+ Reply to Thread
Page 12 of 13 FirstFirst 1 2 12 13 LastLast
Results 221 to 240 of 255

Thread: Julian Assange arrested after Ecuador tears up asylum deal

  1. Link to Post #221
    Australia Avalon Member BMJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    4th May 2010
    Thanked 6,319 times in 1,202 posts

    Default Re: Julian Assange arrested after Ecuador tears up asylum deal

    Footage of #Assange in prison van after extradition hearing on the 21/10/2019 (Thank you Joe M on twitter)

    In hoc signo vinces / In this sign thou shalt conquer

  2. The Following 11 Users Say Thank You to BMJ For This Post:

    Arcturian108 (19th November 2019), Bill Ryan (22nd October 2019), Franny (22nd October 2019), Hervé (22nd October 2019), mountain_jim (22nd October 2019), onawah (22nd October 2019), Reinhard (28th October 2019), Star Mariner (22nd October 2019), Tintin (22nd October 2019), Valerie Villars (13th November 2019), Wind (22nd October 2019)

  3. Link to Post #222
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Thanked 50,824 times in 10,290 posts

    Default Re: Julian Assange arrested after Ecuador tears up asylum deal

    'Truth Is Treason' - The Torture Of Julian Assange
    Streamed live 2 hours ago 10/22/19

    "Wikileaks publisher Julian Assange appeared before a UK judge to request more time to prepare his case against the US extradition request. Acting more like a Soviet tribunal, the judge went on to deny his every request. He is not allowed to prepare to fight his extradition. Even though Assange has served his time for "jumping bail," the British court ruled that he must remain in prison. His shocking mental and physical condition after being held for months in UK's notorious Belmarsh prison only confirms the UN torture official's assessment that he is being tortured by the US and UK governments. Why? For publishing the truth. The lesson to others is clear: challenge the global US military empire and you will be destroyed."
    Each breath a gift...

  4. The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (22nd October 2019), BMJ (23rd October 2019), Franny (22nd October 2019), Hervé (22nd October 2019), Mike (22nd October 2019), mountain_jim (24th October 2019), Reinhard (28th October 2019), Tintin (23rd October 2019), Valerie Villars (13th November 2019)

  5. Link to Post #223
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Thanked 50,824 times in 10,290 posts

    Default Re: Julian Assange arrested after Ecuador tears up asylum deal

    John Pilger- Julian Assange’s Extradition Case is a SHOW TRIAL!
    goingundergroundRT Oct 23, 2019
    "On this episode of Going Underground, we speak to legendary journalist and filmmaker John Pilger on Julian Assange’s latest extradition hearing this Monday, which he attended. He discusses how Julian appeared at the trial, the bias of the judge against Julian Assange, the lack of mainstream media coverage of Julian’s persecution, his health and conditions in Belmarsh prison, CIA spying on Julian Assange and more! Next, we speak to Chris Williamson MP on Assange’s extradition hearing, his motion in the House of Commons to condemn Julian Assange’s treatment, why Julian’s persecution is of international importance, the silence of mainstream media on Julian Assange, the lack of vocal outrage from Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour front bench over Assange’s treatment and more! Finally, Going Underground’s Deputy Editor Charlie Cooke discusses Boris Johnson’s plan to introduce mandatory voter ID at elections, which many accuse him of being a plot to suppress minority voters."

    Chris Williamson MP- Julian Assange's Persecution is of INTERNATIONAL IMPORTANCE!
    Oct 23, 2019

    "We speak to Chris Williamson MP on Assange’s extradition hearing, his motion in the House of Commons to condemn Julian Assange’s treatment, why Julian’s persecution is of international importance, the silence of mainstream media on Julian Assange, the lack of vocal outrage from Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour front bench over Assange’s treatment and more! "
    Last edited by onawah; 24th October 2019 at 06:37.
    Each breath a gift...

  6. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    BMJ (2nd November 2019), Hervé (26th October 2019), mountain_jim (24th October 2019), Tintin (24th October 2019)

  7. Link to Post #224
    Croatia Administrator Franny's Avatar
    Join Date
    3rd January 2011
    Island Time
    Thanked 6,173 times in 1,029 posts

    Default Re: Julian Assange arrested after Ecuador tears up asylum deal

    A fine example of Kangaroo Court or Star Chamber...

    JOHN PILGER: Did This Happen in the Home of the Magna Carta?

    October 25, 2019

    In a special comment written for Consortium News, John Pilger, legendary filmmaker, journalist and friend of Assange, describes the troubling scene inside a London courtroom this week where the WikiLeaks publisher appeared in his U.S. extradition case.

    By John Pilger
    Special to Consortium News

    The worst moment was one of a number of ‘worst’ moments. I have sat in many courtrooms and seen judges abuse their positions, This judge, Vanessa Baraitser—actually she isn’t a judge at all; she’s a magistrate—shocked all of us who were there.

    Her face was a progression of sneers and imperious indifference; she addressed Julian with an arrogance that reminded me of a magistrate presiding over apartheid South Africa’s Race Classification Board. When Julian struggled to speak, he couldn’t get words out, even stumbling over his name and date of birth.

    When he spoke truth and when his barrister spoke, Baraister contrived boredom; when the prosecuting barrister spoke, she was attentive. She had nothing to do; it was demonstrably preordained. In the table in front of us were a handful of American officials, whose directions to the prosecutor were carried by his junior; back and forth this young woman went, delivering instructions.

    The judge watched this outrage without a comment. It reminded me of a newsreel of a show trial in Stalin’s Moscow; the difference was that Soviet show trials were broadcast. Here, the state broadcaster, the BBC, blacked it out, as did the other mainstream channels.

    Having ignored Julian’s barrister’s factual description of how the CIA had run a Spanish security firm that spied on him in the Ecuadorean embassy, she didn’t yawn, but her disinterest was as expressive. She then denied Julian’s lawyers any more time to prepare their case – even though their client was prevented in prison from receiving legal documents and other tools with which to defend himself.

    Her knee in the groin was to announce that the next court hearing would be at remote Woolwich, which adjoins Belmarsh prison and has few seats for the public. This will ensure isolation and as close to a secret trial as it’s possible to get. Did this happen in the home of the Magna Carta? Yes, but who knew?

    More Important Than Dreyfus

    Julian’s case is often compared with Dreyfus; but historically it’s far more important. No one doubts — not his enemies on The New York Times, not the Murdoch press in Australia – that if he is extradited to the United States and the inevitable supermax, journalism will be incarcerated, too.

    Who will then dare to expose anything of importance, let alone the high crimes of the West? Who will dare publish ‘Collateral Murder’? Who will dare tell the public that democracy, such as it is, has been subverted by a corporate authoritarianism from which fascism draws its strength.

    Once there were spaces, gaps, boltholes, in mainstream journalism in which mavericks, who are the best journalists, could work. These are long closed now. The hope is the samidzat on the internet, where fine disobedient journalism is still practised. The greater hope is that a judge or even judges in Britain’s court of appeal, the High Court, will rediscover justice and set him free. In the meantime, it’s our responsibility to fight in ways we know but which now require more than a modicum of Assange courage.

    John Pilger is an Australian-British journalist and filmmaker based in London. Pilger’s Web site is: www.johnpilger.com. In 2017, the British Library announced a John Pilger Archive of all his written and filmed work. The British Film Institute includes his 1979 film, “Year Zero: the Silent Death of Cambodia,” among the 10 most important documentaries of the 20thcentury. Some of his previous contributions to Consortium News can be found here.
    A million galaxies are a little foam on that shoreless sea. ~ Rumi

  8. The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to Franny For This Post:

    BMJ (2nd November 2019), Cara (26th October 2019), Hervé (26th October 2019), Ivanhoe (27th October 2019), meeradas (27th October 2019), mountain_jim (26th October 2019), Reinhard (28th October 2019), Tintin (13th November 2019), Valerie Villars (13th November 2019)

  9. Link to Post #225
    Avalon Member Kryztian's Avatar
    Join Date
    16th September 2012
    New Jersey USA
    Thanked 9,731 times in 1,385 posts

    Default Re: Julian Assange arrested after Ecuador tears up asylum deal

    Gov’t official reveals why Assange was jailed

    Was WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange sold out by Ecuadoran President Lenin Moreno? And why have Moreno’s policies so drastically changed from what he professed before taking office? Rick Sanchez interviews Ecuador’s former Minister of Foreign Affairs, Ricardo Patiño, who engineered WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange’s years-long asylum in the Ecuadoran embassy in London, UK. He argues that Moreno was blackmailed by forces in Washington to betray Assange and the people of Ecuador.

    Full video interview at: https://www.rt.com/shows/news-with-r...nchez-october/
    If seeds in the black earth can turn into such beautiful roses, what might not the heart of man become in its long journey toward the stars?
    --- G.K. Chesterton

  10. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Kryztian For This Post:

    BMJ (2nd November 2019), Franny (26th October 2019), Hervé (26th October 2019), mountain_jim (26th October 2019), Reinhard (28th October 2019), Tintin (13th November 2019), Valerie Villars (13th November 2019)

  11. Link to Post #226
    UK Avalon Founder Bill Ryan's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th February 2010
    Thanked 278,919 times in 20,660 posts

    Default Re: Julian Assange arrested after Ecuador tears up asylum deal

    Quote Posted by Tintin (here)
    Excellent post there Hervé

    Here's the transcript which should be printed out and put on a wall at home. I'll be using much of this to form the text for the letter I'll be writing to my MP this week.

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

    All of us are in danger’: John Pilger delivers a chilling warning from Julian Assange


    It's an honour today to be here. I think Roger has just arrived to introduce. Roger Waters, as well as making brilliant music, Roger has been speaking out for the rights of men and women for many years, and I thank him warmly for initiating this extraordinary event to celebrate and defend Julian Assange.

    Roger regards Julian as a hero and so do I and and it'll be a pleasure to introduce Julian's brother Gabriel who is here from Melbourne.
    From https://infowars.com/roger-waters-punishing-assange-sends-we-will-get-you-warning-to-other-journalists

    Roger Waters: Punishing Assange Sends ‘We Will Get You’ Warning to Other Journalists

    ‘They’re clearly trying as hard as they can to kill him,’ he says
    RT - October 26, 2019

    British rock legend and Pink Floyd frontman Roger Waters told RT that by going after WikiLeaks co-founder Julian Assange governments want to scare off journalists and whistleblowers from exposing the truth.

    Those persecuting Assange are “applying the heaviest possible penalty they can on him for stepping out of line and doing his job as a journalist,” Waters told RT’s Afshin Rattansi on his show Going Underground.

    “They’re clearly trying as hard as they can to kill him…Julian Assange is becoming a warning to other journalists that if you tell the truth – particularly to power – ‘we will get you.’”

    Assange is currently being held in a British jail pending extradition to the US, having served his sentence for skipping bail. He could face up to 175 years in prison for publishing classified documents, including information on possible US war crimes in Iraq. The hearing is scheduled for February.

    An outspoken critic of US foreign policy, Waters performed his hit song ‘Wish You Were Here’ at a pro-Assange rally in London last month. He called the WikiLeaks co-founder one of the “precious few” publishers “who are prepared to take the risk of actually reporting the reality of our lives to us.”

  12. The Following 14 Users Say Thank You to Bill Ryan For This Post:

    BMJ (2nd November 2019), Cara (28th October 2019), Delight (27th October 2019), Franny (27th October 2019), Hervé (28th October 2019), Ivanhoe (27th October 2019), meeradas (28th October 2019), mountain_jim (28th October 2019), onawah (28th October 2019), Philippe (30th October 2019), Reinhard (28th October 2019), Tintin (27th October 2019), Valerie Villars (13th November 2019), Yoda (28th October 2019)

  13. Link to Post #227
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Thanked 50,824 times in 10,290 posts

    Default Re: Julian Assange arrested after Ecuador tears up asylum deal

    Julian Assange's father speaks in front of the Home Office in London.

    "John Shipton, Julian Assange's fater spoke at a concert held by M.I.A in front of the Home Office in London on the 5th of November 2019."
    Each breath a gift...

  14. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (13th November 2019), BMJ (18th November 2019), Franny (13th November 2019), mountain_jim (10th November 2019), Reinhard (13th November 2019), Star Tsar (10th November 2019), Tintin (13th November 2019), Valerie Villars (13th November 2019)

  15. Link to Post #228
    Croatia Administrator Franny's Avatar
    Join Date
    3rd January 2011
    Island Time
    Thanked 6,173 times in 1,029 posts

    Default Re: Julian Assange arrested after Ecuador tears up asylum deal

    From: The Conservative Treehouse

    Curiouser and Curiouser…

    Posted on November 6, 2019 by sundance

    According to several media reports AG Bill Barr is scheduled to have a meeting today with Senator Lindsey Graham for an update on the Horowitz and Durham investigations:

    Quote […] Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, plans to meet Wednesday with Barr to talk about the report’s planned rollout, according to people familiar with the matter. (link)
    Then, moments ago, this little innocuous sighting popped up amid the DC media:

    Click image for larger version

Name:	manu-raju-tweet-rohrabacher.jpg
Views:	10
Size:	28.8 KB
ID:	41822

    Probably just a coincidence [*hmmm*], or maybe not….

