March 1, with 43 delegates; Tennessee, March 1, with 58 delegates; Texas, March 1, with 155 delegates; Vermont, March 1, with 16 delegates; Virginia, March 1, with 49 delegates; and Wyoming, March 1, with 29 delegates.

For full schedule, click here.
The Republican National Convention will be held July 18-21, 2016.

Trump’s Standing in Recent Polls

Currently, polls show Trump at 30-38% in New Hampshire, with Cruz in second place at 12-13%. As of January 28, Trump was leading the South Carolina polls at 36%, with Cruz second at 20%.
In a nationwide CNN poll taken January 26, Trump led at 41% with Cruz following at 19%.

This article was originally published at quemadoinstitute.org.
© Copyright by Kennedy Applebaum, Quemado Institute, February 1, 2016.