    According to recent reports U.S. Attorney John Durham and U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr are spending time on a narrowed focus looking carefully at CIA activity in the 2016 presidential election. One recent quote from a media-voice increasingly sympathetic to a political deep-state notes:

    Quote “One British official with knowledge of Barr’s wish list presented to London commented that “it is like nothing we have come across before, they are basically asking, in quite robust terms, for help in doing a hatchet job on their own intelligence services””. (Link)
    It is interesting that quote comes from a British intelligence official, as there appears to be mounting evidence of an extensive CIA operation that likely involved U.K. intelligence services. In addition, and as a direct outcome, there is an aspect to the CIA operation that overlaps with both a U.S. and U.K. need to keep Wikileaks founder Julian Assange under tight control. In this outline we will explain where corrupt U.S. and U.K. interests merge.

    To understand the risk that Julian Assange represented to CIA interests, it is important to understand just how extensive the operations of the CIA were in 2016.

    It is within this network of foreign and domestic operations where FBI Agent Peter Strzok is clearly working as a bridge between the CIA and FBI operations.

    By now people are familiar with the construct of CIA operations involving Joseph Mifsud, the Maltese professor now generally admitted/identified as a western intelligence operative who was tasked by the CIA (John Brennan) to run an operation against Trump campaign official George Papadopoulos in both Italy (Rome) and London. {Go Deep}

    In a similar fashion the CIA tasked U.S. intelligence asset Stefan Halper to target another Trump campaign official, Carter Page. Under the auspices of being a Cambridge Professor Stefan Halper also targeted General Michael Flynn. Additionally, using assistance from a female FBI agent under the false name Azra Turk, Halper also targeted Papadopoulos.

    The initial operations to target Flynn, Papadopoulos and Page were all based overseas. This seemingly makes the CIA exploitation of the assets and the targets much easier.

    One of the more interesting aspects to the Durham probe is a possibility of a paper-trail created as a result of the tasking operations. We should watch closely for more evidence of a paper trail as some congressional reps have hinted toward documented evidence (transcripts, recordings, reports) that are exculpatory to the targets (Page & Papadop). HPSCI Ranking Member Devin Nunes has strongly hinted that very specific exculpatory evidence was known to the FBI and yet withheld from the FISA application used against Carter Page that also mentions George Papadopoulos. I digress…

    However, there is an aspect to the domestic U.S. operation that also bears the fingerprints of the CIA; only this time due to the restrictive laws on targets inside the U.S. the CIA aspect is less prominent. This is where FBI Agent Peter Strzok working for both agencies starts to become important.

    Remember, it’s clear in the text messages Strzok has a working relationship with what he called their “sister agency”, the CIA. Additionally, Brennan has admitted Strzok helped write the January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) which outlines the Russia narrative; and it is almost guaranteed the July 31st, 2016, “Electronic Communication” from the CIA to the FBI that originated FBI operation “Crossfire Hurricane” was co-authored from the CIA by Strzok…. and Strzok immediately used that EC to travel to London to debrief intelligence officials around Australian Ambassador to the U.K. Alexander Downer.

    In short, Peter Strzok appears to be the very eager, profoundly overzealous James Bond wannabe, who acted as a bridge between the CIA and the FBI. The perfect type of FBI career agent for CIA Director John Brennan to utilize.

    Fusion-GPS founder Glenn Simpson hired CIA Open Source analyst Nellie Ohr toward the end of 2015; at appropriately the same time as “FBI Contractors” were identified exploiting the NSA database and extracting information on a specific set of U.S. persons.

    It was also Fusion-GPS founder Glenn Simpson who was domestically tasked with a Russian lobbyist named Natalia Veselnitskya. A little reported Russian Deputy Attorney General named Saak Albertovich Karapetyan was working double-agents for the CIA and Kremlin. Karapetyan was directing the foreign operations of Natalia Veselnitskaya, and Glenn Simpson was organizing her inside the U.S.

    Glenn Simpson managed Veselnitskaya through the 2016 Trump Tower meeting with Donald Trump Jr. However, once the CIA/Fusion-GPS operation using Veselnitskaya started to unravel with public reporting… back in Russia Deputy AG Karapetyan fell out of a helicopter to his death (just before it crashed).

    Simultaneously timed in late 2015 through mid 2016, there was a domestic FBI operation using a young Russian named Maria Butina tasked to run up against republican presidential candidates. According to Patrick Byrne, Butina’s handler, it was FBI agent Peter Strzok who was giving Byrne the instructions on where to send her. {Go Deep}

    All of this context outlines the extent to which the CIA was openly involved in constructing a political operation that settled upon anyone in candidate Donald Trump’s orbit.

    International operations directed by the CIA, and domestic operations seemingly directed by Peter Strzok operating with a foot in both agencies. [Strzok gets CIA service coin]

    Mifsud tasked against Papadopoulos (CIA).
    Halper tasked against Flynn (CIA), Page (CIA), and Papadopoulos (CIA).
    Azra Turk, pretending to be Halper asst, tasked against Papadopoulos (FBI).
    Veselnitskaya tasked against Donald Trump Jr (CIA, Fusion-GPS).
    Butina tasked against Trump, and Donald Trump Jr (FBI).

    Additionally, Christopher Steele was a British intelligence officer, hired by Fusion-GPS to assemble and launder fraudulent intelligence information within his dossier. And we cannot forget Oleg Deripaska, a Russian oligarch, who was recruited by Asst. FBI Director Andrew McCabe to participate in running an operation against the Trump campaign and create the impression of Russian involvement. Deripaska refused to participate.

    All of this engagement directly controlled by U.S. intelligence; and all of this intended to give a specific Russia impression. This predicate is presumably what John Durham is currently reviewing.

    The key point of all that background is to see how committed the CIA and FBI were to the constructed narrative of Russia interfering with the 2016 election. The CIA, FBI, and by extension the DOJ, put a hell of a lot of work into it. Intelligence community work that Durham is now unraveling.

    We also know specifically that John Durham is looking at the construct of the Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA); and talking to CIA analysts who participated in the construct of the January 2017 report that bolstered the false appearance of Russian interference in the 2016 election. This is important because it ties in to the next part that involves Julian Assange and Wikileaks.

    On April 11th, 2019, the Julian Assange indictment was unsealed in the EDVA. From the indictment we discover it was under seal since March 6th, 2018:

    (Link to pdf)

    On Tuesday April 15th more investigative material was released. Again, note the dates: Grand Jury, *December of 2017* This means FBI investigation prior to….

    The FBI investigation took place prior to December 2017, it was coordinated through the Eastern District of Virginia (EDVA) where Dana Boente was U.S. Attorney at the time. The grand jury indictment was sealed from March of 2018 until after Mueller completed his investigation, April 2019.

    Why the delay?

    What was the DOJ waiting for?

    Here’s where it gets interesting….

    The FBI submission to the Grand Jury in December of 2017 was four months after congressman Dana Rohrabacher talked to Julian Assange in August of 2017: “Assange told a U.S. congressman … he can prove the leaked Democratic Party documents … did not come from Russia.”

    Quote (August 2017, The Hill Via John Solomon) Julian Assange told a U.S. congressman on Tuesday he can prove the leaked Democratic Party documents he published during last year’s election did not come from Russia and promised additional helpful information about the leaks in the near future.

    Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, a California Republican who is friendly to Russia and chairs an important House subcommittee on Eurasia policy, became the first American congressman to meet with Assange during a three-hour private gathering at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, where the WikiLeaks founder has been holed up for years.

    Rohrabacher recounted his conversation with Assange to The Hill.

    “Our three-hour meeting covered a wide array of issues, including the WikiLeaks exposure of the DNC [Democratic National Committee] emails during last year’s presidential election,” Rohrabacher said, “Julian emphatically stated that the Russians were not involved in the hacking or disclosure of those emails.”

    Pressed for more detail on the source of the documents, Rohrabacher said he had information to share privately with President Trump. (read more)

    Knowing how much effort the CIA and FBI put into the Russia collusion-conspiracy narrative, it would make sense for the FBI to take keen interest after this August 2017 meeting between Rohrabacher and Assange; and why the FBI would quickly gather specific evidence (related to Wikileaks and Bradley Manning) for a grand jury by December 2017.

    Within three months of the grand jury the DOJ generated an indictment and sealed it in March 2018. The EDVA sat on the indictment while the Mueller probe was ongoing.

    As soon as the Mueller probe ended, on April 11th, 2019, a planned and coordinated effort between the U.K. and U.S. was executed; Julian Assange was forcibly arrested and removed from the Ecuadorian embassy in London, and the EDVA indictment was unsealed (link).
    As a person who has researched this three year fiasco; including the ridiculously false 2016 Russian hacking/interference narrative: “17 intelligence agencies”, Joint Analysis Report (JAR) needed for Obama’s anti-Russia narrative in December ’16; and then a month later the ridiculously political Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) in January ’17; this timing against Assange is too coincidental.

    It doesn’t take a deep researcher to see the aligned Deep State motive to control Julian Assange because the Mueller report was dependent on Russia cybercrimes, and that narrative is contingent on the Russia DNC hack story which Julian Assange disputes.

    This is critical. The Weissmann/Mueller report contains claims that Russia hacked the DNC servers as the central element to the Russia interference narrative in the U.S. election. This claim is directly disputed by WikiLeaks and Julian Assange, as outlined during the Dana Rohrabacher interview, and by Julian Assange on-the-record statements.

    The predicate for Robert Mueller’s investigation was specifically due to Russian interference in the 2016 election. The fulcrum for this Russia interference claim is the intelligence community assessment; and the only factual evidence claimed within the ICA is that Russia hacked the DNC servers; a claim only made possible by relying on forensic computer analysis from Crowdstrike, a DNC contractor.

    The CIA holds a massive conflict of self-interest in upholding the Russian hacking claim. The FBI holds a massive interest in maintaining that claim. All of those foreign countries whose intelligence apparatus participated with Brennan and Strzok also have a vested self-interest in maintaining that Russia hacking and interference narrative.

    Julian Assange is the only person with direct knowledge of how Wikileaks gained custody of the DNC emails; and Assange has claimed he has evidence it was not from a hack.

    This Russian “hacking” claim is ultimately so important to the CIA, FBI, DOJ, ODNI and U.K intelligence apparatus…. Well, right there is the obvious motive to shut Assange down as soon intelligence officials knew the Mueller report was going to be public.

    Now, if we know this, and you know this; and everything is cited and factual… well, then certainly AG Bill Barr knows this.

    The $64,000 dollar question is: will they say so publicly?

    Click image for larger version

Name:	manu-raju-tweet-rohrabacher-1.jpg
Views:	8
Size:	27.8 KB
ID:	41823
    A million galaxies are a little foam on that shoreless sea. ~ Rumi

  16. The Following 13 Users Say Thank You to Franny For This Post:

    Andre (13th November 2019), Bill Ryan (13th November 2019), Billy (13th November 2019), BMJ (18th November 2019), Cara (13th November 2019), edina (18th November 2019), Hervé (13th November 2019), meeradas (18th November 2019), mountain_jim (18th November 2019), onawah (14th November 2019), Reinhard (19th November 2019), Tintin (13th November 2019), Valerie Villars (13th November 2019)

  17. Link to Post #229
    Croatia Administrator Franny's Avatar
    Join Date
    3rd January 2011
    Island Time
    Thanked 6,173 times in 1,029 posts

    Default Re: Julian Assange arrested after Ecuador tears up asylum deal

    Australian MPs form group to intervene in US attempts to extradite Assange

    Rob Harris
    The Sydney Morning Herald
    Thu, 24 Oct 2019 00:01 UTC
    Australian MP Andrew Wilkie
    © Alex Ellinghausen

    Eleven federal MPs have joined forces to agitate for the Morrison government to intervene in the United States' attempts to extradite WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange from Britain to stand trial on espionage charges.

    Independent MP Andrew Wilkie said the cross-party group, which includes two Nationals MPs, two Labor MPs and members of The Greens and the cross bench, would provide a forum to "discuss matters" relating to Mr Assange returning to Australia.

    Mr Assange told a London judge on Monday he was in an inequitable fight against a superpower, which had been spying on his "interior life" and on confidential meetings with his legal team.

    Queensland MP George Christensen will co-chair the group along with Mr Wilkie, a long-time supporter of the Australian.

    Labor MPs Julian Hill and Steve Georganas have signed onto the group despite strong hesitance within the ALP's leadership to advocate on his behalf.

    "Whatever people may think of him, Julian Assange is an Australian and deserves consular assistance and support from the Australian government," Mr Hill said.

    "At the very least extradition to any country where there is any possibility of him facing the death penalty must be strenuously opposed, whether the USA or anywhere else."

    Centre Alliance MPs Rebekha Sharkie and Rex Patrick, Greens leader Richard Di Natale, his deputy Adam Bandt and senator Peter Whish-Wilson have also joined the group along with independent Zali Steggall, who won the seat of Warringah in May from former prime minister Tony Abbott.

    Prime Minister Scott Morrison said last week legal processes "should run their course" and he believed Mr Assange should "face the music".

    Mr Wilkie said Mr Assange looked "a broken man" and "not fit to stand trial".

    "The UK, US and Australian governments have done their best to break him and it looks like they've almost succeeded," Mr Wilkie said.

    "Clearly Assange is too ill to prepare a case against his extradition, let alone to be shipped off to a foreign country to be secretly tried for exposing war crimes."

    Former Nationals leader Barnaby Joyce, the first Coalition MP to speak out over Mr Assange's plight, joined former foreign minister Bob Carr earlier this month to voice concerns over US attempts to have the 48-year-old Australian stand trial in America, where he faces a sentence of 175 years in jail if found guilty of computer fraud and obtaining and disclosing national defence information.

    Mr Joyce revealed this week he has discussed the matter with his colleagues in the Nationals party room and spoke with federal Attorney-General Christian Porter last week.

    "I come at this purely from a legal principle way," he told ABC.

    "I've seen this debate before, because neither did I give a character endorsement of David Hicks, but I supported him because people much wiser than me said: 'This is about habeas corpus, not about David Hicks'."

    Rob Harris is the National Affairs Editor for The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age, based at Parliament House in Canberra

    Click image for larger version

Name:	irony Assange trump.png
Views:	8
Size:	304.3 KB
ID:	41848
    A million galaxies are a little foam on that shoreless sea. ~ Rumi

  18. The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to Franny For This Post:

    Arcturian108 (19th November 2019), Bill Ryan (18th November 2019), BMJ (18th November 2019), Cara (18th November 2019), Hervé (18th November 2019), Kryztian (18th November 2019), meeradas (18th November 2019), mountain_jim (18th November 2019), Reinhard (19th November 2019), Tintin (18th November 2019)

  19. Link to Post #230
    UK Moderator/Librarian/Administrator Tintin's Avatar
    Join Date
    3rd June 2017
    Trowbridge/Bath - UK
    Thanked 10,191 times in 1,581 posts

    Default Re: Julian Assange arrested after Ecuador tears up asylum deal

    Just how low the Guardian newspaper can continue to sink is a matter of conjecture. As a compartment of MI6, which to all intents and purposes is its primary function, few pieces of blatant fake news are really quite as transparent as this.

    I'd listened to Craig Murray's interview with Randy Credico when it aired and I've now uploaded it into the Avalon library, here:

    Craig_Murray_Post_Testimony_Interview with Randy Credico_Nov_10_2019
    Audio: http://avalonlibrary.net/Julian_Assa...ov_10_2019.mp3

    In his recent blog post Craig provides a transcript as well; I advise that this is read, and the audio also absorbed, and as he has himself offered, that this is "..free for everybody to use, with acknowledgement."

    [Tintin Quarantino]


    Randy Credico was the chief witness for the prosecution against Roger Stone. That’s for the prosecution, not the defence. This is the state’s key evidence against Stone. And Credico is absolutely plain that Stone had no link to Wikileaks. The transcript of my exclusive interview with Randy has now been prepared (thanks to Sam and Jon) and follows [after the article] here.


    The Roger Stone – Wikileaks – Russia Hoax

    18 Nov, 2019 by Craig Murray |

    As ever, the Guardian wins the prize for the most tendentious reporting of Roger Stone’s conviction. This is not quite on the scale of its massive front page lie that Paul Manafort visited Julian Assange in the Ecuadorean Embassy. But it is a lie with precisely the same intent, to deceive the public into believing there were links between Wikileaks and the Trump campaign. There were no such links.

    The headline “Roger Stone: Trump Adviser Found Guilty On All Charges in Trump Hacking Case” is deliberately designed to make you believe a court has found Stone was involved in “Wikileaks hacking”. In fact this is the precise opposite of the truth. Stone was found guilty of lying to the Senate Intelligence Committee by claiming to have links to Wikileaks when in fact he had none. And of threatening Randy Credico to make Credico say there were such links, when there were not.

    It is also worth noting the trial was nothing to do with “hacking” and no hacking was alleged or proven. Wikileaks does not do hacking, it does “leaks”. The clue is in the name. The DNC emails were not hacked. The Guardian is fitting this utterly extraneous element into its headline to continue the ludicrous myth that the Clinton campaign was “Hacked” by “the Russians”.

    Astonishingly, in the case of Stone, he has been convicted of saying that the Mueller nonsense is true, and he was a Trump/Wikileaks go-between, when he was not. Yet despite the disastrous collapse of the Mueller Report, and despite the absolutely devastating judicial ruling that there was no evidence worthy even of consideration in court that Russiagate had ever happened, the Guardian and the neo-con media in the USA (inc. CNN, Washington Post, New York Times) continue to serve up an endless diet of lies to the public.

    I spoke to Randy yesterday [November 17th] to clarify one point. The first conversation Randy ever had with Julian Assange was on 25 August 2016 and it was on-air on Randy’s radio show. There was no private talk off-air around the show. That was Randy’s only contact of any kind with Julian Assange before the 2016 election. His next contact with him, also an on-air interview, was not until Spring 2017, well after the election. He could not have been in any sense a channel to Wikileaks.



    CM: OK. Before we get into the substance, Randy, let’s talk about the atmospherics. How did it feel to be you? How did it feel to be Randy Credico walking into that courtroom?

    RC: Well, you know, all of my life … I got into show business when I was 18 years old and I really was pursuing fame and notoriety and, you know, I finally got it, and this is “be careful what you wish for”—because this is certainly not something that I was relishing. For the past eight months, when Mr Stone was indicted, I have been suffering from heavy anxiety, having to appear as a witness under subpoena.

    And then when it finally happened, eight months went by quickly, and I got to tell you something, going into that courtroom, and anticipating it the previous night in which I couldn’t sleep was not a very comforting feeling. I walked in and, you know, it wasn’t the traditional way where you walk in from the back. You had to walk through the very front of the courthouse, past the defendant, past his family, past his friends, past his supporters, and then get on that witness stand right next to the jury, and begin answering questions.

    So after a while I was OK with it, but I knew it was going to be a long session; I knew I was going to have to come back the next day and continue and then I was going to have to go through the cross-examination. So it was just nothing but anxiety going in, and there was some relief when it was over but it was a different kind of a feeling because I felt bad for the defendant at the end of the testimony.

    CM: Yeah, no, I’m sure you did. Did you catch his eye at any slight stage while you were … while you were talking?

    RC: Yeah. You know, I tried not to. I didn’t think that was fair, so I did look at him. He was very morose looking, very sullen looking … and, you know, but for the grace of God, there goes I. I could’ve been in that seat, in that situation at some point in my lifetime, and the weight of the federal government with the vast resources in a case like that, and the defendant, he had … he had a lot of attorneys, but I didn’t think they were … they were really sufficient. These were not great barristers, you know what I mean?

    They were not good. And I found out they weren’t really that good because I had known earlier the way they were cross-examining previous witness that they just weren’t up to the job.

    So, you know, you go in there and you’re under a lot of stress, and you’ve got to tell the truth and at the same time the truth is going to hurt the guy who’s sitting there … you know, just 25 or 30 feet away from you, and it could put him in prison. I mean—who wants to be in that position?

    All of my life, I have worked to get people out of prison. I’m a prison reformer. I’ve extricated people out of prison through clemency and changes of laws in the State of New York. And other activism that I have done like in Texas, I got 46 people out of prison. So this was a very bizarre, ironic situation that I was in at that particular point.

    So yes, I caught his eye; I did catch his eye. You know, it’s such loose strings—it’s someone that you’ve known. I’ve known the guy for 17 years. And people say “How were you ever friends with this guy? You know, you’re an extreme left-winger, the guy is an extreme right-winger”.

    Well, I have no regrets meeting him, because I met him in 2002, after I had been working 5 years, visiting prisons, organizing families of prisoners who were subjected to New York’s racist and draconian Rockefeller drug laws. They were called the Mothers of the New York Disappeared. I was working with him, organizing, visiting their loved ones in prison, and we were moving forward to getting some substantial change in 2002, but we were at loggerheads with the government.

    So because Roger Stone was running the campaign of a third party candidate—a billionaire, a real maverick individual, who had some great ads that I saw—I went to Mr Stone because the Democrats and the Republicans in the race were not addressing the issue. Mr Stone actually not only agreed with my position there, but he spent … had his candidate spend … millions of dollars doing ads to repeal New York’s racist Rockefeller drug laws.

    And that was a very key moment in the historical run of this movement. Within a year and a half, the laws had changed, and each year there was major building blocks. We got the public to support us; we were getting politicians to support us. In 2002, Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer—our two Democratic Senators—were not on board. And so, this guy Tom Golisano was on board and he did rallies with these families, he put them on television, and he, like I said, spent millions of dollars on ads.

    And if it weren’t for Roger Stone, that wouldn’t have happened. And so because of that within a year and a half, these families that I had worked with, there was retroactivity when the laws were changed within a year and a half, and that was a key component. And Mr Golisano stayed with it for another year, he continued to work with us.

    So, something like that. Even though Mr Stone had screwed me over, had done some very nasty things over the next 17 years, there was still that soft spot for him because, when I look at those families and I remember their faces when they get reunited with their loved ones—he played a role in that.

    So that’s the dilemma I was facing when I was on that witness stand. I was an aggrieved person. This could’ve been done, by the way, in a civil court, you know, my grievance against Mr Stone because, for me—for me—my position was I was kind of smeared by being associated with the Trump campaign with these bogus allegations of being the back channel to Wikileaks—which we’ll get into.

    There was never any back channel to Wikileaks—that was all hocus pocus!

    So, answering your question, it was … it was a very bizarre, uncomfortable experience undergoing those {inaudible} in that highly publicized and media-covered circus that was going on. Not a circus, but whatever was going on there, it was something that I would not want to go through again. And, look, I’ve performed in front of a million different audiences; I’ve worked strip joints when I was in air force bases; I’ve done vigils, rallies; I’ve worked the worst toilets in the room over a 45 year period in show business, but I still wasn’t prepared for that kind of atmosphere.

    CM: Yes, I can imagine. Is it a fair characterisation to say that you, Randy, you’re on the libertarian left of politics, whereas Roger’s on the libertarian right, and you both met because there were some issues such as drug decriminalization on which you agree and on which he then did good work in decriminalizing communities in New York. Is that the basic analysis?

    RC: Yes, I would say I once ran on the Libertarian party line in 2010. A lot of their positions I don’t agree with … but I’m on the left, he’s a libertarian right. He’s not like one of these people—when I met him he was not the ideologue that he was portrayed to be in the media in 2002—a far right Jesse Helms type or a far right John Ashcroft type. He was a libertarian, he smoked pot; you know, we had the same views on music. He actually was advocating for the pardon of Marcus Garvey, who was framed, who was a leader of Black Nationalism in the 20s, on these bogus mail fraud charges.

    So, you know, he’s kind of a sphinx, you know, politically. He’s not, like I said, a hard-core right-winger. He was not for the war in Iraq back in 2003. So, you know, I don’t even know what the right and the left is sometimes. You know, I really don’t know what that means. I mean Tony Blair’s supposed to be a Labour guy, but he’s as bad as George Bush is, and always has been.

    So does he really support Labour, is he a leftist? No. So, you know, these labels are a little confusing to me. But like I said, Stone—you know—he’s a showman. He’s a showman; he’s an exhibitionist.

    That’s what got him in trouble here.

    The poor guy is … you know, he’s a megalomaniacal showman. Just like I am. I’m in show business, why? Because I’m like him—I like to get laughs, and I want to be recognised. That’s him.

    I said he’d done a lot of bad things to me but politically we were, you know, we coincided on a few major issues, and one of them was drug law reform in the State of New York. Now, mind you, 97% of the people that were subjected to the Rockefeller drug laws in the State of New York were black and Latino.

    And still are—they have been modified, not completely changed. But, you know, they were subjected to harsh punishment; they were getting 15 years to life. I know one kid by the name of Terence Stevens, paralysed from the neck down—from the neck down—with muscular dystrophy, and that guy was doing all of this time for possession on a bus! They ascribed it to him for possession! And he had done 10 years in prison, in the medical ward of a real dank prison—it was called Green Haven—for possession. And that was not like the exception to the rule.

    There were thousands of people in similar circumstances that were there that were just mules, or addicts that were doing this time—and Stone actually was very sympathetic to it. It wasn’t like it was a—you know, what would you call it—flash in the pan type of a push. He continued afterwards, he even wrote some op-ed pieces; but, like I said, he did some bad things to me over the years, but I’m a good natured guy, and I overlooked it. I let him get away with it.

    CM: The astonishing thing about all this is … is that it all comes out of the Mueller inquiry, and the so-called Russiagate scandal, and yet none of these charges relate to Russia. And let’s be quite plain, to the best of your knowledge and belief—or to the best of your knowledge anyway—Roger Stone has no link to the Russian government that we’re aware of, and he certainly has no link to Wikileaks that we’re aware of. Is that your understanding?

    RC: Well, actually what he had was … Look … Roger Stone … Here’s what happened. In 2015, Trump hired him. He lasted one month. Why? Because every time he did an interview it was more about him than it was about Trump; and Trump got frustrated with him and dumped him. And he may have given Trump advice here and there because, you know, he was the one who got Trump to run 30 years earlier; it was his idea, he kept pushing Trump. So he was kind of unceremoniously kicked out of the Trump camp.

    Flash forward to 2016, he’s kind of hanging around the Trump campaign, he comes up with one of these super packs. And so he’s trying to ingratiate himself back into the Trump orbit there. And what he did was he, like, looks at Wikileaks and he sees what’s going on with Wikileaks, and he’s trying to get information. He’s going to guys like Jerome Corsi.

    You know, Jerome Corsi is a complete lunatic, you know, beyond the pale of conspiracy freaks … and he got hoodwinked by that guy. And this is my estimation, this is my analysis. He gets hoodwinked into thinking that he’s got a back channel. Right.

    So he is showing, you know … First of all, the whole idea of a back channel is ridiculous. Julian Assange does not telegraph what he’s going to put out. He never has. He doesn’t compromise his sources and he always puts out that his whole M.O. is the element of surprise.

    So there was no reason for him to give it to Roger Stone, of the kind of preview of what he was doing. Why would he do that? When everything that he was doing, he was doing carefully, and he was selecting the time and then he’d put it out.

    There was no reason for him to give anything to Stone.

    No, Stone was playing the role of someone that had the inside information from Assange. Now, you know Assange, he’s very careful. He’s not going to … if he wanted to he would just give it directly to Trump, you know, but he didn’t. He never did. He didn’t need to go through Stone.

    But Stone was pretending that he had some kind of access to Wikileaks, and he was selling that to the Trump campaign—that he was able to get something in advance, he knew what it was.

    And so they didn’t think they were going to win, and they were looking for Hail Marys and this was one of them, and they brought him into the orbit and Stone was thinking that whatever this guy Corsi was giving him was accurate, possibly, and then … then me. All right? So, there was nothing there.

    And then, the following month, in August 25th, after Stone had said a few weeks previously that he had direct contact with Assange, and he modelled at that to get a back channel. I had never met Assange, never had any conversation with Assange. In fact, I never ever even met him until the following year. So, on August 25th, through my friend, through someone then that worked with Assange got him on my radio show … on August 25th. And so, I was … it was a big fish for me.

    I had just gone from one day a week with my show to three days a week, and two of those days were prime time—5 o’clock drive time—and I let Stone know that I had Assange on my show.

    He didn’t even respond to that. I let him know. So I was kind of one-upping him.

    And Assange was on the show—we even talked about it: “Do you have a back channel with Roger … ?” And he laughed at it. You know, Stone was on my show on the twenty … two days previously … and I asked him about it, and he said that he had a back channel and he really couldn’t disclose what it was. And then Assange was on. So there was no back channel there, with me.

    I went to London a few weeks later. I went to London to see a fellow by the name of Barry Crimmins, who is a left wing comedian, who I had known for 30 years; and we were in London together performing there back in 1986. It was the 30 year anniversary. He was working at the Leicester Square Comedy Club in London. And somebody underwrote my trip to see him. Three days. I hung out with him for three days.

    I also had a letter from the General Manager from the station to give to Julian Assange, or someone that works with Julian Assange, with a proposal that he do a radio show out of the Ecuadorian Embassy, with an IFB, and do it over the Pacifica network, and it would be his show.

    But at that time remember in September he was preparing obviously putting stuff together, collating it, or whatever, and putting it together, for the eventual day that he was trying to put it out, which was on October 7th. Now, the date that he put it out they say it was to coincide with the Access Hollywood tape.

    Now, anyone, talk to Stefania Maurizi, she will tell you that they were planning to put that out a day or two earlier on the 7th. That was the day they were going to put it out. She was the one that knew, she never told anybody, but she did afterwards. And last year she said she knew they were going to put something out on the 7th, because she worked with Assange. She was one of the few journalists that he trusted, and rightly so.

    But I never got in to see him. They didn’t, they didn’t see me, because Stone found out on the 27th, he knew that I was flying to London to see my friend Barry Crimmins, so … and possibly see Assange. He wanted me to find out from Assange, because he put somebody on my radio show—Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate for President—he put him on my show on the 9th of September, and I owed him a favour and the favour was to find out if this email from Hillary Clinton to somebody existed regarding the situation in … in Libya, and sabotaging the peace talks with Gaddafi.

    Well, I never did that, I never gave it to Assange. I wouldn’t dare ask him.

    I’ve been in that Embassy three times since, after that year 2017 when I spent some time with you and John Pilger in London and Edinburgh.

    That’s when I saw him. I never once asked him about his business. I didn’t want to know. I didn’t ask him how they did things … nothing. The stuff was so general. We talked about dogs, we talked about him running for Senate, and the Green Party, we talked about food. We talked about general things. And that was it. I never once saw … There was no way I was going to ask him to confirm if this email existed. In fact, I told Stone that if it existed, it would be on the Wikileaks website.

    All right, so that happens; that happens, and nothing happens. I did say, I did predict, and I put it on Facebook after standing outside that Embassy on the 29th, I dropped the letter off.

    There was a guy from either MI6, MI5, or a metropolitan police department outside that building with a headphone on, or an earplug, and he was listening: you could tell, these guys are so obvious.

    And I dropped the letter off. I was in for less than 20 seconds. I knocked on the door on the left; a hand came out; I dropped the letter off from the station, and left; I went through Harrods and I was followed. So I extrapolated from that, that something must be coming up. I put it on Facebook: “Here’s a picture of me, look at this guy behind me. I got a feeling the guy inside’s gonna drop something this week.”

    Two days later I said the same thing to Stone. So now, he’s going to use me as—well, I mean, well, he has to—as the back channel. Supposedly he had a back channel for months. But the whole thing was ridiculous: I mean, there was no back channel; there never was a back channel.

    This was Stone just blowing himself up as, you know, as an important person to impress. As you said yesterday in your tweet, that he was looking to make money, and he did, he did ask the family for some money when he said that this was coming out, and that in fact did justify his luck that it came out on the 7th, and they thought that Stone had the inside information; he had no inside information. All right, so that’s where we were back … that’s where we are back then, up until October first or second or third. So I had no back channel. I had no information; Stone had no information—but he continued to sell himself as a person that did.

    And then the, then the … I think that Correa shut down this internet for a while after he got pressure from John Kerry at that meeting in Bogota of the OAS [Organization of American States]. And so I said to Stone at a dinner, the only time I saw him in 2016 was at a dinner on October 12th or 13th, and I told him that, that was information that I got from about 20 people that there was pressure—it was even in the paper. So that was it. So now we go a year later, Stone testifies. Are you with me there, Craig?

    CM: Yes, I am with you.

    RC: OK. Do you want to ask a question, or should I continue?

    CM: No, you carry on. Go with the flow.

    RC: I shall. You go forward. The following year, Stone testifies, he testifies to confirm, not to Mueller, but the House Intel Committee—they had opened up an investigation right after this whole Russia stuff—and I was totally against it. I thought the whole thing was a ridiculous thing, chasing down you know Russians being behind it. Hillary Clinton ran a terrible campaign. Julian Assange did not send a map to the Clinton campaign of every school in Michigan and Wisconsin … all right. So she lost. She was a horrible campaign…

    I was a big Bernie person. I was supporting … I did a four day howler marathon for Bernie to get out to vote just prior on the day before the New York primaries. So I was still pissed off at Hillary because she had taken it away from Bernie. Her and her cohorts at the DNC had taken it away from Bernie. And if Bernie had won that primary, had won that nomination, he would have beaten Trump … I believe. But Hillary …

    CM. Yeah, I know. There’s a lot of polling evidence that says that, I think.

    RC: Yes, I think, I think … I really do think that Bernie would have won that election. So I was really furious! I was furious that he was out of it. I’m still furious. I ended up voting for Jill Stein that day. And I went to Jill Stein’s party on November 8th 2016. I think I had you on the show with Jill Stein just prior to that. And I had her on the show that day and I went to her party and Trump won, and I was very depressed about that … not that I supported Hillary, I mean she didn’t have any chance at all so it’s fine …

    Now going forth, let me get back to 2017. He voluntarily—voluntarily—goes before the House Intel Committee. They didn’t subpoena him, they didn’t ask him to show up but he voluntarily goes up and it’s behind closed doors. Simultaneously he releases a 47-page screed that he’s about to read on YouTube, he reads it on YouTube, and then his opening statement.

    Forty-seven pages he reads to them chiding the whole process and slamming Schiff and everybody, putting this whole Russiagate thing out there. And then at the end they ask him if he had a back channel, and he says “Yes, it’s a journalist but I’m not supposed to say who it is”.

    Now, the next day, I’m trying to reach him. I’m thinking he’s going to say that I was now, because I had sent him those text messages, he’s gonna say …. And then he sends me a text message saying “Look, just go along with this, don’t worry about it.
    You’ll get a lot of press out of this. They’re not going to believe you, Credico; they’re going to believe me.” So, look he was covering up his attempts; he had no connection.

    And by the way, this is not helping Julian Assange out, having Roger Stone and Trump and all these people out there saying that they’re connected to Wikileaks. This is not helping his cause—all right—because Roger Stone is radioactive.

    Julian Assange knows that he’s radioactive. He doesn’t hate Stone; he finds him to be some kind of showman, you know, an exhibitionist; but he had nothing … he’s smart enough to know that you don’t go there, and he didn’t go there. But, so … now, he’s got himself in a bind here: he has said he’s got a back channel, he’s gloating about it, you know, he’s showboating … and a few days later, he lets me know that he’s gonna name me as the back channel. And that’s gonna go public!

    He said, “Look nobody’s gonna believe you, Credico. And better that, uh … better that I name you than go to jail.” So he doesn’t mention this guy Corsi, who was the back channel that wasn’t the back channel.

    CM: OK. Can you just hang on a second, Randy? He said “better he names you than go to jail”. What was he thinking: that having claimed to have a back channel to the committee, he had to try to substantiate it or he’d be in trouble for lying? Or was there was some other risk of jail?

    RC: If he says … If he says that they … He didn’t even get a subpoena! In other words, they didn’t subpoena him. Adam Schiff said, “We’d like to know who that back channel is.” And you have to get a full vote on the committee to get a subpoena.

    Without even getting a subpoena, he went and named me. I said “Well, why are you naming me?”. He says “Why should I go to jail for you?”. Now this is a cocked hat situation for me at that particular point. You know, here I’m being named for something I didn’t do, but he can circumstantially say that I did, because I had told him that I had a connection with Assange on my show: Margaret Ratner Kunstler.

    You know, but she …. And that was it. When I asked her to get him on the show, she was furious that I even asked her. So, you know, I had a show for a year prior to that and I never asked her. I did not want to get involved and bring her into this. And so I gotta get my own guests. But now I had it three days a week, and so I asked her gingerly and she did get him on the show. But by telling him that, putting that name out, now he’s got her name. Right?

    And now I told him on October 1st that something’s coming out which I had already announced, extrapolating on public comments by Assange saying that something is coming out; I think Sarah Harrison may have said that something was coming out; everyone knew that something was coming out. And so since I never was able to get that thing, and never tried, on the Libyan connection with Hillary Clinton—and … what’s his name? … Gaddafi—I felt obligated to get something.

    And by the way, this is coming from the Heathrow Airport, where I was at the duty free bar there, and I was getting free drinks, because I got a couple of bottles there, and it’s the only duty free store I’ve ever been in where they’ve got like three or four portable bars where you could drink. Instead of spending money at the bar, you know, twelve pounds per ale, I was getting all of these different booze samples that they had and then I was buying a couple.

    And so when I’m waiting around at the gate, you know, I’m just texting him too along with other people “Something’s coming out”. I’m gonna go back to 2017. So he’s going to name me, he says he’s gonna name me, and just to go along with it. And he’ll go to jail … I don’t know how he could go to jail by not answering the subpoena, or not giving up the name. He could always just take the Fifth Amendment.

    He could, like I did later on; I took the Fifth Amendment. For a variety of reasons I took the Fifth Amendment. So now he’s put me in a jam … all right, he names me, he names me as a back channel.

    And there’s a ton of papers, a ton of stories out there in the newspapers and the electronic media that Randy Credico’s the back channel. Now everybody on the centre left hates me. People connected to the Clinton people think that I helped Donald Trump win, I facilitated it, and I got myself in a big jam right there.

    Now what do I do? Do I go up there, when I get the letter from the House Intel Committee, and contradict Roger Stone? If I do, then he’s in trouble legally and then he could go to jail for perjury. So I had to think about that.

    Even though he put my reputation on the line there I feel like … Look, people lie to Congress all the time, to Congressional committees; and, you know, it leads to wars; it leads to mass surveillance; it leads to … appointments to the Supreme Court federal bench. And so those are big lies that are never investigated and they get away with it. So his was a small lie except for it was about me though; that was the only problem. I don’t mind that he lied to Congress, because everybody lies to Congress.

    CM: Yeah, I must say to that point I mean he hadn’t done anything. He’d boasted a bit; he’d tried to work an angle by claiming he had a contact he didn’t have; he’d then maintained that by telling the Intelligence Committee that he had a contact he didn’t have. But then, that’s a fairly harmless lie.

    RC: You … you … you know what it is? It’s a fender bender. But turned out to be a 21 trailer tractor pile-up. It was a fender bender. It was no big thing to tell them that. I kind of laughed at his 47-page statement. It was kind of entertaining. You know, he was putting on a show there. But when he put me in there …. Look, if it was anybody else, it’s fine. And it’s not like it was a major transgression to say that he had a back channel that he didn’t have. Right?

    That’s not a major transgression. When you lie about weapons of mass destruction—that is something that cost millions of lives, and people got away with that. People got away with lying to Congress about that, lately. You got guys who lie about not being spied on—there’s no domestic spying—that was a lie, they got away with that. All right?

    That’s the kind of stuff that affects them. This doesn’t affect, you know, anything.

    But he did lie to Congress, he did it five or six times, he kept lying; and there are five or six times that he lied in there and said that I had been providing him information from, like, early June all the way through October third or fourth or fifth. So … which is totally ridiculous, you know! And nobody else provided him with that, because Assange does not tip his mitt. You know what I mean?

    So he was building himself up, ingratiating himself with the Trump campaign, which he had been disaffected from … thrown off the campaign. So he was clawing himself back on, and this was his way … and he was fishing around. Wikileaks had rebuffed him, told him “Stop saying you’re connected to us! All right? That’s not true.” They put that out there. They sent them a direct mail that “we had nothing to do with Roger Stone”.

    And all that was doing was hurting them, by saying that, you know, he was one of the most despised person in the US, whether it’s true or not the reasons why, but he’s a despised person in the US by a lot of people.

    Last edited by Tintin; 18th November 2019 at 16:47.
    “If a man does not keep pace with [fall into line with] his companions, perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer. Let him step to the music which he hears, however measured or far away.” - Thoreau

  20. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to Tintin For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (18th November 2019), BMJ (14th December 2019), Cara (18th November 2019), Franny (4th December 2019), Hervé (18th November 2019), mountain_jim (19th November 2019), onawah (18th November 2019), Reinhard (19th November 2019)

  21. Link to Post #231
    UK Moderator/Librarian/Administrator Tintin's Avatar
    Join Date
    3rd June 2017
    Trowbridge/Bath - UK
    Thanked 10,191 times in 1,581 posts

    Default Re: Julian Assange arrested after Ecuador tears up asylum deal


    And traditional right-wingers don’t like him, and the left doesn’t like him, because he’s a dirty trickster and he’s been connected … remember, he was connected to … with Mobutu, he helped out Mobutu do PR work; he helped out Marcos do PR work; Savimbi … did PR work for Savimbi; he was a big fan of Pinochet. So he doesn’t have a clean past.

    All right? He made a lot of money, made millions of dollars working with some of the most odious dictators in the 80s. And he and Manafort, and a few others, they had a PR firm and that’s who they worked for. All right? So let’s not say Roger Stone is an angel here.

    You don’t make money … maybe if this is the ghost of Lumumba, the ghost of Aquino, of Victor Jara, coming back to haunt Mr Stone. You know, but we just push that aside, we push that aside.

    Getting back to Wikileaks: they rebuffed, they publicly said they did not have anything to do … and you know that was true: they did not. He did not have a back channel. He invented himself in, he insinuated himself into the Wikileaks orbit, as if he was like, you know, some part of it. And that wasn’t good for them, you know, because they were going to release that stuff.

    Now Assange has material there. He’s got the material. Either he can not put it out there and possibly help out Hillary, or he could put it out there and help out … whatever it was, that wasn’t his decision. His decision as a journalist is: he’s got material and so his ethics as a journalist: you put it out there. You can’t hold back material.

    That’s the way he looked at it. And he put it out there. Because he had it. He got a big scoop there. And he had to put that out there. If he had a similar scoop on Trump, he would’ve put that out there. He does not compromise his ethics. He is a journalist, and he operates as a journalist in the best tradition.

    CM: To move the story on now, though: next, Stone does get nasty and he gets nasty towards you because you won’t play along with his story and you won’t say you were a back channel when you weren’t, so he starts to threaten you.

    RC: Well, here’s what happened. I went there back to London—and I don’t think I saw you this time around, I think there in November, and I knew I put it out, and I was covering for Pacifica the case of … the case that Stefania Maurizi had against the Crown Prosecutor Services over the emails that were suppressed by them, between them and the Swedish Prosecutor. So I went to that proceeding and … {inaudible} … and spent three or four days in London.

    I got to see Julian a couple of times and, you know, that was the last time I saw him, by the way. But I was still … I didn’t know what to do at that particular time.

    I got the subpoena when I got back and I really thought that they were going to ask me about my communications with Assange, the House Intel Committee. So that was one of the reasons that I said, “Well, here I can go and use my First Amendment rights”, and my lawyer said “No, you can’t; you can use your Fifth Amendment rights.”

    And then, you know, Stone was hanging over my head that he was going to bring in Mrs Kunstler, and drag her through this. And, you know, he and I are both come from Italian-American families and it’s chauvinistic but we don’t drag the women into it; that’s a tradition—you don’t bring the women into the mud here.

    But he was going to do that, he was going to bring Mrs Kunstler’s name into to it. She’s this woman with a pristine past; she’s done nothing. Her husband was the greatest civil rights attorney; he liked the fanfare, he got a lot of publicity, but he did incredible work. She did incredible work throughout her life, and she did it quietly.

    She does not like the trash, she does not like the beach going out there. She’s lived this humble life, and just done all of the grunt work legally, and I did not want to drag her through this, this entire quagmire. I didn’t want her name, and the fact I even broached her name to Stone, that was … I was an asshole for doing it.

    And for Stone to hang that over my head, that was one of the reasons why I took the Fifth Amendment when I did … and to the very end I had no idea what I was going to do. I was trying to do this—do you remember the Wallendas, you know, the tightrope specialists?

    I was trying to walk this line there where I could say I wasn’t the guy, wasn’t the back channel, without pissing off Stone, and to do that, say that I wasn’t the back channel, but like I said, without giving them information, without going before the Committee. But if I … the thing is once I took the Fifth Amendment, everyone assumed that I was a back channel and was helping out Stone. That’s just the way people think.

    And then, the … I was working for this millionaire guy who was going to run for Governor. I was working throughout 2018; I had, like, a one year contract.
    He decided … he’s such a nice guy, rather than … rather than fire me, he decided to drop out of the race.

    OK, I worked with him for the previous year, OK, because he was a big shot with the liberal Democrats—he was like probably a billionaire—and he was a big finance guy who just couldn’t be seen at that point with me because I was now radioactive being associated with Stone, but I played it that way—I did take the Fifth Amendment but, like I said, people just assumed, and I started doing television shows, trying to explain myself; I couldn’t explain myself. And then I finally said … and he was getting upset that I was even out there, contradicting, gainsaying what he had put out there in front of the House Intel Committee.

    And why? Why was he upset? Because he didn’t want it to get out that he had been calling up Trump with this bogus information that he had gotten from this guy Corsi and somebody else. He had been calling up Trump, he had been calling the family, he had been calling up everybody, to get back in there, weasel his way back in there with this back channel claim that he didn’t have. And so he didn’t want to get that to be exposed. He got so furious with me that he started saying nasty ….

    Now, I understand: he’s in a bad situation right now. He’s in a bad situation: he lied to Congress! Now he’s saying things about me, and he’s, like, saying nasty … now, look, going up to the … before I took the Fifth, he was sending me text messages to take the Fifth and not to talk. All right? And he’s text messaging this … in broad daylight!

    You know, we live in an age of mass surveillance … why would you be doing that, text messaging someone: “Don’t talk. All right? If you talk, you do this, do that!” And … but, you know that’s not the reason why. The only reason, the main reason was that I was worried that she would be dragged into this, because he could somehow circumstantially, you know, say that this is the … and I didn’t know he had these prior discussions with other people.

    So now we’re going through … getting back to 2018, and what … I’m in a quandary here: what do I do? Big dilemma. Do I come out? And I finally said, “Look, I wasn’t the guy; this is all a complete lie.” And then he started sending out some of the text messages and emails—the one about … {inaudible} …, and all of that—to make it look like I was … {inaudible} …, you know, a war—a public battle between the two of us.

    And thing is … is that I don’t know why he did that.

    He’s escalating it. He’s getting stories planted about my character … he’s smearing me, and then … he’s threatening me. But the threats I never took seriously. All right? If I took them seriously, I would gone to the police department—911, and would’ve called up 911—”Somebody had threatened … “. I never took those seriously. It was a guy that was desperate now; he was acting in a desperate way. And he didn’t know what to do. Look, I’ve seen … the guy is sending these things out at two o’clock in the morning … you know, the guy, you know, he gets toasted.
    All right? He’s not doing it on a sober level.

    He’s sending out some very nasty things. And so when I … I got so sick and tired of him saying these things about me publicly, that I took the private emails, and I said when … when they got so bad … the smear job had got so bad … it was what was called a ‘brushback pitch’. I gave them to somebody in the media and said “Here, here’s what he’s saying to me in these emails.”

    And then that’s what … that’s what dragged in the Mueller people when they saw them. I wish I had never put them out, but he escalated it, and I put it out; and the next thing you know, they show up; they’re looking for me, and I’m kind of laying low. I did a show at the …{inaudible} …, my first public performance, and they’re there … they’re there, and they asked me to cancel it; I wouldn’t testify, and then I got a subpoena a couple of months later, and I have … Mow, when you go before them, the first thing they tell you is you can say anything you want, you just can’t lie. All right?

    CM: Yep?

    RC: Are you there?

    CM: Yeah, I’m with you.

    RC: You can’t lie to them. You just can’t lie to them. So I sat there and I told them they had all of our emails, they had subpoenas, they had the text messages, and you know, Stone was … Stone put himself into that situation. You know, when they were doing this broad investigation with the Mueller people … these are the best lawyers that exist in the US prosecutors. So like, some top level attorneys and FBI people assigned to it. And they found everything, and so now, now I have to go before the Grand Jury.

    And in fact I went before the Grand Jury, and I had to answer “Yes” or “No”, and I had the … I was there with my book Sikunder Burnes, by the way, which everyone was interested in … if you recall?

    CM: I do. I recall the photos very well.

    RC: So now I go before them. Nothing’s happened and months go by and Stone starts dripping out more text messages that were recently found. These were text messages I didn’t have: 2016 and 2017. He selectively cherry-picked some messages, dropped them out there and so they want to know.

    They call me back into DC, I gotta go back to DC and go over hundreds of pages of text messages with Stone. And the next thing you know, the following January 25th, Stone had lied and he had threatened … you know, I didn’t take the threats seriously.

    Like I said, I would have said something to the authorities, you know. But, you know, he did put it out there and he did try to get me to change my testimony. So … you know, you gotta be careful, you can’t do things like that. And so he got arrested, and now you know, he gets arrested and now the onus is on me. I know that I’m gonna be … I looked at those charges, seven … he had seven charges and five of them were related to me.

    I’m in a real box right now. I felt terrible. But eventually, hopefully, the guy pleads out or he gets a pardon or whatever. He didn’t. He didn’t get a pardon. In fact, he hasn’t pardoned any of the people connected to this. And you would think that this guy would have gotten a pardon. I felt terrible, like I said, about having to testify, but if I don’t testify then I’m in contempt and can spend two years in jail on contempt charges.

    Plus, they already had the goods there, they had the goods, they had the text messages, and Stone was … you know, indiscreet, putting those things out there.

    Can you imagine Assange putting something out there like that? Would you do something like that, in the open? You know that everyone can see your Gmail. If you’re a follower of Assange, you don’t put in things in Gmail, because it’s like graffiti on a train: it’s hard to get off, you can’t wash it off, it’s there forever. And so … so he never had a back channel, though. Stone never had a back channel.

    CM: Don’t you think there’s a tremendous irony here, because the Mueller inquiry set out to prove Hillary Clinton’s claims that the Russians had hacked the DNC and had then conspired with the Trump campaign and Wikileaks to take the election from her, and they couldn’t find any of that because it’s nonsense: it’s just not true, so …

    RC: He wasn’t charged.

    CM: So they found …

    RC: He wasn’t charged. I repeat, Julian Assange was not charged here.

    CM: No, precisely. And they end up … they end up doing the opposite: they end up actually trying Roger Stone because he was claiming that that original thesis was true, in fact. You know, he was claiming to be a link between the Trump campaign and Wikileaks, and fact there was no link between the Trump campaign and Wikileaks; so they end up taking someone to court for the opposite reason from what they tried to prove in the first place.

    RC: Obviously, he did not have a back channel. Obviously, what he did was … he disrupted an investigation and threw everybody off. All right? So you step on toes when you do something like that. If he had just been hon… Look, all he had to do, Craig, for himself … all right, very easily … was go before that House Intel Committee, if they ever were even going to call him, and say “Look, I tried. I did not have a back channel. Nothing ever happened.

    You know, I was bluffing the Trump campaign … if he had just said that and just been honest …. He put himself in a bad spot all because of this narcissism or this megalomania, this need for attention. You know, the guy, like I said, is not everyone’s favourite character, and … you know …. Look, there was no back channel to Wikileaks, ever! You’re right, there was no back channel … I mean, that’s my opinion. I don’t see a back channel to Wikileaks.

    And I said that, that I don’t think … you know … if they have something they’re going to show at the rest of this trial. Maybe there was, but I didn’t see it. I don’t … so far, I don’t see anything.

    And why would Assange ever, ever, ever give up … you know, he doesn’t give up the source—A; and, B—he doesn’t tip what he … you know, tip his mitt, as it were. So that is where Stone got himself into trouble, with lying to Congress five times and then they couldn’t … and so the whole time they want me, you know, all … I got three subpoenas and Congressional committees—from the Senate, the House … two from the House judiciary, the Senate Intel—and I rebuffed … I said no to all of them.
    I didn’t want to get involved in that circus, that political circus between the Democrats and Republicans—I didn’t want to have anything to do with that.

    But from the Mueller people, they have the subpoena, and I was compelled, and … like I said there was nothing there that I did; but if people think that, you know, well maybe I was BS’ing Stone, you know, I was just trying to satisfy what … you know, the guy wanted something for the Gary Johnson … all because of this whole Gary Johnson, getting him on my show, and me trying to reciprocate it and I never did try. I’d never

    … He wanted me to get Assange on his show; that was the first request for getting Gary Johnson. I didn’t do that. So, look, this whole thing could have been avoided.

    All he had to do was, when he went in front of the Intel Committee, when he volunteered, to say that he didn’t have a back channel, that it was all BS, you know, that he was just bluffing, that he was trying to get in good with … you know … with the Trump campaign. So now, he’s facing … the biggest charge against Stone right now is guess what?

    Jury tampering, I mean, witness tampering. So the other things carry a couple of years; but the witness tampering carries 20 years, and I’m the witness that he tampered with! Now I told …. They did such a bad job, the defence attorneys yesterday. What he said was “Mr Stone … “. One charge was that he’d steal my dog!

    And I never took that seriously that he was gonna steal my dog.

    I volunteered, I said: “Stone likes dogs. Stone likes dogs, he’s got dogs, he loves dogs, he wasn’t gonna steal my dog”. I was never worried about him taking this dog of mine. All right? It was hyperbole of the highest order, and it was out of frustration, and probably juiced up on Martinis when he said it. I didn’t take it seriously, at all.

    CM: And you were able to say that in the witness stand. That’s what you said, yeah?

    RC: I said it. I literally witnessed … I said in the witness stand. You know, I can’t say that he didn’t try to get me to change my … to get me to take the Fifth Amendment. That was … He was one person that had advice.

    Everyone … I think I even asked you about it! I asked a hundred people what should I do—I had no idea! I’d never been in that situation before! Now what do I do? I knew what the cost was going to be: if I took the Fifth Amendment, people were going to wonder; and if I had not taken the Fifth Amendment, and testified, then Stone would have been charged, and he would have been guilty and possibly do some time in prison. So I was basically saving him then, and … Look, ironically he is now facing prison time.

    CM: Yep. You did ask me. I advised you not to take the Fifth, I said you should go in there and tell, tell the full truth … was my advice.

    RC: That’s right. I did ask you. I may have asked you on my show; I may have asked you by phone—but I remember you were the one of the few people that said “Don’t take the Fifth Amendment!” You were one of them.

    And a few others said the same thing: Ben Weiser said “Do not take the Fifth Amendment!” And Glenn Greenwald told me not to take the Fifth Amendment.
    So there were three people who told me … wise people told me not to take the Fifth Amendment. And lo and behold I did anyway, and all it did was create some problems. But Stone could have taken … that’s the thing, Stone could have taken the Fifth Amendment…. He could have done that and it would’ve been over with….
    And now it’s dragged on, he’s put himself in harm’s way. You know, I did say that I wasn’t worried about this, but they didn’t ask me. The other threats about I’m gonna die … because there was a lot of things he said, but was I worried about that? No, I wasn’t worried that he was going to kill me! You know what I mean.

    CM: The thing I take away from this is that you … plainly you forgive him for his bluster against you, which you never took that seriously in the first place, and I mean, I think it goes to your nature as the very kind and caring person you are, Randy: you’re more concerned now for Roger Stone … you know, you’re worried what’s going to happen to him, about him going down to jail, being in an awful situation. So despite everything, your main worry now is for him.

    RC: I worry about that! I worry about the guy. Look, he’s 67 years old. He’s got a wife, he’s got friends, he’s got kids … you know, I don’t want to be the guy that’s responsible for him doing time in a US prison. US prisons are terrible … you know, that’s why, you know, we’re vying so hard to keep Julian from coming over here, and Lauri Love from coming over here, because of conditions of US prisons. That guy wouldn’t last a minute with a Nixon tattoo on his back, so I feel terrible that he put himself in this situation. Like I said, if his lawyer had asked me—his lawyer closed up, it was like

    “My God, this guy should have asked me some more questions … that I did not feel threatened by Stone personally.” You know what I mean? He made this threat, but I didn’t … I didn’t … I told him I’d never felt threatened by that. The thing is, that he had not emailed, telling me to take the Fifth, to stonewall all of this—he should have never done that! You know what I mean?

    I didn’t ask him for his advice on that. I asked people who were … legal people, people like yourself who know the legal system, what to do—and I got a mixed bag. At the end of the day, I ended up taking the Fifth Amendment. And, like I said, as bad as he’s been to me … I don’t want to see ….

    Look, jail is for people like Hannibal Lecter … people like … people like Rudolf Hess … and people like, you know … that commit the heinous crimes … people that get us into wars. Tony Blair, I’d like to see in prison. Pinochet, I’d like to see in prison … you know, before he died. Those are the kind of people that should be in prison—people that cause bodily harm, torture people—whoever tortured those loyal people in Uzbekistan … those are the people that should be in prison. But I am not … I had a father that did ten years in prison, OK? It ruined the kids … we all became hard-core alcoholics.

    You know, it was long before I was born. So I heard the horror stories of the prison that my father spent ten years in on the … on the … he was a male nurse on the tuberculosis ward. Ninety-nine percent of the people on that ward were black. All right? So he had an Italian … first generation, second generation Italian … that’s there, and you know they’re not good on race. My father was always good. That was the … that was what I took as a takeaway.

    But I always worked on prison reform because of I went through as a kid, listening to my father’s horror stories. So prison is not good for anybody. Now, Stone should do something like get probation or something. I don’t want to see the guy—at 67, 68 years of age—you know, the fact that he’s a broken man now, a broken-down man right now … he spent all this money. Look, I have a grievance against him—he has done some rotten things to me over the years; but, you know, forgiveness is a cardinal virtue, and I subscribe to having … you know, to forgive. I forgive. I forgive … and let it go. You know what I mean?

    CM: Yes.

    RC: The stuff that he did back in the 80s, that’s … he’ll have to deal with his maker on that … with those dictators … so he’ll have to deal with his … I don’t know how bad he is, what he did, I don’t know. But as far as me, I can forgive somebody. I don’t want to have resentment, I don’t want to carry resentment around. And I will be in a very bad spiritual way … a very bad spiritual way if in fact he goes to prison.

    It’s going to do a number on me to see that guy actually go into a maximum security prison, or any kind of prison. It’s not something that I want to see, personally. It’s not up to me … but believe me, it’s a lot of weight on my shoulders right now. And I don’t want to see anybody go to prison.

    It’s just not … it’s not the answer. Putting people in prison is not the answer. There has to be alternatives to incarceration.

    There are so many bad things that go on the world, and we spend a hundred thousand dollars here to put Roger Stone in prison.

    You know, it’s going to be a heavy burden for me to carry for the rest of my life, if he does go. And I, you know … I’m sorry that I’m in this …this … you know, I … right now, Assange is in a prison … and that kills me, every day that he’s in that prison. This bright … as you say, he’s the brightest person you’ve ever met.

    And I say, he’s the second brightest—you’re the brightest person I’ve ever met. But Assange is right behind you. And this brilliant individual is there, suffering. The people that put him through this should be in prison. The people that have been … the people on the CPS that conspired to put him there … and the politicians and the judges that put him there.

    Remember, when Garibaldi liberated San Stefano prison in 1860, you see, the first thing he said to one of the inmates was “Show me the judges!” And that how I feel: show me the judges. Who are … who’s doing this to Julian Assange? Just show me who the judges are! Show me those who are conspiring in the judiciary to destroy this young man, this brilliant young man, this great journalist. Show me who those people are. Those are the ones that should be behind bars.

    CM: Yep. No, you’re absolutely right: there’s much more evil done by the State and those in a position of power in the State than there is by, unfortunately, the actual criminals (as the state sees them). Anyway, Randy, we ….

    RC: You get these people, they’re so … the blacks and Latinos that go through the criminal justice system. It creates a lot of jobs for the bailiffs, for the lawyers, for the bail bondsmen, the jailers … you know, for the prison guards. Everyone’s got a piece of pie. But you need low-level so-called criminals; but the big criminals—the ones that start wars, the guys like Tony Blair and people like Jack Straw—they’re walking the streets.

    CM: Yep. No, I quite agree. Well, we’d better wind it up, Randy. That’s been a long ….

    RC: It was a long conversation … it was a long, a long … the end is in sight … and I’m sorry it was so garrulous there, but …

    CM: No, that was excellent. And it’s very good that you got that off your chest, if you like, and, you’ve got the record set absolutely straight now for people to hear, which is superb.

    RC: It’s the only interview I’m doing. I told you that I needed to get this off. Believe me … I’m getting calls all day long, to be interviewed. I did the one interview. It’s over—I’m not doing another one. So thanks very much for bearing with me … it was like going to a shrink, right now, and I got this off my chest. OK?

    CM: It’s a new career for me. All right. I’ve got to go now, Randy, and get that processed. All right?

    RC: Thank you very much. You know it’s the first time I’ve been interviewed by you. I’ve interviewed you 45 times over the years.

    CM: Yes, it’s quite fun doing it the other way round.

    RC: And give my best to Cameron and to Nadira. OK?

    CM: I will do. Thank you very much. Thank you.

    RC: All right. Thank you. Bye bye.

    {End of interview]

    “If a man does not keep pace with [fall into line with] his companions, perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer. Let him step to the music which he hears, however measured or far away.” - Thoreau

  22. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to Tintin For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (18th November 2019), BMJ (14th December 2019), Cara (18th November 2019), Franny (18th November 2019), mountain_jim (19th November 2019), onawah (18th November 2019), Philippe (19th November 2019), Reinhard (19th November 2019)

  23. Link to Post #232
    Administrator Cara's Avatar
    Join Date
    12th February 2014
    Dubai, United Arab Emirates
    Thanked 7,141 times in 1,330 posts

    Default Re: Julian Assange arrested after Ecuador tears up asylum deal

    From The Daily Maverick, a South African media outlet (usually investigative journalism type pieces):

    Quote The son of Julian Assange’s judge is linked to an anti-data leak company created by the UK intelligence establishment
    4 days ago
    Daily Maverick

    An aerial view of the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) building in Cheltenham, western England. GCHQ is the UK’s major surveillance agency. The anti-data leak company Darktrace was founded by GCHQ officials in 2013. (Photo: GCHQ)

    The son of Julian Assange’s senior judge is linked to an anti-data leak company created by the UK intelligence establishment and staffed by officials recruited from US intelligence agencies behind that country’s prosecution of the WikiLeaks founder.

    The son of Lady Emma Arbuthnot, the Westminster chief magistrate overseeing the extradition proceedings of Julian Assange, is the vice-president and cyber-security adviser of a firm heavily invested in a company founded by GCHQ and MI5 which seeks to stop data leaks, it can be revealed.

    Alexander Arbuthnot’s employer, the private equity firm Vitruvian Partners, has a multimillion-pound investment in Darktrace, a cyber-security company which is also staffed by officials recruited directly from the US National Security Agency (NSA) and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

    These intelligence agencies are behind the US government’s prosecution of Julian Assange for publishing secret documents. Darktrace has also had access to two former UK prime ministers and former US President Barack Obama.

    The revelations raise further concerns about potential conflicts of interests and appearance of bias concerning Lady Arbuthnot and the ties of her family members to the UK and US military and intelligence establishments. Lady Arbuthnot’s husband is Lord James Arbuthnot, a former UK defence minister who has extensive links to the UK military community.

    As far as is known, Lady Arbuthnot has failed to disclose any potential conflicts of interest in her role overseeing Assange’s case. However, UK legal guidance states that “any conflict of interest in a litigious situation must be declared.”

    Her son, Alexander Arbuthnot, a graduate of Britain’s elite school Eton, joined Vitruvian Partners as vice-president in December 2018 and is likely to be managing the firm’s Darktrace account. Vitruvian, which has a portfolio of over £4-billion, made its first investment in Darktrace in April 2018, leading a consortium of firms committing £50-million.

    “Alexander Arbuthnot advises Vitruvian on cyber-security” was the headline in Intelligence Online when he joined, while the article noted that the company had “recently stepped up its investment in cyber-security”. Darktrace appears to be one of two cyber-security companies in Vitruvian’s portfolio.

    Relations were further cemented in 2018 when Alexander Arbuthnot’s colleague Sophie Bower-Straziota, then managing director at Vitruvian, was appointed to the board of Darktrace.

    Darktrace and UK intelligence

    Darktrace, which Alexander Arbuthnot describes as an “AI [artificial intelligence] based cyber-security” company, was established by members of the UK intelligence community in June 2013.

    GCHQ, the UK’s major surveillance agency, approached investor Mike Lynch—regarded as Britain’s most established technology entrepreneur – who then brokered a meeting between GCHQ officers and Cambridge mathematicians who co-founded the company.

    Company material openly mentions “the UK intelligence officials who founded Darktrace”. It states that its team includes “senior members of the UK’s and US’s intelligence agencies including the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), the Security Service (MI5) and the NSA.”

    Another co-founder was Stephen Huxter, a senior figure in MI5’s “cyber defence team” who became Darktrace’s managing director. Soon after the company launched in September 2013, Darktrace announced that former MI5 director-general Sir Jonathan Evans had been appointed to its advisory board. Huxter welcomed Evans’ “unparalleled stature in the field of cyber operations”.

    Huxter then hired 30-year GCHQ veteran Andrew France as chief executive of Darktrace. France, like Huxter, had been involved in dealing with “cyber threats”, rising to the position of deputy director of cyber defence operations at GCHQ, where he was charged with “protecting government data” from cyber threats.

    France is also linked to Alexander Arbuthnot’s father, Lord Arbuthnot, who was until November 2018 a member of the advisory board of Information Risk Management (IRM), a cyber-security consultancy based in Cheltenham, the home of GCHQ. France is listed as one of IRM’s “experts”.

    Darktrace later appointed Dave Palmer, who had worked at MI5 and GCHQ, as its director of technology, while John Richardson OBE, director of security, had a long career in “UK government security and intelligence” working on “cyber defence”.

    Darktrace staff has also included ex-MI6 officials, former senior managers at the UK Ministry of Defence, and veterans of the UK military, including the special forces.

    “We are a mixture of spooks and geeks,” says Nicole Eagan, the chief executive of Darktrace, which now has a thousand employees and 40 offices worldwide. Poppy Gustafsson, another co-founder, has said that her work left her feeling like she was “living in a story by the novelist John le Carré”.

    The ‘insider threat’

    Vitruvian’s investee Darktrace appears to have been established in response to data leaks from Bradley (now Chelsea) Manning to Julian Assange’s WikiLeaks and from NSA whistle-blower Edward Snowden.

    Chelsea Manning, the former US Army intelligence analyst who provided secret documents to WikiLeaks in 2010. (Photo: Shawn Thew / EPA-EFE)

    Darktrace was, in fact, incorporated just four days after the first of the Snowden revelations was published by The Guardian in June 2013. These showed GCHQ to be operating programmes of mass surveillance.

    As Channel 4 News put it when Darktrace launched: “In the wake of the massive data leaks from Edward Snowden and Bradley Manning, Darktrace is targeting corporate and government customers by promising to track down troublesome employees or intruders that are already within the firewall.”

    Another article on Darktrace, this time from Wired in 2018, noted, “After Edward Snowden’s data dump from the NSA and Chelsea Manning’s transfer of military intelligence to WikiLeaks, governments and companies woke up to the dangers of sabotage from within.”

    Manning is currently in jail in the US after refusing to testify in the new grand jury for the ongoing WikiLeaks case. Assange’s conversations with Manning form the basis of the US prosecution and attempts to extradite him from the UK.

    Presiding over the UK legal case is Alexander Arbuthnot’s mother, Lady Arbuthnot, who as a judge has herself previously made rulings on Assange and now oversees the junior judge, Vanessa Baraitser.

    MI5 and GCHQ have been especially concerned about leaks of secret government material since WikiLeaks published thousands of CIA files in its “Vault 7” exposures in March 2017. The files – the largest leak in CIA history – showed how UK agencies held workshops with the CIA to find ways to “hack” into household devices.

    “Darktrace addresses the challenge of insider threat”, the company’s promotional literature states. It adds, the “insider threat must be curbed to prevent unwitting vulnerabilities or data leaks”.

    Darktrace’s flagship product, called the “enterprise immune system”, is described as a “self-learning cyber [artificial intelligence] technology that detects novel attacks and insider threats at an early stage”.

    The company pinpoints the particular problem of whistle-blowers by stating that “Darktrace begins with the premise that a network has already been infiltrated — and that some of the risk might come from a company’s own employees.”

    It adds, “Malicious employees have the advantage of familiarity with the networks and information they manipulate, and their credentials allow them to exfiltrate the most sensitive such information without raising red flags. Moreover, even well-intentioned employees present major security risks”. Darktrace’s technology is specifically designed to deal with this problem.

    US President Barack Obama, right, and British Prime Minister David Cameron, left, hold a joint news conference at the White House, in Washington DC, US, 16 January 2015. Nicole Eagan, the chief executive of Darktrace, accompanied Cameron on this trip to Washington DC and discussed ‘cybersecurity policy’ with President Obama. (Photo: Michael Reynolds / EPA)

    The degree of interaction between the intelligence agencies and their ex-employees at Darktrace is not known. However, Darktrace clearly has connections to the highest levels of the UK and US governments.

    In January 2015, Nicole Eagan accompanied British prime minister David Cameron on an official visit to Washington DC “to discuss cyber-security policy with US President Barack Obama”. It is unclear how the company was able to obtain an audience with the US president barely a year after it launched.

    Eagan noted at the time that “hostile agents develop increasingly stealthy and sophisticated attacks on valued data” and lamented “the damage that these threats can cause to hard earned reputations”. She also noted that “traditional methods of security are no longer enough.”

    Eagan went on to accompany Cameron on another visit, this time to Asia in July 2015. Cameron said Darktrace was “flying the flag” for the UK. She also accompanied Cameron’s successor, Theresa May on a trip to Japan in August 2017. Two of Darktrace’s founders were awarded OBEs earlier this year.

    Arbuthnot, Symantec and WikiLeaks

    Alexander Arbuthnot is linked to another company concerned with countering leaks, and WikiLeaks in particular. During 2010-16 he worked at Symantec, a US company producing cyber-security and anti-data leak products which has contracts with the US government. Arbuthnot eventually became head of global sales at the company.

    In 2010, after Julian Assange and WikiLeaks hit the headlines with their revelations on US war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan, Symantec released a report titled, “Avoiding a repeat of WikiLeaks: What can be done to prevent malicious insiders?”

    The report notes, “Symantec has identified a distinct pattern of malicious insider activity that is easily blocked.” It adds, “In most cases the perpetrators are in a heightened state of emotional distress and very sloppy about their trade craft.” The report makes clear that it regards Chelsea Manning as such a “malicious insider”.

    Alexander Arbuthnot began working for Symantec four months after WikiLeaks started leaking the US State Department cables it had been given by Chelsea Manning.

    Arbuthnot appears to have worked exclusively on issues of cyber-security and data protection since he joined Symantec, where he managed 22 people across the company’s Americas, Europe and Asia sales team. It is likely that in this role, Arbuthnot championed sales of products intended to “avoid a repeat of Wikileaks”, in the words of the Symantec report.

    Symantec has also published a document called “Going ‘all in’ on defending against insider threats” which states, “Government agencies have always been exceedingly concerned about security – but that concern ramped up significantly in the wake of the Edward Snowden and Bradley Manning scandals. Regardless of the threat level, a systematic plan to combat insider threats is a must.”

    WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange shows an issue of The Guardian during a press conference at the Frontline Club in London, Britain, 26 July 2010, to discuss the 75,000 Afghan war documents that the organization made available to The New York Times, The Guardian and Germany’s Der Spiegel. Alexander Arbuthnot began working for cyber security company Symantec in 2010. Symantec has published various materials on how to ‘avoid a repeat of WikiLeaks’.(Photo: EPA / Stringer)

    After Symantec, Arbuthnot went on to co-found Rightly, another company focused on data security, in April 2017. Rightly states that it aims to solve the problem of the public “losing faith in companies to handle their personal data, due to the behaviour of a few key organisations”, without naming those organisations. It adds: “We work closely with… web security firms to ensure that we exceed expectations for data security.”

    Arbuthnot himself states, “We aim to change the world of personal information.”

    Darktrace, CIA and NSA

    Darktrace has particularly focused on breaking into the US market and has recruited former CIA and NSA intelligence officers.

    In November 2013, Mike Lynch, the investor initially approached with the idea of Darktrace, extolled the virtues of the company on a conference platform in London with Alec Ross, the then secretary of state Hillary Clinton’s technology adviser, and Martin Howard, GCHQ’s director of cyber policy. Ross has been personally critical of Julian Assange.

    The conference was organised by the Cheltenham cyber-security consultancy IRM, on whose advisory board Lady Arbuthnot’s husband, Lord Arbuthnot, sat until November 2018.

    The company quickly tapped the US intelligence community for new personnel. In July 2014, Darktrace announced the recruitment of “two senior officials from the US intelligence community”, specifically the NSA.

    One was Jim Penrose, who spent 17 years at the agency as an expert in data security, and served as chief of the Operational Discovery Center, helping to develop new signals intelligence capabilities – the mass surveillance programmes revealed by Edward Snowden.

    The other recruit was Jasper Graham, another NSA veteran who – as technical director – worked with US Cyber Command to develop strategic planning for responding to cyber-attacks.

    US President Donald J Trump speaks at the CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia, US, 21 January 2017. Darktrace has recruited staff directly from the CIA. The Trump administration had made ‘working to take down’ WikiLeaks a priority and initiated the extradition proceedings to bring Julian Assange to the US for prosecution under the Espionage Act. (Photo: Olivier Douliery / Pool)

    Little over a year after Darktrace launched, the company opened its first US office in Washington DC.

    The following year, Darktrace was part of a “select group” chosen by the US government for a trade mission to Tokyo, Seoul and Taipei. In the same month, Darktrace announced another coup: the recruitment of the CIA’s former chief intelligence officer, Alan Wade, to its board of advisors.

    Wade spent 35 years in the CIA – also serving as director of security – before retiring in 2005 and was a recipient of several medals for his service. He now sits on the board of Assyst, a cyber-security company based in Herndon, Virginia, a 20-minute drive from CIA headquarters.

    Another recruit to Darktrace was Justin Fier, its director for cyber intelligence and analytics, who came to the company after “working for US intelligence agencies on counterterrorism”. From 2002-2008 Fier worked for arms manufacturer Lockheed Martin, also in Herndon, Virginia.

    Earlier this year, Darktrace recruited Marcus Fowler, a former Marine and 15-year veteran of the CIA, to be its new “director of strategic threat”. At the CIA, Fowler worked on “developing global cyber operations and technical strategies” and “conducted nearly weekly briefings for senior US officials”, he says.

    It is unclear what relationship, if any, the NSA and CIA still has with its ex-employees at Darktrace.

    The CIA has made clear that it is “working to take down” the WikiLeaks organisation. It was recently revealed that the CIA was given audio and video of Julian Assange’s private meetings in the Ecuadorian embassy by a Spanish security company. These included privileged discussions with Assange’s lawyers who are now representing him in the extradition case overseen by Alexander Arbuthnot’s mother, Lady Arbuthnot.

    Alexander Arbuthnot and Lady Arbuthnot did not respond to requests for comment. DM

    The Daily Maverick will launch Declassified UK – a new investigations and analysis organisation run by the authors of this article – at the end of this month.
    From: https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/arti...mpression=true


    The phrase “nest of vipers” springs to mind.
    *I have loved the stars too dearly to be fearful of the night*

  24. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Cara For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (19th November 2019), BMJ (14th December 2019), Franny (19th November 2019), mountain_jim (19th November 2019), Philippe (19th November 2019), Reinhard (19th November 2019), Tintin (19th November 2019)

  25. Link to Post #233
    UK Moderator/Librarian/Administrator Tintin's Avatar
    Join Date
    3rd June 2017
    Trowbridge/Bath - UK
    Thanked 10,191 times in 1,581 posts

    Default Re: Julian Assange arrested after Ecuador tears up asylum deal

    From Craig Murray's comments section on his blog, comment provided by a jmg, here's a reminder of the schedule over the next few weeks in the run up to the extradition hearing.

    November 17, 2019 at 11:02
    Next Julian’s hearing in front of a judge — with video link — is tomorrow Monday 18:

    > The case management dates were set as follows

    > 18 November 2019 Call-over hearing (administrative hearing necessary to bring a defendant before a judge every 28 days) - I haven't yet seen any update on this anywhere - Tintin

    > 18 December 2019 Deadline for evidence

    > 19 December 2019 Case management [hearing] (to review the progress of the case, including evidence submitted)

    > 7 February 2020 Deadlines for bundle submission by both sides

    > 11 February 2020 Deadline for defence skeleton argument

    > 18 February 2020 Deadline for prosecution skeleton argument

    > 25 February 2020 Extradition hearing begins.

    WikiLeaks — Press Release Regarding Julian Assange’s Case Management Hearing — 21 October 2019

    Note that the New York Times pulled their October 21st case management hearing article mentioned above, but both Associated Press (AP) and Reuters have not retracted this article. (Both those agencies were the sources for the NYT article)

    It is - - the NYT article - - still available to view as published via The Wayback Machine -

    “If a man does not keep pace with [fall into line with] his companions, perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer. Let him step to the music which he hears, however measured or far away.” - Thoreau

  26. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Tintin For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (19th November 2019), BMJ (14th December 2019), Cara (19th November 2019), Franny (19th November 2019), mountain_jim (19th November 2019), Reinhard (19th November 2019)

  27. Link to Post #234
    UK Avalon Founder Bill Ryan's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th February 2010
    Thanked 278,919 times in 20,660 posts

    Default Re: Julian Assange arrested after Ecuador tears up asylum deal

    Well, here's some good news. Surely.

    Reported by the BBC an hour ago:
    Julian Assange: Sweden drops rape investigation

    Prosecutors in Sweden have dropped an investigation into a rape allegation made against Wikileaks co-founder Julian Assange in 2010.

    Assange, who denies the accusation, has avoided extradition to Sweden for seven years after seeking refuge at the Ecuadorean embassy in London in 2012.

    The 48-year-old Australian was evicted in April and sentenced to 50 weeks in jail for breaching his bail conditions.

    He is currently being held at Belmarsh prison in London.
    The Swedish investigation had been shelved in 2017 but was re-opened earlier this year following his eviction from the embassy.

    Separately, the US is seeking Assange's extradition from the UK over his alleged role in the release of classified military and diplomatic material by Wikileaks in 2010.

    What did the prosecutors say?

    Deputy Director of Public Prosecution Eva-Marie Persson took the decision to "discontinue the investigation regarding Julian Assange", the Swedish Prosecution Authority said.

    "The reason for this decision is that the evidence has weakened considerably due to the long period of time that has elapsed since the events in question," it added.

    Ms Persson said: "I would like to emphasise that the injured party has submitted a credible and reliable version of events.

    "Her statements have been coherent, extensive and detailed; however, my overall assessment is that the evidential situation has been weakened to such an extent that that there is no longer any reason to continue the investigation."

    Separately, the prosecutors held a news briefing in the Swedish capital Stockholm, saying that the decision to drop the inquiry had been taken after interviews with seven witnesses in the case.

    What was the Swedish investigation about?

    Assange was accused of rape by a woman and sexual assault by another one following a Wikileaks conference in Stockholm in 2010. He has always denied the allegations, saying the sex was consensual.

    He also faced investigations for molestation and unlawful coercion, but these cases were dropped in 2015 because time had run out.

    What has the reaction been?

    There was no immediate comment from Assange but Wikileaks welcomed the Swedish move to drop the investigation.

    Wikileaks editor-in-chief Kristinn Hrafnsson said: "Let us now focus on the threat Mr Assange has been warning about for years: the belligerent prosecution of the United States and the threat it poses to the First Amendment."

    What charges does Assange face in the US?

    Australian-born Assange faces a charge of conspiracy to commit computer intrusion in the US.

    He is accused of participating in one of the largest ever leaks of government secrets, which could result in a prison term of up to five years.
    In June, the then UK Home Secretary, Sajid Javid, formally approved an extradition request from the US.

  28. The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to Bill Ryan For This Post:

    Ba-ba-Ra (19th November 2019), BMJ (14th December 2019), Cara (19th November 2019), Franny (19th November 2019), mountain_jim (20th November 2019), raregem (19th November 2019), Reinhard (19th November 2019), Tintin (19th November 2019), Yoda (20th November 2019)

  29. Link to Post #235
    United States Avalon Member Arcturian108's Avatar
    Join Date
    9th August 2015
    Blue Ridge Mountains
    Thanked 1,680 times in 270 posts

    Default Re: Julian Assange arrested after Ecuador tears up asylum deal

    I have written to Assange twice at Belmarsh Prison, and recently included a powerful symbol to help him heal. Here is the symbol I sent to him:

    If anyone wishes to send him encouragement, here is his address:

    Julian Assange
    DOB 3 July 1971
    Confinement # A9379AY
    Belmarsh Prison
    Western Way
    Thamesmead, London SE28 0EB
    United Kingdom

  30. The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to Arcturian108 For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (19th November 2019), BMJ (14th December 2019), Cara (20th November 2019), Franny (19th November 2019), Hervé (28th November 2019), Kate (21st November 2019), Kryztian (27th November 2019), mountain_jim (20th November 2019), raregem (19th November 2019), Tintin (20th November 2019)

  31. Link to Post #236
    Croatia Administrator Franny's Avatar
    Join Date
    3rd January 2011
    Island Time
    Thanked 6,173 times in 1,029 posts

    Default Re: Julian Assange arrested after Ecuador tears up asylum deal

    That was kind and thoughtful of you to send him something Arcturian108 I'm sure it helps him to know many out in the world care about him.

    Thanks for the address!
    A million galaxies are a little foam on that shoreless sea. ~ Rumi

  32. The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to Franny For This Post:

    Arcturian108 (19th November 2019), Bill Ryan (19th November 2019), BMJ (14th December 2019), Cara (20th November 2019), Hervé (28th November 2019), Kate (21st November 2019), Kryztian (27th November 2019), mountain_jim (20th November 2019), raregem (19th November 2019), Tintin (20th November 2019)

  33. Link to Post #237
    Administrator Cara's Avatar
    Join Date
    12th February 2014
    Dubai, United Arab Emirates
    Thanked 7,141 times in 1,330 posts

    Default Re: Julian Assange arrested after Ecuador tears up asylum deal

    So was this the plan all along? Leave Assange "in limbo", deprive him of any ability to influence, keep his health marginal to worsening until he dies?

    Quote Mikhail Molchanov ☭
    15m15 minutes ago
    The British establishment is eager to kill #Assange in prison to please their American patrons. The death caused by "poor health" would satisfy everyone. Except all the decent folks on the planet.

    Quote Sputnik
    Verified account@SputnikInt
    OPINION: ‘Symbol of dystopian times’: #Assange’s treatment in Belmarsh and media sets dangerous precedent
    @wikileaks #JulianAssange
    *I have loved the stars too dearly to be fearful of the night*

  34. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Cara For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (27th November 2019), BMJ (14th December 2019), Franny (28th November 2019), Hervé (28th November 2019), Kryztian (27th November 2019), mountain_jim (27th November 2019), Tintin (27th November 2019)

  35. Link to Post #238
    Administrator Cara's Avatar
    Join Date
    12th February 2014
    Dubai, United Arab Emirates
    Thanked 7,141 times in 1,330 posts

    Default Re: Julian Assange arrested after Ecuador tears up asylum deal

    A statue of Julian Assange has been unveiled in Berlin (there is also one of Edward Snowden and a third person I do not know):

    *I have loved the stars too dearly to be fearful of the night*

  36. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Cara For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (28th November 2019), BMJ (14th December 2019), Franny (28th November 2019), Hervé (28th November 2019), meeradas (28th November 2019), Tintin (28th November 2019)

  37. Link to Post #239
    Australia Avalon Member BMJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    4th May 2010
    Thanked 6,319 times in 1,202 posts

    Default Re: Julian Assange arrested after Ecuador tears up asylum deal

    Quotes from Nil Melzer, Craig Murrey on the railroading of Julian Assange and it's impact and the torture at the hands of the penal system, and a petition by 60 doctors to the government to provide immediate medial treatment for Julian.

    Doctors Warn! Political Prisoner Assange May Die, Needs Immediate Care, Signs of Torture

    Sarah Westall
    According to eye witness accounts and 60 medical doctors from around the world, Julian Assange needs immediate medical attention or he will die in prison.

    Torture experts claim Assange shows signs of torture, including drugs, isolation, and various forms psychological abuse.

    The treatment of Julian Assange points to a more disturbing trend of extreme persecution of whistleblowers and journalists.
    In hoc signo vinces / In this sign thou shalt conquer

  38. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to BMJ For This Post:

    Cara (2nd December 2019), Franny (4th December 2019), Hervé (1st December 2019), Philippe (1st December 2019), Tintin (4th December 2019)

  39. Link to Post #240
    UK Moderator/Librarian/Administrator Tintin's Avatar
    Join Date
    3rd June 2017
    Trowbridge/Bath - UK
    Thanked 10,191 times in 1,581 posts

    Default Re: Julian Assange arrested after Ecuador tears up asylum deal

    This is what greets visitors to Belmarsh Prison in south London.

    From Craig Murray's blog and extracted from John Pilger's speech given at #FreeTheTruth, also in London, recently:

    "I joined a queue of sad, anxious people, mostly poor women and children, and grandmothers. At the first desk, I was fingerprinted, if that is still the word for biometric testing.

    “Both hands, press down!” I was told. A file on me appeared on the screen.

    I could now cross to the main gate, which is set in the walls of the prison. The last time I was at Belmarsh to see Julian, it was raining hard. My umbrella wasn’t allowed beyond the visitors centre. I had the choice of getting drenched, or running like hell. Grandmothers have the same choice.

    At the second desk, an official behind the wire, said, “What’s that?”

    “My watch,” I replied guiltily.

    “Take it back,” she said.

    So I ran back through the rain, returning just in time to be biometrically tested again. This was followed by a full body scan and a full body search. Soles of feet; mouth open.

    At each stop, our silent, obedient group shuffled into what is known as a sealed space, squeezed behind a yellow line. Pity the claustrophobic; one woman squeezed her eyes shut.

    We were then ordered into another holding area, again with iron doors shutting loudly in front of us and behind us.

    “Stand behind the yellow line!” said a disembodied voice.

    Another electronic door slid partly open; we hesitated wisely. It shuddered and shut and opened again. Another holding area, another desk, another chorus of, “Show your finger!”

    Then we were in a long room with squares on the floor where we were told to stand, one at a time. Two men with sniffer dogs arrived and worked us, front and back.

    The dogs sniffed our arses and slobbered on my hand. Then more doors opened, with a new order to “hold out your wrist!”

    A laser branding was our ticket into a large room, where the prisoners sat waiting in silence, opposite empty chairs. On the far side of the room was Julian, wearing a yellow arm band over his prison clothes.

    As a remand prisoner he is entitled to wear his own clothes, but when the thugs dragged him out of the Ecuadorean embassy last April, they prevented him bringing a small bag of belongings. His clothes would follow, they said, but like his reading glasses, they were mysteriously lost.

    For 22 hours a day, Julian is confined in “healthcare”. It’s not really a prison hospital, but a place where he can be isolated, medicated and spied on. They spy on him every 30 minutes: eyes through the door. They would call this “suicide watch”.

    In the adjoining cells are convicted murderers, and further along is a mentally ill man who screams through the night. “This is my One Flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest,” he said.

    When we greet each other, I can feel his ribs. His arm has no muscle. He has lost perhaps 10 to 15 kilos since April. When I first saw him here in May, what was most shocking was how much older he looked.

    We chat with his hand over his mouth so as not to be overheard. There are cameras above us. In the Ecuadorean embassy, we used to chat by writing notes to each other and shielding them from the cameras above us. Wherever Big Brother is, he is clearly frightened.

    On the walls are happy-clappy slogans exhorting the prisoners to “keep on keeping on” and “be happy, be hopeful and laugh often”.

    The only exercise he has is on a small bitumen patch, overlooked by high walls with more happy-clappy advice to enjoy ‘the blades of grass beneath your feet’. There is no grass.

    He is still denied a laptop and software with which to prepare his case against extradition. He still cannot call his American lawyer, or his family in Australia.

    The incessant pettiness of Belmarsh sticks to you like sweat."


    Both Craig and John made impassioned speeches at that event and they can be listened to and watched, below:

    John Pilger

    Craig Murray

    “If a man does not keep pace with [fall into line with] his companions, perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer. Let him step to the music which he hears, however measured or far away.” - Thoreau

  40. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Tintin For This Post:

    BMJ (14th December 2019), Cara (4th December 2019), Franny (4th December 2019), Philippe (4th December 2019)

+ Reply to Thread
Page 12 of 13 FirstFirst 1 2 12 13 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts