Current Wikileaks and Assange News & Releases [Archive] - The Project Avalon Community Forum

Hervé

18th January 2018, 21:00

Julian Assange keeps warning of AI censorship, and it's time we started listening (https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/assange-keeps-warning-of-ai-censorship-and-its-time-we-started-listening-e05d371ef120)

Caitlin Johnstone Medium (https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/assange-keeps-warning-of-ai-censorship-and-its-time-we-started-listening-e05d371ef120)
Wed, 17 Jan 2018 17:43 UTC

https://www.sott.net/image/s22/445424/large/1_w9BdOCbW8VGgR8zSxGSP8A.png (https://www.sott.net/image/s22/445424/full/1_w9BdOCbW8VGgR8zSxGSP8A.png)

Throughout the near entirety of human history, a population's understanding of what's going on in the world has been controlled by those in power. The men in charge controlled what the people were told about rival populations, the history of their tribe and its leadership, etc. When the written word was invented, men in charge dictated what books were permitted to be written and circulated, what ideas were allowed, what narratives the public would be granted access to.

This continued straight on into modern times. Where power is not overtly totalitarian, wealthy elites have bought up all media, first in print, then radio, then television, and used it to advance narratives that are favorable to their interests. Not until humanity gained widespread access to the internet has our species had the ability to freely and easily share ideas and information on a large scale without regulation by the iron-fisted grip of power. This newfound ability arguably had a direct impact on the election for the most powerful elected office in the most powerful government in the world in 2016, as a leak publishing outlet combined with alternative and social media enabled ordinary Americans to tell one another their own stories about what they thought was going on in their country.

This newly democratized narrative-generating power of the masses gave those in power an immense fright, and they've been working to restore the old order of power controlling information ever since. And the editor-in-chief of the aforementioned leak publishing outlet, WikiLeaks, has been repeatedly trying to warn us about this coming development.

In a statement (https://twitter.com/JulianAssange/status/953437902335283201) that was recently read (http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/julian-assange-says-google-facebook-have-become-existential-threat-humanity-1655515) during the "Organising Resistance to Internet Censorship" webinar, sponsored by the World Socialist Web Site, Assange warned of how "digital super states" like Facebook and Google have been working to "re-establish discourse control", giving authority over how ideas and information are shared back to those in power.

https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/841283762914656256/2AyBiX8E_bigger.jpg Julian Assange (https://twitter.com/JulianAssange)⌛‏ @JulianAssange (https://twitter.com/JulianAssange)

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DTtKh84X4AEkC0j.jpg
5:24 PM - 16 Jan 2018
521 replies 5,859 retweets 9,350 likesAssange went on to say that the manipulative attempts of world power structures to regain control of discourse in the information age has been "operating at a scale, speed, and increasingly at a subtlety, that appears likely to eclipse human counter-measures."

What this means is that using increasingly more advanced forms of artificial intelligence, power structures are becoming more and more capable of controlling the ideas and information that people are able to access and share with one another, hide information which goes against the interests of those power structures and elevate narratives which support those interests, all of course while maintaining the illusion of freedom and lively debate.

This is not the first time that Assange has cautioned about these developments. In an appearance (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQRZvnGp1Gs) via video link at musician and activist M.I.A.'s Meltdown Festival last June, the WikiLeaks editor-in-chief expounded in far more detail about his thoughts on the potential for artificial intelligence to be used for controlling online information and discourse in a way human intelligence can't hope to keep up with.

Pointing out how AI can already outmaneuver even the greatest chess players in the world, he describes how programs which can operate with exponentially more tactical intelligence than the human intellect can manipulate the field of available information so effectively and subtly that people won't even know they are being manipulated. People will be living in a world that they think they understand and know about, but they'll unknowingly be viewing only establishment-approved information.

cQRZvnGp1Gs

To be clear, this is already happening. Due to a recent shift in Google's "evaluation methods", traffic to left-leaning and anti-establishment websites has plummeted (https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/07/27/goog-j27.html), with sites like WikiLeaks, Alternet, Counterpunch, Global Research, Consortium News, Truthout, and WSWS losing up to 70 percent of the views they were getting prior to the changes. Powerful billionaire oligarchs Pierre Omidyar and George Soros are openly financing (http://an%20automated%20fact-checking%20system/) the development of "an automated fact-checking system" (AI) to hide "fake news" from the public.

Whenever they are accused of censoring anti-establishment narratives, these "digital super states" have been consistently denying participating in censorship themselves and instead blaming the algorithm (https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/10/26/cowardly-new-world-alternative-media-under-attack-by-algorithms/) for the information's disappearance from public view. But what does that mean, exactly?

It means "It wasn't me censoring you! It was the AI!" Which is the exact threat that Assange is pointing to here.

To make matters even worse, there's no way to know the exact extent to which this is going on, because we know that we can absolutely count on the digital super states in question to lie about it. In the lead-up to the 2016 election, Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey was asked point-blank (https://twitter.com/tregp/status/756710968961462272) if Twitter was obstructing the #DNCLeaks from trending, a hashtag people were using to build awareness of the DNC emails which had just been published by WikiLeaks, and Dorsey flatly denied it (https://twitter.com/jack/status/756920332569587712). More than a year later, we learned (https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/twitters-general-counsel-brags-about-hiding-tweets-with-dncleak-and-podestaemails-hashtags/) from a prepared testimony before the Senate Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism by Twitter's acting general counsel Sean J. Edgett that this was completely false and Twitter had indeed been doing exactly that to protect the interests of US political structures by sheltering the public from information allegedly gathered by Russian hackers.

"With respect to #DNCLeak, approximately 23,000 users posted around 140,000 unique Tweets with that hashtag in the relevant period," Edgett said. "Of those Tweets, roughly 2% were from Russian-linked accounts. As noted above, our automated systems at the time detected, labeled, and hid just under half (48%) of all the original Tweets with #DNCLeak."

So this is happening already. There's no way to know exactly to what extent at this point because these powerful corporations are hiding behind so much dishonesty and opacity, but it is happening without question.

Imagine going back to a world like the Middle Ages where you only knew the things your king wanted you to know, except you could still watch innocuous kitten videos on Youtube. That appears to be where we may be headed, and if that happens the possibility of any populist movement arising to hold power to account may be effectively locked out from the realm of possibility forever.

To claim that these powerful new media corporations are just private companies practicing their freedom to determine what happens on their property is to bury your head in the sand and ignore the extent to which these digital super states are already inextricably interwoven with existing power structures. In a corporatist system of government, which America unquestionably has, corporate censorship is government censorship, of an even more pernicious strain than if Jeff Sessions were touring the country burning books. The more advanced artificial intelligence becomes, the more adept these power structures will become at manipulating us. Time to start paying very close attention to this.

uzn

18th February 2018, 11:08

Julian Assange via Pastebin:

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: WikiLeaks / Sunshine Press
Date: Sat, Dec 1, 2017
Subject: WikiLeaks/Assange response to strange FPF "ultimatum"
To: [Freedom of Press Foundation board]

It is ironic that the organization John Perry Barlow and I conceived
in 2011 to protect WikiLeaks and its donors from politically induced
financial censorship is now apparently considering doing just that.

Shockingly, I received an email (via my lawyer Jennifer Robinson)
from the Freedom of the Press Foundation giving WikiLeaks a previously
undiscussed unilateral 10-day ultimatum.

The pressure against WikiLeaks, its staff and its allies has increased
as a result of our CIA and Democratic party publications. The
financial censorship of WikiLeaks is ongoing in various ways as is
our litigation in response.

WikiLeaks is in the middle of publishing the largest CIA leaks in
history (Vault7 and Vault8). December 7 marks the eighth year of
my arbitrary detention which continues in violation of two UN
rulings. The U.S. grand jury against WikiLeaks has been expanded
to include our CIA publications. Randy Credico, a free speech
activist, comedian, and political commentator has just been subpoenaed
by the House Intelligence Committee to appear on December 15. He
will likely go to jail for refusing to testify in the witch hunt
against WikiLeaks. Trump's CIA chief Mike Pompeo takes every
opportunity he can to attack WikiLeaks, vows to "take down" WikiLeaks
and states that WikiLeaks has no 1st Amendment protections.

US donors are the majority of our donor base. FPF's anonymizing
structure and tax-deductibility have been very important in reassuring
donors that it is safe for them to support WikiLeaks. We don't
advertise the banking blockade because we found that doing so creates
anxiety in donors as to the legality of donating to WikiLeaks.

Our litigation in the US, and at the EU Commission have reached
impasses. The case in Iceland, which follows a contractual chain
to VISA International in California has proceeded to the damages
phase at the Icelandic Supreme Court. WikiLeaks does not engage
with any of the financial services companies directly due to blockades
and the elevated risk of blockades, of which the FPF ultimatum is
somehow a bizarre reflection. Wau Holland is not WikiLeaks. It
performs a similar proxy role as FPF for Europe.

The FPF originated in a meeting between John Perry Barlow and me
at the Frontline Club in London in 2011 and subsequent phone calls.
This is not to diminish extraordinary work of numerous others who
subsequently became involved. The financial blockade was one of
several fronts we faced, along with a US grand jury, a Pentagon
"war room" (their term, not mine), and an intense propaganda offensive
by the US military, the political class and virtually all establishment
media.

Barlow and I decided it was critical to set up a First Amendment
organization in the US to improve WikiLeaks prospects for survival
since the majority of its donors are in the United States.

Free speech organizations are typically captured because they rely
on foundations and indirect government grants to survive. Some are
cold war relics, others are tools of current US foreign policy or
have become service organizations to the establishment press. None
were brave or resilient enough to take press freedoms seriously.

John, who had co-founded EFF in 1990, brought them in. On their
legal advice, WikiLeaks would conceal its role in initiating FPF
to discourage financial intermediaries from extending their blockade
to FPF and to strengthen its litigation opportunities. But in
reality, WikiLeaks and its lawyers (including Michael Ratner and
Jennifer Robinson) were directly involved in not only the idea to
create FPF, but in its establishment. Its mission statement derives
from my draft and I and secured most of FPF's seed funding. I
nominated Glenn Greenwald, Daniel Ellsberg, John Cusack, Laura
Poitras to the board to join John Perry Barlow.

In an email from August 23rd, 2013, Timm refers to FPF's mission
statement as "the mission statement WikiLeaks wrote when we first
started FPF last year".

The WikiLeaks and EFF sides synced with a conference call between
me, JPB, Rainey, Timm, Marcia Hoffman, Michael Ratner, Shane Kadidal,
Baher Azmy, Renata Avila, Cindy Kohn and Jennifer Robinson in early
March 2012. By mid April, Timm (who was then at EFF and whose Twitter
account was "@WikiLeaksLegal") informed us that Rainey was trying
to find a web developer, and that he was working on incorporation
and finalising the board: "I am waiting to hear back from Barlow
and Michael Ratner about a couple other possible board members. So
I am going to finalize the board, and then when we are officially
incorporated and have the website, we can all schedule a call again
to talk about roll out." By 23 May, we were informed that a developer
had been newly hired and "Barlow is working on raising our start-up
costs". By August 1, 2012, the web developer had created 80% of the
website, and papers had been submitted for incorporation. Timm wrote
"a sincere apology for not getting this all up sooner, as we wanted.
Our day jobs seem to have gotten in the way! But we are super excited
to finally launch." Start-up costs were estimated at USD 15,000.

We secured two-thirds of the initial USD 15,000 seed funding which
was sent from the Bertha Foundation.

But beyond the process itself, it is important to recall why FPF
was set up.

John and I felt strongly that donating to WikiLeaks was an act of
free speech and free association. The fundamental motivation of the
FPF was not only to protect WikiLeaks' directly but also to protect
its US readers' speech and associational rights in their act of
donating to WikiLeaks. FPF was also designed to litigate on behalf
of WikiLeaks and its donors. Its name was chosen for the impression
that it would convey on a docket.

The structure of FPF is the way it is because it was customized to
counter political and legal pressure against WikiLeaks, its donors,
and upstream financial intermediaries. FPF was set up to anonymize
WikiLeaks donors by also collecting for other organizations so that
financial records could not be used to determine which organization
received funds from which donor.

The FPF faces criticism for receiving donations on our behalf, but
that is its function. If it bows to political pressure it becomes
part of the problem it was designed to solve and yet another spurious
free speech organization--of which there are plenty. WikiLeaks
cannot be 'cycled off' as political pressure increases or as FPF
seeks to embrace establishment foundations such Ford, whose historical
relationship with the CIA is well documented. To do so is a betrayal
of the FPF's founding purpose.

Even before FPF's letter, I had sought and obtained legal advice
from my DC-based defense attorney, Barry Pollack, in relation to
the possibility of setting up a 501c3 that could receive WikiLeaks
contributions in the US. I was not confident that all FPF board
members would able to stand the political pressure over our
publications. WikiLeaks will never forego asserting its rights,
even in the face of such potential conflicts. Barry advised against
setting up a 501c3 in the United States as it would increase the
DoJ's ability to assert jurisdiction and hence make it easier to
prosecute our staff.

Through a Daily Beast article by "Kevin Poulsen", who interviewed
former FPF board member Xeni Jardin, I learned that the board's
weakening resolve is due to a Micah Lee initiative asking his fellow
board members to "cut ties" with WikiLeaks.

Poulsen is a key actor in the imprisonment of Chelsea Manning, and
a confidant of Adrian Lamo. Poulsen and Lee have both been developers
of SecureDrop. Poulsen manipulated the alleged Manning-Assange chat
logs in an attempt to frame WikiLeaks (see for example Glenn
Greenwald's article "The worsening journalistic disgrace at Wired"
for more background. As the article puts it: "At the heart of the
WikiLeaks/Manning saga lies the efforts of a self-proclaimed
journalist [Poulsen] to conceal the truth"). This is the person
Jardin used to publicize the move to cut WikiLeaks off from its
donor base on Lee's initiative.

When I learned that Jardin had been put on the board in December
2012, I sent a message to Timm: "I've no recollection of ever meeting
Xeni and have definitely never worked with her yet she goes around
saying [I] have.. penning dozens of snide, unhelpful articles in
BoingBoing about us. We've seen her as an opponent for a long time
based on those articles. Perhaps she's shifted her politics given
the new opportunity... I don't know, but her politics are not
anti-censorship. Not anti-war. Not anti-empire. I don't think she
has any politics. She's an exhibitionist and a networker--what's
to stop her swapping sides when she gets a better offer? Be careful."

Although I have never met or communicated with Lee and know little
of him. But research shows that starting in early 2016 he has engaged
in an online vilification campaign against WikiLeaks (and me). Some
examples:

"..Julian [is] a rapist, liar, & ally to fascists";
"I wonder, now that Obama has commuted @xychelsea's sentence, will
Julian Assange turn himself in for US extradition";
"Julian Assange is not a co-founder of @freedomofPress. This is
another lie. I know, I'm a co-founder";
"We can't trust them [WikiLeaks]";
"Assange's fall to bigotry";
"WikiLeaks/Julian also champion far-right conspiracy theories";
"Assange makes up a narcissistic, self-serving, offensive conspiracy
theiry (sic) to make @xychelsea's story more about him";
"This is just Julian defending a Nazi" in response to my tweet
["US 'liberals' today celebrate the censorship of right-wing UK
provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos over teen sex quote."]

Like Jardin, this is not a person who takes his legal and ethical
responsibilities as an FPF board member or director seriously. FPF's
founding purpose was to defend WikiLeaks and its donors from
persecution not to contribute to it.

The Lee initiative to cut WikiLeaks off from its US donors is a sad
business.

Should FPF decide to "cut off" WikiLeaks, the timing, transfer, and
auditing of funds, the notification sent to all past and current
WikiLeaks donors, and how to deal with monthly donors, should be
agreed between FPF and WL.

Julian Assange

https://pastebin.com/raw/qnB5gMam

Michelle Marie

26th June 2018, 05:09

How Comey Intervened to Kill Wikileaks Immunity Deal

6/25/2018
The Hill

http://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/394036-How-Comey-intervened-to-kill-Wikileaks-immunity-deal

Comey
Sen. Mark Warner
DOJ Bruce Ohr

Julian Assange

Atty. Adam Waldman
David Laufman, prosecutor
****************

Email outline of the deal...
http://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/394049-coming-up-tuesdays-rising-how-the-doj-almost-offered-an-immunity-deal-to-julian

MM

Hervé

8th August 2018, 13:45

Ecuador's President Names Condition For Assange to Leave London Embassy (https://sputniknews.com/latam/201808081067036841-assange-embassy-president-condition/)

Sputnik Latin America (https://sputniknews.com/latam/)
10:52 08.08.2018
(updated 10:54 08.08.2018)

https://cdn3.img.sputniknews.com/images/106551/76/1065517639.jpg
© AP Photo / Matt Dunham

More than six years after Julian Assange moved into the confines of the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, the WikiLeaks founder may finally end his self-imposed isolation.

Julian Assange is free to leave the Ecuadorian Embassy in London any time, but only if Britain guarantees his safety, Ecuador’s President Lenin Moreno has said.

According to Moreno, Ecuadorian authorities are currently in talks with Assange’s lawyers to work out an agreement that would ensure the security of the WikiLeaks’ founder “‘in line with the norms of international law.”

“If we come to an agreement, we’ll be happy to ask Mr. Assange to leave the embassy and surrender himself to legal investigation,” Lenin Moreno said in an interview with the national TV channel NTN24.

Late last month Moreno said that Julian Assange should leave the premises of the Ecuadorian embassy in London.

Shortly afterwards, media reports said that the Australian journalist planned to walk out of the Ecuadorian mission due to health problems related to his long-time isolation.

Julian Assange, who has been holed up in the Knightsbridge residence since 2012, fears he will be extradited to the United States to face prosecution over WikiLeaks’ publication of leaked US military and diplomatic documents.

Sweden dropped its investigation into Assange over allegations of sexual offenses in May 2017.

Mari

8th August 2018, 19:18

I feel Britain won't 'guarantee' his safety at all. They'll get him. Assange has been made an example of, right from the start, in order to deter anyone else with a penchant for Whistleblowing. Like Ed Snowden.
I just hate it when ordinary people, with no axe to grind, criticise JA & call for his 'arrest'. Bloody idiots. Do they not realise that they are policing the very 'police state' that they would otherwise complain & whinge about & actually contribute to the mess we're in?
No, too busy 'virtue signalling'. Grrrrr!

Hervé

11th October 2018, 15:52

'Free speech': Trump campaign defends WikiLeaks' release of leaked DNC emails (https://sputniknews.com/us/201810111068785796-trump-campaign-defends-wikileaks-hacked-emails/)

Sputnik (https://sputniknews.com/us/201810111068785796-trump-campaign-defends-wikileaks-hacked-emails/)
Thu, 11 Oct 2018 15:25 UTC

https://www.sott.net/image/s24/492088/large/1054875803.jpg (https://www.sott.net/image/s24/492088/full/1054875803.jpg)
© CC BY 2.0 / Wikileaks Mobile Information Collection Unit / Wikileaks Truck

A lawsuit filed in September by two donors and an ex-employee from the Democratic Party alleged that President Donald Trump's team had purportedly conspired with Russia to release emails ostensibly stolen from the servers of the Democratic National Committee.

In a motion (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4999941-23-Campaign-MTD-Brief.html) to dismiss a new lawsuit, the Trump campaign, represented by lawyers from the firm Jones Day, turned to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act to state that WikiLeaks couldn't be held "liable" for publishing Democratic National Committee (DNC) emails because the whistleblowing website served as an "intermediary" for other parties' information.

"A website that provides a forum where 'third parties can post information' is not liable for the third party's posted information. Since WikiLeaks provided a forum for a third party (the unnamed "Russian actors") to publish content developed by that third party (the hacked emails), it cannot be held liable for the publication," the motion read.

Presenting the 32-page legal filing, the lawyers also maintained that any alleged agreement between the website and the Trump campaign to leak those emails couldn't be considered a "conspiracy" due to the fact that WikiLeaks' posting of the messages was not a crime, while a "conspiracy is an agreement to commit an unlawful act," the lawyers claimed.

They further added that the campaign couldn't be held legally responsible for the publication of the DNC emails on WikiLeaks.

The lawyers appealed to the First Amendment, which protects the right to "disclose information - even stolen information - so long as (1) the speaker did not participate in the theft and (2) the information deals with matters of public concern."
"At a minimum, privacy cannot justify suppressing true speech during a political campaign. The First Amendment 'has its fullest and most urgent application to speech uttered during a campaign for political office'. It leaves voters 'free to obtain information from diverse sources in order to determine how to cast their votes,'" the filing read.
The motion was submitted in response to a civil lawsuit brought against the Trump campaign by one ex-employee from the Democratic Party and two donors, who alleged that the leaked emails had revealed "identifying information."

While the Trump campaign's lawyers leapt to the defense of the website in their brief, the current administration has previously blasted WikiLeaks for releasing classified documents, with then-CIA director Mike Pompeo - now the secretary of state - dismissing the platform as a "hostile non-state intelligence service" in 2017.

In July 2018, Special Counsel Robert Mueller, who is leading the investigation into the alleged Russian meddling in the 2016 election, announced indictments against 12 Russian nationals, claiming that they were posing as Guccifer 2.0, the entity that took credit for the hack of the DNC.

According to the indictment, they used a website run by an organization, "that had previously posted documents stolen from US persons, entities, and the US government," in an apparent allusion to WikiLeaks.

WikiLeaks, which was accused by Trump's Democratic rival in the election, Hillary Clinton, of acting as a "fully owned subsidiary of Russian intelligence" after publishing emails leaked from the DNC servers during the campaign, has denied any efforts to meddle in the 2016 election in the United States, as well as conspiring with Russia.

Both Washington and Moscow have repeatedly dismissed claims of collusion to influence the outcome of the vote.

Hervé

19th October 2018, 18:33

Wikileaks founder Assange sues Ecuador for 'violating fundamental rights & freedoms' over new set of 'censure' rules (https://www.rt.com/news/441770-assange-sues-ecuador-rights/)

RT (https://www.rt.com/news/441770-assange-sues-ecuador-rights/)
Fri, 19 Oct 2018 17:24 UTC

https://www.sott.net/image/s24/493383/large/assange.jpg (https://www.sott.net/image/s24/493383/full/assange.jpg)
Julian Assange is pictured at the Ecuadorian embassy in London, UK. © Reuters / Peter Nicholls

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange is suing Ecuador, accusing it of violating his "fundamental rights and freedoms." It comes after the nation issued a new set of rules for Assange, who has lived in its London embassy for years.

The whistleblowing website says Assange's access to the outside world has been "summarily cut off," and that Quito has threatened to remove the protection granted to him since being given political asylum.

It also claims that Ecuador's government has refused to allow Assange to be visited by Human Rights Watch general counsel Dinah PoKempner and has blocked several meetings between him and his lawyers.

In a statement (http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sqmmgu), Wikileaks questioned the legality of the "Special Protocol" laid out to Assange by Ecuador, which was reported (https://www.rt.com/news/441349-assange-ecuador-restrictions-list/) earlier this week and "makes Assange's political asylum contingent on censoring his freedom of opinion, speech, and association."

It goes on to state that the protocol requires journalists, lawyers, and anyone else seeking to see Assange to "disclose private or political details such as their social media usernames, the serial numbers and IMEI codes of their phones and tablets with Ecuador--which the Protocol says the government may 'share with other agencies'."

The protocol, according to Wikileaks, also states that the Ecuadorian Embassy can seize the property of Assange and his visitors and hand it over to British authorities without a warrant.

The case, which is being launched in Ecuador by Wikileaks lawyer Baltasar Garzon, is expected to be heard in a domestic court next week.

https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/512138307870785536/Fe00yVS2_bigger.png WikiLeaks‏Verified account @wikileaks (https://twitter.com/wikileaks)

WikiLeaks' lawyer Judge Baltasar Garzón arrives in Ecuador to file case today over @JulianAssange (https://twitter.com/JulianAssange)'s isolation and gagging. Hearing next week. Background: https://justice4assange.com (https://t.co/2jOgvSu5bG)

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dp4O8ynXcAAY97b.jpg

7:45 AM - 19 Oct 2018
30 replies 281 retweets 432 likes Ecuador cut off Assange's communications in March, after he discussed topics on social media which could have allegedly damaged the country's diplomatic relations. Those topics included tensions between London and Moscow and Catalonian separatism.

His internet and mobile phone access were partially restored on Sunday, according to both Wikileaks and Assange's legal adviser Greg Barns.

But along with the partial restoration of internet came the protocol, in a nine-page memo which also included telling him that he must refrain from making political statements and clean the bathroom in the embassy.

It also threatened to confiscate Assange's cat if he didn't take better care of its "well-being, food, and hygiene."

Assange has been living in the Ecuadorian embassy in London since June 2012 in an effort to avoid being extradited to the US over the publication of thousands of classified US diplomatic cables. He fled to the embassy after skipping bail in the UK.

Assange previously faced charges of sexual assault in Sweden, though those were later dropped. He always insisted he was willing to go to Sweden to answer the charges, but refused to do so - fearing that Sweden would extradite him to the US.

Related:
Ecuador gets UN praise for 'freedom of expression' as Assange remains gagged in embassy limbo (https://www.sott.net/article/398460-Ecuador-gets-UN-praise-for-freedom-of-expression-as-Assange-remains-gagged-in-embassy-limbo)

Innocent Warrior

31st October 2018, 14:41

Pressenza - Julian Assange warns that Ecuador is moving to end his political asylum (30th Oct.)

By Mike Head

Before being abruptly cut off by an Ecuadorian government lawyer during a court hearing on Monday, WikiLeaks founder and publisher Julian Assange accused that government of seeking to end his asylum in its London embassy and hand him over to the United States.

Assange spoke from the tiny embassy via teleconference to a hearing in Quito of a lawsuit in which he is challenging a draconian protocol that President Lenín Moreno’s government has sought to impose on him.

Assange said the new rules were a sign Ecuador was trying to push him out, and that Moreno had already decided to end his asylum but had not yet officially given the order. Before Assange could say any more, Ecuador’s top government lawyer, Inigo Salvador, interrupted him and warned him not to make political statements during the proceedings.

It was the first time the WikiLeaks publisher has been able to speak to the world since March, when Moreno’s government cut off all his communications after he criticised the detention of Catalan politicians.

For more than seven months, Assange has been subjected to a regime of confinement worse than that inflicted on convicted criminals in maximum-security prisons, preventing him from communicating even with his own children and parents.

In line with this silencing of Assange, court officials told journalists they could not record any of the statements made during the hearing. Nevertheless, reports of Assange’s warning of the move against him were broadcast internationally. This is an indication of the widespread global support for the courageous journalist and for WikiLeaks, which continues to publish leaks exposing the crimes of the US and other governments, along with the corporate giants that work closely with them.

Assange launched the legal challenge this month, accusing the Moreno government of violating his “fundamental rights and freedoms” with its new stipulations. The protocol forbids him from engaging in activities that “could be considered political or interfering with the internal affairs of other states” and declares that his asylum will be “terminated” unless he “scrupulously” adheres to all its terms.

Ecuadorian judge Karina Martinez swiftly rejected the lawsuit, saying the country’s foreign ministry was in charge of determining Assange’s living conditions. Assange’s legal team immediately appealed the ruling. “The Ecuadorian state has an international responsibility to protect Assange,” attorney Carlos Poveda said.

Significantly, Ecuadorian Foreign Minister Jose Valencia, who has supervised the preparation of the new protocol, declined to comment on Assange’s assertion that Ecuador sought to hand him over to the United States.

The protocol—contemptuously depicted by many corporate media outlets as being about trivial issues such as Assange’s cat and personal hygiene—is a clear violation of the right to political asylum. It not only prohibits the WikiLeaks founder from making any political comments deemed detrimental to Ecuador or its “good relations” with “any other state.” It also makes clear that he and his communications, as well as anyone who visits him, will be subjected to surveillance, with the results shared with US and British spy agencies.

The protocol further stipulates that Assange undergo a medical examination every three months, at his own expense, and states that doctors can recommend he be evacuated from the embassy if they conclude that he requires urgent treatment. Exploiting Assange’s deteriorating health after more than six years of confinement in a tiny space, these requirements are obviously designed to force him to quit the embassy or provide a pretext to evict him.

The WikiLeaks founder was forced to seek refuge in the embassy in 2012 after trumped-up Swedish government allegations of sexual misconduct were brought forward as a pretext for his imprisonment in Britain. This would have been followed by extradition to the US to face concocted espionage charges that could see him jailed for life or even executed.

Assange, an Australian citizen, was compelled to turn to Ecuador because the Labor Party-led government in Australia fully lined up with the Obama administration and denied Assange his right to assistance and protection against persecution—a stand continued to this day by the present Liberal-National government.

The groundless Swedish allegations—no charges were ever laid—were finally dropped last year, but the British courts refused to lift their charges that Assange had skipped bail on a European arrest warrant. The British government has repeatedly refused to guarantee that Assange will not be extradited to the US.

The pressure from Washington for Assange’s removal from the embassy has increased in recent weeks. In a departure from Ecuador’s previous practice of maintaining dialogue with British authorities over Assange’s situation, Valencia told Reuters last week that the government would no longer intervene on his behalf.

That was after two leading members of the US House Foreign Relations Committee sent a threatening letter to Moreno insisting that he “hand over” Assange to the “proper authorities” as a precondition for improving relations with the United States. The bipartisan letter branded the prize-winning journalist and publisher a “dangerous criminal and a threat to global security.”

US federal prosecutors in Alexandria, Virginia, have maintained a long-running grand jury investigation into WikiLeaks, which began when the site published thousands of secret US files exposing war crimes in Afghanistan and Iraq, and US regime-change operations and mass surveillance around the world. According to one source cited by Reuters, the investigation now includes a probe into leaks of CIA documents that revealed its computer hacking and cyber warfare capacities.

In recent months, WikiLeaks has also published material exposing how Amazon cloud data centres serve the US intelligence agencies, the repressive operations of the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency and French arms deals to Gulf state dictatorships.

Ongoing attempts are being made by US Democrats to drag Assange into a supposed Russian conspiracy to manipulate the 2016 US presidential election. Based on amalgams, distortions and outright lies, these allegations stem from WikiLeaks’ publication of emails exposing the Democratic National Committee’s efforts to rig the party’s 2016 presidential primaries in favour of Hillary Clinton, and transcripts of Clinton’s speeches to bankers documenting her role as a stooge of Wall Street and a warmonger.

The intensifying moves against Assange and WikiLeaks are directly bound up with the drive by the US government and the major technology corporations to impose a regime of censorship on the internet, restricting access to anti-war, anti-government and socialist views.

More broadly, in preparation for major wars abroad and repression at home, the capitalist establishment wants to lock away Assange for good in order to intimidate all those who are fighting against militarism, social inequality and the assault on democratic rights.

That is why the mounting threats against Assange must be answered by the broadest possible mobilisation of the international working class to demand his immediate and unconditional freedom, as part of a broader struggle to overturn the capitalist system and its wars, inequality and censorship.

Originally published in WSWS.org

Source (https://www.pressenza.com/2018/10/julian-assange-warns-that-ecuador-is-moving-to-end-his-political-asylum/).

Innocent Warrior

27th November 2018, 02:34

Steven Terner Mnuchin (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Mnuchin): current US Secretary of the Treasury and investment banker, was a Goldman Sachs partner (left in 2002).
Gary Cohn (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Cohn_(investment_banker)): served as the Director of the National Economic Council, was the Chief Economic Adviser to Trump (2017-2018) and the former President and Chief Operating Officer for Goldman Sachs (2006-2017).
Steve Bannon (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Bannon): former investment banker, media exec, served as White House Chief Strategist (first seven months of Trump’s term) and left Goldman Sachs as Vice President.
Jay Clayton (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Clayton_(attorney)): US attorney, Chairman of the US Securities and Exchange Commission, and represented Goldman Sachs.
Dina Powell (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dina_Powell): financial exec and political advisor, US Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategy (2017-2018), Goldman Sachs partner and President of Goldman Sachs Foundation.

Guess who Lenín Moreno sold Assange out to...

Smq_hd7LREI

Innocent Warrior

27th November 2018, 04:03

Stefania Maurizi has finally been granted permission to enter the embassy. Assange won’t make any public comments but Stefania has published a report on her visit.

The detention and isolation from the world of Julian Assange (https://www.repubblica.it/esteri/2018/11/26/news/the_detention_and_isolation_from_the_world_of_julian_assange-212689883/?ref=RHRS-BH-I0-C6-P7-S1.6-T2&refresh_ce) (Repubblica, 26 Nov)

They are destroying him slowly. They are doing it through an indefinite detention which has been going on for the last eight years with no end in sight. Julian Assange has become one of the most widely known icons of freedom of the press and the struggle against state secrecy. Recently, his detention in the Ecuadorian embassy in London has been joined by isolation, strict rules and various forms of pressure which seem to have no other purpose than to break him down. A grip meant to destroy his physical and mental ability to resist until he either breaks down or he steps out of the Ecuadorian embassy, unleashing the beginning of his own end. Because if he does step out, he will be arrested by the UK authorities, and at that point the US could request his extradition so that they can put him in jail for publishing classified US documents. Julian Assange is in extremely precarious conditions.

After eight months of failed attempts, la Repubblica was finally able to visit the WikiLeaks founder in the Ecuadorian embassy in London, after the current Ecuadorian president, Lenin Moreno had cut him off from all contacts last March with the exception of his lawyers. No contact with friends, stars, journalists, no phone calls, no internet access. Indeed a very heavy isolation regime for anyone, but for Julian Assange in particular, considering that he has been confined to that tiny embassy for the last six years, and also considering that for Assange the internet is not an optional like any other: it's his world.

As soon as we saw him, we realised he has lost a lot of weight. Too much. He is so skinny. Not even his winter sweater can hide his skinny shoulders. His nice-looking face, captured by photographers all around the world, is very tense. His long hair and beard make him look like a hermit, though not a nutter: as we exchange greetings, he seems very lucid and rational

This regime of complete isolation would have broken anyone down, yet Assange is holding up: he spends his time thinking and preparing his defence against the US prosecution. But he spends too much time completely alone, with the exception of the security guards at the embassy. He is completely alone throughout the weekends. He is alone during the night, in the embassy building which has been girded with a scaffolding that makes intrusions in the middle of the night easy.

The Ecuadorian embassy is problematic for journalists as well: to be authorised to visit Julian Assange, we have been asked by the Ecuadorian authorities to provide: "Brand, model, serial number, IMEI number and telephone number (if applicable) of each of the telephone sets, computers, cameras and other electronic equipment that the applicant wants to enter with to the Embassy and keep during their interview". Such a request, unfortunately, exposes journalists to serious risks of surveillance of their communications. But in order to be able to visit Assange we provided this data, hoping we could keep our phones. As it turned out, providing that data was useless: when we entered the embassy, our phones were seized anyway.

The friendly atmosphere we had always experienced during our visits over the last six years is now gone. The Ecuadorian diplomat who had always supported the WikiLeaks founder, Fidel Narvaez, has been removed. Not even the cat is there anymore. With its funny striped tie and ambushes on the ornaments of the Christmas tree at the embassy's entrance, the cat had helped defuse tension inside the building for years. But Assange has preferred to spare the cat an isolation which has become unbearable and allow it a healthier life.

The news that surfaced last week, revealing the existence of criminal charges against Julian Assange by the US authorities, charges which were supposed to remain under seal until it was impossible for Assange to evade arrest, vindicates what Assange has feared for years. He is now waiting for the charges to be unsealed, but in the meantime he is silent: the risk that he could suddenly lose Ecuador's protection due to some public statement is not improbable these days.

Two years ago, the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (UNWGAD) established that the UK (at that time Sweden as well) is responsible for detaining Assange arbitrarily: it should free him and compensate him. London did not welcome this decision: they tried to appeal it, but lost the appeal and since then have simply ignored it.

The British media has never called on the UK authorities to comply with the UN body's decision, quite the opposite: some even lashed out against the UN body. If Julian Assange ends up in the hands of the UK authorities in the upcoming months and the US asks for his extradition, where will the British medial stand? Never before has the life of the WikiLeaks founder been so crucially in the hands of public opinion and in the hands of one of the few powers whose mission it is to reign in the worst instincts of our governments: the press.

Innocent Warrior

28th November 2018, 01:33

Insightful discussion about Assange’s situation with CIA whistleblower John Kiriakou (duration: 58:51) -

QRvbkLfSFgw

John’s TED talk, for anyone not familiar with him: How I became a CIA whistleblower (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fX2YMB6dWJw) (duration: 10:49).

To support Assange through his isolation you can write to him at the following address -

Julian Assange
Ecuador Embassy
Flat 3b, 3 Hans Crescent
London SW1X 0LS, UK

(Brits, please let me know if that’s not the right way to write the address out.)

For those so inclined, Ecuadorians, Brits, Aussies, and Americans, please write to your elected officials.

Hervé

28th November 2018, 13:50

Assange Never Met Manafort. Luke Harding and the Guardian Publish Still More Blatant MI6 Lies (https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/11/assange-never-met-manafort-luke-harding-and-the-guardian-publish-still-more-blatant-mi6-lies/)

by Craig Murray (https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/author/craigm/)
27 Nov, 2018 (https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/11/27/)

The right wing Ecuadorean government of President Moreno continues to churn out its production line of fake documents regarding Julian Assange, and channel them straight to MI6 mouthpiece Luke Harding (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/nov/27/manafort-held-secret-talks-with-assange-in-ecuadorian-embassy) of the Guardian.

Amazingly, more Ecuadorean Government documents have just been discovered for the Guardian, this time spy agency reports detailing visits of Paul Manafort and unspecified “Russians” to the Embassy. By a wonderful coincidence of timing, this is the day after Mueller announced that Manafort’s plea deal was over.

The problem with this latest fabrication is that Moreno had already released the visitor logs to the Mueller inquiry. Neither Manafort nor these “Russians” are in the visitor logs.

This is impossible. The visitor logs were not kept by Wikileaks, but by the very strict Ecuadorean security. Nobody was ever admitted without being entered in the logs. The procedure was very thorough. To go in, you had to submit your passport (no other type of document was accepted). A copy of your passport was taken and the passport details entered into the log. Your passport, along with your mobile phone and any other electronic equipment, was retained until you left, along with your bag and coat. I feature in the logs every time I visited.

There were no exceptions. For an exception to be made for Manafort and the “Russians” would have had to be a decision of the Government of Ecuador, not of Wikileaks, and that would be so exceptional the reason for it would surely have been noted in the now leaked supposed Ecuadorean “intelligence report” of the visits. What possible motive would the Ecuadorean government have for facilitating secret unrecorded visits by Paul Manafort? Furthermore it is impossible that the intelligence agency – who were in charge of the security – would not know the identity of these alleged “Russians”.

Previously Harding and the Guardian have published documents faked by the Moreno government regarding a diplomatic appointment to Russia for Assange of which he had no knowledge. Now they follow this up with more documents aimed to provide fictitious evidence to bolster Mueller’s pathetically failed attempt to substantiate the story that Russia deprived Hillary of the Presidency.

My friend William Binney, probably the world’s greatest expert on electronic surveillance, former Technical Director of the NSA, has stated that it is impossible (https://www.thenation.com/article/a-new-report-raises-big-questions-about-last-years-dnc-hack/) the DNC servers were hacked, the technical evidence shows it was a download to a directly connected memory stick. I knew the US security services were conducting a fake investigation the moment it became clear that the FBI did not even themselves look at the DNC servers, instead accepting a report from the Clinton linked DNC “security consultants” Crowdstrike.

I would love to believe that the fact Julian has never met Manafort is bound to be established. But I fear that state control of propaganda may be such that this massive “Big Lie” will come to enter public consciousness in the same way as the non-existent Russian hack of the DNC servers.

Assange never met Manafort. The DNC emails were downloaded by an insider. Assange never even considered fleeing to Russia. Those are the facts, and I am in a position to give you a personal assurance of them.

I can also assure you that Luke Harding, the Guardian, Washington Post and New York Times have been publishing a stream of deliberate lies, in collusion with the security services.

I am not a fan of Donald Trump. But to see the partisans of the defeated candidate (and a particularly obnoxious defeated candidate) manipulate the security services and the media to create an entirely false public perception, in order to attempt to overturn the result of the US Presidential election, is the most astonishing thing I have witnessed in my lifetime.

Plainly the government of Ecuador is releasing lies about Assange to curry favour with the security establishment of the USA and UK, and to damage Assange’s support prior to expelling him from the Embassy. He will then be extradited from London to the USA on charges of espionage.

Assange is not a whistleblower or a spy – he is the greatest publisher of his age, and has done more to bring the crimes of governments to light than the mainstream media will ever be motivated to achieve. That supposedly great newspaper titles like the Guardian, New York Times and Washington Post are involved in the spreading of lies to damage Assange, and are seeking his imprisonment for publishing state secrets, is clear evidence that the idea of the “liberal media” no longer exists in the new plutocratic age. The press are not on the side of the people, they are an instrument of elite control.

Tintin

28th November 2018, 14:49

To support Assange through his isolation you can write to him at the following address -

Julian Assange
Ecuador Embassy
Flat 3b, 3 Hans Crescent
London SW1X 0LS, UK

(Brits, please let me know if that’s not the right way to write the address out.)

For those so inclined, Ecuadorians, Brits, Aussies, and Americans, please write to your elected officials.

That's perfect presentation - thanks Rachel :sun:

Innocent Warrior

28th November 2018, 23:25

That's perfect presentation - thanks Rachel :sun:

Thanks, Tintin. :flower: I did alright but it's perfect because Bill tweaked it a little for me.

***********

For the record -

Tweeted by WikiLeaks on 27 Nov. (https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/1067404218359795713) -

SCOOP: In letter today to Assange's lawyers, Guardian's Luke Harding, winner of Private Eye's Plagiarist of the Year, falsely claims jailed former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort had secret meetings with Assange in 2013, 2015 and 2016 in story Guardian are "planning to run".
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DtAr0kJXcAAUA2t.jpg:large

Published by The Guardian hours later on 27 Nov. (archived original): Manafort held secret talks with Assange in Ecuadorian embassy (https://archive.fo/pUjrj#selection-1373.1-1373.62)

Headline edited 90 minutes after publication -

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DtBnyh0WoAArA-w.jpg:large

More edits, all versions: https://www.newssniffer.co.uk/articles/1706143/diff/0/1
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DtBsNwBWoAAnv3w.jpg:large

Sen. Menendez demands briefing from government of Ecuador on Assange-Manafort meeting -

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DtBy84BVAAA9w57.jpg:large

Source. (https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/1067479526727401472)

Statement from Manafort -

This story is totally false and deliberately libelous. I have never met Julian Assange or anyone connected to him. I have never been contacted by anyone connected to Wikileaks, either directly or indirectly.

I have never reached out to Assange or Wikileaks on any matter. We are considering all legal options against The Guardian who proceeded with this story even after being notified by my representatives that it was false.

Source. (https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/1067515287124217857)

WikiLeaks sets up legal fund to sue the Guardian (https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/wikileaks-sets-up-legal-fund-to-sue-the-guardian) (Washington Examiner, 28 Nov.)

Tweeted by Wikileaks on 28 Nov. (https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/1067848271715074058) -

The "Guardian" issues statement on fabricated Assange-Manafort story. Makes no attempt to stand by the story. Instead, makes an instantly provably false claim that WikiLeaks didn't deny the story before publication. WikiLeaks did. Literally, to millions. https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/1067841352124100608
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DtHA7csX4AE7a49.jpg:large

***********

No Decision at Hearing to Unseal Julian Assange’s Charges, Court to Reconvene Next Week (https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/11/no-decision-at-hearing-to-unseal-julian-assanges-charges-court-to-reconvene-next-week/) (Gateway Pundit, 27 Nov.)

Tintin

28th November 2018, 23:45

@Rachel: well, talk about falling on your sword. :o (The Guardian)

In a glorious sort of a way, this little piece of a larger saga has, well, undressed itself. (I want to avert my gaze but I just can't :blushing: - it's grippingly lovely and wonderfully awful, all at the same time. A little like Beethoven.)

It's having a water pistol fight in its birthday suit.

Amazing.

:heart:

muxfolder

30th November 2018, 21:26

More Hillary-leaks to come?
Link (https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/756025249926418432)

ThePythonicCow

1st December 2018, 01:53

More Hillary-leaks to come?
Link (https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/756025249926418432)

That Twitter link is to some tweets from July of 2016 - a long time ago in such matters.

Innocent Warrior

1st December 2018, 02:08

Beat me to it. :)

The confusion likely arose from a few tweets from back then that WikiLeaks has retweeted today, see the top four tweets under their pinned tweet on their Twitter line: @wikileaks (https://mobile.twitter.com/wikileaks) (those RTs will be pushed down the line when they post more tweets).

I gather that’s a response to this story that’s currently being reported (note the sent date of the email mentioned that’s in the court doc and the dates of the RTed tweets): Mueller has emails from Stone pal Corsi about WikiLeaks Dem email dump (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/mueller-has-emails-stone-pal-corsi-about-wikileaks-dem-email-n940611)

More Hillary-leaks to come?
Link (https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/756025249926418432)

That Twitter link is to some tweets from July of 2016 - a long time ago in such matters.

Hervé

5th December 2018, 12:49

Guardian's reputation in 'total shambles' after forger revealed to be co-author of Assange smear (https://disobedientmedia.com/2018/12/the-guardians-reputation-in-tatters-after-forger-revealed-to-have-co-authored-assange-smear/)

Elizabeth Vos Disobedient Media (https://disobedientmedia.com/2018/12/the-guardians-reputation-in-tatters-after-forger-revealed-to-have-co-authored-assange-smear/)
Wed, 05 Dec 2018 11:33 UTC

https://www.sott.net/image/s20/416344/large/59a57833dda4c8ff268b4567.jpg (https://www.sott.net/image/s20/416344/full/59a57833dda4c8ff268b4567.jpg)
© Suzanne Plunkett / Reuters

Regular followers of WikiLeaks-related news are at this point familiar with the multiple serious infractions of journalistic ethics by Luke Harding and the Guardian, especially (though not exclusively) when it comes to Julian Assange and WikiLeaks. However, another individual at the heart of this matter is far less familiar to the public. That man is Fernando Villavicencio, a prominent Ecuadorian political activist and journalist, director of the USAID-funded NGO Fundamedios and editor of online publication FocusEcuador.

Most readers are also aware of the Guardian's recent publication of claims that Julian Assange met with former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort on three occasions. This has now been definitively debunked by Fidel Narvaez, the former Consul at Ecuador's London embassy (https://www.thecanary.co/exclusive/2018/12/03/former-diplomat-challenges-fake-guardian-claims-about-julian-assange-meeting-paul-manafort/) between 2010 and 2018, who says Paul Manafort has never visited the embassy during the time he was in charge there. But this was hardly the first time the outlet published a dishonest smear authored by Luke Harding against Assange. The paper is also no stranger to publishing stories based on fabricated documents.

In May, Disobedient Media (https://disobedientmedia.com/2018/05/the-guardian-publishes-smear-against-solitarily-confined-journalist-julian-assange/) reported on the Guardian's hatchet-job relating to 'Operation Hotel,' or rather, the normal security operations (https://archive.is/1X0ym#selection-509.268-509.348) of the embassy under former Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa. That hit-piece (http://archive.is/SHnET#selection-2163.0-2163.387), co-authored by Harding and Dan Collyns, asserted among other things that (according to an anonymous source) Assange hacked the embassy's security system. The allegation was promptly refuted by Correa as "absurd" in an interview with The Intercept (https://archive.is/1X0ym#selection-703.0-703.271), and also by WikiLeaks (http://archive.is/hmU6l) as an "anonymous libel" with which the Guardian had "gone too far this time. We're suing."

A shared element of The Guardian's (http://archive.is/SHnET) 'Operation Hotel' fabrications and the latest libel attempting to link Julian Assange to Paul Manafort is none other than Fernando Villavicencio (http://archive.is/EXedo#selection-1399.0-1399.46) of FocusEcuador. In 2014 Villavicencio was caught passing a forged document to the Guardian (https://archive.is/HtHlR), which published it without verifying it. When the forgery was revealed, the Guardian hurriedly took the document down but then tried to cover up that it had been tampered with by Villavicencio (https://archive.is/oppCS#selection-1351.0-1407.30) when it re-posted it a few days later.

How is Villavicencio tied to The Guardian's latest smear of Assange? Intimately, it turns out.

Who is Fernando Villavicencio?
Earlier this year, an independent journalist writing under the pseudonym Jimmyslama penned a comprehensive report (https://jimmysllama.com/2018/06/07/11347/) detailing Villavicencio's relationships with pro-US actors within Ecuador and the US. She sums up her findings, which are worth reading in full (https://jimmysllama.com/2018/06/07/11347/):
"...The information in this post alone should make everyone question why in the world the Guardian would continue to use a source like Villavicencio who is obviously tied to the U.S. government, the CIA, individuals like Thor Halvorssen and Bill Browder, and opponents of both Julian Assange and former President Rafael Correa." As most readers recall, it was Correa who granted Assange asylum in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London. Villavicencio was so vehemently opposed to Rafael Correa's socialist government that during the failed 2010 coup against Correa he falsely accused the President of "crimes against humanity" by ordering police to fire on the crowds (it was actually Correa who was being shot at). Correa sued him for libel, and won, but pardoned Villavicencio for the damages awarded by the court.

Assange legal analyst Hanna Jonasson (http://archive.is/F2jrR) recently made the link between the Ecuadorian forger Villavicencio and Luke Harding's Guardian stories based on dubious documents explicit. She Tweeted (https://twitter.com/AssangeLegal/status/1068912607258705921):
2014 Ecuador's Foreign Ministry accused the Guardian of publishing a story based on a document it says was fabricated by Fernando Villavicencio, pictured below with the authors of the fake Manafort-Assange 'secret meeting' story, Harding and Collyns."

https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/702951034293981184/_hdXvDoj_bigger.jpg Hanna Jonasson‏ @AssangeLegal (https://twitter.com/AssangeLegal)

Hanna Jonasson Retweeted Hanna Jonasson
2014: Ecuador's Foreign Ministry accuses The Guardian of publishing a story based on a document it says was fabricated by Fernando Villavicencio, pictured below with the authors of the fake Manafort-Assange 'secret meeting' story, Harding and Collyns. https://web.archive.org/save/http://reinounido.embajada.gob.ec/the-falsified-evidence-that-led-to-inaccurate-claims-about-ecuador-in-the-guardian/ … (https://t.co/OTLNJ20kOn)

Hanna Jonasson added,

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DtBJOiGVAAA9oIR.jpg

Hanna Jonasson @AssangeLegal
Replying to @wikileaks
The authors of the bogus Guardian story, Dan Collyns and Luke Harding, were in Ecuador 10 days ago with US-funded Villavicencio, who they have previously bylined with in bogus stories. This picture was taken last week.

8:59 AM - 1 Dec 2018
17 replies 453 retweets 533 likes
Jonasson included a link to a 2014 official Ecuadorian government statement (http://archive.is/P2HQJ) which reads in part:
"There is also evidence that the author of this falsified document is Fernando Villavicencio, a convicted slanderer and opponent of Ecuador's current government. This can be seen from the file properties of the document that the Guardian had originally posted (but which it has since taken down and replaced with a version with this evidence removed)." The statement also notes that Villavicencio had fled the country after his conviction for libeling Correa during the 2010 coup and was at that time living as a fugitive in the United States.

It is incredibly significant, as Jonasson argues, that the authors of the Guardian's latest libelous article were photographed with Villavicencio in Ecuador (https://archive.is/UDT5A) shortly before publication of the Guardian's claim that Assange had conducted meetings with Manafort.

Jonasson's Twitter thread also states: "This video from the news wire Andes (https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=5&v=ztsp0H4ei40) alleges that Villavicencio's name appeared in the metadata of the document originally uploaded alongside The Guardian's story." The 2014 Guardian piece, which aimed a falsified shot at then-President Rafael Correa, would not be the last time Villavicencio's name would appear on a controversial Guardian story before being scrubbed from existence.

Just days after the backlash against the Guardian reached fever-pitch, Villavicencio had the gall to publish another image of himself (http://archive.is/WxIFX) with Harding and Collyns, gloating : "One of my greatest journalistic experiences was working for months on Assange's research with colleagues from the British newspaper the Guardian, Luke Harding, Dan Collins and the young journalist Cristina Solórzano from @ somos_lafuente"

[Translated from Spanish]

https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/1041146706086256640/QLee07wr_bigger.jpg Fernando Villavicencio‏ @VillaFernando_ (https://twitter.com/VillaFernando_)

Una de mis mayores experiencias periodísticas fue trabajar durante meses la investigación sobre Assange con los colegas del diario británico The Guardian, Luke Harding, Dan Collins y con la joven periodista Cristina Solórzano de @somos_lafuente (https://twitter.com/somos_lafuente)

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DtYiN-vXoAAeu2-.jpg
8:03 PM - 1 Dec 2018
18 replies 69 retweets 149 likes
The tweet suggests, but does not specifically state, that Villavicencio worked with the disastrous duo on the Assange-Manafort piece. Given the history and associations of all involved, this statement alone should cause extreme skepticism in any unsubstantiated claims, or 'anonymously sourced' claims, the Guardian makes concerning Julian Assange and Ecuador.

Astoundingly, and counter to Villavicencio's uncharacteristic coyness, a recent video posted by WikiLeaks via Twitter (http://archive.is/zwn0c) does show that Villavicencio was originally listed as a co-author of the Guardian's Manafort-Assange allegations, before his name was edited out of the online article. The original version can be viewed, however, thanks to archive services.

https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/512138307870785536/Fe00yVS2_bigger.png WikiLeaks‏Verified account @wikileaks (https://twitter.com/wikileaks)

Video: Guardian mysteriously hid third author of fabricated front page story "Manafort Held Secret Meetings With Assange" -- as revealed by direct digital archive library. Compare to the Guardian's online version the world saw. Villavicencio background:.https://twitter.com/search?f=tweets&vertical=default&q=from%3Aassangelegal%20Villavicencio&src=typd … (https://t.co/KX80IrScyl)

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dtg0k3oW0AEmAoS.jpg
Gif at: https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/1069670645586374658?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1069670645586374658&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sott.net%2Fembed%2FfexsFRDBik-jzQCV6Gn68Z1H977

11:12 AM - 3 Dec 2018
62 replies 1,278 retweets 1,683 likes
The two photographs of Villavicencio with Harding and Collyns as well as the evidence showing he co-authored the piece doesn't just capture a trio of terrible journalists, it documents the involvement of multiple actors associated with intelligence agencies and fabricated stories.

All of this provoke the question: did Villavicencio provide more bogus documents to Harding and Collyns - Harding said he'd seen a document, though he didn't publish one (or even quote from it) so readers might judge its veracity for themselves - or perhaps these three invented the accusations out of whole-cloth?

Either way, to quote WikiLeaks, the Guardian has "gone too far this time" and its already-tattered reputation is in total shambles.

Successful Propaganda, Failed Journalism

Craig Murray calls Harding an "MI6 tool (http://archive.is/6RQ2V)", but to this writer, Harding seems worse than an MI6 stooge: He's a wannabe-spook, hanging from the coat-tails of anonymous intelligence officers and publishing their drivel as fact without so much as a skeptical blink. His lack of self-awareness and conflation of anecdote with evidence sets him apart as either one of the most blatant, fumbling propagandists of our era, or the most hapless hack journalist to stain the pages of printed news.

To provide important context on Harding's previous journalistic irresponsibility, we again recall that he co-authored the infamous book containing the encryption password of the entire Cablegate archive, leading to a leak of the unredacted State Department Cables (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQA4vwynYhY) across the internet. Although the guilty Guardian journalists tried to blame Assange for the debacle, it was they themselves who ended up on the receiving end of some well-deserved scorn.

In addition to continuing the Guardian's and Villavicencio's vendetta against Assange and WikiLeaks, it is clearly in Harding's financial interests to conflate the pending prosecution of Assange (https://disobedientmedia.com/2018/11/assange-prosecution-will-focus-on-chelsea-manning-era-releases-not-dnc-emails/) with Russiagate. As this writer previously noted (https://disobedientmedia.com/2018/11/opinion-the-guardians-desperate-attempt-to-connect-assange-to-russiagate-backfires/), Harding penned a book on the subject, titled: "Collusion: Secret Meetings, Dirty Money, and How Russia Helped Donald Trump Win." Tying Assange to Russiagate is good for business, as it stokes public interest in the self-evidently faulty narrative his book supports.

Even more concerning is the claim amongst publishing circles, fueled by recent events, that Harding may be writing another book on Assange, with publication presumably timed for his pending arrest and extradition and designed to cash in on the trial. If that is in fact the case, the specter arises that Harding is working to push for Assange's arrest, not just on behalf of US, UK or Ecuadorian intelligence interests, but also to increase his own book sales.

That Harding and Collyns worked intensively with Villavicencio for "months" on the "Assange story," the fact that Villavicencio was initially listed as a co-author on the original version of the Guardian's article, and the recent denial by Fidel Narvaez, (https://www.thecanary.co/exclusive/2018/12/03/former-diplomat-challenges-fake-guardian-claims-about-julian-assange-meeting-paul-manafort/) raises the likelihood that Harding and the Guardian were not simply the victims of bad sources who duped them, as claimed by some.

It indicates that the fake story was constructed deliberately on behalf of the very same intelligence establishment that the Guardian is nowadays only too happy to take the knee for.

In summary, one of the most visible establishment media outlets published a fake story on its front page, in an attempt to manufacture a crucial cross-over between the pending prosecution of Assange and the Russiagate saga. This represents the latest example in an onslaught of fake news directed at Julian Assange and WikiLeaks ever since they published the largest CIA leak in history in the form of Vault 7, an onslaught which appears to be building in both intensity and absurdity as time goes on.

The Guardian has destroyed its reputation, and in the process, revealed the desperation of the establishment when it comes to Assange.

Related:

Guardian stealth edits junk report to save their ass after Assange-Manafort fiction crumbles (https://www.sott.net/article/401625-Guardian-stealth-edits-junk-report-to-save-their-ass-after-Assange-Manafort-fiction-crumbles)

Former diplomat challenges 'fake' Guardian claims about Julian Assange meeting Paul Manafort (https://www.sott.net/article/402066-Former-diplomat-challenges-fake-Guardian-claims-about-Julian-Assange-meeting-Paul-Manafort)

Tintin

5th December 2018, 14:54

Terrific article Hervé, thank you.

Yes, unsurprisingly, Fernando Villavicencio also makes several appearances in the Wikileaks Global Intelligence files as can be witnessed through this link here (https://search.wikileaks.org/?query=&exact_phrase=Fernando+Villavicencio&any_of=&exclude_words=&document_date_start=&document_date_end=&released_date_start=&released_date_end=&include_external_sources=True&new_search=True&order_by=most_relevant#results)

Guardian's reputation in 'total shambles' after forger revealed to be co-author of Assange smear (https://disobedientmedia.com/2018/12/the-guardians-reputation-in-tatters-after-forger-revealed-to-have-co-authored-assange-smear/)

Elizabeth Vos Disobedient Media (https://disobedientmedia.com/2018/12/the-guardians-reputation-in-tatters-after-forger-revealed-to-have-co-authored-assange-smear/)
Wed, 05 Dec 2018 11:33 UTC

https://www.sott.net/image/s20/416344/large/59a57833dda4c8ff268b4567.jpg (https://www.sott.net/image/s20/416344/full/59a57833dda4c8ff268b4567.jpg)
© Suzanne Plunkett / Reuters

Regular followers of WikiLeaks-related news are at this point familiar with the multiple serious infractions of journalistic ethics by Luke Harding and the Guardian, especially (though not exclusively) when it comes to Julian Assange and WikiLeaks. However, another individual at the heart of this matter is far less familiar to the public. That man is Fernando Villavicencio, a prominent Ecuadorian political activist and journalist, director of the USAID-funded NGO Fundamedios and editor of online publication FocusEcuador.

Most readers are also aware of the Guardian's recent publication of claims that Julian Assange met with former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort on three occasions. This has now been definitively debunked by Fidel Narvaez, the former Consul at Ecuador's London embassy (https://www.thecanary.co/exclusive/2018/12/03/former-diplomat-challenges-fake-guardian-claims-about-julian-assange-meeting-paul-manafort/) between 2010 and 2018, who says Paul Manafort has never visited the embassy during the time he was in charge there. But this was hardly the first time the outlet published a dishonest smear authored by Luke Harding against Assange. The paper is also no stranger to publishing stories based on fabricated documents.

In May, Disobedient Media (https://disobedientmedia.com/2018/05/the-guardian-publishes-smear-against-solitarily-confined-journalist-julian-assange/) reported on the Guardian's hatchet-job relating to 'Operation Hotel,' or rather, the normal security operations (https://archive.is/1X0ym#selection-509.268-509.348) of the embassy under former Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa. That hit-piece (http://archive.is/SHnET#selection-2163.0-2163.387), co-authored by Harding and Dan Collyns, asserted among other things that (according to an anonymous source) Assange hacked the embassy's security system. The allegation was promptly refuted by Correa as "absurd" in an interview with The Intercept (https://archive.is/1X0ym#selection-703.0-703.271), and also by WikiLeaks (http://archive.is/hmU6l) as an "anonymous libel" with which the Guardian had "gone too far this time. We're suing."

A shared element of The Guardian's (http://archive.is/SHnET) 'Operation Hotel' fabrications and the latest libel attempting to link Julian Assange to Paul Manafort is none other than Fernando Villavicencio (http://archive.is/EXedo#selection-1399.0-1399.46) of FocusEcuador. In 2014 Villavicencio was caught passing a forged document to the Guardian (https://archive.is/HtHlR), which published it without verifying it. When the forgery was revealed, the Guardian hurriedly took the document down but then tried to cover up that it had been tampered with by Villavicencio (https://archive.is/oppCS#selection-1351.0-1407.30) when it re-posted it a few days later.

How is Villavicencio tied to The Guardian's latest smear of Assange? Intimately, it turns out.

Who is Fernando Villavicencio?
Earlier this year, an independent journalist writing under the pseudonym Jimmyslama penned a comprehensive report (https://jimmysllama.com/2018/06/07/11347/) detailing Villavicencio's relationships with pro-US actors within Ecuador and the US. She sums up her findings, which are worth reading in full (https://jimmysllama.com/2018/06/07/11347/):
"...The information in this post alone should make everyone question why in the world the Guardian would continue to use a source like Villavicencio who is obviously tied to the U.S. government, the CIA, individuals like Thor Halvorssen and Bill Browder, and opponents of both Julian Assange and former President Rafael Correa." As most readers recall, it was Correa who granted Assange asylum in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London. Villavicencio was so vehemently opposed to Rafael Correa's socialist government that during the failed 2010 coup against Correa he falsely accused the President of "crimes against humanity" by ordering police to fire on the crowds (it was actually Correa who was being shot at). Correa sued him for libel, and won, but pardoned Villavicencio for the damages awarded by the court.

Assange legal analyst Hanna Jonasson (http://archive.is/F2jrR) recently made the link between the Ecuadorian forger Villavicencio and Luke Harding's Guardian stories based on dubious documents explicit. She Tweeted (https://twitter.com/AssangeLegal/status/1068912607258705921):
2014 Ecuador's Foreign Ministry accused the Guardian of publishing a story based on a document it says was fabricated by Fernando Villavicencio, pictured below with the authors of the fake Manafort-Assange 'secret meeting' story, Harding and Collyns."

https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/702951034293981184/_hdXvDoj_bigger.jpg Hanna Jonasson‏ @AssangeLegal (https://twitter.com/AssangeLegal)

Hanna Jonasson Retweeted Hanna Jonasson
2014: Ecuador's Foreign Ministry accuses The Guardian of publishing a story based on a document it says was fabricated by Fernando Villavicencio, pictured below with the authors of the fake Manafort-Assange 'secret meeting' story, Harding and Collyns. https://web.archive.org/save/http://reinounido.embajada.gob.ec/the-falsified-evidence-that-led-to-inaccurate-claims-about-ecuador-in-the-guardian/ … (https://t.co/OTLNJ20kOn)

Hanna Jonasson added,

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DtBJOiGVAAA9oIR.jpg

Hanna Jonasson @AssangeLegal
Replying to @wikileaks
The authors of the bogus Guardian story, Dan Collyns and Luke Harding, were in Ecuador 10 days ago with US-funded Villavicencio, who they have previously bylined with in bogus stories. This picture was taken last week.

8:59 AM - 1 Dec 2018
17 replies 453 retweets 533 likes
Jonasson included a link to a 2014 official Ecuadorian government statement (http://archive.is/P2HQJ) which reads in part:
"There is also evidence that the author of this falsified document is Fernando Villavicencio, a convicted slanderer and opponent of Ecuador's current government. This can be seen from the file properties of the document that the Guardian had originally posted (but which it has since taken down and replaced with a version with this evidence removed)." The statement also notes that Villavicencio had fled the country after his conviction for libeling Correa during the 2010 coup and was at that time living as a fugitive in the United States.

It is incredibly significant, as Jonasson argues, that the authors of the Guardian's latest libelous article were photographed with Villavicencio in Ecuador (https://archive.is/UDT5A) shortly before publication of the Guardian's claim that Assange had conducted meetings with Manafort.

Jonasson's Twitter thread also states: "This video from the news wire Andes (https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=5&v=ztsp0H4ei40) alleges that Villavicencio's name appeared in the metadata of the document originally uploaded alongside The Guardian's story." The 2014 Guardian piece, which aimed a falsified shot at then-President Rafael Correa, would not be the last time Villavicencio's name would appear on a controversial Guardian story before being scrubbed from existence.

Just days after the backlash against the Guardian reached fever-pitch, Villavicencio had the gall to publish another image of himself (http://archive.is/WxIFX) with Harding and Collyns, gloating : "One of my greatest journalistic experiences was working for months on Assange's research with colleagues from the British newspaper the Guardian, Luke Harding, Dan Collins and the young journalist Cristina Solórzano from @ somos_lafuente"

[Translated from Spanish]

https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/1041146706086256640/QLee07wr_bigger.jpg Fernando Villavicencio‏ @VillaFernando_ (https://twitter.com/VillaFernando_)

Una de mis mayores experiencias periodísticas fue trabajar durante meses la investigación sobre Assange con los colegas del diario británico The Guardian, Luke Harding, Dan Collins y con la joven periodista Cristina Solórzano de @somos_lafuente (https://twitter.com/somos_lafuente)

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DtYiN-vXoAAeu2-.jpg
8:03 PM - 1 Dec 2018
18 replies 69 retweets 149 likes
The tweet suggests, but does not specifically state, that Villavicencio worked with the disastrous duo on the Assange-Manafort piece. Given the history and associations of all involved, this statement alone should cause extreme skepticism in any unsubstantiated claims, or 'anonymously sourced' claims, the Guardian makes concerning Julian Assange and Ecuador.

Astoundingly, and counter to Villavicencio's uncharacteristic coyness, a recent video posted by WikiLeaks via Twitter (http://archive.is/zwn0c) does show that Villavicencio was originally listed as a co-author of the Guardian's Manafort-Assange allegations, before his name was edited out of the online article. The original version can be viewed, however, thanks to archive services.

https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/512138307870785536/Fe00yVS2_bigger.png WikiLeaks‏Verified account @wikileaks (https://twitter.com/wikileaks)

Video: Guardian mysteriously hid third author of fabricated front page story "Manafort Held Secret Meetings With Assange" -- as revealed by direct digital archive library. Compare to the Guardian's online version the world saw. Villavicencio background:.https://twitter.com/search?f=tweets&vertical=default&q=from%3Aassangelegal%20Villavicencio&src=typd … (https://t.co/KX80IrScyl)

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dtg0k3oW0AEmAoS.jpg
Gif at: https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/1069670645586374658?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1069670645586374658&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sott.net%2Fembed%2FfexsFRDBik-jzQCV6Gn68Z1H977

11:12 AM - 3 Dec 2018
62 replies 1,278 retweets 1,683 likes
The two photographs of Villavicencio with Harding and Collyns as well as the evidence showing he co-authored the piece doesn't just capture a trio of terrible journalists, it documents the involvement of multiple actors associated with intelligence agencies and fabricated stories.

All of this provoke the question: did Villavicencio provide more bogus documents to Harding and Collyns - Harding said he'd seen a document, though he didn't publish one (or even quote from it) so readers might judge its veracity for themselves - or perhaps these three invented the accusations out of whole-cloth?

Either way, to quote WikiLeaks, the Guardian has "gone too far this time" and its already-tattered reputation is in total shambles.

Successful Propaganda, Failed Journalism

Craig Murray calls Harding an "MI6 tool (http://archive.is/6RQ2V)", but to this writer, Harding seems worse than an MI6 stooge: He's a wannabe-spook, hanging from the coat-tails of anonymous intelligence officers and publishing their drivel as fact without so much as a skeptical blink. His lack of self-awareness and conflation of anecdote with evidence sets him apart as either one of the most blatant, fumbling propagandists of our era, or the most hapless hack journalist to stain the pages of printed news.

To provide important context on Harding's previous journalistic irresponsibility, we again recall that he co-authored the infamous book containing the encryption password of the entire Cablegate archive, leading to a leak of the unredacted State Department Cables (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQA4vwynYhY) across the internet. Although the guilty Guardian journalists tried to blame Assange for the debacle, it was they themselves who ended up on the receiving end of some well-deserved scorn.

In addition to continuing the Guardian's and Villavicencio's vendetta against Assange and WikiLeaks, it is clearly in Harding's financial interests to conflate the pending prosecution of Assange (https://disobedientmedia.com/2018/11/assange-prosecution-will-focus-on-chelsea-manning-era-releases-not-dnc-emails/) with Russiagate. As this writer previously noted (https://disobedientmedia.com/2018/11/opinion-the-guardians-desperate-attempt-to-connect-assange-to-russiagate-backfires/), Harding penned a book on the subject, titled: "Collusion: Secret Meetings, Dirty Money, and How Russia Helped Donald Trump Win." Tying Assange to Russiagate is good for business, as it stokes public interest in the self-evidently faulty narrative his book supports.

Even more concerning is the claim amongst publishing circles, fueled by recent events, that Harding may be writing another book on Assange, with publication presumably timed for his pending arrest and extradition and designed to cash in on the trial. If that is in fact the case, the specter arises that Harding is working to push for Assange's arrest, not just on behalf of US, UK or Ecuadorian intelligence interests, but also to increase his own book sales.

That Harding and Collyns worked intensively with Villavicencio for "months" on the "Assange story," the fact that Villavicencio was initially listed as a co-author on the original version of the Guardian's article, and the recent denial by Fidel Narvaez, (https://www.thecanary.co/exclusive/2018/12/03/former-diplomat-challenges-fake-guardian-claims-about-julian-assange-meeting-paul-manafort/) raises the likelihood that Harding and the Guardian were not simply the victims of bad sources who duped them, as claimed by some.

It indicates that the fake story was constructed deliberately on behalf of the very same intelligence establishment that the Guardian is nowadays only too happy to take the knee for.

In summary, one of the most visible establishment media outlets published a fake story on its front page, in an attempt to manufacture a crucial cross-over between the pending prosecution of Assange and the Russiagate saga. This represents the latest example in an onslaught of fake news directed at Julian Assange and WikiLeaks ever since they published the largest CIA leak in history in the form of Vault 7, an onslaught which appears to be building in both intensity and absurdity as time goes on.

The Guardian has destroyed its reputation, and in the process, revealed the desperation of the establishment when it comes to Assange.

Related:

Guardian stealth edits junk report to save their ass after Assange-Manafort fiction crumbles (https://www.sott.net/article/401625-Guardian-stealth-edits-junk-report-to-save-their-ass-after-Assange-Manafort-fiction-crumbles)

Former diplomat challenges 'fake' Guardian claims about Julian Assange meeting Paul Manafort (https://www.sott.net/article/402066-Former-diplomat-challenges-fake-Guardian-claims-about-Julian-Assange-meeting-Paul-Manafort)

Tintin

4th April 2019, 13:39

An update from Craig Murray here in connection with Cassandra Fairbanks' recent visit (https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/03/breaking-ecuadorian-embassy-officials-locked-me-in-a-room-ambassador-clashed-with-julian-assange-as-he-attempted-to-surveil-our-meeting/) to Julian Assange worth posting in its entirety here as well.

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

"The false left and liberals have until now been delighted to hide behind Russiagate or Sweden to avoid asking themselves the fundamental question. Julian Assange is merely a journalist and publisher. The fundamental question is, should a journalist or publisher be locked up for life for publishing leaked documents showing war crimes? If the answer is yes, where is press freedom?"

Craig Murray - April 3rd, 2019

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

Here's Craig's article (https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2019/04/julian-assange-socialists-and-liberals-must-now-choose-their-side/):

Julian Assange: Socialists and Liberals Must Now Choose Their Side.
3 Apr, 2019 in Uncategorized by craig

Cassandra Fairbanks’ account of her visit (https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/03/breaking-ecuadorian-embassy-officials-locked-me-in-a-room-ambassador-clashed-with-julian-assange-as-he-attempted-to-surveil-our-meeting/) to Julian in the Ecuadorean Embassy paints a truly harrowing picture of the conditions in which he is being held.

Last week after receiving a message from Julian I applied to the Ecuadorean Embassy to go and see him. I have done this many times but a new regime has established involving forms and strict time windows.

40362

The Ecuadorean Embassy claim not to have received my email with the application, which is peculiar as I received no undeliverable message and bcc copyees received it. I therefore re-sent it with a new email advising they may change the date and time if the original is not now achievable. I have heard nothing so far in response.

Chelsea Manning is currently entering her fourth week of solitary confinement for refusing to testify against Assange before a grand jury. The United States wishes to extradite Julian Assange to face charges, not of collusion with the non-existent “Russiagate”, not with a sexual offence stitch-up.

They wish to charge him with publishing the evidence of extensive US war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan, and with publishing the US diplomatic cables including the one I drew on last week which prove that the US and UK conspired to establish a marine reserve around the Chagos Islands as an environmental fraud to maintain the deportation of the islanders from what is now the US nuclear and torture base.

Many tens of billions of dollars are spent every year on western security services, and they are not stupid. The use of contrived sexual allegations to detach progressive figures from their support base is well established practice. But the allegations against Assange in Sweden are long gone, never reached the stage of a charge, and fell away immediately once Assange was finally interviewed (https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/12/julian-assanges-defence-statement/) by Swedish police and prosecutors in the Embassy. The whole Russiagate fabrication has been exploded as the media confection it always was.

The false left and liberals have until now been delighted to hide behind Russiagate or Sweden to avoid asking themselves the fundamental question. Julian Assange is merely a journalist and publisher. The fundamental question is, should a journalist or publisher be locked up for life for publishing leaked documents showing war crimes? If the answer is yes, where is press freedom?

That is now the unavoidable question. The security service patsies at the Guardian, however, prefer to retail ludicrous accusations from CIA asset Lenin Moreno – accusations motivated by the revelation of Moreno’s Panamanian offshore accounts – in frenzied efforts to maintain the tactic of diversion.

Tintin

4th April 2019, 14:18

This whole experience, or more appropriately, incident leaves one gravely concerned, it must be said.

Cassandra Fairbanks' article (https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/03/breaking-ecuadorian-embassy-officials-locked-me-in-a-room-ambassador-clashed-with-julian-assange-as-he-attempted-to-surveil-our-meeting/) follows.

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

"The visit to the publisher had, in fact, become eerily similar to visits I have made to inmates at federal penitentiaries in the US. It seemed our government was getting what they wanted from Ecuador, as a former senior State Department official told Buzzfeed (https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/verabergengruen/ecuador-julian-assange-anti-american-embassy-london) in January, “as far as we’re concerned, he’s in jail.”"

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

EXCLUSIVE: Ecuador Imprisons US Journalist In Room As Ambassador Tells Assange to ‘Shut up’ and Accept Spying
By Cassandra Fairbanks, March 26, 2019

It was meant to be a routine visit by a journalist to another journalist. Instead, I found myself locked in a cold, surveilled room for over an hour by Ecuadorian officials, as a furious argument raged between the country’s ambassador and Julian Assange on Monday.

The room was inside the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, where 2019 Nobel Peace Prize nominee Julian Assange currently lives under the ostensible protection of political asylum. Yet the WikiLeaks publisher was barred from entering the room, where he was supposed to join me for a pre-approved meeting, because he refused to submit to a full-body search and continuous surveillance.

In the fireworks that followed, Assange accused the ambassador of being an agent of the United States government.

The crackdown on visitors was felt before I even entered the embassy. It’s the third time I’ve visited in the past year, and each time the atmosphere seems progressively worse.

Just like my previous visit, since new rules for visitors were enacted, I couldn’t take my phone into the meeting without giving the Ecuadorian officials a swathe of data. If you want to take it in with you, they request its brand, model, serial number, IMEI number, and telephone number. I was also advised that Ecuador could not be trusted to hold my phone while I met with Assange, so I left it behind and walked to the embassy phoneless, several minutes early to make sure I was on time.

40363

When I arrived, embassy staff checked my passport and letter of approval and pointed at the time on the letter. I was six minutes early. Instead of allowing me to wait inside, they told me to come back at the appropriate time — despite knowing that I did not have a phone or watch on me.

When I visited for the first time, which I believe was a year ago to the day, the atmosphere was far more welcoming. The staff and ambassador that were there during my first visit have since been replaced.

After being searched, the staff directed me into the conference room, where two large visible cameras were pointed at the table. Those were there last time too. I knew the drill — or so I thought. They reminded me multiple times that my visit was only approved until 5 p.m. and that I would need to leave on the dot.

“Just doing my job,” the staff member told me.

A few moments later Assange walked by the door, but could not enter. Embassy staff demanded that he submit to a full-body scan with a metal detector before allowing him in the room. They have not done this with any other visitor in the nearly seven years that he has lived there, including during my previous visits.

“I don’t want to do the body scan. It is undignified and not appropriate,” I heard Assange say. “I am just trying to have a private meeting with a journalist.”

The door was slammed shut by someone from the embassy. I decided to sit and wait.

Not only would they not let Assange in to see me without a body-scan, they also forced his lawyer to be scanned before he could come in to update me on the situation.

After roughly 20 minutes, the lawyer came in and informed me that they were demanding to search Assange. Moreover, we would not be permitted to talk anywhere outside the highly-surveilled room where the Ecuadorians had confined me. Agreeing to these draconian terms would set a bad precedent — so he was unsure if the meeting would go ahead. After appraising me of the situation, he left the room.

A bit later, I decided to leave the room myself for an update from embassy staff. I quickly discovered that the door was locked from the outside. So I went to the second door — that was locked too. That was when I realized that Ecuadorian officials had deliberately imprisoned me in a room.

As this ominous realization dawned on me, I heard a dramatic confrontation unfolding outside.

“What are you frightened of in relation to me meeting with a journalist? What is the embassy afraid of?” Assange asks. I can’t hear the response.

Assange is arguing that as a political refugee the embassy has a duty to protect him — not to treat him as a prisoner.

“Is this a prison?” Assange asks.

“It’s not,” they reply. “You know it’s not.”

Assange, clearly agitated, demands to know:

“Why are you surveilling me speaking to a US journalist? Do you think it’s unreasonable for me to expect privacy when I meet with a journalist? Why are you silent?”

The embassy staff member responded that he “can’t say anything.”

“Why can’t you say anything? Don’t you have an excuse? What is the basis? Why are you surveilling an American journalist? What reason should we tell her?” Assange asks.

The conversation becomes hard to hear, as I am still locked in the room.

Assange’s lawyer is also being searched again outside the room, though I can only hear bits and pieces of that conversation. He comes back in with a glass of water and tells me to hang tight. I feel like a prisoner receiving a visit. Finally, someone from the embassy comes in and tells me that I need to go to the lobby so that the ambassador could meet with Assange in the room. The room with the cameras and the bugs.

I see Assange in passing in the lobby and say hi, but it’s cut short as he is directed to the conference room.

Still phoneless, I glance at a clock and notice that it’s 4:19pm. I was locked in the room for over an hour.

Sitting in the lobby I hear much of the conversation, so I begin to take notes.

“Is this a prison? This is how you treat a prisoner, not a political refugee!” Assange demands.

Ambassador Jaime Alberto Marchán retorts, saying it’s “for our protection, and to protect you!”

At this point, clearly frustrated, Assange asserts:

“I am trying to have a private conversation with a journalist. I am also a journalist — and you’re stopping me from doing my work. How can I safely relay my mistreatment and the illegality going on here to this journalist while under surveillance?”

One of the issues, it seemed, is that Assange wanted to bring a small radio into the conference room to muffle our voices, so the microphones surveilling the room wouldn’t pick up what we were saying as easily. There also appears to be concern that he will share stories with other journalists now that they have him muzzled and gagged.

“You are preventing this journalist from meeting with me in any other room,” Assange says, but only part of the conversation is audible at this point as someone cleaning decided they needed to jingle keys and make a ton of noise for several minutes.

“You have been illegally surveilling me,” Assange sternly insists.

“I want you to shut up,” the ambassador says.

“I know you want me to shut up — the Ecuadorian president has already gagged me,” Assange fired back. “I am banned from producing journalism.”

Assange isn’t wrong. On March 28, 2018, Ecuador caved to pressure from the United States government to isolate Assange by revoking his right to have visitors, make phone calls or use the internet. In order to have his visits and internet restored, he was presented with a nine-page document that outlined limitations and restrictions on what he would be able to do and say online.

Ecuadorian President Lenín Moreno publicly said that Assange is gagged from writing “political opinion” including about US and Spanish policies. This obviously destroyed his ability to work as a journalist and publisher.

He told AP: “if Mr. Assange promises to stop emitting opinions on the politics of friendly nations like Spain or the United States then we have no problem with him going online.” He and the foreign minister have publicly repeated the statement many times, even going as far as to say that Assange cannot talk (https://justice4assange.com/Protection-Action.html) about his treatment in the embassy.

In an interview with El Pais (https://twitter.com/DefendAssange/status/1023294839469821957)in July, President Moreno also said that his “ideal solution” is that Assange may “enjoy” being “extradited,” if the UK promises that the US will not kill him.

The argument continued to escalate. Assange brought up the fact that Ecuador allowed people with diplomatic immunity to be questioned by the US government in January. It is, of course, highly unusual for a sovereign nation to permit foreign officials to question its diplomatic personnel over diplomatic work, the confidentiality of which is protected by international law.

“You are acting as an agent of the United States government and preventing me from speaking with a US journalist about these violations,” Assange demanded.

“What kind of sovereign state allows its ambassadors to be interrogated by another nation? No self respecting state does that!”

“You have been working with the US government against me, it’s disgraceful! You are an agent of the US government, and there will be consequences for your illegal acts,” Assange continues.

He points out that the ambassador has put his own privacy at risk with his efforts to assist their spying on him. (For many years, there had been a white noise machine in the conference room, to protect the ambassador and other officials during sensitive conversations — it has now been removed).

“The embassy’s own equipment that was used to protect you was removed to help them [the U.S. government] spy on me.”

Ironically, if they still had that equipment in place I would not have overheard everything to be able to write this very article.

As the conversation intensified, the staff member who had answered the door and searched me noticed that I was taking notes and turned on a loud television. He kept turning the volume up until the conversation in the conference room was completely drowned out. He also turned on a loud fan, despite the fact that the embassy was very cold.

At around 4:45pm, Marchán and several other men stormed out of the conference room. I attempted to ask the ambassador if the Embassy’s behavior was specific to me, or if they planned to give all visitors the same sinister treatment. He ignored me and rushed into another room.

Finally, Assange comes out and I am able to give him a hug and speak to him briefly in the lobby. Unfortunately, there was only about eight minutes left of our two-hour scheduled visit time and the limit was still being enforced.

At 4:58, a member of the staff came over and informed us that if we want to talk, it must be done in the conference room and that we only have two minutes left. We stared at him blankly then began to say our goodbyes.

My departure was so rushed that I ended up leaving my passport in the embassy, but thankfully the staff ran out and gave it to me.

You can read more about the Stasi-style surveillance at the embassy in my article about our visit in January (https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/01/julian-assanges-living-conditions-are-more-akin-to-a-dissident-in-stasi-era-germany-than-an-award-winning-publisher-with-asylum/). More up-to-date background information about what is currently going on with WikiLeaks and Assange can be found here (https://defend.wikileaks.org/2019/03/08/courage-nominates-julian-assange-for-the-2019-galizia-prize/) and here (https://defend.wikileaks.org/2019/03/25/briefing-for-the-london-assembly-why-opposing-julian-assanges-extradition-to-the-u-s-matters-for-london-and-the-u-k/).

Wikileaks confirmed this story here (https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/1110549984808706054?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1110549984808706054&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thegatewaypundit.com%2F2019%2F03%2Fbreaking-ecuadorian-embassy-officials-locked-me-in-a-room-ambassador-clashed-with-julian-assange-as-he-attempted-to-surveil-our-meeting%2F)

Tintin

4th April 2019, 14:43

Wayback: Jon Pilger on Democracy Now! 15 December 2010, but, still worth revisiting.

"Jefferson said that 'information is the currency of democracy'"

John Pilger defends WikiLeaks & Julian Assange

https://vimeo.com/17888704

Tintin

4th April 2019, 15:12

[Documentary]: The Wikileaks Documentary

Provides a history of its origins - revealing and very informative. Do enjoy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvmfOaZ34Pk

Sophocles

5th April 2019, 13:35

Perhaps more movement.

This from dailymail.co:

Armed police surround Ecuadorean embassy as Julian Assange 'is set to be kicked out in HOURS and arrested after country does deal with UK authorities', WikiLeaks claims (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6888435/Julian-Assange-kicked-Ecuadorian-embassy-HOURS-arrested-says-WikiLeaks.html)

And here Wikileaks on Twitter (https://twitter.com/wikileaks)16 hours ago:

BREAKING: A high level source within the Ecuadorian state has told @WikiLeaks that Julian Assange will be expelled within "hours to days" using the #INAPapers offshore scandal as a pretext--and that it already has an agreement with the UK for his arrest.

Innocent Warrior

6th April 2019, 22:21

From the office of the high commissioner of the UN: UN expert on privacy plans to visit Julian Assange (https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=24453&LangID=E)

From WikiLeaks -

WikiLeaks has obtained agreed Assange press strategy
1. UK lead
2. Ecuador will say Assange has broken many of its invented "asylum terms"
3. UK will say won't let US kill Assange, due process. Ecuador will pretend that this is a concession and that asylum was for death penalty.

Tweet (https://mobile.twitter.com/wikileaks/status/1114165391893389313).

Edit: I completely missed this. I haven’t checked to see if it was posted on any other threads but it’s relevant here.

Chelsea Manning jailed for refusing to testify in grand jury WikiLeaks investigation (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-03-09/chelsea-manning-jailed-for-refusing-to-testify-on-wikileaks/10886280) (March 9). What a legend. I hope she gets out ASAP.

EXCLUSIVE: Leaked Assange Court Transcript Sheds Light on US-Backed Ecuadorian Expulsion Plans (https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/04/exclusive-leaked-assange-court-transcript-sheds-light-on-us-backed-ecuadorian-expulsion-plans/) (April 6)

Innocent Warrior

10th April 2019, 01:01

A Voice from the Mountains

10th April 2019, 08:30

And here Wikileaks on Twitter (https://twitter.com/wikileaks)16 hours ago:

BREAKING: A high level source within the Ecuadorian state has told @WikiLeaks that Julian Assange will be expelled within "hours to days" using the #INAPapers offshore scandal as a pretext--and that it already has an agreement with the UK for his arrest.

Ecuador removes official over close Assange relationship (https://www.foxnews.com/world/ecuador-removes-official-over-close-assange-relationship) (April 9)

For what it's worth, this story first came out several days ago (apparently April 4th via the pinned tweet on the Wikileaks twitter feed, which remains unverified since Assange's lawyers started dying) and Ecuador promptly denied it.

Ecuador’s UK ambassador REJECTS Wikileaks’ claims that Julian Assange is about to be expelled from its London embassy and arrested following deal with Britain – despite armed police surrounding the building

The ambassador for Ecuador today insisted there is 'no change' in Julian Assange's position and it is an 'offence' to the country to suggest he will be expelled from it embassy.

Jaime Marchán spoke briefly to reporters as he left the building in Knightsbridge, west London at 2pm after it was claimed the whistleblower was set to be kicked out and arrested with 'hours or days'.

Wikileaks made the claims in a series of Tweets last night citing unnamed sources in the Ecuadorean authorities as confirming Mr Assange's seven-year stay would end imminently.

Armed police were also outside the west London embassy as protestors began arriving at the building early this morning following online calls for people to 'protect' the controversial whistleblower.

Mr Marchán was not recognised by members of the British press but was chased down the street by a freelance journalist from Chilean newspaper El Ciudadano Chile, Patricio Mery.

In the brief encounter he said: 'Ambassador, what is the position of the Ecuadorean government in relation to the WikiLeaks tip?'

Mr Marchán said: 'There is no change in the Señor Julian Assange's situation. To say we are going to take him out the embassy is an offence to Ecuador.'

Asked: 'Is he going to be released in the next couple of hours?'

The ambassador replied: 'We are definitely not going to comment on that.'

Later on Twitter Ecuador's minister of foreign affairs Jose Valencia insisted the claims were 'unfounded'.

He tweeted: 'The rumours of the imminent exit of Assange come from months ago.

'The govt will not be giving a running commentary about unfounded current rumours that furthermore are insulting.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6888435/Julian-Assange-kicked-Ecuadorian-embassy-HOURS-arrested-says-WikiLeaks.html

Jim Stone's commentary, as posted over in the Q thread (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?100318-The-Qanon-posts-and-a-Very-Bad-Day-Scenario-for-some-elite-swamp-critters&p=1284562&viewfull=1#post1284562):

ECUADOR: What are you talking about? Assange is NOT getting evicted.

Yes, the same old dog and pony show, just like I said. Ecuador's ambassador just said they never had any intentions of evicting Assange, but the UK police showed up and surrounded the place for a show, to convince the world he's really there.

SEE THIS (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6888435/Julian-Assange-kicked-Ecuadorian-embassy-HOURS-arrested-says-WikiLeaks.html).

And now, what I said yesterday:

You will not see one photo or piece of video of Julian assange

So he's about to be kicked out of the Ecuadorian embassy eh? After not doing as much as a cameo on the balcony since before Trump was elected. YEP.

http://82.221.129.208/pages/haha.png

The MSM can bluff all it wants. PICTURES AND VIDEO AND I MEAN CRYSTAL CLEAR VIDEO OR IT DID NOT HAPPEN. Then again, from this point on there will always be penguins (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dfWzp7rYR4). I doubt they will accomplish it with Assange though. They are lazy. Assange might not get the flying penguin treatment, they will just opt to not show anything at all, and cite some B.S. like "privacy" or "legal issues". Or maybe they will let the whole topic die and pull him out like a fake Osama when needed.

MY COMMENT:
And that's what I am at least partially around for, - to call out B.S. only to have it proven B.S. later. GOTCHA. I am probably going to be using that "HA HA" picture a lot now.

http://82.221.129.208/.wo0.html

Jim Stone also added this more recently:

A reminder: Once again, Ecuador has (again) flatly denied claims that Assange was going to be evicted
Same old pony show. He never once stepped out on that balcony since Pamela brought him lunch, citing "security reasons". BULL****. And the day after Pamela brought him lunch, his internet got cut. BULL****. Now they pull him out like a fake osama, to make sure we believe he is there but we never get to see him and it always ends like this. BULL****.

I CALL TRIPLE BULL****, Assange is as gone as Osama, who died from a lack of dialysis and subsequently lived for years until Obama took him out and I called it in 2016. How far ahead is that? It helped to have the big black van pull up the night after Pamela brought him lunch and remove Assange, and have it all live streamed - I fully expected the next day's news be nothing but Assange not at the embassy anymore but NOPE - his internet was cut. That was the line they used.

Do not forget: All 4 of the top people at Wikileaks that were not at the embassy died for various reasons in the two months before Pamela brought him lunch, and when Pamela brought him lunch I am surprised he ate it because it was well known at the time that she openly hated his guts. Now that he is gone, she's his lover. YEP. And Wikileaks lives on as a deep state tool, oozing fakeness like Q, and solid proof: NO ACTION HAS EVER BEEN TAKEN ON RELEASES BY WIKILEAKS, OR Q SPEW, in fact, only the opposite has hit reality. Consider that.

We will continue to hear stories of degrading health, near evictions, internet blackouts for Assange and whatever else, because they have to have something make people think he's actually alive. Killing him was a very unpopular prospect, and the image of Wikileaks is just too good of a tool to throw away. Maybe he'll eventually do a cameo on a deep fake, but as for now, we have seen NOTHING.

http://82.221.129.208/.wn9.html

I've become skeptical of the idea that he's dead due to some Q drops on the subject, but I still believe he was taken out of the embassy in 2016.

It was a Q drop that directed attention to this unclassified Hillary Clinton email release, undated (copied from another post on the Q thread (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?100318-The-Qanon-posts-and-a-Very-Bad-Day-Scenario-for-some-elite-swamp-critters&p=1284418&viewfull=1#post1284418)):

http://magaimg.net/img/7oaz.png

Email can't be directly linked, but can be found here on this government website (https://foia.state.gov/Search/Results.aspx?collection=Litigation_F-2016-07895_47), page 20, at the very bottom.

Q also confirmed that Assange is not "stateside," and refused to give any more specific information because "our enemies are also monitoring this board."

I expect there to be some unexpected drama to unfold around Assange's release.

Reading between the lines of the above email: Email subject is "Assange Arrest, etc.," and the content begins by referring to "great news," which, along with the rest of the email, suggests that Assange was by the time of this email already in custody.

However, the second to last sentence, "hope the Wikileaker gets what is coming to him," indicates that he was still alive. So at some point, Assange was detained but not murdered, though Hillary had "joked" about sending a drone into the embassy to assassinate him. There were lots of people covering incidents around the time of the 2016 election that indicated that Assange had been abducted out of the embassy, and of course he hasn't made any appearances in his window since that time. So where he is, and whose exact custody he was in, remains to be seen.

Another commentator pointed out that another drop said something to the extent of "they have the site, but we have the source."

Reminder that Assange has all but explicitly stated that Seth Rich was the source of the DNC emails.

WOW! BREAKING=> Julian Assange Suggests Seth Rich – Who Was MURDERED in DC – Was Wikileaks DNC Source!

On July 8, 2016, 27 year-old Democratic staffer Seth Conrad Rich was murdered in Washington DC. The killer or killers took nothing from their victim, leaving behind his wallet, watch and phone.

WOW! BREAKING=> Julian Assange Suggests Seth Rich – Who Was MURDERED in DC – Was Wikileaks DNC Source!
Jim Hoft by Jim Hoft August 9, 2016 3201 Comments

85.7KShare 74Tweet Email

On July 8, 2016, 27 year-old Democratic staffer Seth Conrad Rich was murdered in Washington DC. The killer or killers took nothing from their victim, leaving behind his wallet, watch and phone.

Shortly after the killing, Redditors and social media users were pursuing a “lead” saying that Rich was en route to the FBI the morning of his murder, apparently intending to speak to special agents about an “ongoing court case” possibly involving the Clinton family.

Seth Rich’s father Joel told reporters, “If it was a robbery — it failed because he still has his watch, he still has his money — he still has his credit cards, still had his phone so it was a wasted effort except we lost a life.”

The Metropolitan police posted a reward for information on Rich’s murder.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/seth-rich-bloomingdale_02.jpg

On Tuesday Wikileaks offered a $20,000 reward for information on the murder of DNC staffer Seth rich.

Now this…
Julian Assange suggested on Tuesday that Seth Rich was a Wikileaks informant.
Via Mike Cernovich:

Was Seth Rich, the source of #DNCleaks, murdered? https://t.co/bKwYQJcmQp

— Mike Cernovich (@Cernovich) August 10, 2016

Julian Assange seems to suggests on Dutch television program Nieuwsuur that Seth Rich was the source for the Wikileaks-exposed DNC emails and was murdered.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/assange-rich--600x402.jpg

From the video:

Julian Assange: Whistleblowers go to significant efforts to get us material and often very significant risks. As a 27 year-old, works for the DNC, was shot in the back, murdered just a few weeks ago for unknown reasons as he was walking down the street in Washington.

Reporter: That was just a robbery, I believe. Wasn’t it?

Julian Assange: No. There’s no finding. So… I’m suggesting that our sources take risks.

HOLY SH*T!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kp7FkLBRpKg

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/08/wow-breaking-video-julian-assange-suggests-seth-rich-wikileaks-dnc-source-shot-dead-dc/

Wikileaks has always protected its sources, but there's little point in "protecting" a dead man who was already assassinated for leaking damaging information. So Assange essentially admitted that Seth Rich was their source for the emails.

The Trump administration is not going to be persecuting Assange for releasing damaging information on the Democrats, and you can take that to the bank. Anything to the contrary is hype and/or misinformation.

Assange testimony --> Seth Rich's assassination --> DNC collusion with MS-13 to kill Seth Rich to silence him.

Roger Stone is going to trial for allegedly lying about his involvement with Wikileaks and the supposed "Russian hack" of the emails Wikileaks released, so a fuller chain of events may end up looking like this:

Roger Stone's testimony --> Assange testimony --> Seth Rich's assassination is established in US court --> DNC collusion with MS-13 is established in court.

Innocent Warrior

10th April 2019, 13:27

Innocent Warrior

10th April 2019, 16:05

Streamed five hours ago, Full WikiLeaks press briefing: Spanish police bust 3,000,000 Euro extortion attempt against Assange.

The Merino government has been spying on Assange. Filming and recording everything. They even made a copy of a legal document of one of Assange’s lawyers. He’s briefly left it on a table while Assange and him went for a meeting and it contains Assange’s strategy of how to deal with the Ecuadorian government. A copy was made when it was left unattended. Anyway, someone from inside the Embassy collected troves of film, recordings and documents they had on Assange and it ended up in an extortionist’s hands in Spain. The doc they made a copy of is amongst the trove of files btw. They want three million for the trove of files or they’re going to release it all to the media, which is a generous offer according to them because they’ve had an offer of nine million. WikiLeaks’ editor in chief, Hrafnsson, reported it to the Spanish police. I’m about 15 minutes into the briefing and that’s what’s been said so far.

QFq38d3Q9qY

@Voice Hrafnsson is quite sure the intel was good and the reason it hasn’t happened is that WikiLeaks was informed and in turn informed the public, but he said that might only be temporarily effective.

Tintin

11th April 2019, 10:17

**BREAKING**

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange arrested at London's Ecuadorian embassy

Source: Guardian (UK) (https://www.theguardian.com/media/live/2019/apr/11/wikileaks-founder-julian-assange-arrested-at-the-ecuadorean-embassy-live-updates)

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

From Craig Murray on his blog (https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2019/04/on-the-pavement-with-wikileaks/) yesterday, April 10th, this extract:

When Julian does leave the Embassy, whatever the circumstances in which he does that, it will be for a day or two the largest media story in the world and undoubtedly will lead all the news bulletins across every major country. The odds are that he will be leaving and facing a fight against extradition to the United States, on charges arising from the Chelsea Manning releases which revealed a huge amount about US war crimes and other illegal acts.

It will be very important to try to focus a hostile media on why it is Julian is actually wanted for extradition. Not for the non-existent collusion with Russia to assist Trump, which is an entirely fake narrative. Not for meetings with Manafort which never happened. Not for the allegations in Sweden which fell apart immediately they were subject to rational scrutiny. And not for any nonsense about whether he hacked the communications in the Embassy or cleaned up the cat litter.

This is not going to be an easy task because pretty well all of the Western media is going to want to focus on these false anti-Assange narratives, and they will be determined to give as little attention as possible to the fact he is a publisher facing trial for publishing leaked state documents which revealed state wrongdoing.

It is a classic and fundamental issue of freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Drawing together a team that can get this message across in such MSM windows as are afforded, as well as through social media, is an important task.

greybeard

11th April 2019, 11:13

Bearded and haggard Julian Assange hauled out of Ecuadorian embassy screaming as he is finally arrested
Yahoo News UK Andy Wells,Yahoo News UK

Julian Assange has been arrested and taken into custody, the Metropolitan Police have confirmed.

Officers were invited into the Ecuadorian embassy where the WikiLeaks founder has been holed up since 2012 after he failed to surrender to court.

Assange, was shouting and gesticulating as he was carried out of the Ecuadorian Embassy in handcuffs by seven men and put into a waiting Met Police van, video footage showed.

A witness said: “He was screaming. He was struggling, I think he felt a bit weak. He was surrounded by police.”
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange was hauled out of the Ecuadorian embassy and arrested this morning (Grab)
Police vans outside the Ecuadorian embassy as Assange was arrested this morning (PA)

The arrest followed the Ecuadorian government’s withdrawal of asylum.

In a statement, Scotland Yard said: “Julian Assange, 47, has today, Thursday 11 April, been arrested by officers from the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) at the Embassy of Ecuador, Hans Crescent, SW1 on a warrant issued by Westminster Magistrates’ Court on 29 June 2012, for failing to surrender to the court.

“He has been taken into custody at a central London police station where he will remain, before being presented before Westminster Magistrates’ Court as soon as is possible.

Read more from Yahoo News UK:
Jeremy Hunt warns of ‘catastrophic’ General Election for Tories
Police warn public not to approach missing violent prisoner
‘Medical history’ made as baby produced from three people is born

“The MPS had a duty to execute the warrant, on behalf of Westminster Magistrates’ Court, and was invited into the embassy by the Ambassador, following the Ecuadorian government’s withdrawal of asylum.”

Assange has spent almost seven years at the embassy after seeking refuge there to avoid extradition to Sweden.

Home Secretary Sajid Javid tweeted: “Nearly 7yrs after entering the Ecuadorean Embassy, I can confirm Julian Assange is now in police custody and rightly facing justice in the UK. I would like to thank Ecuador for its cooperation & @metpoliceuk for its professionalism. No one is above the law.”

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/4521768-094658569.html

Agape

11th April 2019, 11:15

My out of the box opinion is that it’s better he was taken away from the Embassy before it was too late. He was confined to room space smaller than many prisoners are contained in while they are allowed walks in some yard or exercise in gym regularly.
Julian there turned himself to prisoner of conscience and burden to his hosts.

It’s a collective fault in my best opinion if no adequate solution was found earlier between all parties involved, most “hero’s” of brave character would have walked out much earlier and on their own but that’s my opinion.
Every embassy do watch their personnel closely. That’s why there’s a diplomatic immunity concerning missions, personas and their properties who are foreign embassadors to other countries.
Wikileaks could be hailed for some releases but equally condemned for breaching conventions, peace treaties and rules of diplomatic protocol.

What I want to say is let’s wish Julian better future and kinder treatment.

So sad to see

😢

Hervé

11th April 2019, 12:19

Wikileaks Founder Assange Dragged Out of London Embassy in Handcuffs After Ecuador Tears up Asylum Deal (https://www.rt.com/news/456212-julian-assange-embassy-eviction/)

RT (https://www.rt.com/news/456212-julian-assange-embassy-eviction/)
Thu, 11 Apr 2019 09:38 UTC

===

[ Mod-edit: I copied the bulk of this post over to the main "Assange Arrested" thread which formed an hour later, after this initial post by KiwiElf on the main Q thread. See Julian Assange arrested after Ecuador tears up asylum deal -- Post #9 (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?106596-Julian-Assange-arrested-after-Ecuador-tears-up-asylum-deal&p=1285645&viewfull=1#post1285645). -- Paul. ]

[Mod edit: I copied it back here where it also belongs and is a duplicate of Rachel's post in that other thread. Hervé]

http://thepythoniccow.us/Assange_Arrested_Ruptly_SOTT_2019-04-11.jpg

Exclusive video shows whistleblower and Wikileaks co-founder Julian Assange being carried out of the Ecuadorian embassy in London by force, before being shoved into a police vehicle.

Assange had been living in the embassy for the last seven years protected by political asylum.

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has been evicted from the Ecuadorian Embassy in London where he has spent the last six years. Ecuador's president has announced that the country has withdrawn asylum from Assange.

The eviction follows reports (https://www.rt.com/news/433783-wikileaks-assange-ecuador-uk/) that the Australian founder of the WikiLeaks whistleblowing portal would be handed over to British authorities. Ecuador denied the reports and said it had no intention of stripping him of his protected status, but apparently another decision was made by Quito.

That's only a day after WikiLeaks Editor-in-Chief Kristinn Hrafnsson claimed that an extensive spying operation was conducted against Assange in the Ecuadorian Embassy. During an explosive media conference Hrafnsson alleged that the operation was designed to get Assange extradited.

72yCVOSHIEM

Assange's relationship with Ecuadorian officials appeared increasingly strained since the current president came to power in the Latin American country in 2017. His internet connection was cut off in March of last year, with officials saying (https://twitter.com/ComunicacionEc/status/979027961411194880) the move was to stop Assange from "interfering in the affairs of other sovereign states."

stTMt1tLT4g

The whistleblower garnered massive international attention in 2010 when WikiLeaks released classified US military footage, entitled 'Collateral Murder', of a US Apache helicopter gunship opening fire on a number of people, killing 12 including two Reuters staff, and injuring two children.

sq8Xw43adXo

The footage, as well as US war logs from Iraq and Afghanistan and more than 200,000 diplomatic cables, were leaked to the site by US Army soldier Chelsea Manning. She was tried by a US tribunal and sentenced to 35 years in jail for disclosing the materials.

Manning was pardoned by outgoing President Barack Obama in 2017 after spending seven years in US custody. She is currently being held again in a US jail for refusing to testify before a secret grand jury in a case apparently related to WikiLeaks.

Assange's seven-year stay at the Ecuadorian Embassy was motivated by his concern that he may face similarly harsh and arguably unfair prosecution by the US for his role in publishing troves of classified US documents over the years.

His legal troubles stem from an accusation by two women in Sweden, with both claiming they had a sexual encounter with Assange that was not fully consensual. The whistleblower said the allegations were false. Nevertheless, they yielded to the Swedish authorities who sought (https://www.aklagare.se/nyheter-press/nyheter-press/for-media/assangearendet/kronologi/) his extradition from the UK on "suspicion of rape, three cases of sexual abuse and unlawful compulsion."

In December 2010, he was arrested in the UK under a European Arrest Warrant and spent time in Wandsworth Prison before being released on bail and put under house arrest.

During that time, Assange hosted a show (https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL19A6F6A10DCFB253) on RT known as 'World Tomorrow' or 'The Julian Assange Show', in which he interviewed several world influencers in controversial and thought-provoking episodes.

iNQdhfLGebg

His attempt to fight extradition ultimately failed. In 2012, he skipped bail and fled to the Ecuadorian Embassy, which extended him protection from arrest by the British authorities. Quito gave him political asylum and later Ecuadorian citizenship.

Assange spent the following years stranded at the diplomatic compound, only making sporadic appearances at the embassy window and in interviews (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3HWiydFlJc) conducted inside. His health has reportedly deteriorated over the years, while treatment options are limited due to his inability to leave the Knightsbridge building.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D33VmEsW0AAD3Tp?format=jpg&name=small (https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/1116283186860953600/photo/1)

https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/512138307870785536/Fe00yVS2_normal.png (https://twitter.com/wikileaks) WikiLeaks ✔ @wikileaks (https://twitter.com/wikileaks)
This man is a son, a father, a brother. He has won dozens of journalism awards. He's been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize every year since 2010. Powerful actors, including CIA, are engaged in a sophisticated effort to dehumanise, delegitimize and imprison him. #ProtectJulian (https://twitter.com/hashtag/ProtectJulian?src=hash)
12:13 PM - Apr 11, 2019 (https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/1116283186860953600)In 2016, a UN expert panel ruled that what was happening to Assange amounted to arbitrary detention by the British authorities. London nevertheless refused to revoke his arrest warrant for skipping bail. Sweden dropped the investigation against Assange in 2017, although Swedish prosecutors indicated it may be resumed if Assange "makes himself available."

Assange argued that his avoidance of European law enforcement was necessary to protect him from extradition to the US, where then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions said that arresting him is a "priority." WikiLeaks was branded a "non-state hostile intelligence service" by then-CIA head Mike Pompeo in 2017.

The US government has been tight-lipped on whether Assange would face indictment over the dissemination of classified material. In November 2018, the existence of a secret indictment targeting Assange was seemingly unintentionally confirmed in a US court filing for an unrelated case.

Last year, a UK tribunal refused to release key details on communications between British and Swedish authorities that could have revealed any dealings between the UK, Sweden, the US, and Ecuador in the long-running Assange debacle. La Repubblica journalist Stefania Maurizi had her appeal to obtain documents held by the Crown Prosecution Service dismissed on December 12.

WikiLeaks is responsible for publishing thousands of documents with sensitive information from many countries. Those include the 2003 Standard Operating Procedures manual (https://file.wikileaks.org/file/gitmo-sop.pdf) for Guantanamo Bay, the controversial detention center in Cuba. The agency has also released documents (https://wikileaks.org/wiki/Church_of_Scientology_collected_Operating_Thetan_documents) on Scientology, one tranche referred to as "secret bibles" from the religion founded by L. Ron Hubbard.

Related:

Ecuador president implicated in financial scandal, blames Wikileaks, threatens Assange with expulsion from embassy (https://www.sott.net/article/410405-Ecuador-president-implicated-in-financial-scandal-blames-Wikileaks-threatens-Assange-with-expulsion-from-embassy)

Ecuador's former president Rafael Correa denounces treatment of Julian Assange as "torture" (https://www.sott.net/article/385983-Ecuadors-former-president-Rafael-Correa-denounces-treatment-of-Julian-Assange-as-torture)

"Free Assange first": Twitter schools hypocritical UK Foreign Sec over 'media freedom' event (https://www.sott.net/article/408157-Free-Assange-first-Twitter-schools-hypocritical-UK-Foreign-Sec-over-media-freedom-event)

The Crucifixion of Julian Assange (https://www.sott.net/article/400629-The-Crucifixion-of-Julian-Assange)

ThePythonicCow

11th April 2019, 22:52

[Mod edit: I copied it back here where it also belongs and is a duplicate of Rachel's post in that other thread. Hervé]
:happythumbsup: :cow:

Tintin

13th April 2019, 08:50

As the mainstream narrative starts to play out ever so predictably with the UK Home Secretary Sajid Javid being urged (http://https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/apr/12/give-priority-to-julian-assange-claim-home-secretary-urged) that focus be put on the somewhat shaky rape allegations, now may be a very appropriate time to revisit Julian's entire defence statement (https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/12/julian-assanges-defence-statement/) again [from 2016], and to do as Craig Murray has suggested, and, I quote:

"You really do owe it to yourself, to justice and to personal honesty to read Julian’s side of the story."

This is very long - some 120 points are laid out here, but it gives a very good picture, from the horse's mouth if you like, of his situation at least up to the end of 2016.

Point #54 serves as a salutary reminder of intent on the part of the US. More statements in relation to the Swedish charges can be found from #68 onwards.

Here it is in its entirety, split over two posts:

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

JULIAN ASSANGE'S DEFENCE STATEMENT - November 2016

14/15 NOVEMBER 2016 QUESTIONING AT THE ECUADORIAN EMBASSY LEGALLY PRIVILEGED
You have subjected me to six years of unlawful, politicized detention without charge in prison, under house arrest and four and a half years at this embassy. You should have asked me this question six years ago. Your actions in refusing to take my statement for the last six years have been found to be unlawful by the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention and by the Swedish Court of Appeal. You have been found to have subjected me to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. You have denied me effective legal representation in this process. Despite this, I feel compelled to cooperate even though you are not safeguarding my rights.

I. THE SWEDISH PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION
I, Julian Assange, an Australian citizen, have had my passport taken by British authorities and so cannot provide formal identification, am in a situation of arbitrary detention according to the decision of the United Nations Working Group of Arbitrary Detention (UNWGAD) of 4 December 2015; a political refugee since 19 June 2012 at the Embassy of Ecuador with asylum which was granted by Ecuador on 16 August 2012, and hereby appear before the authorities of Sweden and Ecuador in the framework of a rogatory commission that has been entered between these two states, requested by the Swedish prosecutor Marianne Ny, and declare that:

1. I ratify what has been expressed by my Ecuadorian lawyer, both in relation to this procedure today and the concerns about the procedure pursued against me in Sweden, including the failure to allow my Swedish lawyer to be present and the failure to provide me with exculpatory and other discovery material, which I have, to date, not been given proper access to, including in the preparation for this statement today.

2. Today, 14 November 2016, after having made myself available to the Swedish authorities since the start of this outrageous process six years ago, I am finally given the opportunity to give my statement to the Swedish preliminary investigation. I am grateful to Ecuador for attempting to facilitate this process in the circumstances where the Swedish prosecutor has declined, since 2010, to accept this, my first statement on the allegation against me.

3. I went to Sweden on 11 August 2010. During my stay, I met a woman (hereinafter called ”SW”). On the evening of 16 August, 2010 she invited me to her home. During the night and in the morning we had consensual sexual intercourse on several occasions.

4. I therefore could not believe my eyes when five days later I saw a headline in a Swedish tabloid that I was suspected of a crime and arrested in my absence. I immediately made myself available to the Swedish authorities to clarify any questions that might exist, although I had no obligation to do so.

5. That same day (21 August 2010), the Chief Prosecutor of Stockholm, Eva Finné, dropped the arrest warrant against me and within days would close the preliminary investigation with the finding that no crime whatsoever had been committed against the woman “SW” (who is the subject of this procedure). I drew the conclusion that, other than the worldwide damage to my reputation caused by millions of web pages saying that I was “wanted for rape”, my life, in this respect, would return to normal.

6. On 23 August 2010, the Chief Prosecutor of Stockholm, Eva Finné stated she “made the assessment that the evidence did not disclose any offence of rape”.

7. On 25 August, the Chief Prosecutor found that “The conduct alleged disclosed no crime at all and that file (K246314-10) would be closed”.

8. A week later, I learned to my surprise that a different prosecutor by the name of “Marianne Ny” had reopened the preliminary investigation without any consultation or opportunity for me to be heard – after I had already been cleared and the case had been closed.

9. That prosecutor eventually issued an extradition warrant against me, supposedly to take my statement, even though I left Sweden with her permission and in good faith, and had repeatedly tried to see if the prosecutor was ready to accept my statement. I had not and have still not been charged with a crime.

10. It has taken more than six years for the prosecutor to now obtain my statement. The delay is entirely caused by the prosecutor who re-opened the closed preliminary investigation. A prosecutor is, according to Swedish law (Chapter 23, Section 4 of the Procedural Code), obligated to conduct the preliminary investigation as expeditiously as possible and when there is no longer reason for pursuing the investigation, it shall be discontinued. At the preliminary investigation phase, the prosecutor is obligated to take into account all the circumstances: those against the suspect as well as those circumstances in favour of the suspect, and any evidence favourable to the suspect shall be preserved. The investigation shall be conducted so that no person is unnecessarily exposed to suspicion, or put to unnecessary cost or inconvenience.

11. Instead of following the law, prosecutor Marianne Ny has kept the preliminary investigation open without justification for over six years. She deliberately suspended her work to progress and bring to a conclusion the preliminary investigation. She has for more than six years refused to take my statement during which time she has done nothing to pursue the preliminary investigation. The preliminary investigation entered into a stasis more than six years ago. I have always demonstrated my willingness to cooperate in order to speed up the process – although there is no obligation whatsoever for me to do so. All the obligation is on the prosecutor to progress the preliminary investigation. This attitude of the prosecutor has clearly breached mandatory rules in Swedish law.

12. I reiterate that over the past six years, I have continued to call for this prosecutor to accept my statement, including by:

— Willingly attending a questioning on 30 August 2010 in Stockholm, where no questions were asked about the allegation, as I had already been cleared.
— Staying in Sweden for more than five weeks longer than planned, repeatedly asking if or when I could give a statement, despite pressing commitments elsewhere.
— Gaining the prosecutor’s consent to leave Sweden before doing so on 27 September 2010 in good faith, understanding that I was not required to provide a further statement for the time being. On the day I left the country three of my encrypted laptops were seized from me at Stockholm’s Arlanda airport. The laptops contained evidence of war crimes pending publication and protected legal correspondence.
— Offering to return to Sweden to give a statement in October 2010.
— Offering to give my statement from London via numerous methods including telephone or videolink or in writing from London between October 2010 and up to and through the prosecutor unnecessarily issuing a European Arrest Warrant. The European Arrest Warrant attempted to extradite me, without charge, from the UK to Sweden, to take my statement. I was actively offering the testimony she claimed she wanted when she sought my arrest.
— Providing a DNA sample six years ago in December 2010 when I was first arrested at Sweden’s request and which has been available to the prosecutor for the last six years. She has never bothered to even attempt to use it.
— Offering to give a statement in London via Mutual Legal Assistance, among other suggestions, during my time of house arrest (7 December 2010 – 19 June 2012).
— Offering to give a statement in the Ecuadorian embassy in London as from 19 June 2012, for instance via email from my Swedish lawyers on 24 July 2012 and during a meeting between my lawyers and the prosecutors in Stockholm 7 May 2013 – over four years ago and over three years ago respectively.
— Offering to come to Sweden provided Sweden would give a guarantee that I am not extradited to another state over my publishing work. This offer was also requested by Ecuador through diplomatic channels and publicly in 2012, as I am a refugee in its jurisdiction.

13. As this demonstrates, although I have no obligation to do so, I have done everything within my power to offer my testimony to the prosecutor while protecting my right to asylum and protecting myself against the risk of extradition to the United States, where there is an open national security case against me. According to the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, WikiLeaks’ alleged source in that matter, Chelsea Manning, has been subjected to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment in US detention, and has since been convicted and sentenced to 35 years in prison.

14. The state of Sweden has refused to provide me the necessary assurances against extradition or other transport to the United States since 2010 when such was asked by my lawyers and since 2012 when requested to do so by the state of Ecuador. Sweden has also refused to accept that the asylum Ecuador has granted me requires it to protect me from onwards extradition to the United States, despite this being the recognized norm in asylum cases, thus making it impossible for me to go to Sweden without giving up my fundamental right as a political refugee. This refusal to recognize my rights as a political refugee has been the sole impediment to my presence in Sweden. I explicitly offered to accept extradition to Sweden provided it simply guarantee that it will not transfer me to another state. This was declined.

15. Nevertheless, I have continued to offer the prosecutor my statement through mechanisms which can be employed to achieve her stated purpose without putting at risk my fundamental rights, which she has, until recently, rejected.

16. Two years ago the Svea Court of Appeal on 20 November 2014 severely criticized the prosecutor for her negligence:

“The Court of Appeal notes, however, that the investigation into the suspected crimes has come to a halt and considers that the failure of the prosecutors to examine alternative avenues is not in line with their obligation – in the interests of everyone concerned – to move the preliminary investigation forward.”

17. It was not until March 2015 that Marianne Ny finally – after she had been found in breach of her duties by Sweden’s Court of Appeal and my case was before the Supreme Court and it became apparent that she might lose – claimed that she would, under certain restrictive conditions, accept my statement after all.

18. Since that time, the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (UNWGAD) released its ruling on 5 February 2016 that my situation in the embassy amounts to an unlawful and arbitrary detention, in breach of Sweden’s binding legal obligations under international law. UNWGAD found that Sweden and the UK have disregarded the asylum that I have been granted by Ecuador, forcing me to choose between deprivation of liberty and the risk of losing Ecuador’s protection and being extradited to the United States.

19. It then took Marianne Ny more than 18 months after her claimed change of position at the Supreme Court to arrange this meeting. I have not been responsible for a single day of delay in this process. All the delay has been caused by prosecutor Marianne Ny and the state authorities. Again note that all the obligation is on the prosecutor.

20. Furthermore, the UNWGAD concluded that the Swedish prosecutor has breached my due process rights in the conduct of this preliminary investigation and that seeking my extradition to Sweden as the only option in these circumstances was ”excessive and unnecessary” [para 97]. In particular, it found:

“…after more than five years’ time lapse, he is still left at the stage of preliminary investigation with no predictability as to whether and when a formal process of any judicial dealing would commence…” [para. 97] “…Mr Assange has been denied the opportunity to provide a statement, which is a fundamental aspect of the audi alteram partem principle, the access to exculpatory evidence, and thus the opportunity to defend himself against the allegations…” [para. 98] “…the duration of such detention is ipso facto incompatible with the presumption of innocence.” [para. 98]

21. As a result of the Swedish prosecutor’s actions, UNWGAD found my circumstances to be of an increasingly serious deprivation of liberty which is of an indefinite nature and is already far longer than the maximum penalty I could ever theoretically face in Sweden. For these reasons UNWGAD found that the severe and indefinite nature of these deprivations amounts to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment in breach of Sweden’s obligation under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) Article 7. The severity of this treatment is further confirmed by the expert opinion of Fernando Mariño, the former President of the UN Committee Against Torture, which is entered into the official record of this proceeding.

22. Ten months after the UNWGAD determination the harshness of the situation continues to affect my physical and psychological health. My lawyers have informed the Swedish authorities of the ongoing deterioration of my health through the medical certificates and expert opinions of Dr. Michael Korzinski and Dr. Fluxman, from 11 November 2015; of Dr. Ladbrooke from 8 December 2015; of Dr. Michael Korzinski from 15 June 2016; and of Dr. Ladbrooke from 9 November 2016.

23. And so, finally, here we are today, under the jurisdiction of Ecuador, with my rights ever increasingly limited, as my Ecuadorian defence counsel has expressed. After more than six years, I am finally being given the “opportunity” to give my statement but with my Swedish counsel having been excluded and under a clear situation of legal defencelessness, resulting from years of negligence and intentional and unlawful delays by the Swedish authorities.

24. All the irregularities that have occurred through the acts or omissions of the prosecution authority and the six-year delay to date of this disproportionate, inhumane and unlawful preliminary investigation have permanently destroyed all possibilities for me to properly defend myself – which is no doubt their intention.

25. Following the above, I wish to express in the strongest terms, that, in addition to the breaches of my due process rights in the investigation to date, the procedure to be adopted today in taking my statement further breaches those rights:

— My Swedish defence lawyer was not permitted to be present today, despite the fact that these proceedings concern a Swedish criminal preliminary investigation.
— In the opinion of my general practitioner, I am unfit to prepare and participate in these proceedings (after having been denied hospital treatment and sunlight for 4.5 years).
— My Ecuadorian defence counsel has had no access to the case file, let alone in Spanish, the language he understands, nor has he had adequate time to prepare my defence.
— My lawyers and I have not been permitted access to the case file.
— I have been denied my request to read the text messages that my Swedish defence lawyers have read, which are a key element to my defence because they clearly show that I am innocent.

26. Due to all the shortcomings stated above, prosecutor Marianne Ny should have drawn the obvious conclusion that she discontinue the preliminary investigation.

27. In this context I once again remind you that I have already been cleared and that the preliminary investigation was closed by Chief Prosecutor Eva Finné in August 2010.

28. Given this history I have good reason to have concern about whether this “preliminary investigation” is being conducted in good faith and whether honest and impartial consideration will be given to my statement. I suspect that the real purpose of the Swedish prosecutor coming here today is not to obtain my statement but is simply a ruse to tick a box to ensure the technical possibility to indict me, irrespective of how I answer any questions.

29. I do not believe that prosecutor Marianne Ny is acting in good faith or with the objectivity and impartiality required of her office. For example, after circumventing the Chief Prosecutor of Stockholm’s decision to close this case, prosecutor Ny has made at least 40 press releases and press conferences about me where my name has been published, even though there is no charge against me and I have been previously cleared, subjecting me to endless needless suspicion, in clear violation of her duty to not do so under Chapter 23, Section 4 of the Swedish Procedural Code.

30. My overall conclusion is that the prosecutor’s conduct of the preliminary investigation, for all the reasons above has continued to deprive me of the right to defend myself.

31. I have no obligation to cooperate with this abuse, but I find myself in a coercive situation. I am meant to be protected by the decision of the UNWGAD which makes it clear that this “preliminary investigation” has violated my human rights and that its attempts to arrest me should be discontinued immediately. That decision was issued almost a year ago, but my situation remains unchanged. Despite the many violations already described I feel compelled to give my statement today so that there can be no more excuses for the Swedish prosecutor Marianne Ny to continue my indefinite unlawful detention, which is a threat to my health and even to my life. I have been pushing and indeed litigating for this prosecutor to take my statement for more than six years. The prosecutor has made excuse after excuse to not take my statement. I will not grant this prosecutor any excuse to continue to avoid taking my statement as I fear she would use it as a means to indefinitely prolong my cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.

II. REASONS WHY I TRAVELLED TO STOCKHOLM IN AUGUST 2010
32. I am the editor-in-chief and publisher of WikiLeaks, a publishing organisation specializing in the analysis of records under risk of censorship that are of political, diplomatic, historical or ethical importance. Among other countries, WikiLeaks publishes and analyses documents that concern the United States, Sweden and the United Kingdom, including millions of documents relating to actions of military, intelligence and foreign services. I have received numerous awards in relation to my publishing work, including the 2008 Index on Censorship Freedom of Expression Award, The Economist New Media Award (USA) 2008, the 2009 Amnesty International UK Media Award (New Media), the 2010 Sam Adams Associates for Integrity in Intelligence (USA) award, the 2011 Sydney Peace Foundation Gold Medal (Australia), the 2011 Martha Gellhorn Prize for Journalism (UK), the 2011 Walkley Award for Most Outstanding Contribution to Journalism (Australia), the 2011 Blanquerna Award for Best Communicator (Spain), the 2011 International Piero Passetti Journalism Prize of the National Union of Italian Journalists, the 2011 Jose Couso Press Freedom Award (Spain), the 2012 Privacy International Award, the 2013 Yoko Ono Lennon Courage Award, and the 2013 Global Exchange Human Rights Awards, as well as formal nominations for the United Nations’ Mandela Prize (2014) and for the past six consecutive years for the Nobel Peace Prize.

33. The US launched an investigation against me in early 2010 under the Obama administration, while Hillary Clinton was the US Secretary of State. This administration has expended very substantial resources on attempting to prosecute me and attempting to spy on my publishing work despite its constitutionally protected status. The US government’s WikiLeaks investigation is described in official diplomatic correspondence as being “unprecedented in scale and nature”.

34. All the citations I mention are in my affidavit from 2 September 2013, which I am entering into the official record of this proceeding.

35. The US government has periodically confirmed in public that the national security case against WikiLeaks remains open and ongoing, including in proceedings from this year. Numerous human rights and freedom of speech organizations such as Human Rights Watch have criticized the Obama administration for pursuing a criminal case against WikiLeaks and me.

36. The investigation against Wikileaks is led by the FBI and has involved a dozen other agencies, including the CIA, the NSA, and the Defence Intelligence Agency. The US government has described the investigation as a “whole of government” investigation. In Alexandria, Virginia, a Grand Jury has been meeting behind closed doors for the past six years under case number 10GJ3793 to explore ways to imprison me and seven others who they have identified as “founders, owners or managers of WikiLeaks”. The prosecution in the Chelsea Manning case attempted to establish that Private Manning acted as an agent under my control rather than as a journalistic source of mine, even though in Private Manning’s own statement to the court, she said this was not the case. The US military charged Private Manning with twenty-two counts in connection with the release of more than 700,000 classified or confidential documents to WikiLeaks. On 30 July 2013 private Manning was convicted of twenty of these counts and sentenced to thirty-five years in prison on 20 August 2013.

37. Private Manning was detained for more than 1,000 days before the trial commenced. During this time she remained for 258 days in solitary confinement. The UN Special Rapporteur on Torture found that the conditions and length of private Private Manning’s confinement at Quantico, Virginia, amounted to “inhuman and degrading treatmen t”. Private Manning’s lawyer, David Coombs, said that the treatment of Private Manning was an attempt at breaking her so that Manning would implicate me. The US military court system eventually found that Private Manning was unlawfully punished as a result of this treatment while in US custody. Private Manning was convicted of espionage; the first whistleblower ever so convicted. Private Manning was acquitted of the “aiding the enemy” charge, but the US government could still seek to employ this charge against me. Private Manning is serving a 35 year prison sentence.

38. According to the respected UK newspaper The Independent, the US and Sweden entered informal talks regarding my extradition from Sweden to the United States in early December 2010. These talks of my extradition concerned the US Grand Jury and FBI investigation against WikiLeaks, which is also the reason that Ecuador granted me asylum.

39. The aggressive calls to stop WikiLeaks from publishing were the reason for my travel to Stockholm. US officials’ rhetoric grew increasingly aggressive in the period immediately prior to my visit to Sweden on 11 August 2010. In June, a Daily Beast news report entitled ‘The State Department’s Worst Nightmare’ revealed that the Pentagon was “conducting an aggressive investigation” into whether WikiLeaks had 260,000 US diplomatic cables and the material’s whereabouts.

40. Two days later, an article titled ‘Pentagon Manhunt’ appeared, describing Pentagon investigators desperately trying to track me down in relation to the impending publication of Cablegate:

“Anxious that Wikileaks may be on the verge of publishing a batch of secret State Department cables, investigators are desperately searching for founder Julian Assange”.

41. On 17 June 2010 US Department of Defense spokesman Geoff Morrell stated there was an
“ongoing criminal investigation [concerning WikiLeaks], involving the Army Criminal Investigation Division, as well as, I believe, some other law enforcement agencies.”

42. The Pentagon officials “would not discuss the methods being used to find Assange, nor would they say if they had information to suggest where he is now.” On reading this, I realised WikiLeaks’ continued ability to publish effectively and my own personal safety were at serious risk.

43. During the month of July I worked with a team of journalists in the United Kingdom to publish the Afghan War Diaries: 75,000 secret Pentagon documents about the war in Afghanistan, which included the detailed records about the deaths of nearly 20,000 people. The day after WikiLeaks published the Afghan War Diaries, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs stated that WikiLeaks “poses a very real and potential threat”.

44. I published the Afghan War Diaries approximately two weeks before I travelled to Sweden. In the aftermath of the publication, US government officials made efforts to influence the way in which the media reported on our publications. The purpose was to delegitimise WikiLeaks protections as a publisher under the US First Amendment. For example, it attempted to falsely cast WikiLeaks as an adversary, opposed to US national interests, a false claim that I would later see echoed in Swedish media.

45. The New York Times reported that the White House had emailed its reporters with suggested “reporting tacks to take” on WikiLeaks and WikiLeaks’ disclosures, in an attempt to induce news outlets into referring to WikiLeaks in these terms.

46. The White House sent an e-mail with the subject heading “Thoughts on Wikileaks” containing a memo in which the White House

“advised journalists on possible reporting tacks to take on the [Afghan War Diaries] documents […] As you report on this issue, it’s worth noting that wikileaks is not an objective news outlet but rather an organization that opposes US policy in Afghanistan.”

47. I also learned from news reports that security authorities from my home country Australia were assisting the US intelligence investigation into WikiLeaks and me:

“Australian security authorities are assisting a United States intelligence probe into the whistleblower website Wikileaks and its Australian founder and editor, Julian Assange. The US request for support in what Australian national security sources described as ‘a counter-espionage investigation’ preceded Wikileaks’ dramatic publication yesterday of a leaked US military operations log, described as an ”extraordinary compendium” of 91,000 reports by United States and allied soldiers fighting in Afghanistan.”

48. On July 28th, just three days after publishing the Afghan War Diaries and two weeks before I travelled to Sweden, US Department of Defense Secretary Gates “called FBI Director Robert Mueller and asked for the FBI’s assistance in [the WikiLeaks] investigation as a partner.” The US Defence Department declared:

“Calling on the FBI to aid the investigation ensures that the department will have all the resources needed to investigate… noting that use of the bureau ensures the investigation can go wherever it needs to go.”

49. The New York Times reported that US Defense Secretary Robert Gates

“declined to comment about the investigation beyond noting that he had enlisted the Federal Bureau of Investigation to assist Army investigators, a move that is seen as a precursor to potentially charging people who are not uniformed service members […] A person familiar with the investigation has said that Justice Department lawyers are exploring whether Mr. Assange and WikiLeaks could be charged with inducing, or conspiring in, violations of the Espionage Act, a 1917 law that prohibits the unauthorized disclosure of national security information.”

50. On 1 August 2010, the press reported that the FBI and British police were carrying out searches and interrogations in the UK, where I found myself at the time, in connection with WikiLeaks’ publications.

51. Over the next days, US rhetoric and actions against WikiLeaks intensified. Prominent commentators and former White House officials championed extraterritorial measures and the violation of international law “if necessary”.

52. One of these commentators was former presidential speech writer Marc Thiessen, who published a Washington Post article entitled ‘WikiLeaks Must be Stopped’:
“…the government has a wide range of options for dealing with him. It can employ not only law enforcement but also intelligence and military assets to bring Assange to justice.”

53. Thiessen argued that the US should put pressure on any state in which I was located and that the US should, if necessary, arrest me even without the consent of that state. He cited legal advice from the Department of Justice regarding FBI operations abroad:

“The United States should make clear that it will not tolerate any country — and particularly NATO allies such as Belgium and Iceland — providing safe haven for criminals who put the lives of NATO forces at risk. With appropriate diplomatic pressure, these governments may cooperate in bringing Assange to justice. But if they refuse, the United States can arrest Assange on their territory without their knowledge or approval.”

54. Thiessen further asserted that the FBI could violate international law in order to stop me and apprehend other people associated with WikiLeaks’ publishing activities. Thiessen cited a Department of Justice memo:

“..the FBI may use its statutory authority to investigate and arrest individuals for violating United States law, even if the FBI’s actions contravene customary international law” and that an “arrest that is inconsistent with international or foreign law does not violate the Fourth Amendment.” In other words, we do not need permission to apprehend Assange or his co-conspirators anywhere in the world.

Arresting Assange would be a major blow to his organization. But taking him off the streets is not enough; we must also recover the documents he unlawfully possesses
and disable the system he has built to illegally disseminate classified information. This should be done, ideally, through international law enforcement cooperation. But if such cooperation is not forthcoming, the United States can and should act alone.”

Tintin

13th April 2019, 08:53

JULIAN ASSANGE'S DEFENCE STATEMENT - November 2016
Continued.....................

55. Seven days before I travelled to Sweden I was acutely aware that my personal safety was at risk. Scott Horton, legal affairs and national security contributor at Harper’s, wrote the article ‘WikiLeaks: The National-Security State Strikes Back’:

“[Assange] will certainly be targeted for petty harassment and subject to steady surveillance, and efforts to kidnap him are almost certainly being spun at this very moment.”

56. Pentagon Press Secretary Geoff Morrell announced an anti-WikiLeaks task force comprised of 80 people was operating 24 hours a day. One month later, it had grown to 120 people. The “distinct responsibility” of the Information Review Task Force – dubbed by some occupants as the “WikiLeaks War Room” – was
“…to gather evidence about the workings of WikiLeaks that might someday be used by the Justice Department to prosecute Assange and others on espionage charges.”

57. The article “’The General Gunning for WikiLeaks” described the task force:

“In a nondescript suite of government offices not far from the Pentagon, nearly 120 intelligence analysts, FBI agents, and others are at work—24 hours a day, seven days a week—on the frontlines of the government’s secret war against WikiLeaks. Dubbed the WikiLeaks War Room by some of its occupants, the round-the-clock operation is on high alert this month …”

58. The same article states that Brig. General Robert A. Carr, who runs “the Pentagon’s equivalent to the CIA”, the Defense Counterintelligence and Human Intelligence Center of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), was “handpicked” by Defense Secretary Robert Gates to head the team because he “is highly respected …and a fitting adversary to Assange”.

59. General Carr’s “central assignment” was reportedly “to try to determine exactly what classified information might have been leaked to WikiLeaks”. General Carr testified at the Chelsea Manning sentencing hearing on 31 July 2013.

60. I followed closely how pressure mounted on US allies to track my movements and to stop our publications. Official sources within the administration revealed to the press that the US was not only considering how to prosecute me in relation to WikiLeaks’ publications in the US, but was also requesting their allies to prosecute me under their own national security laws:

“American officials confirmed last month that the Justice Department was weighing a range of criminal charges against Assange and others […]
Now, the officials say, they want other foreign governments to consider the same sorts of criminal charges.”

An article published the day before I went to Sweden stated that “The Obama administration is pressing Britain, Germany, Australia, and other allied Western governments to consider opening criminal investigations of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange and to severely limit his nomadic travels across international borders, American officials say.”

61. In addition to the stated intention to restrict my freedom of movement, the US government attempted to convince its allies not to allow me entry into their territory as a warning to me, to those working with me and WikiLeaks, and to our supporters:

“Through diplomatic and military channels, the Obama administration is hoping to convince Britain, Germany, and Australia, among other allied governments, that Assange should not be welcome on their shores either, given the danger that his group poses to their troops stationed in Afghanistan, American officials say. They say severe limitations on Assange’s travels might serve as a useful warning to his followers that their own freedom is now at risk.”

62. The Australian government publicly entertained the possibility of canceling my passport, reportedly as a result of pressure placed on Australia by the United States. Australian Attorney General Robert McClelland assured the United States that the Australian government would “provide every assistance to United States law-enforcement authorities”, including by exploring the possibility of canceling my passport.

63. US pressure even resulted in public attempts to influence decisions based on human rights considerations where I and WikiLeaks were concerned. Through US ambassador to Switzerland Donald Beyer, the Obama administration pressured Switzerland not to grant me political asylum while I participated at the UN Human Rights Council’s Universal Periodic Review of the United States. US ambassador Beyer gave an interview to Swiss newspaper Sonntag:

“The United States ambassador to Switzerland, Donald Beyer, has also entered the Wikileaks debate. He has warned the Swiss government against granting Assange asylum, which the Australian founder of Wikileaks has said he was considering requesting. “Switzerland should very carefully consider whether to provide shelter to someone who is on the run from the law”.

64. The Daily Beast reported that Washington was prepared to review its diplomatic relations with Iceland because parts of WikiLeaks operations had been conducted in that country:

“An American military official tells The Daily Beast that Washington may also want to closely review its relations with Iceland in the wake of the release of the Afghan war logs.”

65. In the context of my heightened concerns about US activities in the United Kingdom in relation to the WikiLeaks investigation, I decided to leave the country. When I travelled to Sweden on 11 August 2010, the aggressive rhetoric against me had reached new heights.
Former CIA general counsel Jeffrey Smith told National Public Radio:

“I think it is entirely appropriate for us to be very aggressive […] If I were the US government, I would be trying to make it as difficult as possible for the WikiLeaks founder to continue to do business… To the extent we can persuade our allies to consider prosecution, I think that’s all to the good.”

66. On the same day I arrived in Sweden, 11 August 2010, I received information from an Australian intelligence source that extra-legal actions might be taken against me by the US or its allies. This was later reported in the Australian newspaper The Age:

“An Australian intelligence official privately warned Wikileaks on August 11 last year that Assange was the subject of inquiries by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, and that information relating to him and others associated with Wikileaks had been provided to the US in response to requests through intelligence liaison channels. The Australian intelligence official is also claimed to have specifically warned that Assange could be at risk of ‘dirty tricks’ from the US intelligence community.”

67. Friends and associates of mine and volunteers for WikiLeaks were regularly targeted at borders from this moment on. Border searches and interrogations have affected security researcher Jacob Appelbaum, who had given the keynote speech in my place at the HOPE conference on 16 July 2010. In an interview for Democracy Now, Appelbaum described the targeting he experiences at airports:

In the period of time since [the HOPE conference on 16 July 2010] they’ve started detaining me, around a dozen-plus times… I was put into a special room, where they frisked me, put me up against the wall… they took my laptop… then they interrogated me, denied me access to a lawyer. And when they did the interrogation, they have a member of the U.S. Army, on American soil. And they refused to let me go. They … implied that if I didn’t make a deal with them, that I’d be sexually assaulted in prison.

68. Within days of arriving in Sweden I became concerned about my safety and security there, in particular because of the pressure being brought to bear on US allies, including Sweden.

69. I was aware of the publicly stated attempts to track my movements. I used a number of risk minimisation procedures, including relying on the goodwill of friends and their circles for my safety and to protect the confidentiality of my whereabouts and communications.

70. My contacts in Sweden had arranged for me to stay in two safe houses during the few days I had intended to stay in Sweden. One of the safe houses belonged to a journalist who I knew and another to a Social Democrat party figure unknown to me who had lent her apartment while she was away, or so I had been told. However, because these two original safe houses arranged prior to my arrival became known very soon, I stayed in three additional safe houses between 11 and 20 August 2010.

71. I travelled to Sweden to put in place a legal strategy to try to protect our publishing servers, some of which were in Sweden. I believed these assets were at risk as a result of the intense political pressure from the US described above. I met with the Swedish Pirate Party, which was represented at the European Parliament at the time, who agreed to host copies of WikiLeaks servers under their party name in order to further protect our publishing work. I also felt it was best to leave the United Kingdom at that time because the FBI was known to be carrying out operations in connection with the investigation into our publications. I intended to stay in Sweden for less than a week.

72. My dependency on other people while in Sweden was aggravated when, shortly after my arrival in Stockholm, my personal bank cards were blocked. On 13 August 2010, the WikiLeaks organization’s Moneybookers account could no longer be accessed. That same day, I contacted the company, who replied: “following recent publicity and the subsequently (sic) addition of the Wikileaks entity to blacklists in Australia and watch lists in the USA, we have terminated the business relationship”. I requested further information from MoneyBookers on 13 August and 16 August regarding the closure, including which blacklists and watchlists my accounts and/or WikiLeaks’ account had been added to, but I was refused this information.

73. The freezing of WikiLeaks’ Moneybookers account was an early example of what in December 2010 would become a concerted extra-judicial global economic blockade against WikiLeaks by US financial service companies, including VISA, MasterCard, PayPal, Bank of America, Western Union and American Express. The blockade was the subject of several court actions, a European Commission investigation, a resolution by the European Parliament, and condemnation by the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression. On 24 April 2013 the Supreme Court of Iceland found the blockade against WikiLeaks to be unlawful.

74. As a result of being suddenly cut off from personal and organizational funds upon arriving in Sweden, I had to rely on others not only for shelter, but also for food, safety and telephone credit. Unfortunately, I knew very few people in Sweden and those I did were only sporadically in the country.

75. On 13 August 2010 one of the main Swedish newspapers, Svenska Dagbladet, published an article entitled ‘Defence ministry prepared for the next leak’, which reported that the Swedish Ministry of Defence had a dedicated group ‘preparing for WikiLeaks next publication’ and had analysed 76,000 previous publications from WikiLeaks in relation to Swedish troops in Afghanistan.

76. Five days later, Swedish state television (SVT) published a segment entitled ‘We risk United States relationship deteriorating’, which argued that the presence of WikiLeaks in Sweden would negatively affect the strategic relationship between Sweden and the United States.

III. THE PERIOD 14-20 AUGUST 2010
77. I met “SW” during my visit to Stockholm. The first time I met her was on the morning of 14 August 2010 when she came to a speech I gave on what my work revealed about the war in Afghanistan, in which Sweden has troops under US command.

She sat in the front row and photographed me. She came to the small private lunch after my talk where one of the organizers stated that she was a volunteer for their organization although they would later claim that this was not true. Due to the security threats against me as a result of my work, I was in a precarious situation. I relied on the kindness of strangers and the safety and discretion they were willing to offer me. I was in a foreign northern country, where I did not speak the language. I had no access to cash because the bank cards I was travelling with had been frozen due to the extra-judicial political measures taken by financial service companies against my organization and me (which are well-documented and the subject of extensive litigation).

78. Prominent “pro-war” personalities were calling for my assassination and capture, and the US administration had stated publicly that my movements were being tracked. “SW” appeared to be sympathetic to my plight and also appeared to be romantically interested in me. She was not close to people I was close to, so it seemed that those who meant me harm would be unlikely to try to find me by monitoring her movements. She said she worked at the National Museum so I asked her to show me, to try to establish her bonafides. At the Museum an IMAX film was playing, where she kissed me and placed my hands on her breasts. She asked whether I was staying with woman “AA”, a Swedish politician, and seemed concerned by it in a manner which I found strange.

79. At her initiative we met again on the evening of 16 August 2010 and she suggested we go to a hotel in Stockholm. For security reasons, I said I would prefer to go to her house even though it was outside of Stockholm. She then invited me to her home. We went by train and she paid for my ticket since my bank cards had been frozen.

80. “SW” made it very clear that she wanted to have sexual intercourse with me. I felt concerned about the intensity of “SW”’s interest and I also deeply loved another woman, which played on my mind and left me emotionally distracted. “SW” knew an unusual amount of detail about me, and appeared annoyed with me when I was on my phone searching for news related to the US official government statements against me. I perceived she was irritated when I wasn’t giving her my full attention.

81. I felt there was a risk my location would be revealed and that she might act unpredictably if she believed I was rejecting her. During that night and again in the morning we had consensual sexual intercourse on four or five occasions. Her words, her expressions and her physical reactions made it clear to me that she encouraged and enjoyed our interactions.

82. I would later discover that she had collected dozens of photos of me in the weeks before we even met. Her recent FLIKR photo account was filled with pages and pages of photos of me and no other person.

83. In the morning she went out to pick up breakfast for us. After enjoying breakfast together, I left her home on good terms. At no stage when I was with her did she express that I had disrespected her in any way or acted contrary to her wishes other than to not be interested in her enough to pay her attention above my security situation or attempts to sleep. She accompanied me to the train station on her bicycle and we kissed each other goodbye. She asked that I call her so we could see each other again and I said I would. She called the next day or the day after. We made friendly small talk but we were quickly disconnected due to a failing mobile connection. I did not call her back due to problems obtaining telephone credit (as a result of my bank cards being blocked) and the pressing security situation.

84. I spoke to her next on Friday 20 August, after a Swedish friend said that he had heard that “SW” was at the hospital and that she wanted to talk to me. As I had not called her back, and she had previously gone through considerable effort to attract my attention, I was initially concerned that she may have attempted self-harm in order to force me to pay attention to her. So I called her. She said she was at a hospital and asked me to come down to meet her to test myself for sexually transmitted diseases so she would not have to worry while she was waiting for her own test results (HIV, for instance, needs months to show up).

85. But I was busy that day attempting to deal with the escalating political and legal threats against me from the Pentagon. I said I couldn’t do anything until the next day (a Saturday). She said that it was normal in Sweden to go to the police to get advice about STDs and that if I didn’t come down to the hospital she would go to the police to ask whether I could be forced to get tested. I told her I found her mention of police strange and threatening. She stated that she was only concerned about the tests and that it had no concealed meaning. I agreed to take the test out of goodwill and to reassure her, although I told her I could not do it until the following day, Saturday.

86. We were in agreement and arranged to meet the following day in the nearby park around lunchtime when I would have time to get tested. She said she was fine and seemed at ease.

87. You can imagine my disbelief when I woke the next morning to the news that I had been arrested in my absence for ”rape” and that police were ”hunting” all over Stockholm for me.

88. Her behaviour towards me on the night in question and in the morning made it clear that she actively and enthusiastically wanted me to have sex with her. This is also shown by text messages “SW” sent to her friends during the course of the evening I was at her home and during that week, which the Swedish police collected from her phone. Although the prosecutor has fought for years to prevent me, the public and the courts from seeing them, my lawyers were permitted to see them at the police station and were able to note down a number of them, including:

— On 14August 2010 “SW” sent the following text to a friend: I want him. I want him. Followed by several more of similar content (all referring to me) in the lead-up to the events in question (13:05); — On 17 August “SW” wrote that we had long foreplay, but nothing happened (01:14); then it got better (05:15); — On 17 August, after all sex had occurred, “SW” wrote to a friend that it ”turned out all right” other than STD/pregnancy risk (10:29); — On 20 August “SW”, while at the police station, wrote that she “did not want to put any charges on Julian Assange” but that “the police were keen on getting their hands on him” (14:26); and that she was “chocked (sic shocked) when they arrested him” because she “only wanted him to take a test” (17:06); — On 21 August “SW” wrote that she “did not want to accuse” Julian Assange “for anything”, (07:27); and that it was the “police who made up the charges (sic)” (22:25); — On 23 August “AA” (the other woman whose case was dropped in August 2015) wrote to “SW” that it was important that she went public with her story so that they could form public opinion for their case (06:43);

— On 23 August “SW” wrote that it was the police, not herself, who started the whole thing (16:02); — On 26 August “AA” wrote to “SW” that they ought to sell their stories for money to a newspaper (13:38); — On 28 August “AA” wrote that they had a contact on the biggest Swedish tabloid (12:53); and “SW” wrote that their lawyer negotiated with the tabloid (15:59);

89. These text messages clearly show what really happened between “SW” and me. It is clearly consensual sex between adults. The communication between “AA” and “SW” later sadly speaks for itself.

90. The prosecutor’s allegation in the extradition proceeding was reported to be that one of these sexual interactions started the next morning while “SW” was asleep (in the same bed after a night of consensual intercourse) and that when she woke up she consented to the intercourse in question, but for the first few moments was not theoretically capable of consent due to sleep.

91. This is false. I was certain “SW” was not asleep. I was also certain she expressly consented to unprotected sex before such intercourse started. This is also evidenced by “SW”’s own text messages. For example, my lawyers refer me to the following text message to her friend:
— 17 August, 08:42 am: JA did not want to use a condom.

92. Then a day later she explicitly texts her friend that she had not, in fact, been asleep.
— 18 August, 06:59 am: I was half asleep.

IV. SUBSEQUENT DEVELOPMENTS
93. Although the police initially opened an investigation into ‘rape’ in relation to woman AA, there was no allegation in her testimony that she had been raped. She expressed in her statement to the police that she consented to sex and subsequently tweeted on 22 April in 2013 “ I have not been raped”.

94. The press was immediately and unlawfully informed that there was a warrant for my arrest for what was reported as the “rape of two” women. The prosecutor unlawfully, and without any subsequent explanation or remedy, immediately confirmed to the press that there was a live warrant for my arrest. The prosecutor’s breach triggered an avalanche of news reports. Within days there were millions of references online which associated my name with the word ‘rape’.

95. Immediately the police accusations were used to attack WikiLeaks’ work and my reputation as its publisher. US Defense Secretary Robert Gates celebrated the news of my ‘rape’ arrest warrant with a smile, telling reporters that the arrest “sounds like good news to me”. Various twitter accounts officially associated with the Pentagon spread descriptions of me as a “rapist” and a “fugitive”. This slander was then used as a means to attack my organization’s reputation.

96. I canceled my other appointments and remained in Sweden. I gave an interview to the police on 30 August 2010 in relation to the only remaining allegation. The Agreed Statement of Facts and Issues submitted to the Supreme Court of the UK states:

“On 30th August 2010, the Appellant, who had voluntarily remained in Sweden to cooperate with the investigation,attended for police interview in respect of the ongoing Preliminary Investigation in respect of AA’s report. He answered all questions asked of him.”

97. I was highly concerned for my personal safety and the safety of WikiLeaks’ operations while I remained in Sweden, but I stayed for another five weeks after the ‘preliminary investigation’ was initiated in order to clear my name and to cooperate with the police investigation. Only after I had obtained an assurance from the prosecutor Marianne Ny that I could leave the jurisdiction did I prepare to leave the country

98. Less than 24 hours after the warrant for my arrest was issued, the chief prosecutor of Stockholm was appointed to take over the investigation and canceled the arrest warrant, stating “I don’t believe there is any reason to suspect that he has committed rape”.

99. Shortly after prosecutor Marianne Ny had resurrected the “SW” allegation, the head of the Swedish military intelligence service (“MUST”) published an article ‘WikiLeaks is a threat to our soldiers’. I became increasingly concerned about Sweden’s close relationship to the US government in military and intelligence matters.

100. Through the diplomatic cables I also learned of secret, informal arrangements between Sweden and the United States. The cables revealed that Swedish intelligence services have a pattern of lawless conduct where US government interests are concerned. The US diplomatic cables revealed that the Swedish Justice Department had deliberately hidden particular intelligence information exchanges with the United States from the Parliament of Sweden because they believed the exchanges were likely unlawful.

101. The US diplomatic cables, reports by major human rights organizations, and the UN’s own findings made me aware that Sweden had been complicit in torture as a result of its participation in secret CIA renditions from 2001 through to at least 2006 (which I would subsequently reveal). The rendition of the Swedish political refugees Agiza and Alzery resulted in strong condemnation by the UN Committee Against Torture, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and others. There is still complete impunity for the officers of the Swedish state involved and their US counterparts. No charges have been laid although the complicity of the Swedish state has been well established in successful civil litigation. I subsequently learned that Sweden was partly implicated in CIA renditions of its own citizens from Djibouti in 2013. My Swedish lawyer Thomas Olsson represents one of the rendered.

102. Through an intelligence source, I became aware that on 19 August 2010, the Swedish Security Service (SÄPO) had requested information about me from an Australian intelligence organization. The Australian intelligence organization (ASIO) responded to the request with information about me on 21 August 2010.

103. On 29 November 2010 WikiLeaks commenced publishing Cablegate, 251,287 US State Department diplomatic cables. The classified diplomatic dispatches related to every country in the world. In terms of content, it was the largest set of classified documents ever to be published.

104. The next day State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley stated that “we are investigating aggressively” into WikiLeaks and that a State Department “War Room”, which is different from the Pentagon “War Room”, had been set up.

105. On 30 November 2010, two days after WikiLeaks started publishing Cablegate, Interpol, at the request of Swedish prosecutor Marianne Ny, issued a Red Notice to 188 countries for my arrest in relation to the Swedish “preliminary investigation” (for which no charges or indictment existed). At the request of the Swedish prosecutor Interpol also made the notice public.

106. The Swedish prosecutor issued a European Arrest Warrant on 2 December 2010 to the UK which was processed by the UK Serious Organised Crimes Agency (SOCA).

107. I lost my freedom on 7 December 2010, the day after UK authorities certified the Swedish extradition warrant. I appeared at the police station, having made a prior appointment. I was arrested and placed in solitary confinement in the highest security unit of Wandsworth prison, the CSU.

108. The day after I was imprisoned, the UK newspaper The Independent reported that US and Swedish officials had entered informal talks regarding my extradition from Sweden to the United States in connection with the US Grand Jury and FBI investigation against WikiLeaks.

109. After ten days, the UK courts found that I should be released on bail. In response the Swedish prosecutor Marianne Ny instructed her representatives in the UK, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), to appeal to keep me in prison, but the UK courts found her request to be excessive.

110. I was moved to house arrest after providing UK authorities with £340,000 (nearly half a million dollars) and having an electronic monitoring device fitted to my ankle.

111. On 13 January 2011 the UK’s Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) wrote to Marianne Ny, assuring her “Please do not think that the case is being dealt with as just another extradition request”.

112. I was forced to meet with police for 551 days in a row. I continued publishing regardless.

113. I applied for asylum at the Ecuadorian embassy on 19 June 2012. The embassy was then surrounded by police at an admitted cost to the UK taxpayer of £12.6 million by October 2015.

114. On 28 October 2014, the UK Minister of State of Hugo Swire, told Parliament that “if she [Marianne Ny] wishes to travel here to question Mr. Assange in the embassy in London, we would do absolutely everything to facilitate that, indeed, we would actively welcome it.”

115. On 14 November 2014 I submitted my case to the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (UNWGAD).

116. On 20 November 2014 Sweden’s Court of Appeal (Svea) found that the Swedish prosecutor had breached her duty by failing to accept my statement.

117. On 12 October 2015 the UK announced that it was removing the overt police around the embassy as it was “no longer proportionate”.

118. On 14 October 2015 London police chief Bernard Hogan-Howe told the Standard that the visible police were being removed from the embassy encirclement as “it seems a disproportionate response” and “we think the public are not necessarily supportive of it.”

119. Subsequently (6 Feb 2016) the London Times would report that the removal of overt police was also due to “fears that officers of the diplomatic protection group standing guard were thought to resemble jailers” during the UNWGAD determination. However the 12 October statement reveals that the “overt” police had in fact been replaced with a “strengthened” “covert plan”.

120. On 5 February 2016 UNWGAD found that I have been unlawfully deprived of my liberty since 7 December 2010 as a result of the actions of the Swedish prosecutor.

Answer to subsequent questions:
You have subjected me to six years of unlawful, politicized detention without charge in prison, under house arrest and four and a half years at this embassy. You should have asked me this question six years ago. Your actions in refusing to take my statement for the last six years have been found to be unlawful by the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention and by the Swedish Court of Appeal. You have been found to have subjected me to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. You have denied me effective legal representation in this process. Despite this, I feel compelled to cooperate even though you are not safeguarding my rights. I refer you to my statement where all these questions were answered.

Tintin

13th April 2019, 10:43

And from the similarly excellent Jonathan Cook, on April 11th (https://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/2019-04-11/julian-assange-lies-arrest/):

"Now the pretence is over. The British police invaded the diplomatic territory of Ecuador – invited in by Ecuador after it tore up Assange’s asylum status – to smuggle him off to jail. Two vassal states cooperating to do the bidding of the US empire. The arrest was not to help two women in Sweden or to enforce a minor bail infraction."

And, from here, from Feb 2018 (https://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/2018-02-12/the-uks-hidden-role-in-assanges-detention/):

"According to a new release of emails between officials, the Swedish director of public prosecutions, Marianne Ny, wrote to Britain’s Crown Prosecution Service on 18 October 2013, warning that Swedish law would not allow the case for extradition to be continued. This was, remember, after Sweden had repeatedly failed to take up an offer from Assange to interview him in London, as had happened in 44 other extradition cases between Sweden and Britain."

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

The 7 years of lies about Assange won’t stop now
11 April 2019

For seven years, from the moment Julian Assange first sought refuge in the Ecuadorean embassy in London, they have been telling us we were wrong, that we were paranoid conspiracy theorists. We were told there was no real threat of Assange’s extradition to the United States, that it was all in our fevered imaginations.

For seven years, we have had to listen to a chorus of journalists, politicians and “experts” telling us that Assange was nothing more than a fugitive from justice, and that the British and Swedish legal systems could be relied on to handle his case in full accordance with the law. Barely a “mainstream” voice was raised in his defence in all that time.

From the moment he sought asylum, Assange was cast as an outlaw. His work as the founder of Wikileaks – a digital platform that for the first time in history gave ordinary people a glimpse into the darkest recesses of the most secure vaults in the deepest of Deep States – was erased from the record. Assange was reduced from one of the few towering figures of our time – a man who will have a central place in history books, if we as a species live long enough to write those books – to nothing more than a sex pest, and a scruffy bail-skipper.

The political and media class crafted a narrative of half-truths about the sex charges Assange was under investigation for in Sweden. They overlooked the fact that Assange had been allowed to leave Sweden by the original investigator, who dropped the inquiry, only for it to be revived by another investigator with a well-documented political agenda.
They failed to mention that Assange was always willing to be questioned by Swedish prosecutors in London, as had occurred in dozens of other cases involving extradition proceedings to Sweden. It was almost as if Swedish officials did not want to test the evidence they claimed to have in their possession.

The media and political courtiers endlessly emphasised Assange’s bail violation in the UK, ignoring the fact that asylum seekers fleeing legal and political persecution don’t usually honour bail conditions imposed by the very state authorites from which they are seeking asylum.

The political and media establishment ignored the mounting evidence of a secret grand jury in Virginia formulating charges against Assange, and ridiculed Wikileaks’ concerns that the Swedish case might be cover for a more sinister attempt by the US to extradite Assange and lock him away in a high-security prison, as had happened to whistleblower Chelsea Manning.

They belittled the 2016 verdict of a panel of United Nations legal scholars that the UK was “arbitrarily detaining” Assange. The media were more interested in the welfare of his cat.
They ignored the fact that after Ecuador changed presidents – with the new one keen to win favour with Washington – Assange was placed under more and more severe forms of solitary confinement. He was denied access to visitors and basic means of communications, violating both his asylum status and his human rights, and threatening his mental and physical wellbeing.

Equally, they ignored the fact that Assange had been given diplomatic status by Ecuador, as well as Ecuadorean citizenship. Britain was obligated to allow him to leave the embassy, using his diplomatic immunity, to travel unhindered to Ecuador. No “mainstream” journalist or politician thought this significant either. They turned a blind eye to the news that, after refusing to question Assange in the UK, Swedish prosecutors had decided to quietly drop the case against him in 2015. Sweden had kept the decision under wraps for more than two years.

It was a freedom of information (https://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/2018-02-12/the-uks-hidden-role-in-assanges-detention/) request by an ally of Assange, not a media outlet, that unearthed documents showing that Swedish investigators had, in fact, wanted to drop the case against Assange back in 2013. The UK, however, insisted that they carry on with the charade so that Assange could remain locked up. A British official emailed the Swedes: “Don’t you dare get cold feet!!!”

Most of the other documents relating to these conversations were unavailable. They had been destroyed by the UK’s Crown Prosecution Service in violation of protocol. But no one in the political and media establishment cared, of course.

Similarly, they ignored the fact that Assange was forced to hole up for years in the embassy, under the most intense form of house arrest, even though he no longer had a case to answer in Sweden. They told us – apparently in all seriousness – that he had to be arrested for his bail infraction, something that would normally be dealt with by a fine.

And possibly most egregiously of all, most of the media refused to acknowledge that Assange was a journalist and publisher, even though by failing to do so they exposed themselves to the future use of the same draconian sanctions should they or their publications ever need to be silenced. They signed off on the right of the US authorities to seize any foreign journalist, anywhere in the world, and lock him or her out of sight. They opened the door to a new, special form of rendition for journalists.

This was never about Sweden or bail violations, or even about the discredited Russiagate narrative, as anyone who was paying the vaguest attention should have been able to work out. It was about the US Deep State doing everything in its power to crush Wikileaks and make an example of its founder.

It was about making sure there would never again be a leak like that of Collateral Murder, the military video released by Wikileaks in 2007 that showed US soldiers celebrating as they murdered Iraqi civilians. It was about making sure there would never again be a dump of US diplomatic cables, like those released in 2010 that revealed the secret machinations of the US empire to dominate the planet whatever the cost in human rights violations.

Now the pretence is over. The British police invaded the diplomatic territory of Ecuador – invited in by Ecuador after it tore up Assange’s asylum status – to smuggle him off to jail. Two vassal states cooperating to do the bidding of the US empire. The arrest was not to help two women in Sweden or to enforce a minor bail infraction.

No, the British authorities were acting on an extradition warrant from the US. And the charges the US authorities have concocted relate to Wikileaks’ earliest work exposing the US military’s war crimes in Iraq – the stuff that we all once agreed was in the public interest, that British and US media clamoured to publish themselves.

Still the media and political class is turning a blind eye. Where is the outrage at the lies we have been served up for these past seven years? Where is the contrition at having been gulled for so long? Where is the fury at the most basic press freedom – the right to publish – being trashed to silence Assange? Where is the willingness finally to speak up in Assange’s defence?

It’s not there. There will be no indignation at the BBC, or the Guardian, or CNN. Just curious, impassive – even gently mocking – reporting of Assange’s fate.
And that is because these journalists, politicians and experts never really believed anything they said. They knew all along that the US wanted to silence Assange and to crush Wikileaks. They knew that all along and they didn’t care. In fact, they happily conspired in paving the way for today’s kidnapping of Assange.

They did so because they are not there to represent the truth, or to stand up for ordinary people, or to protect a free press, or even to enforce the rule of law. They don’t care about any of that. They are there to protect their careers, and the system that rewards them with money and influence. They don’t want an upstart like Assange kicking over their applecart.

Now they will spin us a whole new set of deceptions and distractions about Assange to keep us anaesthetised, to keep us from being incensed as our rights are whittled away, and to prevent us from realising that Assange’s rights and our own are indivisible. We stand or fall together.

Hervé

13th April 2019, 11:51

mountain_jim

13th April 2019, 12:46

I can not vouch for the following, as Neon some times goes off half-cocked (while insulting many), but for your consideration:

https://gab.com/NeonRevolt

GUYS.

THE WIKILEAKS "DEADMAN SWITCH" HAS NOT BEEN RELEASED.

Literal IDIOTS on Twitter are propagating the lie because they are too stupid to know any better, and pointing people to wikileaks.org/files like it's some kind of super-duper sekrit folder never before seen by the public.

THEY ARE WRONG.
I don't want to have to explain this again, so I'm going to explain it here:

The Deadman's switch doesn't "magically" make files appear on a server. Years ago Assange uploaded a massive torrent file to the internet, and dear god, I'm stuck now trying to explain torrents to a mainstream audience.

Torrents don't work like the normal web, where there's a 1-to-1 connection. Multiple people host the file in a swarm, and someone downloads it from the swarm using a torrent application.

These files are NOT hosted on any top-level-domain server.
They're literally held by peers in a torrent network and the file is like an 80 gb zip file (IIRC).

The people tweeting that dumb wikileaks link are just showing how stupid they are because those files have been around for YEARS. (Yes, Steve Jobs had HIV/AIDS according to those files. Not Pancreatic cancer).

Anyway, Assange's Insurance file is encrypted, and you need the password to access it.
The deadman's switch theoretically tweets out the password if Assange were to suddenly die, or, if for whatever reason, he wanted to release the password.

HOWEVER-

Wikileaks is now a Clown operation. You might recall that Assange was promising all sorts of files during 2016 that never came. This was because... stuff happened. The same people are no longer in control.

Don't expect any deadman switch to be released any time soon and immediately disregard any tech illiterate pleb tweeting about it because they've never dug around Wikileaks before.

You'd literally see a string of characters for a password and that would be it.

You'd then have to open the 88 gb insurance files with the password to decrypt it all.

As such, any further posts about "Muh insurance files" will be removed.

More info here, for the uninitiated: https://heavy.com/news/2019/04/julian-assange-dead...

https://heavy.com/news/2019/04/julian-assange-dead-mans-switch-wikileaks-insurance-files/

What Happened to Julian Assange’s Dead Man’s Switch for the WikiLeaks Insurance Files?

…

What’s still unclear at this time is what might happen with the dead man’s switch that Assange has talked about in the past. WikiLeaks has released numerous insurance files as a type of “deadman’s switch.” Downloaders get an encryption key, but they need a second one before they can actually unlock the file. The insurance files operate as a type of backup. If anything happens to WikiLeaks, the second key is released, giving everyone access to the file, according to comments WikiLeaks and Assange have made in the past. However, these are typically insurance files to ensure that a pending publication is actually released. It’s unclear how many (if any) are actually related to Julian Assange’s safety or WikiLeaks’ existence in general.

(twitter post)
Just waiting for the password to this insurance file from @Wikileaks. I mean, what else needs to happen? Arjen Kamphuis disappeared, #Assange is in custody and likely headed for the US or some US-adjacent facility somewhere. Any plans to release?

< much more details on past insurance files at link, but I can't say whether any of these map to above listed content. >

mountain_jim

13th April 2019, 13:04

Bill Binney (former NSA) on the Arrest of Julian Assange

9HPs1RY1wvM

(arrest was) Continuation of the take over of the world by the shadow governments of the world.
..
message to everyone in the world - either you conform to what we tell you to do, or we will do this to you.
..
(concerning Russian Hack narrative)
forensic evidence that it was not a hack is very clear and demonstrable in a court of law...

No evidence that Russians are enabling any of that (WikiLeaks claims by CIA Chief Pompeo)
..
FBI can not show continuous control of DNC servers because they never had it. They are only getting 3rd party company evidence.
..
Time stamps inside data show somebody on east and west coast of US, not Russia, was involved in the data.
..
(Investigate in court of law will end the Russia Gate claims)
..
Arrest is an attack on free press. Calling CNN Fake News is simply telling the truth.
..
No one in the US Government ever wanted to talk about the forensic evidence we found -both in the Guccifer 2 data and documented DNC data. (invalidates Russia narrative which MIC needs keep its funding.)

(Craig Murray, Assange, have first hand knowledge.)

Nobody wants to know what we found. Forensics part is pretty clear, and no one has challenged it. We published, open to peer review, can't find any peers.

A Voice from the Mountains

13th April 2019, 17:35

Innocent Warrior

13th April 2019, 20:23

A big thanks to Houman:

Wikileaks dump
https://www.investmentwatchblog.com/it-looks-like-wikileaks-has-dumped-everything/

https://file.wikileaks.org/file/

It looks like Wikileaks has dumped everything (https://www.investmentwatchblog.com/it-looks-like-wikileaks-has-dumped-everything/)

by IWB (https://www.investmentwatchblog.com/author/maizipeng/)
April 12, 2019 (https://www.investmentwatchblog.com/it-looks-like-wikileaks-has-dumped-everything/)

Here’s a list of some [of] what can be found in the link below.
-CIA active operations

-Coca-cola geting cover after killing 10 kids

– Offshore accounts from politician all over the world (find your country)

– Races crimes against White being cover all around the EU

-Merkel avoiding taxes

-FBI pedophile symbols

-Bilderberg Meetings

-Wikipedia Cabal

-Chiquita Banana corruption in Colombia

-etc

file.wikileaks.org/file/ (https://file.wikileaks.org/file/)

From WikiLeaks -

Note: file.wikileaks.org (https://file.wikileaks.org) is not a release, insurance dump, or response to Assange’s arrest. It is the page where published documents are available for bulk download so that people can create mirrors, access publications offline, or use the raw data. It has existed for years

Tweet (https://mobile.twitter.com/wikileaks/status/1117123131804737541).

mountain_jim

13th April 2019, 21:46

(copy of tweet removed as linked above)

Eric J (Viking)

14th April 2019, 21:18

4-14-19
This is absolutely incredible and for those who actually do investigative journalism, this is going to be source material for possibly years to come. As co-founder of Wikileaks Julian Assange was arrested and dragged from the Ecuadorian embassy in London, he stated the files would be dumped, and unlike the state controlled media, you could bank on him following through with what he said.

Click here to view the massive document dump from Wikileaks.

https://file.wikileaks.org/file/

Assange had made it known this was coming as a result of his arrest. Now, once again, he’s made good on his word in the face of the US government’s threats to criminalize him for something that other press and publishers do all the time.

Harper’s reminds us:

Latest: Bombshell! As Promised, Assange Dumps All Wikileaks Files - Here They Are!

Since Assange has already published the leaks in question, he obviously cannot be stopped from publishing them now; all the government can do is prosecute him criminally for obtaining or publishing the leaks in the first place. To date, there never has been a criminal prosecution for this type of behavior. Obama’s Justice Department ultimately concluded that a prosecution of Assange would damage the First Amendment. Their decision effectively meant that Assange was entitled to the same constitutional protections given reporters. (A Washington Post story about this decision quoted Obama officials who referred to the “New York Times problem”—i.e., the fact that any precedent set with respect to Assange could be applied to traditional journalistic entities.)

Trump’s Justice Department has reversed course on this decision. When Jeff Sessions first came into office as attorney general, he said that one of his top priorities would be going after Assange. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo—then the director of the CIA—said, “It is time to call out WikiLeaks for what it really is: a non-state, hostile intelligence service often abetted by state actors like Russia.”

James C. Goodale actually presents a good case for why Julian Assange deserves First Amendment protections. He is a journalist who publishes documents so that the truth will come out. People should appreciate that, including state-controlled useful idiots who oppose what he does. Yet, he is a publisher.

Given the threat the Justice Department’s actions against Assange pose to the First Amendment, why haven’t more journalists, press organizations, and editorial boards jumped in to support him? Principally it is because journalists dislike what he is doing; they don’t believe he is a “real” journalist and therefore do not see him as entitled to the same protections they enjoy.

Writing in U.S. News and World Report, for example, Susan Milligan says, “[Journalism] requires research, balance and most of all judgment. . . . Dumping documents—some of them classified—onto a website does not make anyone a journalist.” Add to this my own experience of when I was attacked several years ago by a howling mob of A-list journalists led by the late Morley Safer at a party (for my own book) where I said Assange, as a reporter, was entitled to First Amendment rights. “He is just a data dumper,” I was told—and most everyone there agreed.

But he’s not just a data dumper. He edited the Manning leaks initially, holding back some material. He may have done the same thing with his other leaks, including the Vault 7 releases. For better or for worse he seeks out information to be published on his website the way other journalists do for their publications. He is a publisher and is entitled to the same First Amendment protections as any other. Nonetheless, in the eyes of establishment journalists he remains a dumper, as well as a rapist, a liar, a thief, and a Russian agent.

One wonders whether the real reason journalists will not support Assange is that they simply don’t get it. They don’t understand how a successful prosecution of Assange would threaten their ability to report. I would suggest that the focus of the mainstream press should not be on whether Assange meets the usual definition of a journalist or whether they approve of what he does. That’s not the point. The point is that he carries out the functions of a journalist, has First Amendment protections (as they do), and should not be prosecuted for what he does. If he is, we are all worse off for it.

This is exactly right.

Additionally, as Matt Agorist reported on the book that Assange was holding when arrested and why it is important.

Vidal was one of the first public figures to question the motives and wisdom of Lincoln—and he was lambasted for it. Despite bipartisan attacks on all fronts for his critical skepticism of the United States, Vidal’s six-volume “American Chronicle” series of historical novels about the United States became best sellers.

As the years went on, Vidal became outspoken about the rise of the military industrial complex and predicted the very situation we find ourselves in today.

“USA Belongs To A Handful Of Men Who Also Control The Media. Look At General Electric. It Produces Nuclear Weapons For The Pentagon And Also Owns The NBC News Cable Channel, Which Is A Very Sophisticated Censure Apparatus, Intrinsic To The System. It’s Genius. It’s Like An Electronic Cage Around The Nation Which Blocks Information From Getting Through.” ~ Gore Vidal
In the book Assange was pictured holding, Vidal explained how the United States established the “massive military-industrial-security complex” and the “political culture that gave us the ‘Imperial Presidency.’”

The book was written by Vidal and The Real News Network senior editor Paul Jay. In it, the two dissected the apparatus that would eventually facilitate Assange’s arrest. Through propaganda and manipulation, the establishment has tricked the masses into accepting their corrupt order as the norm. Both Vidal and Assange knew this.

“It Doesn’t Actually Make Any Difference Whether The President Is Republican Or Democrat. The Genius Of The American Ruling Class Is That It Has Been Able To Make The People Think That They Have Had Something To Do With The Electing Of Presidents For 200 Years When They’ve Had Absolutely Nothing To Say About The Candidates Or The Policies Or The Way The Country Is Run.” ~ Gore Vidal
In the book, Vidal explains the false history of the US and how this false history is used to manipulate people into supporting mass murder and corruption.

“I think everybody should take a sober look at the world about us, remember that practically everything that you’re told about other countries is untrue, what we’re told about ourselves and our great strength and how much we are loved – forget it,” wrote Vidal.

“Our strength is there, but it’s the kind of strength that blows off your hand while you hold up the renade; it’s a suicidal strength as well as a murderous one.”

Although Vidal died before realizing the plight of Julian Assange and the attack on the freedom of the press that it represents, he saw it coming decades in advance.

Many of these documents that Wikileaks has dumped have exposed the crimes of our own government, individuals inside it and other governments as well.

And many in the media and this same government wanted to see Assange assassinated, and said so.

If the people could only see the tyranny they are under, they would recognize that he has provided gifts of truth that could be used to topple the criminals in DC.

As Assange reminded people, “If wars can be started by lies, they can be stopped with the truth.”

Sadly, they are too wrapped up in political idolatry to demand that their team’s jersey wearer do the right thing and start prosecuting the actual criminals in our government rather than the messenger who has exposed them.

Article posted with permission from Sons Of Liberty Media

Tim Brown is an author and Editor at FreedomOutpost.com, SonsOfLibertyMedia.com, GunsInTheNews.com and TheWashingtonStandard.com. He is husband to his “more precious than rubies” wife, father of 10 “mighty arrows”, jack of all trades, Christian and lover of liberty. He resides in the U.S. occupied Great State of South Carolina. . Follow Tim on Twitter. Also check him out on Gab, Minds, MeWe, Spreely, Mumbl It and Steemit

https://dcdirtylaundry.com/bombshell-as-promised-assange-dumps-all-wikileaks-files-here-they-are/

http://fourwinds10.com/siterun_data/media/alternative_news/news.php?q=1555256874

Viking

mountain_jim

14th April 2019, 22:07

Intranuclear

14th April 2019, 22:44

I tried to copy the entire index of files from the link https://file.wikileaks.org/file/
but the posting system said that I have a limitation of 50,000 characters only.

I browsed maybe about 20 of the files and I did not off hand see anything that interesting yet.

There is a lot of stuff on Scientology though.

scientology-administrative-dictionary.pdf 01-Jan-1984 01:01 5203951
scientology-agreements.pdf 01-Jan-1984 01:01 1064490
scientology-assists-handbook.pdf 01-Jan-1984 01:01 615614
scientology-can-we-ever-be-friends.zip 01-Jan-1984 01:01 48075697
scientology-canada-cchr-2-csw.pdf 01-Jan-1984 01:01 51766
scientology-case-remedies.pdf 01-Jan-1984 01:01 164023
scientology-case-supervisor-class-viii-secrets-..> 01-Jan-1984 01:01 2385957
scientology-case-supervisor-series.pdf 01-Jan-1984 01:01 2755883
scientology-class-0-4-transcripts.zip 01-Jan-1984 01:01 4640404
scientology-class-v-org-contract.pdf 01-Jan-1984 01:01 2841661
scientology-clear-expansion-committee-documents..> 01-Jan-1984 01:01 18833990
scientology-clearing-congress-1958.zip 01-Jan-1984 01:01 382038
scientology-cult-birthday-game.zip 01-Jan-1984 01:01 7424089
scientology-cult-childrens-security-check.pdf 01-Jan-1984 01:01 15896
scientology-cult-waivers-policy.pdf 01-Jan-1984 01:01 258574
scientology-dissemination-technology.pdf 01-Jan-1984 01:01 31688408
scientology-ethics-checklist.pdf 01-Jan-1984 01:01 20257549
scientology-ethics-orders-misc-people.pdf 01-Jan-1984 01:01 5219422
scientology-exec-orders.zip 01-Jan-1984 01:01 65735814
scientology-expanded-dianetics-lectures.zip 01-Jan-1984 01:01 65837469
scientology-fbi-foia-1993.zip 01-Jan-1984 01:01 267827204
scientology-febc-tapes.pdf 01-Jan-1984 01:01 950724
scientology-flag-issues-servicing-and-caring.pdf 01-Jan-1984 01:01 1410306
scientology-flag-world-tour-2004-video.m4v 01-Jan-1984 01:01 238811868
scientology-fprd.pdf 01-Jan-1984 01:01 437300
scientology-frank-oliver-osa.pdf 01-Jan-1984 01:01 6588259
scientology-goals-problems-mass.mp3 01-Jan-1984 01:01 12450979
scientology-hcobs-1950-1984.zip 01-Jan-1984 01:01 21263505
scientology-hubbard-class-viii-xenu-tape-hifi.mp3 01-Jan-1984 01:01 84611200
scientology-hubbard-class-viii-xenu-tape.mp3 01-Jan-1984 01:01 21152832
scientology-hubbard-class-viii-xenu-transcripts..> 01-Jan-1984 01:01 1307624
scientology-hymn-of-asia.pdf 01-Jan-1984 01:01 64556
scientology-infiltrates-indian-nations.zip 01-Jan-1984 01:01 258615
scientology-intl-management-briefing-1987.pdf 01-Jan-1984 01:01 20302062
scientology-intl-management-bulletin.pdf 01-Jan-1984 01:01 23132642
scientology-london-isp-records.zip 01-Jan-1984 01:01 18856448
scientology-medical-claims.rtf 01-Jan-1984 01:01 369334
scientology-misc-flag-orders.pdf 01-Jan-1984 01:01 4832136
scientology-nedforots.zip 01-Jan-1984 01:01 299822
scientology-non-freezone-operating-thetan-vii.zip 01-Jan-1984 01:01 2790429
scientology-oec-sales-patter.zip 01-Jan-1984 01:01 314278
scientology-operationalinstructionstostaffatall..> 01-Jan-1984 01:01 55252942
scientology-organization-executive-course.pdf 01-Jan-1984 01:01 925078
scientology-orientation-video.mov 01-Jan-1984 01:01 65030896
scientology-ot-levels.pdf 01-Jan-1984 01:01 17788660
scientology-policy-letter-on-minors-in-sea-org-..> 01-Jan-1984 01:01 2866327
scientology-post-irs-agreement.pdf 01-Jan-1984 01:01 6480951
scientology-power-and-solo.pdf 01-Jan-1984 01:01 1350362
scientology-pricing-2007.pdf 01-Jan-1984 01:01 14978310
scientology-prison-rpf-order-1997.zip 01-Jan-1984 01:01 37740149
scientology-pro-tr-couse-pack.zip 01-Jan-1984 01:01 183161
scientology-pts-sp-routing.pdf 01-Jan-1984 01:01 299341
scientology-pts.pdf 01-Jan-1984 01:01 57016584
scientology-red-books-9to14.zip 01-Jan-1984 01:01 25712875
scientology-role-of-earth-lecture-10-30-1952.zip 01-Jan-1984 01:01 29361856
scientology-rons-journal-28-forming-orgs-transc..> 01-Jan-1984 01:01 406478
scientology-rons-journal-28-forming.orgs.mp3 01-Jan-1984 01:01 12628096
scientology-rons-journal-wall-of-fire-transcrip..> 01-Jan-1984 01:01 847873
scientology-rons-journal-wall-of-fire.mp3 01-Jan-1984 01:01 30359964
scientology-rpf-order.pdf 01-Jan-1984 01:01 447941
scientology-sea-org-folo-eu-1982.pdf 01-Jan-1984 01:01 19289859
scientology-seniormgmtdirectives.pdf 01-Jan-1984 01:01 25184278
scientology-shbc-620425-144.mp3 01-Jan-1984 01:01 88734407
scientology-shsbc.zip 01-Jan-1984 01:01 39441311
scientology-staff-contract.pdf 01-Jan-1984 01:01 4747281
scientology-staffstatusiicoursepack.pdf 01-Jan-1984 01:01 16909522
scientology-stats.zip 01-Jan-1984 01:01 3210963
scientology-super-tech-1963.pdf 01-Jan-1984 01:01 996805
scientology-tape-6711c18-so.mp3 01-Jan-1984 01:01 27580257
scientology-tax-advantage-advertisement-2008.pdf 01-Jan-1984 01:01 117691
scientology-top-secret-actions-against.pdf 01-Jan-1984 01:01 26403287
scientology-trs-reference-pack.pdf 01-Jan-1984 01:01 383889
scientology-uk-annual-returns-2005.pdf 01-Jan-1984 01:01 228288
scientology-uk-annual-returns-2006.pdf 01-Jan-1984 01:01 204470
scientology-uk-annual-returns-2007.pdf 01-Jan-1984 01:01 239049
scientology-uk-annual-returns-2008.pdf 01-Jan-1984 01:01 238354
scientology-un-drug-infiltration-2008.pdf 01-Jan-1984 01:01 4476716
scientology-vs-henson-transcript-day4-1988.txt 01-Jan-1984 01:01 169074
scientology-whole-track-sec-check.pdf 01-Jan-1984 01:01 35871
scientology-wise-members-2006.txt 01-Jan-1984 01:01 811278
scientology-wso-pack-1990.pdf 01-Jan-1984 01:01 12477054

Maybe someone who has a better knowledge will learn something important.

Bill Ryan

14th April 2019, 22:50

Intranuclear

14th April 2019, 22:53

There is a lot of stuff on Scientology though.
[ ... ]
Maybe someone who has a better knowledge will learn something important.

Nothing there (from the Church of Scientology) that's not in the public domain. Not important, truly.

Yeah I agree, I meant that from all the files there, Scientology related files were the most abundant, not that they are themselves anything new.

Valerie Villars

14th April 2019, 22:55

I noticed the Scientology but didn't delve.

There were more than a few on Initiation of various fraternities. I did look into that. What was interesting is that the actual "rites" were blurred. Just seemed strange to me, as "leak". I mean that most of us are aware of that stuff anyway. Why is that a leak, if you've delved into the world in the last 20 years?

To me, it's par for the course.

onawah

14th April 2019, 23:16

Is there anything more recent than 1984, or is that not actually the date of the leaks? (As in reference to the Orwell book?)

Hervé

14th April 2019, 23:18

Folks: Rachel in post # 74 (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?101183-Current-Wikileaks-News-Releases&p=1286175&viewfull=1#post1286175) gave the correct appraisal (Tweet (https://mobile.twitter.com/wikileaks/status/1117123131804737541)) of the click bait articles (I fell for it too (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?101183-Current-Wikileaks-News-Releases&p=1286092&viewfull=1#post1286092)):

https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/512138307870785536/Fe00yVS2_bigger.png (https://mobile.twitter.com/wikileaks) WikiLeaks (https://mobile.twitter.com/wikileaks) @wikileaks
(https://mobile.twitter.com/wikileaks)
Note: file.wikileaks.org (https://file.wikileaks.org/) is not a release, insurance dump, or response to Assange’s arrest. It is the page where published documents are available for bulk download so that people can create mirrors, access publications offline, or use the raw data. It has existed for years.
7:51 PM · Apr 13, 2019 · TweetDeck (https://help.twitter.com/using-twitter/how-to-tweet#source-labels)
2.2K (https://mobile.twitter.com/wikileaks/status/1117123131804737541/retweets) Retweets (https://mobile.twitter.com/wikileaks/status/1117123131804737541/retweets)
3.6K (https://mobile.twitter.com/wikileaks/status/1117123131804737541/likes) Likes (https://mobile.twitter.com/wikileaks/status/1117123131804737541/likes)

https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/1109234432433479680/JH5Y1gsj_bigger.jpg (https://mobile.twitter.com/Partisangirl) Partisangirl (https://mobile.twitter.com/Partisangirl) @Partisangirl
(https://mobile.twitter.com/Partisangirl)23h (https://mobile.twitter.com/Partisangirl/status/1117200641410109445)
Replying to @wikileaks
(https://mobile.twitter.com/wikileaks)When is the insurance dump

https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/941494803057070080/VDEd9x9V_bigger.jpg (https://mobile.twitter.com/JustinCase0912) just_in_case (https://mobile.twitter.com/JustinCase0912) @JustinCase0912
(https://mobile.twitter.com/JustinCase0912)23h (https://mobile.twitter.com/JustinCase0912/status/1117210586356617218)

The insurance files are available as a torrent files. Huge files. What no one has, is the encryption key to open the insurance files.

https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/378800000848404089/3d188d62b94c82474f0ba3f1d812d531_bigger.jpeg (https://mobile.twitter.com/UltraRonin) Blackzeus (https://mobile.twitter.com/UltraRonin) @UltraRonin
(https://mobile.twitter.com/UltraRonin)18h (https://mobile.twitter.com/UltraRonin/status/1117281412904779777)

Where is the file to download it?

https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/941494803057070080/VDEd9x9V_bigger.jpg (https://mobile.twitter.com/JustinCase0912) just_in_case (https://mobile.twitter.com/JustinCase0912) @JustinCase0912
(https://mobile.twitter.com/JustinCase0912)11h (https://mobile.twitter.com/JustinCase0912/status/1117382398562447361)

I won't post the actual links....but this should do. There is no key and they can't be opened, but.... I would suggest using a VPN before accessing the files and download to an external drive.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D4G9XamX4AA-w5w?format=jpg&name=large
I would strongly suggest to some posters to, at least, get acquainted with the thread they are posting in and, for some others, to be aware of what has already been posted in some other related threads before starting their own threads... which then need to be merged... adding to the confusions.

KiwiElf

15th April 2019, 03:11

I set up Internet Download Manager to download every item/file/link on the page approx 4 hrs ago; it has just stopped at exactly 1984 items, (amazing coincidence!), 21.1 GB, (and yes, some of the documents included are quite recent, only a few weeks old).

(click to enlarge)

40441

AriG

16th April 2019, 14:53

I don’t know how I managed to overlook this one, but is this letter legit? Its strangely worded and seems a bit indiscreet were it written by an investment fund/bank.

https://file.wikileaks.org/file/angela-merkel.pdf

Innocent Warrior

26th April 2019, 00:44

From Medium - Bill Binney States that the NSA Has 32 Pages of Communications Between Seth Rich and Julian Assange, As Revealed by a FOIA Request (https://medium.com/@markfmccarty/bill-binney-states-that-the-nsa-has-32-pages-of-communications-between-seth-rich-and-julian-54a2df5a0e5b) (April 20)

Recommended watch: Ed Butowsky’s short interview with Binney (first video in article).

MOD EDIT: TQ @ 15:27GMT 18/07/2019
Unfortunately the original medium link has now broken. Below, two alternatives:

Bill Binney: NSA Has 32 Pages of Communications Between Seth Rich and Julian Assange

Adam Curry - http://adam.curry.com/art/1555771209_xWbS4jwE.html

Richard Charnin - https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2019/04/21/bill-binney-states-that-the-nsa-has-32-pages-of-communications-between-seth-rich-and-julian-assange-as-revealed-by-a-foia-request/

Tintin Quarantino

Innocent Warrior

27th April 2019, 00:45

Some articles on Assange’s legal situation. Looks like extradition to the US and more charges added once he’s there is inevitable.

Kristinn Hrafnsson on Al Jazeera: Under arrest: The future of Julian Assange and WikiLeaks (https://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/listeningpost/2019/04/arrest-future-julian-assange-wikileaks-190413065533003.html) (April 13).

From SBS: US has two months to finalise Julian Assange case, as Sweden reconsiders rape case (https://www.sbs.com.au/news/us-has-two-months-to-finalise-julian-assange-case-as-sweden-reconsiders-rape-case) (April 13).

From The Hill: Pentagon Papers lawyer: The indictment of Assange is a snare and a delusion (https://thehill.com/opinion/criminal-justice/438709-pentagon-papers-lawyer-indictment-of-assange-snare-and-delusion?fbclid=IwAR1t6MSQtfZ_pauA2aeIaunLjBsEo96wzEtZPP5J8A4aAcSkEvnlICVzQbw) (April 12).

From wsws.org: Legal experts: Assange likely faces espionage charges if extradited to US (https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/04/22/assa-a22.html) (April 22).

From Netzpolitiks.org: WikiLeaks: The US is indeed investigating Assange for publishing secret information, DOJ letter suggests (https://netzpolitik.org/2019/wikileaks-the-us-is-indeed-investigating-assange-for-publishing-secret-information-doj-letter-suggests/) (April 25).

For a little added context, note WikiLeaks tweeted the following before Assange was arrested -

WikiLeaks has obtained agreed Assange press strategy
1. UK lead
2. Ecuador will say Assange has broken many of its invented "asylum terms"
3. UK will say won't let US kill Assange, due process. Ecuador will pretend that this is a concession and that asylum was for death penalty.

Tweet (https://mobile.twitter.com/wikileaks/status/1114165391893389313).

I can’t find the article where I read this, sorry, but although it’s illegal for the UK to extradite Assange with charges that carry the death sentence, they can if the US assures the UK that he will not be given the death penalty.

onawah

3rd May 2019, 18:33

Assange: Clinton Foundation & ISIS Funded from the Same Sources

(Not news, but an important point resurfacing)
0ktchDCoLek
"This is a snippet of a 2016 interview published on the Russian state news outlet, RT on the eve of the 2016 presidential election. From what we've come to know today, one can get a lot more out of this interview by John Pilger of Julian Assange.

ASSANGE: There's an early 2014 email from Hillary Clinton so, not so long after she left Secretary of State to her campaign manager, John Podesta; that email, it states that ISIL/ISIS is funded by Saudi Arabia and Qatar; the governments of Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

I think this is the most significant email in the whole collection, perhaps because Saudi and Qatari money is spread all over the place, including into many media institutions.

All serious analysts know - even the US government - have mentioned or agreed that some Saudi figures have been supporting ISIS, funding ISIS. The Dodge has always been, 'It's just some rogue princes using their cut of the oil money to do whatever they like,' but actually, the government 'disapproves'.

But that email says that, no, it is the GOVERNMENT of Saudi and the GOVERNMENT of Qatar that have been funding ISIS.

PILGER: The Saudis, the Qataris, the Moroccans, the Bahrainis - particularly the Saudis and the Qataris - are giving all this money to the Clinton Foundation, while Hillary Clinton is Secretary of State and the State Department is approving massive arms sales, particularly to Saudi Arabia.

ASSANGE: Under Hillary Clinton - and our Clinton emails reveal significant discussion about it - the largest ever arms deal in the world was made with Saudi Arabia. More than $80 billion dollars. In fact, during her tenure as Secretary of State, total arms exports from the United States, in terms of the dollar value doubled.

PILGER: And of course, the consequence of that is that this notorious terrorist-jihadist group called ISIL or ISIS is created, largely with money from the very people who are giving money to the Clinton Foundation.

ASSANGE: Yes.

PILGER: You get a lot of complaints from people, saying what is WikiLeaks doing? Are they try to put Trump in the White House.

ASSANGE: My analysis is that Trump would not be permitted to win. Why do I say that? Because he's had every establishment off-side. Trump doesn't have one establishment, maybe with the exception of the Evangelicals - if you can call them an establishment - but banks, intelligence, arms companies -

PILGER: They all want him beat!

ASSANGE: Foreign money, etc. - is all united behind Hillary Clinton - and the media, as well. So, media owners and even journalists, themselves."

TomKat

4th May 2019, 18:12

Nothing there (from the Church of Scientology) that's not in the public domain. Not important, truly.

Well, they can't be too happy about this one being up there. 612 pages of the old OT levels

https://file.wikileaks.org/file/scientology-ot-levels.pdf

Tintin

4th May 2019, 20:52

onawah

4th May 2019, 21:36

Here is the whole ( very damning!!) message, though numbered non-consecutively at that link), with the info quoted Tintin in bold (my emphasis);

"Re: Here's what I mentioned

From:hrod17@clintonemail.com
To: john.podesta@gmail.com
Date: 2014-08-19 11:21
Subject: Re: Here's what I mentioned

Agree but there may be opportunities as the Iraqi piece improves.

Also, any idea whose fighters attacked Islamist positions in Tripoli, Libya?
Worth analyzing for future purposes.

From: John Podesta [mailto:john.podesta@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2014 09:19 AM
To: H
Subject: Re: Here's what I mentioned

Hit send too soon. Meant to say Syria elements are vexing.

On Aug 19, 2014 9:17 AM, "John Podesta" <john.podesta@gmail.com<mailto:john.podesta@gmail.com>> wrote:

I think we are headed down this path in Iraq, but the Syria elements are

On Aug 17, 2014 3:50 PM, "H" <hrod17@clintonemail.com<mailto:hrod17@clintonemail.com>> wrote:
Note: Sources include Western intelligence, US intelligence and sources in the region.

1. With all of its tragic aspects, the advance of ISIL through Iraq gives the U.S. Government an opportunity to change the way it deals with the chaotic security situation in North Africa and the Middle East. The most important factor in this matter is to make use of intelligence resources and Special Operations troops in an aggressive manner, while avoiding the old school solution, which calls for more traditional military operations. In Iraq it is important that we engage ISIL using the resources of the Peshmerga fighters of the Kurdish Regional Government (KRG), and what, if any, reliable units exist in the Iraqi Army. The Peshmerga commanders are aggressive hard fighting troops, who have long standing relationships with CIA officers and Special Forces operators. However, they will need the continued commitment of U.S. personnel to work with them as advisors and strategic planners, the new generation of Peshmerga commanders being largely untested in traditional combat. That said, with this U.S. aid the Kurdish troops can inflict a real defeat on ISIL.

2. It is important that once we engage ISIL, as we have now done in a limited manner, we and our allies should carry on until they are driven back suffering a tangible defeat. Anything short of this will be seen by other fighters in the region, Libya, Lebanon, and even Jordan, as an American defeat. However, if we provide advisors and planners, as well as increased close air support for the Peshmerga, these soldiers can defeat ISIL. They will give the new Iraqi Government a chance to organize itself, and restructure the Sunni resistance in Syria, moving the center of power toward moderate forces like the Free Syrian Army (FSA). In addition to air support, the Peshmerga also need artillery and armored vehicles to deal with the tanks and other heavy equipment captured from the Iraqi army by ISIL.

3. In the past the USG, in an agreement with the Turkish General Staff, did not provide such heavy weapons to the Peshmerga, out of a concern that they would end up in the hands of Kurdish rebels inside of Turkey. The current situation in Iraq, not to mention the political environment in Turkey, makes this policy obsolete. Also this equipment can now be airlifted directly into the KRG zone.

4. Armed with proper equipment, and working with U.S. advisors, the Peshmerga can attack the ISIL with a coordinated assault supported from the air. This effort will come as a surprise to the ISIL, whose leaders believe we will always stop with targeted bombing, and weaken them both in Iraq and inside of Syria. At the same time we should return to plans to provide the FSA, or some group of moderate forces, with equipment that will allow them to deal with a weakened ISIL, and stepped up operations against the Syrian regime. This entire effort should be done with a low profile, avoiding the massive traditional military operations that are at best temporary solutions. While this military/para-military operation is moving forward, we need to use our diplomatic and more traditional intelligence assets to bring pressure on the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL and other radical Sunni groups in the region. This effort will be enhanced by the stepped up commitment in the KRG. The Qataris and Saudis will be put in a position of balancing policy between their ongoing competition to dominate the Sunni world and the consequences of serious U.S. pressure. By the same token, the threat of similar, realistic U.S. operations will serve to assist moderate forces in Libya, Lebanon, and even Jordan, where insurgents are increasingly fascinated by the ISIL success in Iraq.

6. In the end the situation in Iraq is merely the latest and most dangerous example of the regional restructuring that is taking place across North Africa, all the way to the Turkish border. These developments are important to the U.S. for reasons that often differ from country to country: energy and moral commitment to Iraq, energy issues in Libya, and strategic commitments in Jordan. At the same time, as Turkey moves toward a new, more serious Islamic reality, it will be important for them to realize that we are willing to take serious actions, which can be sustained to protect our national interests. This course of action offers the potential for success, as opposed to large scale, traditional military campaigns, that are too expensive and awkward to maintain over time.

7. (Note: A source in Tripoli stated in confidence that when the U.S. Embassy was evacuated, the presence of two U.S. Navy jet fighters over the city brought all fighting to a halt for several hours, as Islamist forces were not certain that these aircraft would not also provide close ground support for moderate government forces.)

8. If we do not take the changes needed to make our security policy in the region more realistic, there is a real danger of ISIL veterans moving on to other countries to facilitate operations by Islamist forces. This is already happening in Libya and Egypt, where fighters are returning from Syria to work with local forces. ISIL is only the latest and most violent example of this process. If we don’t act to defeat them in Iraq something even more violent and dangerous will develop. Successful military operations against these very irregular but determined forces can only be accomplished by making proper use of clandestine/special operations resources, in coordination with airpower, and established local allies. There is, unfortunately, a narrow window of opportunity on this issue, as we need to act before an ISIL state becomes better organized and reaches into Lebanon and Jordan.

9. (Note: It is important to keep in mind that as a result of this policy there probably will be concern in the Sunni regions of Iraq and the Central Government regarding the possible expansion of KRG controlled territory. With advisors in the Peshmerga command we can reassure the concerned parties that, in return for increase autonomy, the KRG will not exclude the Iraqi Government from participation in the management of the oil fields around Kirkuk, and the Mosel Dam hydroelectric facility. At the same time we will be able to work with the Peshmerga as they pursue ISIL into disputed areas of Eastern Syria, coordinating with FSA troops who can move against ISIL from the North. This will make certain Basher al Assad does not gain an advantage from these operations. Finally, as it now appears the U.S. is considering a plan to offer contractors as advisors to the Iraqi Ministry of Defense, we will be in a position to coordinate more effectively between the Peshmerga and the Iraqi Army.)"

Iloveyou

3rd June 2019, 15:01

Swedish court rejects request to detain Assange in absence over rape allegation

June 3rd, 2019

https://www.rt.com/news/460960-swedish-court-assange-rejects-arrest/

Innocent Warrior

6th June 2019, 01:57

Valerie Villars

6th June 2019, 02:21

Stunning is right Rachel. A very, very disturbing development. Since when did exposing war crimes become a criminal offence? I'm appalled.

Tintin

6th June 2019, 12:29

"I have looked Julian Assange in the eye when he explained what happened, and believed him. I have not had the same opportunity with Sofie Wilen, and quite possibly she is equally honest in her account of events and I would believe her too."
________________________________________

A Swedish Court Injects Some Sense
5 Jun, 2019 by Craig Murray (https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2019/06/a-swedish-court-injects-some-sense/)
________________________________________

When, eight years late, the European Arrest Warrant request for Assange was finally put before a Swedish court, the court refused to issue it (https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/world/julian-assange-wont-be-extradited-to-sweden/news-story/ad02e1d0d0e97e1111de41c02f4aea95).

Readers of this blog are amongst the very few people who have had the chance to learn the information that the original European Arrest Warrant for Julian Assange from Sweden was not issued by any court but by a prosecutor; that this was upheld in the UK Supreme Court despite the Court’s open acknowledgement that this was not what the UK Parliament had intended by the phrase that the warrant must come from a “judicial authority”; and that the law had been changed immediately thereafter so it could not be done again.

Consequently in seeking a new European Arrest Warrant against Assange, Swedish prosecutors had finally, eight years on, to ask a court for the warrant. And the court looked at the case and declined, saying that the move would be disproportionate. It therefore remains the case that there is no Swedish extradition warrant for Assange.

This is a desperate disappointment to the false left in the UK, the Blairites and their ilk, who desperately want Assange to be a rapist in order to avoid the moral decision about prosecuting him for publishing truths about the neo-con illegal wars which they support.

The problem is that the evidence of sexual crimes was always extremely, extremely weak to anybody who took the trouble to examine it – which is why the same false left were desperate to convince us that it was wrong to examine the evidence as the “victim” must always be believed, a strange abandonment of the entire principle of justice.

In the lesser charge which fell through the statute of limitations, Anna Ardin claimed that during the act of sex Julian Assange had deliberately torn the condom with his fingers. But the torn condom she produced to police had none of Assange’s DNA on it, a physical impossibility.

In the remaining charge of “rape, less serious”, Sofie Wilen alleges the following. She had consensual sex with Assange in her bed. She then dozed and was “half asleep” when Assange started having sex with her again. He states that she was fully awake and responsive through a series of sexual acts.

I have looked Julian Assange in the eye when he explained what happened, and believed him. I have not had the same opportunity with Sofie Wilen, and quite possibly she is equally honest in her account of events and I would believe her too.

They had both been drinking. The difficulty is that this scenario is incapable of proof. A private sexual act that everybody agrees started and was consummated as fully consensual, but then continues or resumes as one partner is drifting off or has drifted off, but the other partner says they were still awake, absent a recording is quite simply incapable of proof either way.

What is beyond doubt true is that Sofie Wilen had no thought she had been raped when she met police to ask if Assange could be compelled to take an HIV test – a visit to the police which had been encouraged by Anna Ardin (she of the faked condom evidence). Ardin was present during Wilen’s police interview.

At the police station on 20 August, Wilen texted a friend at 14.25,

“did not want to put any charges against JA but the police wanted to get a grip on him.”

At 17.26 she texted that she was,

“shocked when they arrested JA because I only wanted him to take a test”.

The next evening at 22.22 she texted,

“it was the police who fabricated the charges”.

Despite this, Ms Wilen’s lawyer is adamant that she now does wish a prosecution to proceed. The problem is that question of proof. As the court has seen, there is none.

Julian Assange was interviewed in detail in Sweden before he was given permission to leave Sweden when the case was dropped by the Chief Prosecutor of Stockholm. When it was reopened by another prosecutor (possible in Sweden), who issued the European Arrest Warrant, Assange at all times during his detention in the UK declared his willingness to be interviewed again, and eventually was interviewed over two days in the Ecuadorean Embassy in November 2016.

Julian Assange has never tried to avoid the investigation in Sweden. His concern was always that the whole thing was cooked up as a ruse to get him into custody for extradition to the USA. Events have proved this to be true.

To return to Sweden, the remaining question at issue is a very simple one. Was Sofie Wilen awake and responsive when sex was resumed, as Julian Assange insists, or was she “half-asleep” as Sofie says? Exhaustive questioning both in Stockholm and London has failed to produce an answer which could convince a court to issue a warrant. Prosecutor Eva-Marie Persson is now going to apply to interview Assange again. I genuinely cannot see what she feels this is going to achieve, unless she hopes to harass an ill man into a false confession.

The Swedish courts have finally injected a note of realism. The evidence Assange broke any law in Sweden has never stacked up. At some point, this poisonous farrago of prosecutorial grandstanding and Swedish sexual politics needs to be brought to a close.

Tintin

6th June 2019, 12:58

Woah! If there was any doubt this is a concerted attack on press freedoms (and military whistleblowers/leaks), there isn’t now. The feds have raided ABC’s headquarters in Sydney for their Afghan Files reports (Brits, for anyone who isn’t familiar with the ABC, they’re media partners with the BBC.).

The Guardian: ABC raid: how the AFP's search warrant played out, one tweet at a time (https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/jun/05/abc-raid-how-the-afps-search-warrant-played-out-one-tweet-at-a-time)

Scott Morrison (snake), echoing Theresa May, from ABC: Scott Morrison grilled on press freedom after AFP raids on ABC, journalist Annika Smethurst (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-06-06/scott-morrison-questioned-on-press-freedom-after-afp-raids/11184058)

ABC: ABC raid: AFP leave Ultimo building with files after hours-long raid over Afghan Files stories (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-06-05/abc-raided-by-australian-federal-police-afghan-files-stories/11181162) (The Afghan Files are at the bottom of the report)

What the hell? Stunning development.

Well done Rach :flower: I was going to alert all to this yesterday, but, was overtaken by events.

It is [yes Valerie (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?106596-Julian-Assange-arrested-after-Ecuador-tears-up-asylum-deal&p=1295284&viewfull=1#post1295284)] a shocker/stunning in the very worst sense imaginable.

Here's another related story, her initial report:

Source: Pressreader.com (https://www.pressreader.com/)

________________________________________

When The Sunday Times asked an intelligence source about the proposal, the source said such reforms allow cyber spies to secretly access digital information on Australians with-out detection, including financial transactions, health data and phone records. “It would give the most powerful cyber spies the power to turn on its own citizens,” the source said. The letter also details a proposal for coercive “step-in” powers, meaning the intelligence agency could force government agencies and private businesses to “comply with security measures”.
________________________________________

The Sunday Times · 29 Apr 2018 · ANNIKA SMETHURST

LET US SPY ON AUSSIES - Secret push for sweeping new home security powers

The Sunday Times · 29 Apr 2018 · ANNIKA SMETHURST

TWO powerful government agencies are discussing radical new espionage powers that would see Australia’s cyber spy agency monitor Australian citizens for the first time. Under the plan, emails, bank records and text messages of Australians could be secretly accessed by digital spies without a trace, provided the defence and home a airs ministers approved.

The power grab is detailed in top secret letters between the heads of the departments of home a airs and defence.

TWO powerful government agencies are discussing radical new espionage powers that would see Australia’s cyber spy agency monitor Australian citizens for the first time. Under the plan, emails, bank records and text messages of Australians could be secretly accessed by digital spies without a trace, provided the Defence and Home Affairs ministers approved.

The power grab is detailed in top secret letters between the heads of the Department of Home A airs and Department of Defence which outline proposed new powers for Aus-tralia’s electronic spy agency — the Australian Signals Directorate (ASD).

The Secretary of the Department of Home A airs Mike Pezzullo first wrote to the Defence Secretary Greg Moriarty in February outlining the plan to potentially allow government hackers to “proactively disrupt and covertly remove” onshore cyber threats by “hacking into critical infrastructure”.

Under current laws the ASD — whose mission statement is “Reveal Their Secrets — Pro-tect Our Own” — must not conduct an activity to produce intelligence on an Australian. Instead, the Australian Federal Police and domestic spy agency ASIO have the power to in-vestigate Australians with a warrant and can ask ASD for technical advice if they don’t have the capabilities they need. The Attorney-General is responsible for issuing ASIO warrants but the agency’s operation falls under the umbrella of Home Affairs.

Under the proposal, Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton and Defence Minister Marise Payne would tick o orders to allow cyber spooks to target onshore threats without the top law officer knowing.

Last month the proposal was compiled in a top secret ministerial submission signed by ASD boss Mike Burgess. The proposal outlines scenarios where cyber spies would use of-fensive tactics to “counter or disrupt cyber-enabled criminals both onshore and o shore”. “The Department of Home A airs advises that it is briefing the Minister for Home Affairs to write to you (Ms Payne) seeking your support for a further tranche of legislative reform to enable ASD to better support a range of Home Affairs priorities,” the submission states.

But The Sunday Times understands Mr Dutton has not yet written to Ms Payne and no for-mal proposal for legislative amendments has been presented to Government. In a statement, a spokesman for Ms Payne said: “There has been no request to the Minister for De-fence to allow ASD to counter or disrupt cyber-enabled criminals onshore.”

When The Sunday Times asked an intelligence source about the proposal, the source said such reforms allow cyber spies to secretly access digital information on Australians with-out detection, including financial transactions, health data and phone records. “It would give the most powerful cyber spies the power to turn on its own citizens,” the source said. The letter also details a proposal for coercive “step-in” powers, meaning the intelligence agency could force government agencies and private businesses to “comply with security measures”.

The intelligence source said ASD could compel companies and government agencies to hand over data or security information. In his letter, as shown to The Sunday Times, Mr Pezzullo says the move could help battle child exploitation networks and transnational criminal syndicates including terror networks “onshore and offshore”.

“Further legislative reform could enable the Australian Signals Directorate to have a stronger role in support of the Home A airs portfolio and our law enforcement eff- orts against online, cybercrime and cyberenabled criminal threats facing Australia,” he wrote.

“Traditional law enforcement does not have the technical capacity to fully identify, detect and disrupt systemic transnational organised crime and is ordinarily limited to depen-dence on foreign law enforcement partners.”

A government source said: “I am horrifed.

“The only reason it’s not going ahead with ease is because there are good people who didn’t sign up to do this against Australian citizens. There is no actual national security gap this is aiming to other than a political power grab.”

mountain_jim

6th June 2019, 14:22

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/06/exclusive-interview-belmarsh-prison-inmate-provides-photos-of-julian-assange-says-internet-is-the-one-thing-they-cant-control/

EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW: Belmarsh Prison Inmate Provides Photos of Julian Assange, Says the ‘Internet is the One Thing They Can’t Control’

The Gateway Pundit has obtained exclusive testimony, as well as photos, from a fellow inmate of imprisoned WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange inside London’s highest security prison.
The inmate, who wishes to remain anonymous, sent multiple photos of Assange from inside Belmarsh maximum security prison and spoke to The Gateway Pundit about the WikiLeaks founder’s situation using a contraband phone he has inside.

..

This reporter spoke to the inmate through a series of online messages and a phone call for multiple hours on Wednesday evening. At the beginning of the conversation I asked him if he was a prisoner or someone who works there — and if his motive was to extort money from the organization.
“I’m in prison right now,” he said, sending a photo from inside his cell. “Extort him for what reason? He exposed the biggest scandals in the world. Whose side do you think someone in prison would be on? The government who have us locked up in here or a fellow prisoner who actually doesn’t deserve to be here?”
The inmate said that he believes that Assange needs his story told properly and is attempting to do what he can to help. He said that he hoped publishing the photos would lead to more people reading about his case.
When asked if they were attempting to sell the photos, the inmate claimed that The Sun had offered him $10,000 for them, but he declined because the publication was not interested in telling Assange’s story properly. He said that he was only willing to share what he had to say, and the accompanying photos, with an outlet that supports his fellow inmate — and reiterated that his goal was simply to raise awareness of the truth of Assange’s case.

The photos feature Assange prior to his illness and being moved to the prison’s hospital wing last month. We have not been able to verify if Assange is aware of the existence of the photographs.

< more at link >

Did You See Them

6th June 2019, 15:52

ThePythonicCow

6th June 2019, 22:01

It is [yes Valerie (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?106596-Julian-Assange-arrested-after-Ecuador-tears-up-asylum-deal&p=1295284&viewfull=1#post1295284)] a shocker/stunning in the very worst sense imaginable.
Could someone more familiar with these events explain to someone who can barely find Australia on a map (well, not quite that bad) what's so shocking about them?

Thanks!

Valerie Villars

6th June 2019, 22:38

Paul, as I understand it, Australia's version of America's feds, raided a major news station for eight hours and took any "evidence" they felt like taking regarding a story reported two years ago by two journalists from that station, on war crimes in Afghanistan.

As I've always understood it, the press's job IS to report on such transgressions. For most of my life, at least everyone pretended journalists were protected in such circumstances.

Now, there seems to be no pretense whatsoever and the suppression of real reporting is being carried out by the Feds in blatant confiscation of material gathered by the reporters. In the interest of "national security".

Hervé

6th June 2019, 23:09

Since the link above leads to a labyrinth:

Photos of Julian Assange in Belmarsh Prison Leaked by Fellow Inmate (https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/06/exclusive-interview-belmarsh-prison-inmate-provides-photos-of-julian-assange-says-internet-is-the-one-thing-they-cant-control/)

Cassandra Fairbanks The Gateway Pundit (https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/06/exclusive-interview-belmarsh-prison-inmate-provides-photos-of-julian-assange-says-internet-is-the-one-thing-they-cant-control/)
Thu, 06 Jun 2019 17:52 UTC

https://www.sott.net/image/s26/525157/large/7_3.jpg (https://www.sott.net/image/s26/525157/full/7_3.jpg)
Julian Assange in Belmarsh Prison

The Gateway Pundit has obtained exclusive testimony, as well as photos, from a fellow inmate of imprisoned WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange inside London's highest security prison.

The inmate, who wishes to remain anonymous, sent multiple photos of Assange from inside Belmarsh maximum security prison and spoke to The Gateway Pundit about the WikiLeaks founder's situation using a contraband phone (https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/belmarsh-prison-struggling-to-deal-with-huge-surge-in-gangsters-a4004666.html) he has inside.

Assange is imprisoned in the United Kingdom and faces eighteen charges under the Espionage Act in the United States for his publication of the Iraq and Afghan War Logs. If extradited and convicted, he could be face a maximum sentence of 175 years for the "crime" of publishing material that the US government did not want the population to know.

Along with the photos from inside the prison, the inmate pushed a fundraiser - causing supporters to worry that he was attempting to extort WikiLeaks or harm Assange by violating his privacy. The Gateway Pundit reached out to him to get his side of the story.

https://www.sott.net/image/s26/525158/large/6_5.jpg (https://www.sott.net/image/s26/525158/full/6_5.jpg)
Julian Assange in Belmarsh Prison

This reporter spoke to the inmate through a series of online messages and a phone call for multiple hours on Wednesday evening. At the beginning of the conversation I asked him if he was a prisoner or someone who works there - and if his motive was to extort money from the organization.

"I'm in prison right now," he said, sending a photo from inside his cell. "Extort him for what reason? He exposed the biggest scandals in the world. Whose side do you think someone in prison would be on? The government who have us locked up in here or a fellow prisoner who actually doesn't deserve to be here?"

The inmate said that he believes that Assange needs his story told properly and is attempting to do what he can to help. He said that he hoped publishing the photos would lead to more people reading about his case.

When asked if they were attempting to sell the photos, the inmate claimed that The Sun had offered him $10,000 for them, but he declined because the publication was not interested in telling Assange's story properly. He said that he was only willing to share what he had to say, and the accompanying photos, with an outlet that supports his fellow inmate - and reiterated that his goal was simply to raise awareness of the truth of Assange's case.

The photos feature Assange prior to his illness and being moved to the prison's hospital wing (https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/05/wikileaks-issues-statement-about-julian-assange-being-moved-to-prison-hospital-unit-express-grave-concerns-for-his-health/) last month. We have not been able to verify if Assange is aware of the existence of the photographs.

The Gateway Pundit was not asked for, nor did we provide, any compensation for the interview or permission to use the photos.

"I want his case to be understood fully, in detail," the inmate told TGP. "I want people to know why exactly the USA wants him and what good he has done for the world."

The prisoner said that while Assange can only spend £6 a week, he is in need of commissary money. Multiple people close to WikiLeaks asserted that this is false and he has more than enough in his account.

"That's the story with the pictures," he added. "He needs canteen money and a much better legal team."

https://www.sott.net/image/s26/525159/large/4_14.jpg (https://www.sott.net/image/s26/525159/full/4_14.jpg)
Julian Assange in Belmarsh Prison. A fellow inmate is raising funds for his defense. 'He doesn't deserve to be here.'

While some of the photos revealed his prison cell and the conditions, we have opted not to share those as they may violate his privacy. The photos reveal a thin blue mattress within a scarce and very small cell.

The photos of Assange himself reveal considerable weight loss since I last visited him in the Ecuadorian embassy in March.

After viewing photos of Assange prior to entering the prison, the inmate remarked "it's true. Belmarsh has sucked the life out of him."

Speaking generally about how Assange is viewed by the other inmates, the prisoner said that he is well liked among the prison population. "Everyone's got a million questions for him - like 'is the illuminati real?' He's probably heard that question a million times," the inmate said, along with laughing emojis.

The prisoner said that there is a highly influential QC (a British lawyer) named James Scobey that prisoners who support WikiLeaks want to obtain for Assange's case. "He is known in prison for winning a lot of cases, but doesn't come cheap. We've inquired about his schedule for the next year and decided to launch this support campaign."

Scobey was ranked by the UK Bar as a "leading individual" in 2019 and has placed in the UK's Legal 500 multiple times. He is described on the Garden Court Chambers website (https://www.gardencourtchambers.co.uk/barristers/james-scobie-qc/sao) as "a highly experienced leading counsel with a wealth of experience in defending cases of gravity across a broad spectrum of criminal work. He is instructed regularly in cases of murder, armed robbery, multi-handed conspiracies (involving the importation and supplying of Class A drugs) and fraud."

We reached out to Mr. Scobey asking if he has been contacted about his services or the fundraiser. His office responded by saying that they had not heard anything as of yet.

"This case won't be won in a courtroom," the inmate said, asserting that it will be won with a positive campaign of public pressure showcasing who he is.

The inmate also said that security officers in the prison have been spreading rumors and gossip about the Assange rape case among the inmates, saying things like "you don't know what he's in here for" to stir the pot. Though he is concerned about the rumors, he does not believe the guards are trying to get Assange hurt - he believes they are simply uninformed about the Swedish investigation and believe the smears from the media.

The award-winning publisher is under investigation in Sweden for sex crimes, which he and many of his supporters believe was a setup to get him into the nation where he could be more easily extradited to the United States. The case involves consensual sex with two women, who later found out he had slept with both. One of the women had claimed that Assange had continued to have sex with her after a condom broke - a crime in Sweden - but the condom she provided to the police had no DNA from her, Assange or anyone else on it.

Swedish authorities attempted to drop the investigation in 2013 (https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/feb/11/sweden-tried-to-drop-assange-extradition-in-2013-cps-emails-show), but was pressured to keep it open by the British government - further fueling speculation that it is a political hit job. A Crown Prosecution Service had even brazenly emailed Swedish prosecutors telling them, "Don't you dare get cold feet!!!"

"He isn't going to win this case through the law, he's going to win it because there's public outcry," the prisoner explained. He noted that the mainstream media is controlled by the government and said that "the internet is the one thing they can't control," sounding a bit like Assange himself.

"The same people who run the mainstream newspapers are basically the ones running the USA, but they don't own the internet," he said.

On a bright note, the inmate explained that prison isn't like the movies and he believes that Assange is safe from anyone who would want to harm him. "You can't sneeze without permission," he said.

The prisoner stated that Assange is still currently in the hospital wing of the prison. He also said that Assange very much appreciates all the letters he is receiving from supporters and that there was one day when nobody in the roughly 300-person unit received mail - except for him.

"All of the post was for Assange," he said. "About 500 letters and it was all for him. It made him smile."

Lawyers for Assange were unable to confirm or deny any of the claims.

While we cannot confirm the authenticity of any of the inmate's statements or motives, the fact that the photos managed to get out of the highest security prison in the UK at all is stunning it itself.

Prior to his arrest, Assange spent nearly seven years in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, unable to receive proper medical treatment, and the lack of sunshine and fresh air took a toll on his system. Doctors who visited him there wrote an article for the Guardian pleading for him to be allowed to go to the hospital for treatment, headlining their account "We examined Julian Assange, and he badly needs care - but he can't get it (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jan/24/julian-assange-care-wikileaks-ecuadorian-embassy)."

The doctors wrote,
"experience tells us that the prolonged uncertainty of indefinite detention inflicts profound psychological and physical trauma above and beyond the expected stressors of incarceration. These can include severe anxiety, pathological levels of stress, dissociation, depression, suicidal thoughts, post-traumatic stress disorder and chronic pain, among others." The prisoner was most adamant that he wanted the world to read the UN's report last week which found that Assange had been the victim of psychological torture.

Last week, the UN issued a scathing report in which Nils Melzer, the UN Special Rapporteur on torture said that Assange has been exposed to psychological torture and warned that the award-winning publisher could face the death penalty if he is extradited to the United States.

Melzer visited Assange along with two medical experts who specialize in examining potential torture victims on May 9.

"I am particularly alarmed at the recent announcement by the US Department of Justice of 17 new charges against Mr. Assange under the Espionage Act, which currently carry up to 175 years in prison. This may well result in a life sentence without parole, or possibly even the death penalty, if further charges were to be added in the future," Melzer continued.

Melzer also wrote that "there has been a relentless and unrestrained campaign of public mobbing, intimidation and defamation against Mr. Assange, not only in the United States, but also in the United Kingdom, Sweden and, more recently, Ecuador."

"In the course of the past nine years, Mr. Assange has been exposed to persistent, progressively severe abuse ranging from systematic judicial persecution and arbitrary confinement in the Ecuadorian embassy, to his oppressive isolation, harassment and surveillance inside the embassy, and from deliberate collective ridicule, insults and humiliation, to open instigation of violence and even repeated calls for his assassination."

Speaking about the visit that he and the medical professionals had with Assange earlier this month, Melzer said that it was obvious that his health had been seriously impacted by the "extremely hostile and arbitrary environment he has been exposed to for many years."

"Most importantly, in addition to physical ailments, Mr. Assange showed all symptoms typical for prolonged exposure to psychological torture, including extreme stress, chronic anxiety and intense psychological trauma," the UN report said.

"The evidence is overwhelming and clear," the findings continued, "Mr. Assange has been deliberately exposed, for a period of several years, to progressively severe forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, the cumulative effects of which can only be described as psychological torture."

The report concluded with a condemnation of the actions of these governments in working to deliberately abuse him.

"In 20 years of work with victims of war, violence and political persecution, I have never seen a group of democratic States ganging up to deliberately isolate, demonise and abuse a single individual for such a long time and with so little regard for human dignity and the rule of law," Melzer said. "The collective persecution of Julian Assange must end here and now!"

In 2016, after 16 months of investigation, the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (UNWGAD) concluded that Assange is the victim of arbitrary detention. Not only did the group of lawyers and human rights professionals release an opinion that Assange should be released, they also determined that he should be compensated by the governments of Sweden and the United Kingdom for "deprivation of liberty."

Prior to the release of the UN report, the publisher's mother, Christine Assange tweeted that the "UK Gov is unlawfully slowly killing my son!"

"They made him very ill by refusing him ANY access to life sustaining fresh air, exercise, sun/VitD or proper medical care for 6 YEARS of illegal Embassy detention," she tweeted at the United Nations Twitter account. "Then against ALL medical advice threw him into a prison cell."

WikiLeaks has not yet responded to the photos. We will update this story if a statement is made available.

Related:

UN Expert: Assange deliberately subjected to prolonged cruel and inhuman psychological torture (https://www.sott.net/article/414079-UN-Expert-Assange-deliberately-subjected-to-prolonged-cruel-and-inhuman-psychological-torture)

BBC, Sky News deep-six their interviews with UN expert on the torture of Julian Assange (https://www.sott.net/article/414205-BBC-Sky-News-deep-six-their-interviews-with-UN-expert-on-the-torture-of-Julian-Assange)

Wikileaks issues statement of 'grave concern' for Julian Assange's health: Can barely talk, moved to prison hospital (https://www.sott.net/article/414023-Wikileaks-issues-statement-of-grave-concern-for-Julian-Assanges-health-Can-barely-talk-moved-to-prison-hospital)

Assange gets handwritten letter out from Belmarsh prison: "I am defenseless. Everyone else must take my place" (https://www.sott.net/article/413757-Assange-gets-handwritten-letter-out-from-Belmarsh-prison-I-am-defenseless-Everyone-else-must-take-my-place)

How to write to Mr. Assange at HMP Belmarsh: Write To Julian (https://writejulian.com/)

Innocent Warrior

8th June 2019, 01:52

EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW: Belmarsh Prison Inmate Provides Photos of Julian Assange, Says the ‘Internet is the One Thing They Can’t Control’

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/06/exclusive-interview-belmarsh-prison-inmate-provides-photos-of-julian-assange-says-internet-is-the-one-thing-they-cant-control/

I’m suspicious about this story. Keeping in mind that this case can be won or lost due to public opinion/pressure (no faith in a fair trial) and that it came out shortly after Nils Melzer’s damning report, and before that the news that Julian had been hospitalised. This caused a surge of public outcry and a sense of urgency from his supporters.

Ok, and now RT has published this video -

UHtFhApWGDQ

The photos first released are screen shots from that video. We see Julian having social interaction, chatting and smiling (window and a couple of books). This comforts his concerned supporters, it’s not quite as bad as we had feared, while it gives anti-Assange folks reason to see he’s not as sick as has been reported. Suspicious timing but here’s where **** doesn’t add up for me...

Note the date on the footage. It’s wrong, sure, and perhaps this can happen with a phone under certain circumstances (no sim at the time, whatever) but when has anyone ever seen a phone camera display the date on the video footage? I’ve never seen that, I’ve only seen that on video cameras (on vid cams the date needs to be set and you can easily choose to set it to display date or not).

I don’t think this was filmed on a contraband phone, I think it was a hidden video camera. So at this point I was thinking the prisoner was lying or it wasn’t a prisoner but a guard who filmed it.

Note also the last little clip in the video of Julian’s cell, the time stamp read 4:11 and the stamp on the first part of the video is 5:53. The times are wrong but the duration shows the duration as spanning almost two hours, the inmates can only leave their cell for one hour per day. The person filming the cell at he end of the vid, earliest on the time stamp, is alone. A lot of questions there but this is another factor that causes me to think it was a guard.

But here’s where it gets weirder and far more confusing for myself personally. When I watched the RT video earlier this morning, the date stamp was bigger and yellow (like we saw all the time on older video cameras) and the man Julian was talking to wasn’t blurred out. Not long ago I noticed this had changed to what we see now. I didn’t take screenshots so I can’t prove it and I’m even starting to doubt myself now because it’s confusing, I don’t get why they would have done that, but I’m sure I saw that.

So IDK what’s going on here but I’m calling BS unless someone can explain the presence of a date and time stamp on a video recorded on a phone. The photos that were first released are cropped, so we can’t see if there was a date stamp on those. Did the inmate lie about the photos being from a phone? Was it a guard with a hidden camera? Did RT put the time stamp on, and if so, why? No way of knowing that without proof I suppose.

Maybe Julian knows who filmed this and with what because at one point it appears that he spots the camera and after that it appears he’s tries to subtly check it out. Anyway, worth noting, keeping a critical eye out on things like this that shift public perception.

I know nobody wants to hear it, we love The Intercept, but I swear Glenn Greenwald is a shill (suspected it after Reality Winner got arrested and certain after a recent interview about Julian). Same with Laura Poitras who made the documentary, “Risk”. They’re colleagues and are sowing seeds of doubt about whether or not Julian can be trusted (their BS line - Assange will use intel agency tactics to survive). You don’t have to believe me, just watch...until Julian is free or jailed for life, Julian’s enemies will be working to turn the public against him, it’s subtle but powerful, and Greenwald and Poitras are shills, and there will be others.

If they’re successful, very few will give a **** about Julian by the time they lock him away.

It’s a fight for our perception and the prize is Julian and the fall of WikiLeaks, don’t be fooled.

spade

8th June 2019, 13:06

2 possibilities -
1. the date stamp on the camera has no proper date set, and left to default settings (from date of purchase or factory settings).
2. As JS had previously reported, he was taken out of the embassy before the trump election and the blackout, had not been seen on the balcony since, placed in this facility, and hence the video with the correct date recorded his presence. He was then brought back for the extraction hoax show drugged up.

I sure hope it was the 1st possibility.

Tintin

11th June 2019, 12:10

"Thordarsson stole tens of thousands of dollars from WikiLeaks, and impersonated Julian Assange in order to carry out the embezzlement."

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

Latest (sic) news - presumably - from WikiLeaks' own news page which can be viewed here (https://wikileaks.org/US-DoJ-Preparing-Additional-Indictment.html).

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

US DoJ preparing to file additional indictment against Julian Assange based on testimony by convicted conman
07 June 2019

The star witness in the pending new indictment of the US DoJ against Julian Assange is a convicted fraudster and FBI informant Sigurdur Thordarson.

The United States Department of Justice is preparing a new superseding indictment against WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange before the extradition deadline on June 14th.

Dutch public broadcaster NOS reported that Sigurdur Thordarson was flown to the United States last week where he was "comprehensively interrogiated" (https://nos.nl/nieuwsuur/artikel/2287922-justitie-vs-werkt-aan-nieuwe-aanklachten-tegen-julian-assange.html), in preparation for the filing of a new superseding indictment against Julian Assange by the end of next week.

NOS reported that on May 6th this, FBI Special Agent Megan Brown, who leads the FBI investigation against Assange, travelled to Iceland together with prosecutor Kellen Dwyer from the Eastern District of Virginia, to re-interrogiate FBI informant Thordarson with the help of Icelandic police. Dwyer's cut-and-paste error led to revelation in November 2018 that the Department of Justice had indicted Assange.

On May 27th, US authorities flew Sigurdur Thordarson to Washington D.C. for further interrogiations, where he remained until June 1.

Kristinn Hrafnsson, editor-in-chief of WikiLeaks:

"The Trump administration is so desperate to build its case against WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange that it is using a diagnosed sociopath, a convicted conman and sex criminal, who was exposed by the highest levels of the Icelandic government as an FBI informant and who was involved in an entrapment operation in 2011 against Julian Assange."

Thordarson, who was recently released from prison, agreed to be interrogated to help build a case against Assange. Thordarson had served a three-year sentence for multiple counts of embezzlement and fraud (https://www.visir.is/g/2014141229831/siggi-the-hacker--receives-a-two-year-prison-sentense), including against WikiLeaks and sex crimes against nine minors. Thordarsson stole tens of thousands of dollars from WikiLeaks, and impersonated Julian Assange in order to carry out the embezzlement.

As part of the criminal prosecution of Thordarson in Iceland, he was examined by a forensic psychiatrist who diagnosed him as a sociopath.

Thordarson told NOS that the interrogations focused on his own communications with fellow FBI-informant Hector Monsegut (aka "SABU") (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4021166/Former-Icelandic-minister-claims-FBI-tried-frame-Julian-Assange.html). These contacts involve an operation by the FBI that was exposed as an "entrapment" operation "against Julian Assange" by the Interior Minister of Iceland, Ogmundur Jonasson, as reported by the Daily Mail in 2013.

While the case would collapse in the U.S. due to the prosecution's reliance on testimony by Thordarson and Monsegur, who are not credible witnesses, the United States can conceal their witnesses identities during UK extradition proceedings in order to boost their chances of winning. This will make it impossible for Assange to challenge the credibility of the witnesses during UK extradition proceedings, which will commence on 14 June.

In 2011, the Icelandic government expelled "eight or nine" FBI agents and prosecutors who had flown from the Eastern District of Virginia because they were conducting unauthorised activities on Icelandic soil against Assange and WikiLeaks. The episode was reported in the New York Times in 2013 (https://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/25/world/europe/wikileaks-back-in-news-never-left-us-radar.html).

By contrast, the current Icelandic government has cooperated with the Trump Administration's efforts to build a case against WikiLeaks.

Kristinn Hrafnsson, editor of WikiLeaks, yesterday sent a letter demanding an explanation from Icelandic Prime Minister Katrin Jakobsdottir, Foreign Minister Guolaugur Por Poroarson, Justice Minister Pordis Kolbrun Gylfadottir, Chief of the National Police Haraldur Johannessen, and General Procescutor Sigriour J. Friojonsdottir regarding the Icelandic governments participation in what is widely recognised to be a US-led political persecution against foreign members of the press including Icelandic citizens, for their role in exposing war crimes and other illegal activities during consecutive US administrations.

Last week, the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture Nils Melzer presented his findings that a "collective persecution" is underway against Assange (https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=24665), after having conducted an investigation into the situation of the WikiLeaks publisher, who is arbitrarily detained in Belmarsh prison in London.

The rapporteur told Australian public radio ABC that Assange's health was in serious decline and that there is a "very real" risk that he could die in prison.

The first substantive US extradition hearing will be held in London on 14 June.

Hervé

13th June 2019, 12:13

British Home Secretary signs extradition order to send Julian Assange to US (https://www.rt.com/news/461749-assange-uk-extradition-us/)

RT

Published time: 13 Jun, 2019 09:02

Edited time: 13 Jun, 2019 10:33
Get short URL (https://on.rt.com/9wad)

https://cdni.rt.com/files/2019.06/article/5d0217cbfc7e933f328b459e.jpg
© Global Look Press / /ZUMAPRESS.com / Wiktor Szymanowicz; © REUTERS/Henry Nicholls

Britain's Home Secretary has revealed he has signed a request for the extradition of WikiLeaks co-founder Julian Assange to the US, where he is accused of violating the Espionage Act.

Speaking on BBC Radio 4’s Today program, Sajid Javid said that he signed and certified the papers on Wednesday, with the order going before the UK courts on Friday.
He’s rightly behind bars. There’s an extradition request from the US that is before the courts tomorrow but yesterday I signed the extradition order and certified it and that will be going in front of the courts tomorrow.
The US justice department has filed 17 new charges against the Australian journalist. In May, he was additionally charged with one count of conspiring with Chelsea Manning, the former intelligence analyst and whistleblower, to gain access to the US Pentagon network.

Assange is currently serving a prison sentence in the UK for jumping bail. The 47 year-old was too ill to appear last month at the latest hearing at Westminster magistrates court in relation to the US request.

The hearing has been rescheduled for Friday and, depending on the state of his health, may take place at Belmarsh prison, where he is being held.

The journalist spent over six years living under asylum in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, out of fear Britain would hand him over to the US. He was forcibly dragged out of the building in April after the South American nation decided to evict him.

His arrest and subsequent imprisonment prompted much public outcry. Human rights activist Peter Tatchell believes a near maximum sentence of “50 weeks is excessive and disproportionate.”

The WikiLeaks co-founder’s health has been of particular concern to his supporters. His lawyer, Per Samuelson, told reporters after visiting Belmarsh at the end of May that “Assange’s health situation... was such that it was not possible to conduct a normal conversation with him.”

The UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, Nils Melzer, who visited Assange in Belmarsh, claimed that he showed clear signs of degrading and inhumane treatment, which only added to his deteriorating health.

The publishing of the Iraq War footage showing a US Apache helicopter shooting dead 12 people, including two Reuters staff, is one of the most significant and talked-about exposures made by his WikiLeaks organization.

Just one week before Hillary Clinton became the Democratic Party’s nominee for president in 2016, WikiLeaks released thousands of emails showing that top party figures had collaborated to ensure that Senator Bernie Sanders did not win the nomination. The leaks forced DNC chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz to resign.

Related:

Journalists silent on Assange’s plight are complicit in his torture and imprisonment (https://www.rt.com/op-ed/461509-journalists-media-assange-wikileaks/)

Russian media solidarity for Golunov contrasts with loathsome US/UK press bootlicking over Assange (https://www.rt.com/op-ed/461528-golunov-assange-media-arrest/)

BMJ

15th June 2019, 13:44

Julian Assange to appear in court after Javid signs US extradition request

Quote:
Javid said: “It is a decision ultimately for the courts, but there is a very important part of it for the home secretary and I want to see justice done at all times and we’ve got a legitimate extradition request, so I’ve signed it, but the final decision is now with the courts.”

The 47-year-old Australian was too ill to appear last month at a hearing at Westminster magistrates court in relation to the US request. The hearing has been rescheduled for Friday, and depending on Assange’s condition, may take place at Belmarsh prison where he is being held.

Link: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/jun/13/julian-assange-sajid-javid-signs-us-extradition-order?utm_referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fzen.yandex.com

Praxis

15th June 2019, 14:01

This feels like they are dragging this out as long as possible to keep in him Belmarsh. It seems they want him to die there so no extradition takes place. This is also how they can control a dead man switch event.

It wouldnt surprise that if he dies, we dont actually find out about it so they can gauge a dead man event( I really hope Assange has a dead man switch) and we find out later than when it actually occurs.

This will allow Qult people to pretend Donald is not actually a pawn because technically extradition didnt happen, even though his admin has requested it. They will claim that they were trying to extradite for safety so they could finally drain the swam or whatever.

Clear Light

15th June 2019, 14:03

The Guardian : Julian Assange to face US extradition hearing in UK next year (https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/jun/14/julian-assange-to-face-us-extradition-hearing-in-uk-next-year) (February 2020)

Julian Assange will face a five-day US extradition hearing in February next year, a judge has ruled.

The WikiLeaks founder faces an 18-count indictment, issued by the US Department of Justice, that includes charges under the Espionage Act.

At Westminster magistrates court on Friday, the chief magistrate, Emma Arbuthnot, ordered that a full extradition hearing should begin on 25 February.

Ben Brandon, representing the US, formally opened the case, a day after an extradition request was signed off by the home secretary, Sajid Javid.

“This is related to one of the largest compromises of confidential information in the history of the United States,” Brandon told the court.

As Brandon ran through a summary of the accusations against Assange, including that he had cracked a US defence network password, Assange, appearing by video link, protested: “I didn’t break any password whatsoever.”

Assange, 47, who was dressed in a grey T-shirt, had a white beard and was wearing black-framed glasses, said 175 years of his life was at stake and defended his website against hacking claims, saying: “WikiLeaks is nothing but a publisher.”

His lawyer, Mark Summers QC, described the case as “an outrageous and full-frontal assault on journalistic rights”

His legal team also said he was challenging the 50-week sentence in Britain for skipping bail he is serving after he spent seven years in the Ecuadorian embassy in London attempting to avoid extradition to Sweden.

Assange is accused in the US of soliciting and publishing classified information and conspiring to hack into a government computer.

Outside the court, his supporters protested against the UK’s treatment of him. A crowd of around a dozen people held banners, with some chanting “Justice for Julian Assange” and “Defend freedom and democracy.”

Financial Times : UK court to decide on Assange extradition to US in February (https://on.ft.com/2WE6cyZ)

A London court will decide in February whether WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange can be extradited to the US to face 18 criminal charges in connection with the leak of thousands of classified documents relating to US military activity in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Assange appeared at Westminster Magistrates’ Court on Friday by video link from Belmarsh prison, where he is currently serving a 50-week sentence for skipping bail and fleeing to the Ecuadorean embassy in London in 2012.

Assange is fighting the US extradition request which was certified by UK home secretary Sajid Javid on Thursday — although the final decision will rest with the British courts.

Wearing a grey T-shirt and glasses, Assange told the London court that “175 years of my life is effectively at stake” and said he had not seen the latest indictment containing 18 US allegations against him.

These include one count of computer hacking as well as 17 charges accusing him of violating the Espionage Act. These carry a maximum penalty of 10 years for each offence.

Ben Brandon, the barrister acting for the US government, told the hearing that the 18 charges covered “one of the largest compromises of classified information in the history of the United States”, and claimed that Assange’s actions had created a “grave risk” for human intelligence sources, including human rights defenders.

Speaking from prison, Assange asked the court to clarify the US allegations that claim he “cracked a password” on a US defence department computer network. He insisted he had not hacked any password and defended WikiLeaks as nothing more than a “publisher”.

Mark Summers QC, Assange’s lawyer, told the court that the case raised “profound issues” and represented an “outrageous and full frontal assault on journalistic rights”.

The court heard that Assange’s lawyers had to post documents to him because he had no access to a computer at the prison.

The case has raised concerns in the US about press freedom and protections for those who publish leaked classified information.

Dozens of Assange supporters gathered outside the court on Friday, chanting and holding banners to protest against his extradition.

At next year’s hearing Assange is likely to argue that his removal to the US breaches his human rights. The US-UK extradition treaty has a standard exception for so-called political offences, which typically includes espionage.

Westminster Magistrates’ Court does not need to decide his innocence or guilt but simply whether the case meets the legal test for extradition. Assange can then challenge any ruling through a lengthy appeals process.

Assange also faces rape charges in Sweden, but this month a Swedish court declined to arrest him in his absence, ruling that he should be questioned in the UK over the allegations rather than extradited to Sweden. He will next appear in court in October.

ThePythonicCow

15th June 2019, 17:53

Delight

18th June 2019, 03:05

Franny

23rd June 2019, 18:11

UN Rapporteur on Torture Nils Melzer Becomes One of Assange’s Most Vocal Advocates

“Here [in Assange’s case] we are not speaking of prosecution but of persecution. That means that judicial power, institutions and proceedings are being deliberately abused for ulterior motives.” — Nils Melzer, UN Rapporteur on Torture

On May 9, UN Rapporteur on Torture Nils Melzer, visited WikiLeaks founder and journalist Julian Assange at Belmarsh Prison, where he is currently serving a 50-week prison sentence for a minor bail violation. Melzer was accompanie (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErW1taJEPrs&feature=youtu.be)d by two medical experts who specialize in the examination of possible victims of torture as well as the documentation of symptoms, both physical and psychological. The team was able to speak with Assange and conduct a medical assessment following a set of guidelines known as “The Istanbul Protocol (https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/training8Rev1en.pdf),” a tool designed to help UN workers and others investigate, document, and report incidents of torture and ill-treatment.

The results were shocking.

According to Melzer, the evidence is overwhelming (https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=24665&LangID=E) that Assange has been “deliberately exposed, for a period of several years, to progressively [more] severe forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment,” the effects of which he described as psychological torture. Melzer also found (https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=24665&LangID=E) that Assange has been exposed to:

persistent, progressively [more] severe abuse ranging from systematic judicial persecution and arbitrary confinement in the Ecuadorian embassy, to his oppressive isolation, harassment and surveillance inside the embassy; and from deliberate collective ridicule, insults and humiliation, to open instigation of violence and even repeated calls for his assassination.”

The UN Rapporteur admitted (https://twitter.com/NilsMelzer/status/1134443913488588800) that he had been reluctant to investigate Assange’s case, not because he felt that Assange was a “bad actor” but rather because he had been “affected by the same misguided smear campaign as everybody else.” But as he delved deeper into the case he found that Assange had been subjected (https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=24665&LangID=E) to a “relentless and unrestrained campaign of public mobbing, intimidation and defamation,” during which time no government involved (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErW1taJEPrs&feature=youtu.be) tried to intervene or protect him.

In 20 years of work with victims of war, violence and political persecution I have never seen a group of democratic States ganging up to deliberately isolate, demonise and abuse a single individual for such a long time and with so little regard for human dignity and the rule of law.” (UN release (https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=24665&LangID=E))

As a result of the limited number of outside influences to which Assange was exposed, as well as his confinement to a small, controlled environment within the Ecuadorian Embassy in London for more than seven years, Melzer believes (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErW1taJEPrs&feature=youtu.be) that it’s possible to determine the causes of Assange’s symptoms with a high degree of certainty. He found that four nations have “contributed to medical effects” that Melzer and his team observed (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErW1taJEPrs&feature=youtu.be): Sweden, the U.K., Ecuador, and the U.S.

A UN statement (https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=24665&LangID=E) about Melzer’s findings was released on May 31, and since that time Melzer has become one of Assange’s most active and vocal advocates, taking part in well over a dozen interviews about his health, legal difficulties, judicial bias, and more. Below is a summary of 12 different interviews he has given over approximately the last three weeks.

Sweden

Melzer has frequently spoken (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErW1taJEPrs&feature=youtu.be) about the “elephant in the room,” which he describes as the United States’ attempts to have Assange extradited in order to make an example out of him. Essentially every judicial proceeding Assange has faced since 2010 has revolved around this threat.

His legal troubles began in August 2010, when Sweden opened an investigation into allegations of sexual misconduct, including rape and molestation. However, rather than contact Assange directly for questioning, Swedish authorities publicized the case despite the fact that Swedish law strictly prohibited them (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fq_P9Nj6N58&feature=youtu.be) from doing so. Upon learning about the investigation, Assange immediately went to the police and made a statement, after which the case was closed owing to a lack of evidence.

Days later the case was reopened by a different prosecutor and Assange remained in Sweden until the end of September in order to assist with their investigation. On September 15, 2010, Swedish prosecutor Marianne Ny granted Assange permission to leave the country (https://wikileaks.org/IMG/html/Affidavit_of_Julian_Assange.html#4); so, despite an almost decade-old narrative that Assange “fled” Swedish charges (he was never charged) by hiding out in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, that is absolutely and categorically not true.

It’s also important to note that, when Assange left Sweden, authorities seized his belongings at the airport, including a laptop and other electronics; at which point, had the Swedish prosecutor been so inclined to keep him in the country for questioning, they could have seized him right then and there. Instead, they allowed him to leave.

Once Assange was in the U.K., Sweden requested that he return for questioning, which aroused suspicion owing to the fact that, as Melzer pointed out (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fq_P9Nj6N58&feature=youtu.be), the country has a history of cooperating with the U.S. government and turning people over to it without due process, some of whom were rendered and later tortured. Assange feared, correctly, that the “elephant in the room” lay hidden behind Sweden’s request.

He offered to cooperate with Swedish officials if they would guarantee no extradition but they refused to do so, a disingenuous move that not only prevented Assange from defending himself but made clear how little Swedish authorities respected or, perhaps, believed the alleged victims’ stories. Assange also offered to be questioned by video link but they declined.

After the U.K. Supreme Court upheld a Swedish extradition request (over questioning in the case, not charges) in May 2012, Assange, again, under the credible fear that Sweden would extradite him to the U.S., entered the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, where he sought asylum for political persecution.

He continued to try to assist Swedish officials (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpM0vr0Br8g&feature=share) and offered to be questioned at the Embassy but Sweden refused, despite having previously questioned at least 44 other individuals by video link or traveling for in-person interviews. The Swedish government’s outlandish refusals only fueled speculation that it was working on behalf of the United States. The investigation was finally closed in 2017, but was resurrected by Swedish officials last month.

Melzer points out (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fq_P9Nj6N58&feature=youtu.be) that the reopened case is not about a violent and/or forced sexual encounter but rather the allegation that Assange purposely tore a condom during consensual sexual relations. The condom was later examined by authorities, who were unable to detect any DNA on it, including Assange’s. This is what Sweden describes as “rape,” and what it has used repeatedly to publicly characterize Assange as a rapist.

Emails between the U.K.’s Crown Prosecution Services (CPS) and Sweden (https://threader.app/thread/1139467513081847808) also show that the U.K. pressured Marianne Ny to keep the investigation going despite the fact that there have never been any charges or evidence, leading Melzer to suggest (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fq_P9Nj6N58&feature=youtu.be) that there are alternative motives behind the case.

Sweden made it impossible (https://www.rt.com/news/460885-nilz-melzer-assange-sweden/) for Assange to cooperate without risking being extradited to the U.S., while his reputation (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErW1taJEPrs&feature=youtu.be), credibility, and human dignity have been “gravely affected by these allegations,” reported Melzer. As stated earlier, the case was reopened last month, making it virtually impossible to believe that this isn’t about the “elephant in the room.”

Almost 10 years of judicial and public abuse

Since WikiLeaks published “Collateral Murder” and the Iraq and Afghanistan War Logs in 2010, Melzer reported (https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=24665&LangID=E) that there has been a “sustained and concerted effort by several States” to get Assange extradited to the U.S., and an “endless stream of humiliating, debasing and threatening statements in the press and on social media.” Inappropriate statements have also been made by “senior political figures and even by judicial magistrates involved in proceedings against Assange.”

https://pbs.twimg.com/card_img/1142342563292168192/fnBD3YsU?format=jpg&name=280x280

Reuters reported (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-wikileaks-assange-un-idUSKCN1T10WP) that Melzer “declined to identify judges or senior politicians whom he accused of defaming Assange,” but you don’t have to look very far to find them:

According to Melzer (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErW1taJEPrs&feature=youtu.be), all of this has led up to a level of stress that would be unbearable for anyone and, as he put it (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-wikileaks-assange-un-idUSKCN1T10WP):

Here we are not speaking of prosecution but of persecution. That means that judicial power, institutions and proceedings are being deliberately abused for ulterior motives.”

The UN Rapporteur repeatedly condemned Assange’s treatment in various interviews, stating (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErW1taJEPrs&feature=youtu.be) that he is “appalled at the sustained and concerted abuse this man has been exposed to at the hand of several democratic States over a period of almost a decade.” Although Ecuador’s abuse of Assange didn’t start until Lenin Moreno came to power in 2017, since that time government officials deliberately harassed (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErW1taJEPrs&feature=youtu.be) him in an attempt to get him to leave the embassy or to “trigger a health crisis that would justify his expulsion” from the embassy and into British hands.

Neither of those things occurred but President Moreno did expel him from the embassy and suspend his Ecuadorian citizenship without due process of law on April 11, 2019.

The torture of Julian Assange
According to Melzer (https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=24665&LangID=E), Assange has been gravely affected “by the extremely hostile and arbitrary environment he’s been exposed to” over a long period of time and the “evidence is overwhelming and clear” that he is being psychologically tortured, confirming what many already believed or reported.

Melzer and his team determined (https://therealnews.com/stories/un-torture-expert-says-assange-is-victim-of-psychological-torture) that Assange is also suffering from severe post-traumatic stress disorder, with symptoms of “chronic anxiety, permanent severe stress and agitation” (no relaxation or satisfactory sleep for months, possibly years).

During Melzer’s meeting with Assange, the UN Rapporteur found him to be “agitated, under severe stress, and unable to cope with his complex legal cases,” and since his imprisonment, his ability to focus has been compromised. He was also “extremely jumpy,” and Melzer found it difficult to have a “structured (https://www.abc.net.au/radio/programs/am/un-accuses-australia-of-failing-to-protect-assanges-rights/11170498)” conversation with him.

Britain Sweden Julian Assange

Assange’s concern was that he couldn’t rely on fair judicial proceedings in either the U.S. or Sweden and that he had no means or time to prepare for the “multiple, complex legal proceedings that are expanding as we speak,” Melzer (https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/w172wpk771cj4nm) said. This — accompanied by the hostile, degrading, and humiliating treatment he’s been subjected to, consistently, for almost a decade — has led to “severe stress…and psychological (https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=24665&LangID=E) trauma.”

The psychiatrists that accompanied Melzer to the prison noted that Assange needs access to a psychiatrist who isn’t part of the prison system — someone he can trust — and that “if he doesn’t get that and if the pressure on him is not alleviated rapidly,” further deterioration could occur and prolonged effects could result in permanent damage (https://therealnews.com/stories/un-torture-expert-says-assange-is-victim-of-psychological-torture) such as irreversible cardiovascular damage — or worse.

Assange’s condition is extremely serious and when he was asked whether Assange could actually die in prison if his calls are ignored, Melzer responded (https://www.abc.net.au/radio/programs/am/un-accuses-australia-of-failing-to-protect-assanges-rights/11170498):

Absolutely. Yes, that’s a fear that I think is very real…it has to stop here and it has to stop now.”

The concept of (dis)proportional treatment

During Melzer’s interview (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpM0vr0Br8g&feature=share) with Going Underground, he explained the concept of proportional treatment and how it has factored into Assange’s case. Proportionality is best described as the idea that the severity of the punishment should fit the seriousness of the crime, a concept that has not been applied throughout Assange’s judicial proceedings.

Take, for instance, Sweden’s reopening of its investigation of Assange. As previously stated, he was accused of ripping a condom during a consensual sexual encounter, yet no DNA was ever found on the condom and no evidence suggests this happened. This is what Sweden has used to cast him as a rapist in the public’s eye, despite the presumption of innocence and Swedish law forbidding the government to expose details about the case, such as the accused’s identity.

The UN Rapporteur (https://www.mixcloud.com/GorillaRadioBlog/gorilla-radio-with-chris-cook-joan-roelsoff-nils-melzer-janine-bandcroft-june-5-2019/) — a Swiss academic and law professor at the University of Glasgow who has authored several books on international law — explained that any prosecutor confronted with this case would likely conclude that the condom looked planted, owing to the absence of any witnesses (except Assange and the woman), any evidence of physical harm, any DNA, and any transfer of STDs. Melzer stated:

There is no evidence and the prosecutor will know from the beginning, it’s predictable that Julian Assange will have to be acquitted because of presumption of innocence…In these circumstances it is disproportionate to pursue this preliminary investigation for almost a decade.”

Meanwhile, as noted above, Sweden refused to guarantee that it wouldn’t extradite Assange; refused to question him in such a manner that would guarantee his safety, such as by video link or in person at the embassy in London; and refused to do so despite having conducted similar interviews with individuals under investigation in the same manner. Sweden also refused without explanation.

Then, on April 11, 2019, Ecuador’s President Lenin Moreno expelled Assange from the Ecuadorian Embassy with no due process, while he was “unconstitutionally stripped of his citizenship.” Moreno’s decision led to Assange’s arrest by British authorities and Melzer questioned (https://twitter.com/paciffreepress/status/1136737078379655168), “What country can [deny you] asylum and citizenship without due process?”

Within three hours of his arrest, Assange was brought to court for a hearing, for which he was granted a mere 15 minutes to prepare with his attorneys, the same amount of time that the hearing lasted. While in front of the judge, his lawyer tried to object based on the “strong conflict of interest” on the part of the judge, who had previously upheld Sweden’s arrest warrant (culminating in the bail violation) and would be overseeing Assange’s extradition case. They asked that the conflict be investigated.

In an extraordinary display of bias and unprofessionalism — perhaps even judicial misconduct — the judge refused to take into account the conflict of interest as well as Assange’s credible fear of being extradited and the fact that Ecuador had given him political asylum, which it contravenes the UNHCR Cessation Clauses to revoke while the threat that gave rise to it remains. Instead, he called Assange a “narcissist” and sentenced him to 50 weeks in a high-security prison for a minor bail violation — and that is the epitome of disproportionality.

Melzer believes (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErW1taJEPrs&feature=youtu.be) that:

We all have to take a step back and ask if all of these proceedings are fair…we also have to take a step back and ask if the narrative is right — rapist, narcissist, selfish, ungrateful, hacker — and scratch the surface a bit and see what’s underneath there.”

U.K. complicity in Assange’s torture

Melzer noted, as we all have, that Assange’s extradition case is being handled by Emma Arbuthnot (https://www.thecanary.co/uk/analysis/2019/06/17/assange-judge-refuses-to-step-down-despite-evidence-of-intelligence-and-defence-links/amp/?__twitter_impression=true), the same judge who refused to withdraw Sweden’s 2010 arrest warrant last year despite the fact that the investigation had already been closed. She’s also married to Lord Arbuthnot — the former U.K. minister of defense; former chairman of the defense committee; director of SC Strategy, which is owned by the former head of MI6; and a member of the advisory board for Thales, one of the largest arms manufacturers and dealers in the world.

What makes this situation even more questionable is the fact that Lord Arbuthnot (https://www.rt.com/shows/on-contact/461420-julian-assange-prison-torture/) was exposed in WikiLeaks’ publications and that alone — the fact that a judge with such a gross conflict of interest as this has been allowed to sit for not one, but two of Assange’s cases — contributes to the psychological torture, intense stress, and anxiety he’s already experiencing, explained Melzer (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpM0vr0Br8g&feature=share).

Melzer’s belief (https://www.thecanary.co/feature/2019/06/06/un-torture-expert-says-assanges-persecution-very-similar-to-historic-witch-hunts-in-exclusive-interview/)is that the U.K. government has “failed to show impartiality and objectivity towards Mr. Assange that is required under the rule of law,” and his concern is that if the government fails to investigate “inappropriate statements, conflicts of interest,” or other sources of bias, his extradition hearing will be nothing more than a “fig leaf for his already pre-judged refoulement [the forced transfer of refugees to a country that is likely to persecute them] to the United States.”

Besides judicial bias and persecution, the U.K. is currently limiting Assange’s access to case documents, as well as to his lawyers, which obstructs his ability to prepare a proper defense. Apparently, he’s not even allowed to have legal documents in his prison cell, nor a computer to work on so he can stay in contact with his attorneys and draft statements.

Multiple legal proceedings that are “piling up” add to Assange’s stress and inability to cope with the demands of his proceedings, stated Melzer (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpM0vr0Br8g&feature=share), who concluded: “Human Rights law requires that the defendant get enough time to prepare his defense.”

Extradition to the United States

Melzer’s greatest concern (https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=24665&LangID=E) about Assange being extradited to the United States is that he will not receive a fair trial and that he’ll be “exposed to a real risk of serious violations of his human rights,” including but not limited to torture and cruel and unusual punishment. He believes that Assange would likely be “subjected to prolonged solitary (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-wikileaks-assange-un-idUSKCN1T10WP) confinement, to very harsh detention conditions, and to a psychological environment which would break him eventually.”

Assange is currently facing 18 charges in the United States, 17 of which fall under the Espionage Act for doing what journalists do everyday. Melzer (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-wikileaks-assange-un-idUSKCN1T10WP) believes that “the main narrative in this affair really is the United States wanting to make an example of Mr. Assange in order to deter other people from following his example.”

Britain WikiLeaks Assange

Wikileaks editor Kristinn Hrafnnson speaks to the media ahead of a court hearing over a U.S. request to extradite Assange, May 2, 2019 Frank Augstein | AP
Subjecting Assange to a harsh sentence, severe prison conditions, and solitary confinement for journalism “amounts to cruel and unusual punishment and [is] in violation of international law as well as the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution,” said Melzer. And prosecuting him for doing what every good investigative journalist and publisher does would be a gross violation of the First Amendment.

The meaning of a fair trial
During his interview (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fq_P9Nj6N58&feature=youtu.be) with Chris Hedges on RT’s program On Contact, Melzer explained what is meant by a “fair trial” and why he doesn’t think Assange will get one in the United States. First, a fair trial requires that the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty, but Melzer argues that both public and political opinion has been so tainted against him that it seems absurd to think that Assange would be afforded due process, that his rights would be protected, or that he would face an unbiased judge and jury.

Second, a fair trial requires equality before the law but when the government fails to prosecute those who commit war crimes while prosecuting those who expose them, there is no equality before the law.

As Melzer pointed out (https://www.rt.com/shows/on-contact/461420-julian-assange-prison-torture/), no U.S. officials or military soldiers have ever been charged for gunning down innocent Iraqis, including children, and two Reuters journalists during a 2007 Baghdad airstrike, a crime that was exposed in WikiLeaks’ “Collateral Murder” video. Additionally, no one has been charged for the CIA’s torture program despite the U.S. government’s obligations under the Convention Against Torture. It’s hardly surprising then that the United States has a dismal track record when it comes to enforcing the prohibition of torture. “The only person being prosecuted here seems to be the one that actually exposed all of these crimes,” stated Melzer:

The government really loses any credibility…that’s where — why I say prosecution then becomes persecution because there is no longer the rule of law… These are proceedings that are fundamentally skewed against the defendant.”

As an example of equality under the law, Melzer pointed to two Reuters journalists who had been imprisoned in Myanmar for exposing the massacre of 10 Muslims by Myanmar’s military. Although they were sentenced to 10 years in prison, the soldiers were also prosecuted and sentenced. Both were also later pardoned. But in Assange’s case, one needs only to look at the treatment (torture) and sentencing (35 years in prison) of Chelsea Manning, the whistleblower who leaked U.S. government crimes — and the fact that no one has ever been charged for those crimes — to realize that it’s “utterly unrealistic” to think Assange might be given a fair trial, acquitted, or given a light sentence.

When asked if he thought Assange had committed a crime, Melzer responded (https://www.rt.com/shows/on-contact/461420-julian-assange-prison-torture/) that he didn’t think so: although one could try and build a case against him for trying to help someone (unsuccessfully) break a code, “it’s a bit like charging someone for trying to exceed the speed limit but not succeeding because the car is too weak.”

Australia

Even Australia isn’t off the hook, according to Melzer, who believes that they have been a “glaring absentee (https://www.abc.net.au/radio/programs/am/un-accuses-australia-of-failing-to-protect-assanges-rights/11170498)” in Assange’s case. He stated that they have failed to “take steps to protect their national — certainly not from justified criminal prosecution — but to protect him from this kind of excessive, almost persecution that he’s experiencing currently.”

Media culpability and the threat to a free press
Melzer admits that he was reluctant (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErW1taJEPrs&feature=youtu.be) to investigate Assange’s case because he had been affected by media propaganda and that it wasn’t until he started to “scratch the surface” of it that he realized how little substance there was to the stories — but how much spin and manipulation lay beneath.

He urged everyone to look deeper into the case and warned us that we have been deliberately misled about Assange. From The Canary (https://www.thecanary.co/feature/2019/06/06/un-torture-expert-says-assanges-persecution-very-similar-to-historic-witch-hunts-in-exclusive-interview/):

The predominant image of the shady ‘hacker,’ ‘sex offender,’ and selfish ‘narcissist’ has been carefully constructed, disseminated and recycled in order to divert attention from the extremely powerful truths he exposed…”

It can’t be emphasized enough how insightful Melzer’s interview with The Canary was in terms of the media’s accountability and how Assange’s case will affect a free and protected press:

In today’s information age, the media have an extraordinary power to shape public opinion…The media are a veritable ‘fourth power’ in the state next to the traditional branches of government, controlling not only what is said and shown, but also what is not disseminated…media outlets and individual journalists…have contributed significantly to spreading abusive and deliberately distorted narratives about Mr. Assange.”

Melzer went on to say that the media has failed to challenge governments or hold officials accountable for criminality and corruption and that they have created conditions that are ripe for violating Assange’s “most fundamental rights without provoking public outrage.”

He warned against Assange’s extradition in the UN’s released statement because it would raise concerns over the criminalization of investigative journalism, and in The Canary interview he stated that it would “establish a dangerous precedent of impunity threatening freedom of press and opinion worldwide.”

Melzer’s recommendations

Since his medical assessment of Assange, Melzer has sent out four official letters to Sweden, the U.K., Ecuador, and the United States urging them (https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=24665&LangID=E) to “refrain from further disseminating, instigating or tolerating statements or other activities prejudicial to Assange’s human rights and dignity.” He also asked that they take measures to provide Assange redress and rehabilitation and that he not be extradited to the U.S. or any country that refuses to guarantee no extradition.

All our countries have violated (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fq_P9Nj6N58&feature=youtu.be) the Convention on Torture and are directly involved in the “sustained and concerted abuse” inflicted on Assange. Melzer believes (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErW1taJEPrs&feature=youtu.be) that if Assange has really committed a crime, he has the right to develop a defense with his attorneys and a guarantee that his rights will be protected. The UN Rapporteur would also like to see an “independent observation” on how Assange’s judicial proceedings are handled, as well as his health stabilized, and that he be given time to recover before having to face the monumental court proceedings ahead of him.

Melzer’s personal belief (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fq_P9Nj6N58&feature=youtu.be) is that Assange should be released, compensated, and rehabilitated by the four involved States because he has suffered enough.

Nils Melzer | Julian Assange torture

Nils Melzer after his visit with Julian Assange on May 31, 2019. Photo | Denis Balibouse
The opinions of Melzer, whether personal or professional, should not be taken lightly. In addition to being appointed UN Special Rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment in 2016, he is the current human rights chair of the Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights, and served as a legal adviser, delegate and deputy head of delegation with the Red Cross for 12 years, during which time he worked in conflict zones.

He has an extensive background in humanitarian work and, according (http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/droi/dv/902_cvmelzer_/902_cvmelzer_en.pdf) to the European Parliament, he specializes in “targeting and the use of force, cyber-conflict and the regulation of private military and security companies.” His focus also includes work on “international legal challenges arising in the contemporary security environment,” and he has authored several books — such as Target Killing In International Law, which examines the legality of targeted killing — as well as academic papers like “Cyberwarfare and International Law,” which discusses the humanitarian aspects of cyberwarfare as well as how international law pertains to it.

To say that Melzer is qualified in his field would be an understatement and his report on Julian Assange and the role that Sweden, the U.K., Ecuador, and the United States have played in the psychological torture and deteriorating condition of Julian Assange should be taken with the seriousness it deserves.

In summary
The UN Rapporteur on Torture, Nils Melzer, concluded (https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=24665&LangID=E) that Julian Assange is and has been for years psychologically tortured and that available evidence strongly suggests Sweden, the U.K., Ecuador, and the United States are responsible for the “sustained and concerted abuse inflicted” upon him. Each of these countries have failed to protect (https://www.thecanary.co/feature/2019/06/06/un-torture-expert-says-assanges-persecution-very-similar-to-historic-witch-hunts-in-exclusive-interview/) the Australian publisher from “serious abuse, insult, and intimidation by media and other private actors within their jurisdiction.”

By displaying an attitude of complacency at best, and of complicity at worst, these governments have created an atmosphere of impunity encouraging Mr. Assange’s uninhibited vilification and abuse.”

Additionally, Assange is being denied the right to fair judicial proceedings and due process — including the U.S. secret grand jury indictment; the Swedish government’s continued investigation and dissemination of “Assange is a rapist” propaganda; U.K. judges’ overt bias and conflicts of interest; and lastly, Ecuador’s termination of his asylum status and citizenship. Melzer recently wrote (https://twitter.com/NilsMelzer/status/1140866139658039296) on Twitter:

In U.K. courts #Assange is insulted as a ‘narcissist’; jailed for seeking asylum; facing US extradition for journalism’ prosecuted by CPS known to have instigated his persecution; under a judge with known conflict of interest; under a Govt having prejudged him.”

As of now, Melzer believes (https://www.thecanary.co/feature/2019/06/06/un-torture-expert-says-assanges-persecution-very-similar-to-historic-witch-hunts-in-exclusive-interview/) that the most logical explanation for the “sustained systematic failure of the judiciary” under which Assange has suffered is that the U.S. is trying to make an example of him in an effort to deter others from doing what it is that WikiLeaks and Assange do: publishing the truth.

For Melzer, it’s almost inconceivable (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpM0vr0Br8g&feature=share) that there are “so many layers of so profoundly skewed and bias[ed] steps in the judicial proceedings” for this to be a coincidence. He doesn’t believe Assange would receive a fair and impartial trial in the U.S. and the case raises serious concerns about a free press.

“The collective persecution of Julian Assange must end here and now!” declared Melzer.

A full extradition hearing has been set for February 2020.

Feature photo | Menyalastudio | Shutterstock

Jjimmysllama is an independent researcher and writer who provides balanced, critical analysis with a focus on the Boston bombings, Magnitsky Act, and WikiLeaks. She is currently trying to stay warm in the Midwest. You can read more of her work at jimmysllama.com and find her on Twitter at @jimmysllama.

by Jimmysllama

Dennis Leahy

2nd July 2019, 16:26

The anti-Julian Assange stuff really does not belong in this thread. This thread is about his arrest and extradition. I'll search for a thread to move the off-topic posts to, or will start another thread to put them in.

Kryztian

17th July 2019, 19:34

‘Rubbish!’: Correa blasts CNN for claim that Assange made embassy into ‘command post for meddling’

https://cdni.rt.com/files/2019.07/article/5d2f54d3dda4c8d2788b45ae.jpg
https://www.rt.com/news/464409-correa-cnn-assange-embassy/

Former Ecuadorian president Rafael Correa has lashed out at CNN over a report claiming whistleblower Julian Assange turned the country’s embassy in London into a “command post for election meddling,” branding the story “rubbish.”

In a Monday report, CNN alleged that the WikiLeaks founder had used the Ecuadorian embassy, where he lived under asylum for seven years, as a base from which to help Russia “undermine” the 2016 US presidential election. CNN claimed Assange received “in-person deliveries” of potentially “hacked materials” and held “suspicious meetings” with “Russians and world-class hackers.”

OsrjP8t028k

A day later, CNN published comments from an interview with Correa in which he said that since Assange was posting information about Hillary Clinton and not Donald Trump, his whistleblowing amounted to "manipulation." This is why Ecuador eventually cut off Assange's internet access in the embassy, Correa said — but he denied there was any cooperation between Assange, Russia and Ecuador to interfere in the US election.

CNN, however, framed the story to fit with its conspiracy narrative of Assange and Quito aiding in Moscow’s alleged interference, with its headline dramatically reading that Correa “confirms” the election meddling. In a tweet promoting the story, the network implied that Correa was aware of the alleged meddling and simply didn't care.

Correa told RT on Wednesday that CNN’s original story about the embassy operating as a “command center” was “rubbish” and that the network was trying to build an untrue narrative of cooperation between Assange and Russia to ensure the public supports his eventual fate.

What CNN and other media are saying is rubbish, but we're used to it. They are prepping for the show. The reason is, when they extradite Assange to the US and sentence him to life, they want the honest backing of the public. They are setting the stage.

Correa compared CNN's assertions about Assange to its claims about "weapons of mass destruction" in the lead up to the Iraq war in 2003 — media manipulation which was used to make Americans "applaud a war,” he said.

Now, to "justify the assassination of Assange or to extradite him" they are constructing a new narrative about a fake "command center" for election meddling, he said.

Correa also denied claims made by other media that he had a direct telephone line with Assange in the embassy. In reality, he said, he only spoke to Assange once — when the WikiLeaks founder interviewed him for his show on RT.

Correa said that CNN's claims about illicit activities in the London embassy were not confirmed by actual evidence, but based on the report by US Special Counsel Robert Mueller into so-called Russian interference and disproven "collusion" with the Trump campaign.

The former Ecuadorian leader also dismissed claims made by CNN that it was pressure from US authorities that forced Quito to cut off Assange’s internet and phone access.

In Correa’s opinion, Assange was "justified" in publishing damaging material about Clinton because it was "true" — but he also said that publishing about one candidate and not the other was a kind of “manipulation.”

When Assange was arrested by British police and dragged out of the Ecuadorian embassy in April, Correa slammed his successor Lenin Moreno as the “greatest traitor in Ecuadorian and Latin American history” for having “allowed” it to happen, adding that Assange's arrest was "a crime that humanity will never forget.”

CNN even attempted to implicate RT in the whole conspiracy by including in the story a long-debunked theory that this network was in cahoots and “coordinating behind the scenes” with WikiLeaks simply because it reported on a new document dump which was posted on the website before the whistleblowing site tweeted out a link to the information.

Hervé

18th July 2019, 13:01

VIDEO – Surprise Twist in WikiLeaks Case – London Refuses to Extradite Assange to Country With Death Penalty (https://www.fort-russ.com/2019/07/surprise-twist-in-wikileaks-case-london-refuses-to-extradite-assange-to-country-with-death-penalty/)

https://www.fort-russ.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/22815571_1472348919466979_2551440718081523424_n-150x150.jpg (https://www.fort-russ.com/author/joaquin-flores/) By Joaquin Flores (https://www.fort-russ.com/author/joaquin-flores/) Last updated Jul 18, 2019

London won’t extradite Julian Assange to a country where capital punishment isn’t banned, that is, the USA. Such an unexpected statement was made today by British Deputy Foreign Secretary Alan Duncan. It came with another statement, which was less enjoyable for the founder of WikiLeaks. CNN released the investigation data on Assange’s alleged interference in the U.S. presidential election, meeting with hackers and Nikolay Bogachikhin, head of the RT London office, in the embassy of Ecuador. The latter has already explained why the scoop failed.

CYuglI9WVFk

– Vesti

Tintin

18th July 2019, 14:33

:bump:

Rachel's post from April 26th here (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?101183-Current-Wikileaks-News-Releases&p=1288501&viewfull=1#post1288501) which has had a link fixed. :highfive:

Article text here:

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

Richard Charnin
April 21, 2019

Mark F. McCarty in Medium.com

“About six months ago, a blogpost by “Publius Tacitus” appeared regarding attorney Ty Clevenger’s FOIA request regarding Seth Rich:
“But now there is new information that may corroborate what the human sources quoted in the Fox article claimed about Seth’s role in getting the DNC documents to Wikileaks. Borne from a FOIA request filed in November 2017 by attorney Ty Clevenger, who requested any information regarding Seth Rich and Julian Assange. The NSA informed Clevenger in a letter dated 4 October 2018 that:

Your request has been processed under the provisions of the FOIA. Fifteen documents (32 pages) responsive to your request have been reviewed by this Agency as required by the FOIA and have found to be currently and properly classified in accordance with Executive Order 13526. These documents meet the criteria for classification as set forth in Subparagraph © of Section 1.4 and remains classified TOP SECRET and SECRET.”

Here’s what Binney says:

“Ty Clevenger has FOIAed information from NSA asking for any data that involved both Seth Rich and also Julian Assange. And they responded by saying we’ve got 15 files, 32 pages, but they’re all classified in accordance with executive order 13526 covering classification, and therefore you can’t have them.

That says that NSA has records of communications between Seth Rich and Julian Assange. I mean, that’s the only business that NSA is in — copying communications between people and devices.

If Binney is interpreting this correctly — and bear in mind that, not only is he extraordinarily bright, but he is sometimes referred to as “the father of the NSA” — this provides strong support for the hypothesis that Seth was indeed Wikileaks’ source for the DNC emails it published. Assange has strongly hinted at this, Sy Hersh claims to have a trusted informant inside the FBI who states that he has seen FBI documents verifying this, and Binney himself says that he has two sources inside the intel community vouching for this.”

Hervé

19th July 2019, 17:16

Deep State Have Finally Met their Match – Ed Butowsky

http://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/AlexandraBruceJanuary2012-100x100.jpg Contributed by Alexandra Bruce (https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/author/alexandra/)
July 17, 2019

This is a chilling story about the lynchpin that, in a just world, would definitively unravel the pathetic “Russian Collusion (https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/tag/russian-collusion/)” fraud and the DNC (https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/tag/DNC/)’s psychological civil war (https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/tag/psychological-civil-war/) being waged on the public. It’s scary that hardly anyone is covering this but given how corrupt they are and their willingness to destroy lives and kill innocent people, it’s not surprising.

Ed Butowsky (https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/tag/ed-butowsky/) is a successful businessman from Texas who appeared frequently as a financial pundit on Fox Business. During the Republican Primary in 2016, he was a supporter of Carly Fiorina and later of Marco Rubio. He says he’s never spoken with or met Donald Trump.

He has been holding his tongue about some of the details revealed here to protect the safety of his friend, Ellen Ratner but due to Michael Isikoff’s article in Yahoo last week, claiming that the Seth Rich (https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/tag/seth-rich/) “conspiracy theory” was a product of the Kremlin, he felt compelled to come forward with the facts.

At Fox, Butowsky befriended Ellen Ratner, a Fox News (https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/tag/Fox-News/) analyst, whose brother was the late Michael Ratner (https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/tag/Michael-Ratner/), the lawyer of Julian Assange (https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/tag/Julian-Assange/). In the Fall of 2016, Ellen Ratner told Butowsky that she’d just returned from Europe to attend a dedication ceremony for her deceased brother and while in London, she visited Assange at the Ecuadorian Embassy for six hours.

Assange informed Ratner that he had paid Seth Rich (https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/tag/seth-rich/) and his brother, Aaron for the DNC (https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/tag/DNC/) emails that were published by WikiLeaks (https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/tag/WikiLeaks/) in July 2016. The emails showed how Hillary Clinton (https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/tag/Hillary-Clinton/)’s campaign had corruptly taken control of the DNC (https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/tag/DNC/) for the purpose of sabotaging her primary opponent, Bernie Sanders (https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/tag/Bernie-Sanders/). Assange wanted Ratner to relay this information to Seth’s parents, as it might help explain the motive for Seth’s murder.

Ed Butowsky (https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/tag/ed-butowsky/) says Ellen Ratner asked him to contact the parents for her. Initially, he didn’t want to get involved but over the next 3 months, he observed the propagation of the Russian Collusion (https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/tag/russian-collusion/) Hoax, accusing Donald Trump of being a Russian agent who had hacked the DNC (https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/tag/DNC/) server, etc. which Butowsky knew was ridiculous, especially in light of what Ratner had told him, so on December 16, 2016 he texted her, asking if she had spoken about the true story of the DC Leak to anybody. She told him that she had informed Bill Shine, who was then the co-president of Fox News (https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/tag/Fox-News/), about her meeting with Mr. Assange in London, as well as Fox News (https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/tag/Fox-News/) producer Malia Zimmerman.

The next day, Butowsky contacted Joel and Mary Rich and told them, “Julian wanted you to know that the emails came from Seth, your son and that they were uploaded to him and…he knew that the Washington police were not going to help find who the murderer was.”

Joel Rich replied that they already knew that both of their sons, Seth and Aaron were involved in the DNC (https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/tag/DNC/) leak but that he was reluctant to go public with their role in the leaks because, as Progressive Democrats, they didn’t “want anyone to think our sons were responsible for getting Trump elected.” They did, however want to know who murdered their son and they asked Butowsky to contact them if he ever learned anything new.

Butowsky didn’t expect that he would but as it happens, he was contacted by former intelligence officer, Larry Johnson, who told him that journalist, Sy Hersh (https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/tag/Sy-Hersh/) also knew about Seth Rich (https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/tag/seth-rich/) providing WikiLeaks (https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/tag/WikiLeaks/) with the DNC (https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/tag/DNC/) emails. He’d been trying to get an article published about it but nobody would touch it. Johnson put Hersh in touch with Butowsky, who recorded their conversation and sent it to Joel and Mary Rich, hoping that it would be of help. Three weeks went by and he didn’t hear a word from them.

“I sent them something that lays out that the file is at the FBI; that the FBI intervened, that…it’s at a shared location called the Cart Division, which is a computer access. I can’t remember the RT but there’s a division that’s shared by the Washington police and the FBI.” He found the parents’ lack of response to be odd.

Butowsky would later learn that shortly after Seth’s murder, Donna Brazile, then the DNC (https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/tag/DNC/)’s interim chair reached out to the Deputy Director of the FBI, Andrew McCabe (https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/tag/andrew-mccabe/) and Washington DC Mayor, Muriel Bowser for help in dealing with the political fallout of the murder. According to Butowsky’s suit, “DC police allowed the FBI to unlock Seth Rich (https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/tag/seth-rich/)’s electronic devices, and the FBI obtained data showing that Mr. Rich had indeed provided the DNC (https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/tag/DNC/) emails to Wikileaks. At Mr. McCabe’s direction, however, that information was kept secret with orders that it not be produced in response to any Freedom of Information Act request. For her part, Ms. Bowser directed DC police not to pursue any investigative avenues that might connect the murder to the email leaks. At her direction, local police blamed the murder on a “botched robbery” even though Mr. Rich’s watch, wallet, and other belongings were not removed from his body.”

Indeed, when Butowsky’s lawyer, Ty Clevenger filed a FOIA request for any documents relating to Seth Rich (https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/tag/seth-rich/) in reference to WikiLeaks (https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/tag/WikiLeaks/), he was told there were 32 pages that matched this request but that they were classified and could not be released.

The last time Butowsky spoke to the Riches, he ended up offering to pay for a private detective and introduced them to another colleague at Fox, former DC Metro Police homocide detective, Rod Wheeler (https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/tag/rod-wheeler/), with whom they contracted to investigate their son’s murder.

There’s a saying, that “No good deed goes unpunished.” What followed was a series of antics so shockingly corrupt, on the part of Rod Wheeler (https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/tag/rod-wheeler/), his monstrous attorney, Doug Wigdor the DNC (https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/tag/DNC/)’s crisis manager Brad Bauman (https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/tag/brad-bauman/), Fox News (https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/tag/Fox-News/) and the Rich family that crystallizes the execrable nature of the DNC (https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/tag/DNC/) and their minions in the Mainstream Media.

In this interview by Pete Santilli, we learn that Butowsky tried to take his story to The Washington Post but was told by a journalist there that all articles must first be approved by the same DNC (https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/tag/DNC/) crisis manager who was “assigned” to the Rich family to manage all of their communications!

This and more hideousness was evident to knowledgeable observers at the time but it remains unknown to the public at large. I will attempt to summarize these spine-curling events in a follow-up article.

In the meantime, here’s an excerpt of what followed in Ed Butowsky (https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/tag/ed-butowsky/)’s lawsuit, which details the anatomy of the (http://lawflog.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/2019.07.15-Amended-complaint-stamped.pdf)DNC (https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/tag/DNC/)’s coup d’état against the People of the US, which is ongoing.

EXCERPT OF ED BUTOWSKY LAWSUIT (“RCH” = Russian Collusion (https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/tag/russian-collusion/) Hoax)

50. On May 16, 2017, FoxNews.com published a story by Malia Zimmerman which claimed that Seth Rich (https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/tag/seth-rich/) had been involved in the DNC (https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/tag/DNC/) email leak. The article undermined the DNC (https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/tag/DNC/) narrative that Seth Rich (https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/tag/seth-rich/) had been murdered in a “botched robbery,”and it likewise undermined the Russia Collusion Hoax. The story featured quotes from Mr. Wheeler regarding his investigation, as well as quotes from an unnamed federal official who claimed that federal investigators had copies of Seth Rich (https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/tag/seth-rich/)’s communications with Wikileaks. Shortly thereafter, the Rich family terminated Mr. Wheeler, and Mr. Wheeler was subjected to withering scorn and criticism from anti-Trump media.

51. On May 18, 2017, Mr. Wheeler told Mr. Butowsky that he needed an attorney to pursue claims against Marina Marraco, a reporter for the local Fox affiliate in Washington, D.C. According to Mr. Wheeler, Ms. Marraco duped him into granting an interview about the Seth Rich (https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/tag/seth-rich/) investigation so she could “scoop” Ms. Zimmerman and publish her story one day before the Fox News (https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/tag/Fox-News/) network published Ms Zimmerman’s story. At Mr. Wheeler’s request, Mr. Butowsky introduced Mr. Wheeler to some well-known attorneys in Dallas. Mr. Butowsky participated in the telephone conversation between Mr. Wheeler and the Dallas attorneys, and Mr. Wheeler never once indicated that he had been misquoted or mistreated by Mr. Butowsky, Ms. Zimmerman, or Fox News (https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/tag/Fox-News/) (as opposed to the local affiliate in D.C.). On the contrary, Mr. Wheeler sent a written statement to Ms. Zimmerman at 1 p.m. on May 19, 2017 wherein he claimed that he had shared the contents of Ms. Zimmerman’s story with Joel Rich and Aaron Rich the night before it was published:In the contract I have with the family, signed by Joel, Mary and Aaron Rich, I am not allowed to speak to the media on the family’s behalf, but I could speak to the media about this investigation of Seth Rich (https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/tag/seth-rich/)’s murder or other stories I was involved in. They knew I was a Fox News (https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/tag/Fox-News/) contributor and regularly went on television.I called Joel Rich the night before the Fox News (https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/tag/Fox-News/) story was going to be published, which was Monday night. During that 18-minute call (phone logs provided), I reviewed the story with Joel Rich, he liked it and was encouraged by the new leads. Joel already knew about the story because Fox had contacted him earlier in the day. He also suggested I contact an investigative reporter, Michelle Sigona, from Crime Watch Daily with the information. I also spoke with Aaron Rich, Joel’s son, for 21 minutes the night before the story came out and told him about the new information that had emerged and the story would likely be coming out in the near future.I told them both I would be commenting on the case and asking people to come forward if they had insight on the new information. I never violated the terms of our contract as I never spoke on behalf of the family.According to Mr. Wheeler, the Riches did not object to the Fox News (https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/tag/Fox-News/) story when he discussed it with them in advance of its publication.

52. On May 23, 2017, Fox News (https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/tag/Fox-News/) retracted the May 16, 2017 article, claiming that the article did not meet its editorial standards. Fox News (https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/tag/Fox-News/) did not identify any errors in the article, and there were none. Within the network, rumors began to circulate that the storywas killed by Sarah and Kathryn Murdoch, the left-leaning Hillary Clinton (https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/tag/Hillary-Clinton/) supporters and daughters-in-law of Fox News (https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/tag/Fox-News/) founder Rupert Murdoch (https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/tag/Rupert-Murdoch/). One month prior to the May23, 2017 retraction, Sarah and Kathryn Murdoch were credited with driving out conservative Fox News (https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/tag/Fox-News/) host Bill O’Reilly. See Don Kaplan, “Rupert Murdoch (https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/tag/Rupert-Murdoch/)’s sons’ progressive wives helped oust Bill O’Reilly from Fox News (https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/tag/Fox-News/) Channel,” New York Daily News, April 19, 2017 (https://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/murdoch-sons-progressive-wives-helped-oust-bill-o-reilly-article-1.3075872). Kathryn previously worked for the Clinton Climate Initiative, and her husband James was a donor to the Clinton Foundation.

53. About a week after speaking with the attorneys in Dallas, Mr. Wheeler told Mr. Butowsky that he had decided to use another attorney, and that he would receive $4 million for using the other attorney. Mr. Butowsky soon learned that the other attorney was Douglas Wigdor, an employment attorney in New York who had filed numerous discrimination lawsuits against Fox News (https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/tag/Fox-News/). According to Mr. Wigdor’s own public statements, he was hoping to recover $60 million in damages from the ongoing lawsuits against Fox News (https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/tag/Fox-News/). Unbeknownst to Mr. Butowsky at the time, Mr. Wigdor had enlisted Mr. Wheeler in an extortion scheme. As of 2017, Fox News (https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/tag/Fox-News/)’s parent company, 21stCentury Fox, Inc., was trying to gain approval from British regulators to purchase Sky Television, and Mr. Wigdor saw Mr. Wheeler’s case as an opportunity to extort money from Fox. Rather than pursue claims against the local affiliate in D.C. that had duped Mr.Wheeler and deceptively edited his statements, Mr. Wigdor convinced Mr. Wheeler to fabricate an entirely new story, i.e., that Mr. Butowsky and Ms. Zimmerman had been conspiring with President Trump to divert attention from the Russia collusion narrative. Mr. Wigdor planned to use those explosive allegations to sabotage Fox’s attempts to buy Sky, specifically by convincing British regulators that Fox News (https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/tag/Fox-News/) was entirely unethical and had acted corruptly at the behest of President Trump. In fact, Mr. Wigdor mentioned Fox’s attempt to buy Sky News in the lawsuit that he subsequently filed on behalf of Mr. Wigdor, and he later testified before a British parliamentary committee in opposition to the Sky Television purchase.

54. In his bogus lawsuit, Mr. Wheeler selectively quoted texts and emails from Mr. Butowsky to make it appear that Mr. Butowsky had pushed the May 16, 2017 Fox News (https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/tag/Fox-News/) story at the behest of President Trump. In reality, Mr. Butowsky never had (and never has) met President Trump nor spoken with him. Although Mr. Butowsky knew people who worked in the Trump White House, he had actively supported Carly Fiorina in the Republican primary. After she dropped out of the race, he supported Marco Rubio and Chris Christie. Nonetheless, because Mr. Butowsky knew people who worked in the White House, Mr. Wheeler repeatedly begged Mr. Butowsky for help in getting a job there, and Mr. Butowsky has numerous texts and emails to prove that. (When he recommended Mr. Wheeler to the Rich family, Mr. Butowsky did not know that Mr. Wheeler was habitually broke, nor did he know that Mr. Wheeler was fired from the Metropolitan Police Department for marijuana use). As a result of Mr. Wheeler’s repeated requests for help in getting a White House job, Mr. Butowsky jokingly told Mr. Wheeler that the White House was anxiously awaiting the results of his Seth Rich (https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/tag/seth-rich/) investigation. Mr. Wheeler knew full well that Mr. Butowsky was joking, and Mr. Wheeler knew full well that Mr. Butowsky had no personal connection to the President.

55. When Mr. Wigdor filed suit against Mr. Butowsky, Ms. Zimmerman, and FoxNews in August of 2017, he knew that Mr. Wheeler had not been misquoted in the Fox News (https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/tag/Fox-News/) story, and that’s because Mr. Butowsky and his attorneys had provided Mr. Wigdorwith texts, emails, and audio evidence proving that Mr. Wheeler had not been misquoted. Mr. Wigdor also knew that the Trump Administration played no role in the May 16, 2017Fox News (https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/tag/Fox-News/) story. Mr. Wigdor filed the fraudulent lawsuit anyway.

56. Even though Fox News (https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/tag/Fox-News/) retracted its May 17, 2017 report by Malia Zimmerman, local affiliate WTTG (a.k.a. “Fox 5 DC”) did not retract its report by Ms. Marraco. Instead, WTTG updated its May 15, 2017 on May 17, 2017 report to prove unequivocally that Mr. Wheeler was lying to other media outlets when he denied saying there was evidence connecting Seth Rich (https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/tag/seth-rich/) to the DNC (https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/tag/DNC/) leak. See Maria Marraco, Fox 5 DC(http://www.fox5dc.com/news/local-news/private-investigator-there-is-evidence-seth-rich-contacted-wikileaks-prior-to-death). WTTG uploaded video showing the following statements by Mr. Wheeler:FOX 5 DC: “You have sources at the FBI saying that there is information…”
WHEELER: “For sure…”
FOX 5 DC: “…that could link Seth Rich (https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/tag/seth-rich/) to WikiLeaks (https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/tag/WikiLeaks/)?”
WHEELER: “Absolutely. Yeah. That’s confirmed.”
Within days of the updated May 17, 2017 report by WTTG, all of the defendants in this lawsuit were actually aware that Mr. Wheeler was lying about Mr. Butowsky, Ms. Zimmerman, and Fox News (https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/tag/Fox-News/).

57. The website DebunkingRodWheelersClaims.com (now at DeBunkingRodWheelersClaims.net) was launched in November of 2017, and it published texts, emails, audio, and video showing that Rod Wheeler (https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/tag/rod-wheeler/) had never been misrepresented by Mr. Butowsky, Ms. Zimmerman, or Fox News (https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/tag/Fox-News/), including the email quoted above in Paragraph 51. The evidence on the website showed unequivocally that Mr. Wheeler had lied to other media about them. The website also included audio of famed journalist Seymour “Sy” Hersh stating that he had confirmed that Seth Rich (https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/tag/seth-rich/) was responsible for leaking the DNC (https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/tag/DNC/) emails. According to Mr. Hersh, who was by no means a Republican or a Trump supporter, he could not find a media outlet willing to publish the Seth Rich (https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/tag/seth-rich/) story. In a separate phone call with Mr. Butowsky, Mr. Hersh said he obtained his information about Seth Rich (https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/tag/seth-rich/) from Mr. McCabe, the deputy FBI director. Not later than December of 2017, all of the Defendants in this lawsuit were aware of the contents of DebunkingRodWheelersClaims.com.

58. On May 15, 2018, after Mr. Wigdor got what he needed from Mr. Wheeler in terms of political and public relations impact, Mr. Wigdor and his firm sought to drop Mr. Wheeler as a client. Judge Daniels allowed Mr. Wigdor and his partners to withdraw on May 30, 2018, and Mr. Wheeler’s frivolous lawsuit was dismissed on August 2, 2018. The unscrupulous Mr. Wigdor then settled all of his remaining clients’ claims against FoxNews for a $10 million lump sum (rather than the $60 million that he had originally sought), and Mr. Wigdor apportioned $7 million of that among those clients.

Defendants Bauman and The Pastorum Group (https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/tag/pastorum-group/)
59. In early March of 2017, Joel Rich informed Mr. Butowsky that he had received a call from Defendant Bauman, and that Defendant Bauman said he had been “assigned” to the Rich family by the DNC (https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/tag/DNC/). Defendant Bauman is an unscrupulous left-wing political operative, and the DNC (https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/tag/DNC/) assigned him to the Rich family in order to control them and keep the Russia Collusion Hoax alive. Defendant Bauman knew that Seth Rich (https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/tag/seth-rich/) leaked emails to Wikileaks, but Defendant Bauman’s assignment was to divert attention away from Seth Rich (https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/tag/seth-rich/) in order to keep the RCH alive.

60. Under coercion from Mr. Bauman and the lawyer Defendants named in this lawsuit, Joel Rich stopped speaking with Mr. Butowsky and the Rich family started attacking Mr. Butowsky publicly (albeit not by name). Prior to the time of Mr. Bauman’s involvement, the Rich family acknowledged to friends and relatives that Seth and Aaron were involved in the DNC (https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/tag/DNC/) email leak, but then they suddenly changed their story. On information and belief, Mr. Butowksy alleges that Joel, Mary, and Aaron Rich were told that Aaron could be charged with felony computer crimes if they did not cooperate with their new handlers, i.e., Mr. Bauman and the lawyer Defendants. Aaron Rich’s lawyers have repeatedly alleged, for example, that Mr. Butowsky accused him (i.e., Aaron) of computer crimes and treason. In reality, Mr. Butowsky has never said such a thing. This appears to be an example of psychological projection on the part of the lawyers purporting to represent Aaron. To wit, they have accused their client of committing computer crimes and treason, but they attribute the accusation to Mr. Butowsky.

61. The Rich’s lawsuits against Mr. Butowsky (discussed below) are part of a larger pattern. On April 20, 2018, the DNC (https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/tag/DNC/) filed a hare-brained, kamakaze lawsuit alleging that President Trump colluded with the Russians to steal its emails, even though the DNC (https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/tag/DNC/) already knew that neither President Trump nor the Russians had anything to do with the hacking. See Democratic National Committee v. Russian Federation, et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-03501 (S.D.N.Y.). The DNC (https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/tag/DNC/) knew it could never win the case, but that was not the objective. The objective was to keep the Russian Collusion (https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/tag/russian-collusion/) Hoax in the headlines through the 2018 Congressional elections. Similarly, Mr. Bauman orchestrated a hyper-aggressive litigation / defamation strategy designed to intimidate, discredit, and ultimately silence anyone who questioned the DNC (https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/tag/DNC/) narrative about Seth Rich (https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/tag/seth-rich/)’s involvement in leaking emails. In particular, Mr. Bauman recruited the various lawyer Defendants herein to sue Mr. Butowsky into silence. (In fact, a left-wing publication praised the strategy. See Amanda Marcotte, “Can lawsuits slow the tide of right-wing conspiracy theory? Seth Rich (https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/tag/seth-rich/)’s family wants to find out,” June 1, 2018 Salon(https://www.salon.com/2018/06/01/can-lawsuits-slow-the-tide-of-right-wing-conspiracy-theory-seth-richs-family-wants-to-find-out)). The Boise Schiller Defendants have, for example, offered to settle their clients’ claims against Mr. Butowsky’s co-defendants for nominal sums if those co-defendants will agree to remain silent in the future about Seth Rich (https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/tag/seth-rich/) and the leaked emails. In other words, the objective of Mr. Bauman’s litigation/defamation strategy is not to recover damages, but to discredit people like Mr. Butowsky and bully them into silence.

62. To be clear, Mr. Bauman and the lawyer Defendants – all of whom are Democratic partisans – knowingly joined in a larger conspiracy to promote and protect the RCH, and particularly to discredit and intimidate anyone like Mr. Butowsky who might undermine the RCH narrative. While Mr. Bauman and the lawyer Defendants wereplaying offense against Mr. Butowsky by suing and defaming him, their governmental co-conspirators (e.g., Mr. McCabe, Mayor Bowser, and then-Police Chief Kathy Lanier) were playing defense. Mayor Bowser and Chief Lanier, for example, blocked city investigators from pursuing any information that might undermine the RCH narrative. The lead homicide detective assigned to the case, Joseph Dellacamera, was flatly prohibited from revealing the connection between Seth Rich (https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/tag/seth-rich/) and Wikileaks. See, e.g., Patrick Howley, “Seth Rich (https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/tag/seth-rich/) Police Detective: Department Gave Me ‘Strict, Strict Rules,’ If I Talk I’ll Get ‘Re-Assigned’,” August 2, 2017, BigLeaguePolitics.com (https://bigleaguepolitics.com/seth-rich-police-detective-department-gave-strict-strict-rules-talk-ill-get-re-assigned). For his part, Mr. McCabe ordered FBI agents to hide all information connecting Seth Rich (https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/tag/seth-rich/) to Wikileaks, and to deny its existence in response to any FOIA requests.

63. The scam continues even now. In his March 22, 2019 report on alleged Russian collusion, Special Counsel Robert Mueller stated unequivocally that Russian hackers were responsible for sending DNC (https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/tag/DNC/) emails to Wikileaks, but he was later forced to admit that his investigators had never examined the DNC (https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/tag/DNC/)’s servers. Instead, Mr. Mueller had relied on exclusively on a redacted copy of a report that CrowdStrike had produced for the DNC (https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/tag/DNC/). So far as the Plaintiff is aware, the U.S. Department of Justice had never before relied exclusively on a private company’s report about an alleged computer crime (as opposed to the government conducting its own investigation), and Mr. Mueller certainly did not disclose in his report that he had failed to examine the servers. Furthermore, Mr. Mueller never made any attempt to interview Mr. Assange, who would know better than anyone else how Wikileaks obtained the DNC (https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/tag/DNC/) emails. Mr. Mueller’s investigation was a farce, at least so far as Seth Rich (https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/tag/seth-rich/) and DNC (https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/tag/DNC/) “hacking” were concerned.

64. Mr. Mueller’s deputy, Andrew Weissmann, is a Democratic partisan and a Hillary Clinton (https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/tag/Hillary-Clinton/) supporter with a long history of prosecutorial misconduct (in fact, all of the 17 attorneys on Mr. Mueller’s staff were partisan Democrats, and his investigators initially included Democratic partisans Mr. Strzok and Ms. Page). On July 13, 2019, Congressman Devin Nunes revealed that prior to his appointment to the Mueller team, Mr. Weissmann played an undisclosed role in briefing reporters about allegations that President Trump had colluded with Russia. The Plaintiff alleges that Mr. Weissman conspired with Mr. McCabe and DNC (https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/tag/DNC/) officials to maintain the false narrative that Russians were responsible for hacking the DNC (https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/tag/DNC/), most recently by inserting false information into Mr. Mueller’s report. The Plaintiff further alleges that Mr. Bauman and the lawyer Defendants herein knew that their governmental co-conspirators (e.g., Mr. Weissmann and Mr. McCabe) were hiding and misrepresenting evidence, and that they were hiding and misrepresenting the evidence at least in part to aid the campaign against people like Mr. Butowsky. As a result of this scheme, Mr. Butowsky was severely hindered in his efforts to defend himself in the litigation discussed below. Plaintiff’s Counsel, for example, filed a FOIA lawsuit against the FBI for information about Seth Rich (https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/tag/seth-rich/), and the Plaintiff intended to use that information for litigation purposes, but Mr. McCabe and the other governmental defendants lied to the FOIA court and hid the information.

READ THE ENTIRE LAWSUIT HERE (http://lawflog.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/2019.07.15-Amended-complaint-stamped.pdf)

bhY81uKyRr8

Star Tsar

30th July 2019, 05:27

ABC News Australia

Four Corners | Hero or Villian : The Prosecution of Julian Assange

Published 22nd July 2019

ABC News Australia highlighting the machinations leading upto the arrest of Julian Assange.

HtelzRAPlT8

&

Four Corners | The United States Vs Julian Assange

Published 29th July 2019

This video spotlights the u-turn of attitude towards Julian & Wikileaks by the current President of the United States, Mr Donald J Trump.

Read all about it here: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-07-29/trump-administration-after-assange-and-it-serves-as-a-warning/11350854

jFOhfwvkhLY

Cara

1st August 2019, 12:37

Update on federal court case.

Judge dismisses DNC lawsuit
US federal court exposes Democratic Party conspiracy against Assange and WikiLeaks
By Eric London
31 July 2019

In a ruling published late Tuesday, Judge John Koeltl of the US District Court for the Southern District of New York, delivered a devastating blow to the US-led conspiracy against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.

In his ruling, Judge Koeltl, a Bill Clinton nominee and former Assistant Special Prosecutor for the Watergate Special Prosecution Force, dismissed “with prejudice” a civil lawsuit filed in April 2018 by the Democratic National Committee (DNC) alleging WikiLeaks was civilly liable for conspiring with the Russian government to steal DNC emails and data and leak them to the public.

Jennifer Robinson, a leading lawyer for Assange, and other WikiLeaks attorneys, welcomed the ruling as “an important win for free speech.”

The decision exposes the Democratic Party in a conspiracy of its own to attack free speech and cover up the crimes of US imperialism and the corrupt activities of the two parties of Wall Street. Judge Koeltl stated:

If WikiLeaks could be held liable for publishing documents concerning the DNC’s political financial and voter-engagement strategies simply because the DNC labels them ‘secret’ and trade secrets, then so could any newspaper or other media outlet. But that would impermissibly elevate a purely private privacy interest to override the First Amendment interest in the publication of matters of the highest public concern.

The DNC’s published internal communications allowed the American electorate to look behind the curtain of one of the two major political parties in the United States during a presidential election. This type of information is plainly of the type entitled to the strongest protection that the First Amendment offers.

The ruling exposes the illegality of the conspiracy by the US government, backed by the governments of Britain, Ecuador, Australia and Sweden and the entire corporate media and political establishment, to extradite Assange to the US, where he faces 175 years in federal prison on charges including espionage.
...
From and more here: https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/07/31/assa-j31.html

Hervé

2nd August 2019, 12:46

Judge’s ruling throws huge spanner into US extradition proceedings against Assange (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/52021.htm)

By Tom Coburg The Canary (https://www.thecanary.co/us/us-analysis/2019/07/31/judges-ruling-throws-huge-spanner-into-us-extradition-proceedings-against-assange/)
31st July 2019

"Information Clearing House (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/)" August 01, 2019:

A US judge has ruled that WikiLeaks (https://www.thecanary.co/topics/wikileaks) was fully entitled to publish the Democratic National Congress (DNC) emails, which means no law was broken. The ruling is highly significant as it could impact upon the US extradition proceedings against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange (https://www.thecanary.co/topics/julian-assange), as well as the ongoing imprisonment of whistleblower Chelsea Manning (https://www.thecanary.co/topics/chelsea-manning).

The ruling
On 30 July, federal judge John G. Koeltl ruled (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6225696-DNC-Trump-7-30-19.html) on a case (https://intpolicydigest.org/2019/07/31/publishing-stolen-material-wikileaks-the-dnc-and-freedom-of-speech/) brought against WikiLeaks and other parties in regard to the alleged hacking of DNC emails and concluded (https://reclaimthenet.org/dnc-lawsuit-against-wikileaks-dismissed/amp/?__twitter_impression=true) that:
If WikiLeaks could be held liable for publishing documents concerning the DNC’s political financial and voter-engagement strategies simply because the DNC labels them ‘secret’ and trade secrets, then so could any newspaper or other media outlet.
In other words, if WikiLeaks is subject to prosecution, then every media outlet in the world would be. The judge argued that (https://amp.dailycaller.com/2019/07/30/judge-dnc-lawsuit-trump-emails?__twitter_impression=true):
[T]he First Amendment prevents such liability in the same way it would preclude liability for press outlets that publish materials of public interest despite defects in the way the materials were obtained so long as the disseminator did not participate in any wrongdoing in obtaining the materials in the first place.
Significantly, the judge added (https://reclaimthenet.org/dnc-lawsuit-against-wikileaks-dismissed/amp/?__twitter_impression=true) that it’s not criminal to solicit or “welcome” stolen documents, and how (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6225696-DNC-Trump-7-30-19.html):
A person is entitled to publish stolen documents that the publisher requested from a source so long as the publisher did not participate in the theft.
Important win
Jen Robinson, a member of Assange’s legal team, described the judge’s ruling as an “important win for free speech”:
An important win for free speech: we have won our motion to dismiss for @wikileaks (https://twitter.com/wikileaks?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw) in the @DNC (https://twitter.com/DNC?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw) lawsuit against #Assange (https://twitter.com/hashtag/Assange?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw), WikiLeaks et al over the 2016 US election publications on First Amendment grounds. Full judgment: https://t.co/SZmyLd1Z83 (https://t.co/SZmyLd1Z83) Key passages: pic.twitter.com/Kq6dJkuSIc (https://t.co/Kq6dJkuSIc)
— Jen Robinson (@suigenerisjen) July 31, 2019 (https://twitter.com/suigenerisjen/status/1156360653629796352?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw)
And US WikiLeaks lawyer Joshua Dratel said (https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/judge-dismisses-dnc-hacking-lawsuit-against-trump-campaign-wikileaks-and-russia?_amp=true&__twitter_impression=true) he was:
very gratified with the result, which reaffirms First Amendment principles that apply to journalists across the board, whether they work for large institutions or small independent operations.
Legal precedents
Prior to the ruling, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) was party to a briefing (https://www.aclu.org/dnc-v-russian-federation-amicus-brief) to the court.
The ACLU summarised some of the legal precedents listed in the briefing. For example, the First Amendment of the US Constitution is a (https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/freedom-press/press-freedom-groups-urge-court-uphold-core-first-amendment):
legal principle, articulated most clearly in the 2001 Supreme Court decision Bartnicki v. Vopper (https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-1687.ZS.html), [and] is a bedrock protection for the press. It is particularly important for national security reporters, who often rely on information that was illegally acquired by a source in publishing stories of considerable public concern. Indeed, this principle animated the court’s famous Pentagon Papers (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/20/us/pentagon-papers-post.html) decision, protecting the right to publish stories based on a secret government account of official misconduct during the origins of the Vietnam War.
The briefing also referenced (https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/freedom-press/press-freedom-groups-urge-court-uphold-core-first-amendment):
revelations of the CIA’s Bush-era torture program (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/01/AR2005110101644.html) were based in part on leaks by whistleblowers throughout government. So, too, were stories exposing sweeping NSA surveillance programs (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/the-nsa-files) — stories for which several newspapers won Pulitzer Prizes in 2005 and in 2014.
It added (https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/freedom-press/press-freedom-groups-urge-court-uphold-core-first-amendment):
Likewise, much of the reporting on Watergate relied on anonymous sources divulging government secrets. Mark Felt (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/fbis-no-2-was-deep-throat-mark-felt-ends-30-year-mystery-of-the-posts-watergate-source/2012/06/04/gJQAwseRIV_story.html?utm_term=.62fdd5a82ca0), the deputy director of the FBI and the most famous Watergate source (nicknamed “Deep Throat”), took extensive steps to conceal his communications with the press because his leaks were under active investigation.
Furthermore (https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/freedom-press/press-freedom-groups-urge-court-uphold-core-first-amendment):
an anonymous source sent more than 2.6 terabytes of encrypted information to a German newspaper and a U.S. investigative journalism non-profit. Known as the “Panama Papers (https://www.icij.org/investigations/panama-papers/),” these internal files of a now-defunct Panamanian law firm detailed a transnational tax evasion scheme developed for wealthy clients around the world. The disclosure of the files sparked public debate and multiple proposals for legal reform.
The ACLU concluded (https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/freedom-press/press-freedom-groups-urge-court-uphold-core-first-amendment):
A ruling against WikiLeaks that narrowed this [First Amendment] protection could jeopardize the well-established legal framework that made these stories possible — and that is crucial to ensuring that the public has the information it needs to hold powerful actors to account.
Legal implications
The judge’s ruling could therefore have huge implications for US extradition proceedings against Assange.

Greg Barns (https://www.salamancachambers.org/greg-1), a barrister and longtime adviser to the Assange campaign, told The Canary:
The Court, in dismissing the case, found that the First Amendment protected WikiLeaks’ right to publish illegally secured private or classified documents of public interest, applying the same First Amendment standard as was used in justifying the The New York Times publication of the Pentagon Papers. That right exists, so long as a publisher does not join in any illegal acts that the source may have committed to obtain that information. But that doesn’t include common journalistic practices, such as requesting or soliciting documents or actively collaborating with a source. So this case is important in restating what is and is not protected under the First Amendment. But does it have implications for the extradition hearing? Well it certainly helps to remind the courts in the UK that the First Amendment protection is very broad.
Assange is understood to be ill (https://spcommreports.ohchr.org/TMResultsBase/DownLoadPublicCommunicationFile?gId=24631), while Manning is incarcerated (https://www.thecanary.co/us/us-analysis/2019/03/11/chelsea-manning-shows-the-world-what-real-courage-is-now-the-world-needs-to-respond/) for refusing to provide further information about her role as a WikiLeaks source. With consideration of this latest ruling, both should be immediately released from their respective prisons.
This article was originally published by "The Canary (https://www.thecanary.co/us/us-analysis/2019/07/31/judges-ruling-throws-huge-spanner-into-us-extradition-proceedings-against-assange/)" -

Tintin

2nd August 2019, 15:05

**ATTEMPTING TO ACCESS WIKILEAKS - please could other members have a go as well.**

From the mods chat just now:

Herve Today at 15:30

The message I got:

Did Not Connect: Potential Security Issue

Firefox detected an issue and did not continue to wikileaks.org. The website is either misconfigured or your computer clock is set to the wrong time.

It’s likely the website’s certificate is expired, which prevents Firefox from connecting securely.
Brave Browser:

This site can’t be reached
The webpage at https://wikileaks.org/ might be temporarily down or it may have moved permanently to a new web address.
ERR_INSECURE_RESPONSE

Tintin Today at 15:57

Thanks Hervé.
My message reads (via Google Chrome):

Your connection is not private
Attackers might be trying to steal your information from wikileaks.org (for example, passwords, messages or credit cards). Learn more
NET::ERR_CERT_DATE_INVALID

Franny

2nd August 2019, 17:38

Just tried and got a notification that Safari can't establish a secure connection. Same with Firefox.

Cara

4th August 2019, 05:11

41307

I can’t test this because of UAE firewall. Perhaps someone else can advise?

Franny

4th August 2019, 05:14

It's been up and running since yesterday, just a temporary issue.

Cara

4th August 2019, 05:19

Here is a just released interview of Consortium News with KimDotCom about the DNC leak, Seth Rich and Wikileaks. It’s 2 and half hours so I have not watched the whole thing yet.

Here is KimDotKom’s tweet:

Kim Dotcom
@KimDotcom
Here's my first and only interview about Seth Rich and how the DNC leaks really happened. With commentary from former technical director of the NSA, Bill Binney. Russia has always been a hoax. The US deep state created Guccifer 2.0.

Tm-Vt8RDJEk

Featuring Kim Dotcom, William Binney, Mike Gravel, and George Szamuely.

Consortium News launched its first live show, CN Live!, on July 12, 2019 at 2pm EDT, to provide weekly insights into WikiLeaks, the Middle East, the US presidential elections and other topics in the news.

Hosted by Joe Lauria, Elizabeth Vos.
Executive producer, Cathy Vogan.
Technical production, Ebon Kim

Update:

This medium article includes a transcript of KimDotCom’s part of the video above:
https://medium.com/@garymlord/who-killed-the-seth-rich-story-f30601790a36

Earth Angel

7th August 2019, 18:00

This is why all the shootings I guess...cannot believe this has not made it to msm

Hervé

3rd September 2019, 17:19

WATCH Pink Floyd’s Roger Waters jam ‘Wish You Were Here’ at Assange demo outside UK Home Office (https://www.rt.com/news/467821-roger-waters-assange-song/)

RT
Published time: 2 Sep, 2019 17:20
Edited time: 3 Sep, 2019 10:55
Get short URL (https://on.rt.com/a0z1)

https://cdni.rt.com/files/2019.09/xxs/5d6e3f1fdda4c87e5e8b46a3.jpeg
© Global Look Press / ZUMAPRESS / Lexie Harrison-Cripps

Watch rock ‘n’ roll legend and Pink Floyd frontman Roger Waters perform his hit track ‘Wish You Were Here’ outside the UK Home Office, during a rally in honor of WikiLeaks co-founder Julian Assange.

Taking a makeshift stage right outside the British interior ministry office, the rocker’s performance is intended as a message of solidarity with Assange, who was arrested in April and now faces extradition to the United States. A long-standing supporter of Assange and WikiLeaks, Waters said he was “ashamed to be an Englishman” following the transparency activist’s arrest.

[Video at: https://www.rt.com/news/467821-roger-waters-assange-song/ ]

Award-winning journalist and filmmaker John Pilger also took the stage to speak out on behalf of Assange. Pilger, who recently visited the anti-secrecy campaigner in London’s Belmarsh Prison, says Assange is undergoing psychological torture.

Assange was jailed for violating bail conditions in the UK after spending some seven years under asylum in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London. He is wanted in the US for his role in a series of leaks in 2010, in which whistleblower Chelsea Manning passed thousands of classified military documents and diplomatic cables to WikiLeaks.

Related:

‘All of us are in danger’: John Pilger delivers a chilling warning from Julian Assange (https://www.rt.com/news/467833-pilger-julian-assange-warning/)

[Pilger's video at: https://www.rt.com/news/467833-pilger-julian-assange-warning/ ]

Tintin

4th September 2019, 12:25

Excellent post there (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?106596-Julian-Assange-arrested-after-Ecuador-tears-up-asylum-deal&p=1312777&viewfull=1#post1312777) Hervé :thumbsup:

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

(transcript)

00:00

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.

Gabriel went with me recently to visit Julian and Belmarsh prison and was deeply moved by the treatment of his brother. Behind us here of course is the Home Office, the polite name for Britain's interior ministry.

The behaviour of the British government towards Julian Assange is a disgrace; a profanity on the very notion of human rights. It's no exaggeration to say that the treatment and persecution of Julian Assange is the way dictatorships treat a political prisoner.

There is one reason for this: Julian and WikiLeaks have performed a historic public service by giving millions of people facts, and why and how their governments deceive them secretly and often illegally. Why they invade countries, why they spy on us,

Julian has been singled out for special treatment for one reason only: he is a truth teller.

His case is meant to send a warning to every journalist and every publisher; the kind of warning that has no place in a democracy I spoke to Julian at the weekend - he'd been just allowed to have his first proper exercise. He was allowed to pace up and down in a small bitumen yard.

However at Belmarsh prison they have a sense of humour. On the walls facing the so called ‘exercise yard’ are happy clappy words about the “blades of grass beneath your feet” but there's no grass.

Julian is locked up for more than 21 hours, sometimes longer.

It's four months.

Four months since he was dragged out of the Ecuadorian Embassy literally in brutal contravention of international law.

It's four months and he is still denied the documents and the basic tools to prepare his case against an outrageous demand for his extradition to the United States where he faces incarceration and almost certainly torture, and yet he is not allowed today to call his American lawyers. He is not allowed access to vital documents; he is not allowed access to a computer; he's confined in a single cell in the hospital wing where he is isolated most of the time from other people.

All this, all this because he infringed bail, a bail order the merest of offences and he sought political asylum from the threat to his life that awaited him in Trump's America.

When I asked Julian what he'd like me to say today, he was adamant:

"Say it's not just me. It's much wider. It's all of us, it's all journalists and all publishers who do their job who are in danger.”

In other words, the danger Julian Assange faces can easily spread to the present and past editors of The Guardian, The New York Times, Der Spiegel, El Pais in Spain, the Sydney Morning Herald, and many other newspapers and media outlets around the world that published the WikiLeaks revelations about the lies and crimes of our governments.

Never before in my career as a journalist have I known such an attack on our most basic freedom to publish and to know.

The message is loud and clear: be careful or you too will end up in an American hellhole.

Journalism is not a crime in the United States - not yet - but if Julian is extradited and convicted it will become a crime. Journalism that does its job and tells people what governments do behind their backs in their name.

Julian is not an American he is an Australian citizen WikiLeaks which he founded is not a US-based publication, but the meaning of his extradition could not be clearer.

No matter who you are, or where you are, if you expose the crimes of government you'll be hunted down, kidnapped and sent to the US as a spy.

17 out of the 18 charges that Julian faces in America relate to the routine work of an investigative journalist which is protected under the First Amendment of the US Constitution. The 18th charge about hacking doesn't even relate to him. And even the prosecution over there say that the whole thing is a sham.

The US prosecutors know it's a sham. A federal judge recently declared effectively it's a sham.

The British government know it's a sham.

The Australian government knows it's a sham. That's why Julian has been locked up more than 21 hours a day in a maximum-security prison and treated worse than a murderer. Why is that? Why is he not protected by international law as the United Nations working party has demanded?

He is to be made an example. that's why. What happens to Julian Assange and Chelsea Manning is meant to intimidate us too and frighten us into silence, and the moment that we fall silent it's over.

By defending Julian Assange we defend our most sacred rights. Speak up now or wake up one morning to the silence of a new kind of tyranny

The choice is ours.

Thank you

(08:16)

Delight

4th September 2019, 13:56

Excellent post........

"He is to be made an example. that's why. What happens to Julian Assange and Chelsea Manning is meant to intimidate us too and frighten us into silence, and the moment that we fall silent it's over.

By defending Julian Assange we defend our most sacred rights. Speak up now or wake up one morning to the silence of a new kind of tyranny

The choice is ours.

Thank you"

Thanks for transcribing.

It is unbelievable that the US could target him. He is not American. Wikileaks is not a USA corp. Who can stop this affront? We have no international body that is strong and neutral. I think that is what the United Nations could have been. It was undermined IMO and subverted.

Inch by inch and one by one, silencing all reasonable response to tyranny IMO is working.

I look back and see how we have been persuaded that various ISMS like "terrorism" justified all kinds of crimes against humanity. IMO the US is leading the war against liberty and justice. How ironic we appear and how dangerous. I feel shame for the country in which I was born and reside.

Wind

6th September 2019, 12:18

It is unbelievable that the US could target him.

There's nothing unbelievable about it. You go against the war machine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military%E2%80%93industrial_complex) and the war machine will see you as the target and will stop at nothing in order to destroy you. The machine needs more wars and conflicts, peace is a problem as it does not result in profit. The war machine is so deeply ingrained into the entity of USA & it's government that it's hard to distinguish those two things these days.

"In war, truth is the first casualty."

Billy

6th September 2019, 13:43

Hervé

9th September 2019, 12:21

Embassy insider exposes lies and errors in CNN's defamatory report on Assange (https://thegrayzone.com/2019/09/06/embassy-insider-exposes-cnn-lies-about-julian-assange/)

Aaron Maté The Grayzone (https://thegrayzone.com/2019/09/06/embassy-insider-exposes-cnn-lies-about-julian-assange/)
Fri, 06 Sep 2019 00:00 UTC

https://www.sott.net/image/s26/537347/large/1_CNN_flames_campaign_Western_.jpg (https://www.sott.net/image/s26/537347/full/1_CNN_flames_campaign_Western_.jpg)
© Western Journalism/KJN

A "bombshell" CNN report claimed to show how Wikileaks founder Julian Assange published stolen Democratic Party emails in 2016 in cooperation with the Russian government from his place of refuge in Ecuador's London embassy. Ecuadorian diplomat Fidel Narváez — who served in the embassy throughout Assange's stay — says that CNN's report was error-ridden and defamatory.

"There are so many smears, speculations, and some false information in that report that somewhat somebody needs to set the record straight," Narváez says. "It is unbelievable how they twist every single thing in order to to defame Julian and Ecuador."

Guest: Fidel Narváez, former Ecuadorian diplomat who served in Ecuador's London embassy for six of the seven years that Julian Assange lived there under asylum.

u46gbUDNa58

Read Fidel Narváez's article at The Grayzone: "40 rebuttals to the media's smears of Julian Assange - by someone who was actually there (https://thegrayzone.com/2019/08/20/cnn-media-smears-julian-assange-fidel-narvaez/)."

Read CNN's [error-ridden] report: "Exclusive: Security reports reveal how Assange turned an embassy into a command post for election meddling (https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/15/politics/assange-embassy-exclusive-documents/index.html)."

Related:

CNN's new Assange smear piece is amazingly dishonest - even for CNN! (https://www.sott.net/article/416904-CNNs-new-Assange-smear-piece-is-amazingly-dishonest-even-for-CNN)

Hervé

15th September 2019, 11:27

The World’s Most Important Political Prisoner (https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2019/09/the-worlds-most-important-political-prisoner/) 6 (https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2019/09/the-worlds-most-important-political-prisoner/#tc-comment-title)

by craig (https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/author/craigm/)
15 Sep, 2019 (https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2019/09/15/)

We are now just one week away from the end of Julian Assange’s uniquely lengthy imprisonment for bail violation. He will receive parole from the rest of that sentence, but will continued to be imprisoned on remand awaiting his hearing on extradition to the USA – a process which could last several years.

At that point, all the excuses for Assange’s imprisonment which so-called leftists and liberals in the UK have hidden behind will evaporate. There are no charges and no active investigation in Sweden, where the “evidence” disintegrated at the first whiff of critical scrutiny. He is no longer imprisoned for “jumping bail”. The sole reason for his incarceration will be the publshing of the Afghan and Iraq war logs leaked by Chelsea Manning, with their evidence of wrongdoing and multiple war crimes.

In imprisoning Assange for bail violation, the UK was in clear defiance of the judgement of the UN Working Group on arbitrary Detention, which stated (https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=24042)
Under international law, pre-trial detention must be only imposed in limited instances. Detention during investigations must be even more limited, especially in the absence of any charge. The Swedish investigations have been closed for over 18 months now, and the only ground remaining for Mr. Assange’s continued deprivation of liberty is a bail violation in the UK, which is, objectively, a minor offense that cannot post facto justify the more than 6 years confinement that he has been subjected to since he sought asylum in the Embassy of Ecuador. Mr. Assange should be able to exercise his right to freedom of movement in an unhindered manner, in accordance with the human rights conventions the UK has ratified,
In repudiating the UNWGAD the UK has undermined an important pillar of international law, and one it had always supported in hundreds of other decisions. The mainstream media has entirely failed to note that the UNWGAD called for the release (https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=24073&LangID=E) of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe – a source of potentially valuable international pressure on Iran which the UK has made worthless by its own refusal to comply with the UN over the Assange case. Iran simply replies “if you do not respect the UNWGAD then why should we?”

It is in fact a key indication of media/government collusion that the British media, which reports regularly at every pretext on the Zaghari-Ratcliffe case to further its anti-Iranian government agenda, failed to report at all the UNWGAD call for her release – because of the desire to deny the UN body credibility in the case of Julian Assange.

In applying for political asylum, Assange was entering a different and higher legal process which is an internationally recognised right. A very high percentage of dissident political prisoners worldwide are imprisoned on ostensibly unrelated criminal charges with which the authorities fit them up. Many a dissident has been given asylum in these circumstances. Assange did not go into hiding – his whereabouts were extremely well known. The simple characterisation (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-49689167)of this as “absconding” by district judge Vanessa Baraitser is a farce of justice – and like the UK’s repudiation of the UNWGAD report, is an attitude that authoritarian regimes will be delighted to repeat towards dissidents worldwide

Her decision to commit Assange to continuing jail pending his extradition hearing was excessively cruel given the serious health problems he has encountered in Belmarsh.

It is worth noting that Baraitser’s claim that Assange had a “history of absconding in these proceedings” – and I have already disposed of “absconding” as wildly inappropriate – is inaccurate in that “these proceedings” are entirely new and relate to the US extradition request and nothing but the US extradition request. Assange has been imprisoned throughout the period of “these proceedings” and has certainly not absconded. The government and media have an interest in conflating “these proceedings” with the previous risible allegations from Sweden and the subsequent conviction for bail violation, but we need to untangle this malicious conflation. We have to make plain that Assange is now held for publishing and only for publishing. That a judge should conflate them is disgusting. Vanessa Baraitser is a disgrace.

Assange has been demonised by the media as a dangerous, insanitary and crazed criminal, which could not be further from the truth. It is worth reminding ourselves that Assange has never been convicted of anything but missing police bail.

So now we have a right wing government in the UK with scant concern for democracy, and in particular we have the most far right extremist as Home Secretary of modern times. Assange is now, plainly and without argument, a political prisoner. He is not in jail for bail-jumping. He is not in jail for sexual allegations. He is in jail for publishing official secrets, and for nothing else. The UK now has the world’s most famous political prisoner, and there are no rational grounds to deny that fact. Who will take a stand against authoritarianism and for the freedom to publish?

——————————————

Cara

28th September 2019, 12:11

This article from Spanish newspaper El Pais looks into the surveillance - by a Spanish security firm, at the behest of the USA - of Assange while he was in the Ecuadorean embassy.

Spanish security company spied on Julian Assange in London for the United States
Spain’s High Court is investigating the director of UC Global S. L. and the activities of his company, which had been hired to protect the Ecuadorian embassy in the English capital

José María Irujo 27 SEP 2019 - 00:37 CEST

Undercover Global S. L., the Spanish defense and private security company (https://elpais.com/elpais/2019/07/09/inenglish/1562663427_224669.html) that was charged with protecting the Ecuadorian embassy in London during the long stay there of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, spied on the cyberactivist for the US intelligence service (https://elpais.com/elpais/2019/05/13/inenglish/1557735550_398996.html). That’s according to statements and documents to which EL PAÍS have had access. David Morales, the owner of the company, supposedly handed over audio and video to the CIA of the meetings Assange held with his lawyers and collaborators (https://elpais.com/elpais/2019/04/10/inenglish/1554906053_635126.html). Morales is being investigated for this activity by Spain’s High Court, the Audiencia Nacional.

The judicial investigation into the director of UC Global S. L. and the activities of his company were ordered by a judge named José de la Mata, and they began weeks after EL PAÍS published videos, audios and reports that show how the company spied on the meetings that the cyberactivist held in the embassy.

The secret probe is the consequence of a criminal complaint filed by Assange himself, in which he accuses Morales and the company of the alleged offenses involving violations of his privacy and the secrecy of his client-attorney privileges, as well as misappropriation, bribery and money laundering. The director of UC Global S. L. has not responded to calls from this newspaper in order to confirm his version of events.

Morales, a former member of the military who is on leave of absence, stated both verbally and in writing to a number of his employees that, despite having been hired by the government of then-Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa, he also worked “for the Americans,” to whom he allegedly sent documents, videos and audios of the meetings that the Australian activist held in the embassy. “We are playing in another league. This is the first division,” he told his closest colleagues after attending a security fair in the US city of Las Vegas in 2015 where he supposedly made his first American contacts.

5ChhAMubOPM
Video: Footage of Julian Assange in the Ecuadorian embassy in London.

Despite the fact that the Spanish firm – which is headquartered in the southern city of Jerez de la Frontera – was hired by Senain, the Ecuadorian intelligence services, Morales called on his employees several times to keep his relationship with the US intelligence services a secret.

The owner of UC Global S. L. ordered a meeting between the head of the Ecuadorian secret service, Rommy Vallejo, and Assange to be spied on, at a time when they were planning the exit of Assange from the Ecuadorian embassy using a diplomatic passport in order to take him to another country. This initiative was eventually rejected by Assange on the basis that he considered it to be “a defeat,” that would fuel conspiracy theories, according to sources close to the company consulted by this newspaper.

The meeting took place on December 21, 2017 in the meeting room of the diplomatic building and was recorded both on video and audio by cameras installed by Morales’ employees. A small number of people, among whom were the Australian’s lawyers, were aware of the plan. Hours after the meeting, the US ambassador informed the Ecuadorian authorities about the plan, and the next day, December 22, the US put out an international arrest warrant for Assange.

“It is absurd to spy on who has hired you if you are not going to hand that material over to another country,” said a source close to UC Global S. L. This newspaper has had access to the video and the audio of the aforementioned meeting.

Cameras and external access for the US

After the installation of new video cameras at the beginning of December 2017, Morales requested that his technicians install an external streaming access point in the same area so that all of the recordings could be accessed instantly by the United States. To do this, he requested three channels for access: “one for Ecuador, another for us and another for X,” according to mails sent at the time to his colleagues. When one of the technicians asked to contact “the Americans” to explain the way that they should access some of the spying systems installed in the embassy, Morales would always be evasive with his answers.

Morales ordered his workers to install microphones in the embassy’s fire extinguishers and also in the women’s bathroom, where Assange’s lawyers, including the Spaniard Aitor Martínez and his closest collaborators, would meet for fear of being spied on. The cyberactivist’s meetings with his lawyers, Melynda Taylor, Jennifer Robinson and Baltasar Garzón, were also monitored.

The UC Global S. L. team was also ordered by its boss to install stickers that prevented the windows of the rooms that the WikiLeaks founder used from vibrating, allegedly to make it easier for the CIA to record conversations with their laser microphones. They also took a used diaper that from a baby that was on occasions taken to visit the activist in order to determine if the child was his by a close collaborator.

The former military man also planted microphones in a number of decorative elements inside the embassy, which were photographed for their reproduction in Spain. He also wanted to install them in the room used by “the guest,” as Assange was referred to in his reports, but some of his workers, concerned over the illegality of these jobs, warned him that they could be discovered. “The WikiLeaks founder was obsessed with being spied on,” a former employee of the company said.

The spying on Assange increased after Lenin Moreno came to power in Ecuador. At that time, Morales regularly flew to New York and Washington, this newspaper has managed to confirm. Among the UC Global S. L. client list is Sheldon Adelson and his gaming company Las Vegas Sands. For years the Spanish company has been providing security for the business magnate’s yacht when it is in Mediterranean waters. This job is usually carried out personally by Morales himself.

Adelson has a close friendship with US President Donald Trump and is one of the main donors to the Republican Party. Among his security personnel is a former CIA chief. In 2018 an investigation by The New York Times revealed that Julian Assange became a target for CIA spying under the mandate of former director Mike Pompeo. Official sources admitted to the US newspaper that WikiLeaks was being investigated in search of alleged links between its founder and Russian intelligence.

Spying under the mandate of Lenin Moreno

The espionage against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange increased under the government of the current Ecuadorian president, Lenin Moreno, who recently handed Assange over to the British authorities. The Ecuadorian government has denied these accusations and instead accuses Assange of having created a “spying center” in the embassy.

Rafael Correa, Moreno’s predecessor in the role, was the person who offered the Australian refuge in his country’s London embassy and granted him nationality. In July of this year the owner of UC Global S. L. declined to respond to this newspaper about the alleged spying on Julian Assange. “I cannot comment on anything that we did there, I can’t give any details,” he said via telephone. “We have our ethical and moral rules and none of them were violated.”

David Morales, a former member of the military, created his company in 2008 inspired by Blackwater, the US private security multinational that supported the US army in a number of conflicts including those in Afghanistan and Iraq. One of the first contracts that his company secured was to provide security in Europe for two of Rafael Correa’s daughters during his time in office. He later secured the contract for providing security at the Ecuadorian embassy in London.

In April, the government of Lenin Moreno expelled Assange from that embassy, where he had been living since 2012. After his expulsion and arrest by the British authorities, the United Kingdom authorized the judicial process to hand the WikiLeaks founder over to the US justice system. The US wants Assange extradited and is leveling 18 charges, including computer misuse and the unauthorized disclosure of national defense information regarding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The cyberactivist could be facing a sentence of up to 175 years in prison.
From: https://elpais.com/elpais/2019/09/25/inenglish/1569384196_652151.amp.html?__twitter_impression=true

vander

30th September 2019, 06:27

exactly; people who lack empathy you can't talk to no matter what

Bill Ryan

30th September 2019, 22:43

From https://en.mercopress.com/2019/09/28/spanish-company-working-for-the-cia-spied-on-assange-inside-the-ecuadorian-embassy-in-london

Spanish company working for the CIA spied on Assange inside the Ecuadorian embassy in London
28 September, 2019

https://en.mercopress.com/data/cache/noticias/72495/0x0/assange.jpg
El País said Undercover Global Ltd, responsible for security at the embassy while Assange was staying there, sent the US intelligence service audio and video files

A Spanish private security firm, which is under investigation in Madrid, spied on Wikileaks founder Julian Assange on behalf of the CIA while he was inside the Ecuadorian embassy in London, El Pais daily reported Friday.

Citing unspecified documents and statements, the paper said Undercover Global Ltd, which was responsible for security at the embassy while Assange was staying there, sent the US intelligence service audio and video files of meetings he had with his lawyers.

The reports were allegedly handed over by David Morales, who owns the company and is currently being investigated by Spain's National Court, the paper said.

One of Assange's lawyers confirmed the National Court was looking into the matter.

“There is a criminal case under investigation at the National Court but it is being conducted in secret ... and we cannot say anything about what is being investigated beyond what has been leaked” to the press, Aitor Martinez revealed.

The leak “probably came from employees at the firm”, he said.

According to El Pais, Undercover Global installed microphones in the embassy's fire extinguishers as well as in the women's toilets where Assange's lawyers used to meet for fear of being spied on.

It said the company also installed a streaming system so the recordings could be directly accessed by US officials, enabling them to spy on a meeting Assange had with Ecuador's secret service chief Rommy Vallejo in December 2017.

At the time, they were planning to smuggle Assange out of the embassy and take him to another country by means of a diplomatic passport - but the plan never materialized.

At the end of April, Assange's lawyers filed an extortion suit against a group of Spanish nationals who reportedly used videos and documents from inside the embassy.

vander

30th September 2019, 22:57

I have to admit I never followed along the Assange story, neither Wikileaks I only heard bits and pieces
seems it gotten completely out of control, damn...

so, they have admitted defeat and he has to suffer for their incompetence (at least that's what I read between the lines)

gs_powered

30th September 2019, 23:01

Wasn't there a case in April this year when a Spanish reporter was asking for 3 million in exchange for audio/video captured inside the embassy?

Franny

1st October 2019, 22:09

This is the same story from a wider angle with more history and details.

How the Trump Admin Used a Secret Livestream to Spy on Julian Assange

Working directly with Ecuador’s corrupt government, the U.S. government abandoned all sense of legality and moral decency by spying on Assange twenty-four hours a day via an illegal livestream surveillance operation set up by a private security firm and approved by Ecuador’s president.

by Jimmysllama

41601
Feature photo | A still from surveillance footage shows Julian Assange resting inside of the Ecuadorian Embassy in London. Screenshot | El Pais

Earlier this year MintPress News published an article (https://www.mintpressnews.com/before-ousting-assange-moreno-government-spied-on-the-journalist-for-over-a-year/257621/) about how Australian journalist and WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange and whistleblower Chelsea Manning had “brought the U.S. government to its knees,” by revealing the U.S. torture program, war crimes, and “Cablegate”. At the time it appeared that the Trump administration was “more than ever willing to exact full revenge upon those who exposed the truth,” and now we know just how far they’ve been willing to go to make that happen.

Working directly with Ecuador’s corrupt government, the U.S. government abandoned all sense of legality and moral decency by spying on Assange twenty-four hours a day via an illegal livestream surveillance operation set up by a private security firm and approved by Ecuador’s president, Lenin Moreno. The revelation was made by Spanish news outlet El Pais (https://elpais.com/elpais/2019/09/25/inenglish/1569384196_652151.html), and it’s as stunning as the corporate media’s complicity.

Ecuador granted Assange asylum under former President Rafael Correa but after the 2017 election — and despite Moreno’s running as a left-wing PAIS Alliance candidate — the country’s political landscape shifted dramatically to the right. When Moreno wasn’t busy renegotiating Chinese loans, he was making backroom deals with the U.S., and Julian Assange was the bargaining chip. Moreno’s cooperation with the Trump administration was bought and paid for by massive IMF loans (https://www.mintpressnews.com/ecuadors-cooperation-bought-imf-loans-washington-waxes-optimistic-assange-extradition/255942/) and in April 2019 Moreno illegally revoked Assange’s political asylum and allowed British authorities to enter the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, where Assange had sought protection for over seven years, and seize him.

After Assange’s arrest, Moreno refused to return Assange’s belongings from the embassy, instead turning over his documents, equipment, cellphones, personal effects, and more to the United States. The Canary’s John McEvoy recently published an interview (https://www.thecanary.co/exclusive/2019/09/21/lenin-moreno-is-a-shakespearean-traitor-former-ecuadorian-foreign-minister-discusses-the-betrayal-of-julian-assange/) with the former foreign minister of Ecuador, Guillaume Long, who described Moreno as “a Shakespearean traitor” who he says “betrayed Correa, he betrayed his party, he betrayed his electorate…he betrayed Ecuadorians, and he betrayed democracy, and he certainly betrayed Assange.”

Surveillance at the embassy
According to El Pais, Judge Jose de la Mota of Spain’s High Court, the Audiencia Nacional, is currently investigating UC Global S.L., a security company headquartered in Spain, and the activities of its founder, David Morales, for what has been exposed as a mind-blowing, complex, and invasive surveillance operation set up in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London by UC Global in order to monitor Assange’s every move. They’re also being investigated for misappropriation, bribery, and money laundering.

According to sources and court documents examined by El Pais, meetings that Assange took with his attorneys, family, friends, and colleagues were all monitored. Fire extinguishers, “decorative elements” in the embassy, and even the women’s bathroom were all bugged. The scandal seems to have reached peak insanity when the Ecuadorian government took it upon itself to steal a used diaper from a baby who was seen occasionally at the embassy and have it tested for DNA, which begs the question of what exactly the government planned on doing if the test showed Assange to be the father. Blackmail? Threaten the wellbeing of the child? What exactly?

41600

Assange Surveillance Feature photo
Ecuador’s Foreign Minister Ricardo Patino holds a photo an electric socket at the London embassy where a hidden mic was found. Dolores Ochoa | AP

In Edward Snowden’s words:

Not a joke: the CIA allegedly ran an operation to livestream surveillance of women in the toilet, hoping to overhear them planning the legal defense for an asylum seeker. This is skulls-on-hats level villainy; simply indefensible for people claiming to be ‘the good guys.’”

UC Global, the company that initially set up the security apparatus at the embassy, was hired and paid directly by the Senain, Ecuador’s now-defunct intelligence service established by former President Correa in 2009, because he feared that the U.S. had co-opted Ecuador’s existing intelligence services. However, Fidel Narvaez, the former ambassador to the U.K. assigned to the embassy in London, admitted that after the Senain was created the agency became “an animal without god or law,” and that neither he nor the-Foreign Minister Long had any control over its activities and security operations within the embassy. But the Senain wasn’t the only thing out of control.

UC Global’s Morales admitted that he was working for the United States at the same time the Senain was paying him and that he sent “documents, videos and audios” of meetings Assange held at the embassy directly to the CIA. He was quoted as saying, “We are playing in another league. This is the First Division.” El Pais reported that Morales first met “the Americans” at a 2015 security fair held in Las Vegas — which may have been the 2015 ICS West International Security Conference (https://web.archive.org/web/20150213232457/https://www.iscwest.com/) held at the Sands Expo and Convention Center owned by Sheldon Adelson, a Zionist billionaire who, interestingly enough, is on Morales’ roster of clients.

Sheldon Adelson
Adelson is a self-made American businessman who made most of his money in the casino business and was last estimated to be worth around $34 billion. In 2006, he co-founded the newspaper Israeli and then later established Israel Hayom, a free daily newspaper created to support all things Netanyahu. He also purchased the Las Vegas Review-Journal,

where three of its own investigative journalists uncovered (https://www.reviewjournal.com/local/local-las-vegas/adelson-son-in-law-orchestrated-familys-purchase-of-las-vegas-review-journal/) “the secret sale of the newspaper” to Adelson. NPR later reported (https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/05/09/477423367/more-journalists-leaving-las-vegas-review-journal-after-sale-to-billionaire) that “a flood of reporters and editors left the paper after it was bought by the Adelson family, citing curtailed editorial freedom, murky business dealings and unethical managers.”

Adelson is also a pro-Israel Zionist (https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/5299) fanatic who donated $5 million to the “Friends of the Israel Defense Forces” in 2014, rejects the idea of a two-state solution and continued aid to the Palestinians, and believes in establishing Jewish sovereignty throughout the “biblical land” of Israel — which means more illegal land grabs, annexation, settlements, and violence for Palestinians.

Adelson was close to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu but leaked transcripts (https://www.timesofisrael.com/topic/sheldon-adelson/) from a corruption investigation into Netanyahu revealed he told police that he had cut ties with Netanyahu and “vowed he would never meet with him again.” Of course this could just be a means to distance himself from the corruption allegations being lodged against Netanyahu.

Adelson is also considered one of the “most generous and influential Jewish philanthropists” in the world and, according to a WikiLeaks cable (https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/07TELAVIV409_a.html), once donated $54 million to Israel in a three-month period. He’s a member of the Republican Party and, in case anyone was wondering who the biggest influencer of the Trump campaign was in 2016, that would be Adelson, along with his wife, Miriam. They donated (https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2018/01/trump-donors-1-year-later/) $5 million to Trump’s inauguration fund, making it Trump’s largest inaugural contribution as well as the largest individual donation ever made to a presidential inaugural committee.

When it came to Trump’s campaign, the Adelsons were his second largest donor after Robert Mercer and, according to the New York Times (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/22/us/politics/adelson-trump-republican-donor.html), Adelson and his wife were the “biggest spenders on federal elections in all of American politics.” The Times went on to report:

Mr. Adelson in particular enjoys a direct line to the president. In private in-person meetings and phone conversations, which occur between the two men about once a month, he has used his access to push the president to move the United States embassy in Israel to Jerusalem and, more recently, cut aid to the Palestinians (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/24/us/politics/trump-palestinians-aid-cut.html), according to people familiar with their discussions, who spoke anonymously to discuss private matters. Mr. Trump has done both, triggering a backlash from some American allies.”

Like John Bolton, who was recently fired, Adelson pushed Trump to pull out of the Iran nuclear deal, proposed dropping a nuclear bomb on Tehran, and once said that he wanted his son to grow up to be a sniper for Israel’s IDF. He’s also been accused of allowing the CIA to use his casinos as a front for spying; and, according to reports, Adelson encouraged Trump (https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/casino-mogul-sheldon-adelson-tells-trump-to-dial-it-down) to focus on the “embarrassing disclosures about the Clinton campaign and Hillary Clinton’s dealings with major banks found in [a] recent WikiLeaks documents dump,” reinforcing speculation that Trump’s “I love WikiLeaks” rant on the campaign trail was merely a tactic to get elected.

Trump administration complicit in illegal spying
It’s clear that Adelson, a client of Morales’ UC Global, has a close relationship with Trump, leaving little to the imagination about what Trump knew in terms of the surveillance operation at the Ecuadorian Embassy. And, regardless of how Trump-thumpers or Q zombies want to twist what he said or did on the 2016 campaign trail, Trump has always been anti-leaks, anti-WikiLeaks, and anti-Assange. In 2010, he called for the execution of WikiLeaks’ staff and in 2017, his long-time close friend Ivonne Baki, an Ecuadorian ambassador now stationed in Qatar, brokered meetings between Paul Manafort and President Moreno, who expressed his desire to expel Assange from the embassy in return for U.S. concessions.

V-pv_3i-dOs

After Assange’s arrest earlier this year, the U.S. Department of Justice revealed a superseding indictment against Assange that included 17 charges under the Espionage Act. This will be the first time in American history that an administration has charged a journalist under that draconian law for committing acts of journalism. Although Trump has the Constitutional power to pardon Assange of all charges and end his extradition case in the U.K., it appears he’s washed his hands of any responsibility to consider such an option by claiming he now “knows nothing about WikiLeaks,” despite the dozens of times he invoked the name on his campaign trail.

But the truly vile and nefarious element of this case, which has exposed the Trump administration’s true colors, is the fact that in December 2017 UC Global installed new video cameras in the embassy along with “an external streaming access point in the same area so that all of the recordings could be accessed instantly by the United States.” Trump’s secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, was head of the CIA at the time.

The administration’s direct involvement in an illegal, livestream surveillance operation of a publisher, journalist, and political prisoner who at the time had never been charged with a single crime is beyond shocking and reveals just how corrupt that administration is and how critical the situation has become for press and media workers around the world.

Meanwhile, Trump has spent his presidency tweeting about a “witch hunt” the Democrats have been carrying out against him since before the 2016 election and initiating conspiracy theories like “Spygate.” Just this year Trump tweeted (his emphasis):

[R]eally bad people SPIED ON MY CAMPAIGN!”

“They got caught spying on my campaign”

“SPYING did occur on the Trump 2016 campaign”

“It is now finally time to turn the tables and bring justice to some very sick and dangerous people who have committed very serious crimes, perhaps even Spying or Treason.”

“My campaign was seriously spied upon by intel agencies and the Democrats.”

“THEY SPIED ON MY CAMPAIGN (We will never forget)!”

“Was this person SPYING on the U.S. President? Big Consequences!”

And while the Trump administration was secretly watching a political prisoner via a livestream in one of the grossest voyeuristic intelligence games America has seen, it egregiously breached his privacy and violated attorney-client privilege — and not just with the livestream but with audio, documents and files handed over to them by UC Global and President Moreno’s government.

There’s a reason Ecuador shut down Assange’s communication on March 27, 2018, after he tweeted out “the forgotten message (https://twitter.com/AnonScan/status/1022867985525080064)” about the Senain, and a reason he was arrested 24 hours after WikiLeaks held a press conference about the spying operation at the embassy: the U.S. government in no way wanted Ecuador’s spy operation — which was likely initially shared with former CIA Director John Brennan and then taken over by his successor and current Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who once called WikiLeaks “a non-state hostile intelligence service” — exposed.

A suspicious timeline of events
When Assange was granted asylum in 2012, the Ecuadorian government hired UC Global, a private military company founded by David Morales, a former member of the Spanish Defense Marine Infantry who was once described as “the perfect mercenary.” As previously reported (https://www.mintpressnews.com/before-ousting-assange-moreno-government-spied-on-the-journalist-for-over-a-year/257621/), most of UC Global’s employees come from the NATO military sector and the company operates around the world, including in Spain, France, U.K., Qatar, and the United States.

Three years after UC Global was hired, WikiLeaks published the emails of Italian malware vendor Hacking Team (https://wikileaks.org/hackingteam/emails/), which rocked the Ecuadorian government. The technology company specializes in spyware, such as monitoring online activities, decryption of files and emails, and remote activation of microphones and cameras on targeted computers. The emails not only revealed (https://wikileaks.org/hackingteam/emails/?q=ecuador&mfrom=&mto=&title=&notitle=&date=&nofrom=&noto=&count=50&sort=0#searchresult) that the Senain had purchased a three-year spyware package from Hacking Team, but that the intelligence agency had been spying on citizens, activists (https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/apnewsbreak-leaked-hacking-team-emails-suggest-ecuador-illegally-spied-on-opposition) and detractors.

Opposition forces decried former President Correa’s government while Ecuadorian political activist Fernando Villavicencio (https://jimmysllama.com/2018/06/07/11347/), an opposition mouthpiece for the U.S., published an article entitled, “Assange Spied on by the Intelligence of Ecuador,” detailing the Senain’s spying operation at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, which was dubbed “Operation Hotel.” Villavicencio’s article was likely a joint intelligence effort to deflect from U.S. involvement in the operations, deride Correa’s government, dismantle his support base, and turn public opinion against Assange by describing him as a “bad houseguest” and releasing alleged derogatory intelligence reports from the Senain.

41603
Rafael Correa, Christine Assange
Correa, right, holds the hands of Julian Assange’s mother, Christine, during a meeting in Quito, Ecuador. Martin Jaramillo | AP

Fast forward to March 13, 2018, when welivesecurity.com (https://www.welivesecurity.com/la-es/2018/03/13/nuevas-senales-de-que-hacking-team-esta-activo/) published an article reporting that the Hacking Team’s Remote Control System had been detected in the systems of 14 countries. Less than a week later, President Moreno rescinded (https://web.archive.org/web/20190901165746/https://milhojas.is/612498-assange-en-el-centro-de-una-trama-de-espionaje-internacional.html) Ecuador’s contract with UC Global, hired PromSecurity Cía. Ltd. to surveil the embassy in London, and announced that he was shutting down the Senain and that a new intelligence agency would be established.

Exactly two weeks later, on March 27, 2018, when Assange was still in control of his Twitter account, he tweeted what has since been described as “the forgotten message (https://twitter.com/AnonScan/status/1022867985525080064):”

Senain bought spy packages from Hacking Team for 3 years.”

He included a link to an article published earlier that day that reported, “While developers suspect that the Hacking Team (HT) spy program is still working, the National Secretariat of Intelligence of Ecuador (Senain) has not confirmed whether or not it terminated its relationship with this Italian company.” Approximately four hours after Assange’s tweet, President Moreno cut all of Assange’s communications, including visitors to the embassy and phone and internet access. A few days later WikiLeaks tweeted,

Although Ecuador claims it isolated Assange over his Tweeting about the detention of #Puigdemont in Germany, the political context is his breaking the “Watergate” of Ecuador, #HackingTeam, which led to the implosion of the national spy service this month.”

Two weeks later, The Guardian went on a one-week propaganda spree about “Operation Hotel” (read Tom Coburg’s “Julian Assange’s lawyers were placed under surveillance. But that’s not the whole story” via thecanary.co (https://www.thecanary.co/uk/analysis/2019/09/29/julian-assanges-lawyers-were-placed-under-surveillance-but-thats-not-the-whole-story/)), the same operation that Fernando Villavicencio reported on back in 2015 after WikiLeaks published the Hacking Team emails.

This time, however, Villavicencio and The Guardian’s Luke Harding reported that the Senain had spent an extraordinary amount of money protecting Assange rather than surveilling him and that Correa’s government had been “rife with corruption, working hand-in-glove with Assange” to build some sort of elaborate war room to meddle in the 2016 U.S. elections — which apparently no surveillance camera picked up:

Moreno has gone to extreme lengths to convince the public that he’s rooting out government corruption. With the shutdown of the Senain, the revocation of UC Global’s contract at the embassy…the Guardian articles, and the creation of a new intelligence agency, he would have everyone believing that he saved the country from the evil trappings of Rafael Correa’s former government if he could.

But now we know that the U.S. government, including the Trump administration, was directly involved in the operation at the embassy and it seems obvious that at every turn where they may have been exposed, Ecuador took steps to protect itself as well as the United States. And sure, maybe Trump didn’t know — but his secretary of state was likely heading up the operation stateside while he was the director of the CIA and his second biggest campaign donor is a client of the guy who was running the actual operation within the embassy so any deniability would be, at best, implausible.

The UN investigates Ecuador’s human rights violations
On March 29, 2019, the UN special rapporteur on privacy, Professor Joe Cannataci, received a complaint (https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=24453&LangID=E) filed by Assange’s legal team from the Special Procedures Branch of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) in Geneva, which stated that Assange’s right to privacy during his stay in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London had been violated. Cannataci immediately requested that a meeting be set with Assange that day and he contacted the Ecuadorian Embassy three times with no response. Two days later, he emailed the Ecuadorian ambassador in London, Jaime Marchán, again to no avail.

Then, in a conspicuous attempt to distract the public and distance themselves from the PR ****-storm they knew was coming with the inevitable disclosure of Moreno’s spying operation, on Tuesday, April 2, Ecuador’s minister of foreign relations, Jose Valencia, filed a complaint with the OHCHR Office in Geneva claiming that President Moreno’s privacy was also violated. He cited the “INA Papers” — a leaked batch of documents that included Moreno’s personal emails, text messages, and family photos, and exposed his involvement in corruption and money laundering via an offshore company — giving the impression that Assange was behind the leaks.

The meeting between Assange and the UN Rapporteur never took place in the Ecuadorian Embassy (although they subsequently met at Belmarsh prison (https://www.repubblica.it/esteri/2019/04/25/news/assange_inglese_onu-224862394/?refresh_ce)) and only five days after Assange’s legal team lodged the privacy complaint with the UNCHR, they caught wind of President Moreno’s plan to revoke his asylum and hand him over to British officials.

Extortion
The entire spying operation at the embassy, sans U.S. involvement, was first disclosed by WikiLeaks during an April 10, 2019 press conference (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFq38d3Q9qY), at which WikiLeaks informed the public about the large-scale operation, as well as about a group of individuals who attempted to extort the publishing outlet with material obtained from the operation. According to WikiLeaks Editor in Chief Kristinn Hraffnson:

We learned about some individuals in Spain who were peddling around that they had a massive trove of documents relating to Julian Assange from inside the embassy and that it entailed audio, video, photographs, and documents.

Hraffnson eventually met with the extortionists, who showed him hundreds of thousands of documents, videos, and confidential medical records and legal documents, all pertaining to Assange. They had “pretty much everything on the life of Julian Assange inside the embassy,” he stated. The extortion ring demanded 3 million euros from WikiLeaks for the material, threatening to go to the press if WikiLeaks didn’t pay.

41602
[B]Assange Surveillance
A still from surveillance footage shows Assange meeting with a confidant at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London. Screenshot | El Pais

According to Anonymous Scandinavia (@AnonScan (https://twitter.com/AnonScan/status/1116275303893143552)) at the time:

We have reason to believe that the attempt of extorsion [sic] in the amount of three million euros, has connections to government officials cooperating with for example C 9 [Senain] and Prom Security.

In complaints later filed by Assange, a group of Spaniards, Ecuadorian Ambassador Jaime Marchán, and four employees of Promsecurity were all named as taking part in the extortion ring and/or “alleged crimes that would have been committed inside the embassy, especially data leaks, listening and also the dissemination of both audio and video data and thousands of documents.”

President Moreno retaliated against WikiLeaks’ public disclosure of the colossal surveillance operation running at the embassy by illegally revoking Assange’s asylum and allowing U.K. officials to enter the diplomatic embassy in London to arrest him. With El Pais’ latest article, the U.S. may take further steps to distance itself and distract the public by planting articles via corporate media outlets such as The Guardian, more restrictions placed on Assange at Belmarsh, and a general black-PR campaign carried out by British and U.S. intelligence agencies — especially now that the Trump administration has been directly implicated.

This is not the time for dialogue
In light of recent developments, this is no longer the time for debate or dialogue. It’s time that the people in power who have been complicit in Assange’s ongoing torture — and what can only be described as a breach of human rights and privacy violations of epic proportions — be held to account. This includes President Moreno, Ambassador Marchán, President Trump, and Secretary of State Pompeo among many, many others. This also includes the corporate media, who have been spewing U.S. and Ecuador intelligence garbage about Assange for years.

This isn’t just about a journalist who is still sitting in a high-security prison despite his custodial sentence ending last week — although that alone should be enough of an outrage for anyone sitting on the side of justice and a free press. The U.S.-Ecuadorian spying operation in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London is about the precedents that will be set for spying on journalists and media workers if citizens do not rise up and demand accountability.

It’s become an almost macabre comedy of sorts how many journalists and publishers who work with the U.S. and British intelligence agencies and/or side with the Trump administration think they’re immune because the U.S. intelligence community never spies on its allies (insert senior officials of the European Union, Great Britain, Germany, Brazil, France, Spain, Mexico, and on and on). Or perhaps, like so many Americans, they justify it because “they aren’t doing anything wrong,” until they realize they’ve been booted out through Trump’s revolving door over some minuscule infraction like questioning the government.

It’s dangerously naive or ignorant to believe that the president of the United States — who thinks that presidential term limits don’t apply to him; has a former CIA director as his secretary of state; pushed 38-and-counting high-ranking people out of his administration; casually talks about nuking other countries; encourages hatred and violence not only against ethnic groups but against some of our own U.S. congresswomen; calls the press an enemy of the state; wants the staff of WikiLeaks executed; threatened the life of the unnamed “CIA Trump whistleblower;” refuses to pardon Edward Snowden; is holding Chelsea Manning hostage in a federal prison; imprisoned whistleblower Reality Winner for five years and is currently prosecuting Daniel Hale and Joshua Schulte for revealing illegal drone assassinations and CIA hacking weapons respectively; is the first president in U.S. history to prosecute a journalist for journalism; and deliberately and with cold calculation spied on Julian Assange twenty-four hours a day for years via an illegal live-stream — is worthy of any media worker’s trust.

Jimmysllama is an independent researcher and writer who provides balanced, critical analysis with a focus on the Boston bombings, Magnitsky Act, and WikiLeaks. She is currently trying to stay warm in the Midwest. You can read more of her work at jimmysllama.com and find her on Twitter at @jimmysllama.

onawah

11th October 2019, 17:59

Julian Assange - the case of the WikiLeaks founder
DW Documentary
10/8/19
xQ5Cpt3-YDY
DW Documentary
A history of Assange since he was spotlighted up to the present.

"British police arrested Julian Assange on April 11, 2019 in the Ecuadorean embassy in London. The arrest ended nearly seven years of diplomatic asylum and left little standing between Assange and extradition.

Assange has been accused of sexual assault in Sweden, while in the US he is wanted on espionage charges and for publishing top secret documents on the internet platform he founded, WikiLeaks. Since his arrest, he has been held in Belmarsh, a maximum-security prison on the outskirts of London. If the UK turns Assange over to the US, he could face up to 175 years in prison if convicted. His case is highly politicized. Some brand him a traitor. Others say he champions freedom of information. As our report shows, the case against Julian Assange also involves some apparent inconsistencies."

onawah

21st October 2019, 22:38

Pamela Anderson: The Making of a Scape Goat

"Pamela Anderson has made this impassioned video confronting the Trump-deranged and the Hillary apologists in her Hollywood milieu on behalf of Julian Assange.

The result is a refreshing blast of truth. I've always been impressed with Anderson's intelligence but this left me impressed with her character and her backbone.

Assange is to appear in court today in London to fight extradition to the United States on charges of conspiring to hack into a Pentagon computer. Last June, former Home Secretary Sajid Javid signed an order allowing Assange to be extradited.

US authorities accuse Assange of scheming with former Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning to break a password for a classified government computer. The case is expected to take months to resolve, with each side able to make several appeals of unfavorable rulings.

A little birdie has told me to expect Assange to be testifying in the US next February."

https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/pamela-anderson-the-making-of-a-scape-goat/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Pamela+Anderson%3A+The+Making+of+a+Scape+Goat

BMJ

22nd October 2019, 01:14

Assange extradition hearing to go ahead in February

mk3Ifi647tI

Sky News Australia

The full extradition hearing of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange will go ahead next February, after a judge in London declined a request by his lawyers to delay proceedings by three months.

Tintin

22nd October 2019, 10:21

"I do not understand how this process is equitable. This superpower had 10 years to prepare for this case and I can’t even access my writings. It is very difficult, where I am, to do anything. These people have unlimited resources." (Julian Assange)

——————————————
Assange in Court
22 Oct, 2019 in Uncategorized by craig (https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2019/10/assange-in-court/)

I was deeply shaken while witnessing yesterday’s events in Westminster Magistrates Court. Every decision was railroaded through over the scarcely heard arguments and objections of Assange’s legal team, by a magistrate who barely pretended to be listening.

Before I get on to the blatant lack of fair process, the first thing I must note was Julian’s condition. I was badly shocked by just how much weight my friend has lost, by the speed his hair has receded and by the appearance of premature and vastly accelerated ageing. He has a pronounced limp I have never seen before. Since his arrest he has lost over 15 kg in weight.

But his physical appearance was not as shocking as his mental deterioration. When asked to give his name and date of birth, he struggled visibly over several seconds to recall both. I will come to the important content of his statement at the end of proceedings in due course, but his difficulty in making it was very evident; it was a real struggle for him to articulate the words and focus his train of thought.

Until yesterday I had always been quietly sceptical of those who claimed that Julian’s treatment amounted to torture – even of Nils Melzer (https://medium.com/@njmelzer/demasking-the-torture-of-julian-assange-b252ffdcb768), the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture – and sceptical of those who suggested he may be subject to debilitating drug treatments. But having attended the trials in Uzbekistan of several victims of extreme torture, and having worked with survivors from Sierra Leone and elsewhere, I can tell you that yesterday changed my mind entirely and Julian exhibited exactly the symptoms of a torture victim brought blinking into the light, particularly in terms of disorientation, confusion, and the real struggle to assert free will through the fog of learned helplessness.

I had been even more sceptical of those who claimed, as a senior member of his legal team did to me on Sunday night, that they were worried that Julian might not live to the end of the extradition process. I now find myself not only believing it, but haunted by the thought. Everybody in that court yesterday saw that one of the greatest journalists and most important dissidents of our times is being tortured to death by the state, before our eyes. To see my friend, the most articulate man, the fastest thinker, I have ever known, reduced to that shambling and incoherent wreck, was unbearable.

Yet the agents of the state, particularly the callous magistrate Vanessa Baraitser, were not just prepared but eager to be a part of this bloodsport. She actually told him that if he were incapable of following proceedings, then his lawyers could explain what had happened to him later. The question of why a man who, by the very charges against him, was acknowledged to be highly intelligent and competent, had been reduced by the state to somebody incapable of following court proceedings, gave her not a millisecond of concern.

The charge against Julian is very specific; conspiring with Chelsea Manning to publish the Iraq War logs, the Afghanistan war logs and the State Department cables. The charges are nothing to do with Sweden, nothing to do with sex, and nothing to do with the 2016 US election; a simple clarification the mainstream media appears incapable of understanding.

The purpose of yesterday’s hearing was case management; to determine the timetable for the extradition proceedings. The key points at issue were that Julian’s defence was requesting more time to prepare their evidence; and arguing that political offences were specifically excluded from the extradition treaty. There should, they argued, therefore be a preliminary hearing to determine whether the extradition treaty applied at all.

The reasons given by Assange’s defence team for more time to prepare were both compelling and startling. They had very limited access to their client in jail and had not been permitted to hand him any documents about the case until one week ago. He had also only just been given limited computer access, and all his relevant records and materials had been seized from the Ecuadorean Embassy by the US Government; he had no access to his own materials for the purpose of preparing his defence.

Furthermore, the defence argued, they were in touch with the Spanish courts about a very important and relevant legal case in Madrid (https://elpais.com/elpais/2019/10/09/inenglish/1570606428_107946.html) which would provide vital evidence. It showed that the CIA had been directly ordering spying on Julian in the Embassy through a Spanish company, UC Global, contracted to provide security there. Crucially this included spying on privileged conversations (https://elpais.com/elpais/2019/07/09/inenglish/1562663427_224669.html) between Assange and his lawyers discussing his defence against these extradition proceedings, which had been in train in the USA since 2010. In any normal process, that fact would in itself be sufficient to have the extradition proceedings dismissed.

Incidentally I learnt on Sunday that the Spanish material produced in court, which had been commissioned by the CIA, specifically includes high resolution video coverage of Julian and I discussing various matters.

The evidence to the Spanish court also included a CIA plot to kidnap Assange, which went to the US authorities’ attitude to lawfulness in his case and the treatment he might expect in the United States. Julian’s team explained that the Spanish legal process was happening now and the evidence from it would be extremely important, but it might not be finished and thus the evidence not fully validated and available in time for the current proposed timetable for the Assange extradition hearings.

For the prosecution, James Lewis QC stated that the government strongly opposed any delay being given for the defence to prepare, and strongly opposed any separate consideration of the question of whether the charge was a political offence excluded by the extradition treaty.

Baraitser took her cue from Lewis and stated categorically that the date for the extradition hearing, 25 February, could not be changed. She was open to changes in dates for submission of evidence and responses before this, and called a ten minute recess for the prosecution and defence to agree these steps.

What happened next was very instructive. There were five representatives of the US government present (initially three, and two more arrived in the course of the hearing), seated at desks behind the lawyers in court. The prosecution lawyers immediately went into huddle with the US representatives, then went outside the courtroom with them, to decide how to respond on the dates.

After the recess the defence team stated they could not, in their professional opinion, adequately prepare if the hearing date were kept to February, but within Baraitser’s instruction to do so they nevertheless outlined a proposed timetable on delivery of evidence. In responding to this, Lewis’ junior counsel scurried to the back of the court to consult the Americans again while Lewis actually told the judge he was “taking instructions from those behind”.

It is important to note that as he said this, it was not the UK Attorney-General’s office who were being consulted but the US Embassy. Lewis received his American instructions and agreed that the defence might have two months to prepare their evidence (they had said they needed an absolute minimum of three) but the February hearing date may not be moved. Baraitser gave a ruling agreeing everything Lewis had said.

At this stage it was unclear why we were sitting through this farce. The US government was dictating its instructions to Lewis, who was relaying those instructions to Baraitser, who was ruling them as her legal decision. The charade might as well have been cut and the US government simply sat on the bench to control the whole process.

Nobody could sit there and believe they were in any part of a genuine legal process or that Baraitser was giving a moment’s consideration to the arguments of the defence. Her facial expressions on the few occasions she looked at the defence ranged from contempt through boredom to sarcasm. When she looked at Lewis she was attentive, open and warm.

The extradition is plainly being rushed through in accordance with a Washington dictated timetable. Apart from a desire to pre-empt the Spanish court providing evidence on CIA activity in sabotaging the defence, what makes the February date so important to the USA? I would welcome any thoughts.

Baraitser dismissed the defence’s request for a separate prior hearing to consider whether the extradition treaty applied at all, without bothering to give any reason why (possibly she had not properly memorised what Lewis had been instructing her to agree with). Yet this is Article 4 of the UK/US Extradition Treaty 2007 (https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/243246/7146.pdf) in full:

41724

On the face of it, what Assange is accused of is the very definition of a political offence – if this is not, then what is? It is not covered by any of the exceptions from that listed. There is every reason to consider whether this charge is excluded by the extradition treaty, and to do so before the long and very costly process of considering all the evidence should the treaty apply. But Baraitser simply dismissed the argument out of hand.

Just in case anybody was left in any doubt as to what was happening here, Lewis then stood up and suggested that the defence should not be allowed to waste the court’s time with a lot of arguments. All arguments for the substantive hearing should be given in writing in advance and a “guillotine should be applied” (his exact words) to arguments and witnesses in court, perhaps of five hours for the defence. The defence had suggested they would need more than the scheduled five days to present their case. Lewis countered that the entire hearing should be over in two days. Baraitser said this was not procedurally the correct moment to agree this but she will consider it once she had received the evidence bundles.

(SPOILER: Baraitser is going to do as Lewis instructs and cut the substantive hearing short).

Baraitser then capped it all by saying the February hearing will be held, not at the comparatively open and accessible Westminster Magistrates Court where we were, but at Belmarsh Magistrates Court, the grim high security facility used for preliminary legal processing of terrorists, attached to the maximum security prison where Assange is being held. There are only six seats for the public in even the largest court at Belmarsh, and the object is plainly to evade public scrutiny and make sure that Baraitser is not exposed in pulic again again to a genuine account of her proceedings, like this one you are reading. I will probably be unable to get in to the substantive hearing at Belmarsh.

Plainly the authorities were disconcerted by the hundreds of good people who had turned up to support Julian. They hope that far fewer will get to the much less accessible Belmarsh. I am fairly certain (and recall I had a long career as a diplomat) that the two extra American government officials who arrived halfway through proceedings were armed security personnel, brought in because of alarm at the number of protestors around a hearing in which were present senior US officials. The move to Belmarsh may be an American initiative.

Assange’s defence team objected strenuously to the move to Belmarsh, in particular on the grounds that there are no conference rooms available there to consult their client and they have very inadequate access to him in the jail. Baraitser dismissed their objection offhand and with a very definite smirk.

Finally, Baraitser turned to Julian and ordered him to stand, and asked him if he had understood the proceedings. He replied in the negative, said that he could not think, and gave every appearance of disorientation. The he seemed to find an inner strength, drew himself up a little, and said:

"I do not understand how this process is equitable. This superpower had 10 years to prepare for this case and I can’t even access my writings. It is very difficult, where I am, to do anything. These people have unlimited resources."

The effort then seemed to become too much, his voice dropped and he became increasingly confused and incoherent. He spoke of whistleblowers and publishers being labeled enemies of the people, then spoke about his children’s DNA being stolen and of being spied on in his meetings with his psychologist. I am not suggesting at all that Julian was wrong about these points, but he could not properly frame nor articulate them. He was plainly not himself, very ill and it was just horribly painful to watch. Baraitser showed neither sympathy nor the least concern. She tartly observed that if he could not understand what had happened, his lawyers could explain it to him, and she swept out of court.

The whole experience was profoundly upsetting. It was very plain that there was no genuine process of legal consideration happening here. What we had was a naked demonstration of the power of the state, and a naked dictation of proceedings by the Americans. Julian was in a box behind bulletproof glass, and I and the thirty odd other members of the public who had squeezed in were in a different box behind more bulletproof glass. I do not know if he could see me or his other friends in the court, or if he was capable of recognising anybody. He gave no indication that he did.

In Belmarsh he is kept in complete isolation for 23 hours a day. He is permitted 45 minutes exercise. If he has to be moved, they clear the corridors before he walks down them and they lock all cell doors to ensure he has no contact with any other prisoner outside the short and strictly supervised exercise period. There is no possible justification for this inhuman regime, used on major terrorists, being imposed on a publisher who is a remand prisoner.

I have been both cataloguing and protesting for years the increasingly authoritarian powers of the UK state, but that the most gross abuse could be so open and undisguised is still a shock. The campaign of demonisation and dehumanisation against Julian, based on government and media lie after government and media lie, has led to a situation where he can be slowly killed in public sight, and arraigned on a charge of publishing the truth about government wrongdoing, while receiving no assistance from “liberal” society.

Unless Julian is released shortly he will be destroyed. If the state can do this, then who is next?

——————————————

BMJ

22nd October 2019, 10:50

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

Link: 1186292873827889153

Hervé

22nd October 2019, 15:46

Assange in Court (https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2019/10/assange-in-court/)

by craig (https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/author/craigm/)
22 Oct, 2019 (https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2019/10/22/) in Uncategorized (https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/category/uncategorized/)

I was deeply shaken while witnessing yesterday’s events in Westminster Magistrates Court. Every decision was railroaded through over the scarcely heard arguments and objections of Assange’s legal team, by a magistrate who barely pretended to be listening.

Before I get on to the blatant lack of fair process, the first thing I must note was Julian’s condition. I was badly shocked by just how much weight my friend has lost, by the speed his hair has receded and by the appearance of premature and vastly accelerated ageing. He has a pronounced limp I have never seen before. Since his arrest he has lost over 15 kg in weight.

But his physical appearance was not as shocking as his mental deterioration. When asked to give his name and date of birth, he struggled visibly over several seconds to recall both. I will come to the important content of his statement at the end of proceedings in due course, but his difficulty in making it was very evident; it was a real struggle for him to articulate the words and focus his train of thought.

Until yesterday I had always been quietly sceptical of those who claimed that Julian’s treatment amounted to torture – even of Nils Melzer (https://medium.com/@njmelzer/demasking-the-torture-of-julian-assange-b252ffdcb768), the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture – and sceptical of those who suggested he may be subject to debilitating drug treatments. But having attended the trials in Uzbekistan of several victims of extreme torture, and having worked with survivors from Sierra Leone and elsewhere, I can tell you that yesterday changed my mind entirely and Julian exhibited exactly the symptoms of a torture victim brought blinking into the light, particularly in terms of disorientation, confusion, and the real struggle to assert free will through the fog of learned helplessness.

I had been even more sceptical of those who claimed, as a senior member of his legal team did to me on Sunday night, that they were worried that Julian might not live to the end of the extradition process. I now find myself not only believing it, but haunted by the thought. Everybody in that court yesterday saw that one of the greatest journalists and most important dissidents of our times is being tortured to death by the state, before our eyes. To see my friend, the most articulate man, the fastest thinker, I have ever known, reduced to that shambling and incoherent wreck, was unbearable. Yet the agents of the state, particularly the callous magistrate Vanessa Baraitser, were not just prepared but eager to be a part of this bloodsport. She actually told him that if he were incapable of following proceedings, then his lawyers could explain what had happened to him later. The question of why a man who, by the very charges against him, was acknowledged to be highly intelligent and competent, had been reduced by the state to somebody incapable of following court proceedings, gave her not a millisecond of concern.

The charge against Julian is very specific; conspiring with Chelsea Manning to publish the Iraq War logs, the Afghanistan war logs and the State Department cables. The charges are nothing to do with Sweden, nothing to do with sex, and nothing to do with the 2016 US election; a simple clarification the mainstream media appears incapable of understanding.

The purpose of yesterday’s hearing was case management; to determine the timetable for the extradition proceedings. The key points at issue were that Julian’s defence was requesting more time to prepare their evidence; and arguing that political offences were specifically excluded from the extradition treaty. There should, they argued, therefore be a preliminary hearing to determine whether the extradition treaty applied at all.

The reasons given by Assange’s defence team for more time to prepare were both compelling and startling. They had very limited access to their client in jail and had not been permitted to hand him any documents about the case until one week ago. He had also only just been given limited computer access, and all his relevant records and materials had been seized from the Ecuadorean Embassy by the US Government; he had no access to his own materials for the purpose of preparing his defence.

Furthermore, the defence argued, they were in touch with the Spanish courts about a very important and relevant legal case in Madrid (https://elpais.com/elpais/2019/10/09/inenglish/1570606428_107946.html) which would provide vital evidence. It showed that the CIA had been directly ordering spying on Julian in the Embassy through a Spanish company, UC Global, contracted to provide security there. Crucially this included spying on privileged conversations (https://elpais.com/elpais/2019/07/09/inenglish/1562663427_224669.html) between Assange and his lawyers discussing his defence against these extradition proceedings, which had been in train in the USA since 2010. In any normal process, that fact would in itself be sufficient to have the extradition proceedings dismissed. Incidentally I learnt on Sunday that the Spanish material produced in court, which had been commissioned by the CIA, specifically includes high resolution video coverage of Julian and I discussing various matters.

The evidence to the Spanish court also included a CIA plot to kidnap Assange, which went to the US authorities’ attitude to lawfulness in his case and the treatment he might expect in the United States. Julian’s team explained that the Spanish legal process was happening now and the evidence from it would be extremely important, but it might not be finished and thus the evidence not fully validated and available in time for the current proposed timetable for the Assange extradition hearings.

For the prosecution, James Lewis QC stated that the government strongly opposed any delay being given for the defence to prepare, and strongly opposed any separate consideration of the question of whether the charge was a political offence excluded by the extradition treaty. Baraitser took her cue from Lewis and stated categorically that the date for the extradition hearing, 25 February, could not be changed. She was open to changes in dates for submission of evidence and responses before this, and called a ten minute recess for the prosecution and defence to agree these steps.

What happened next was very instructive. There were five representatives of the US government present (initially three, and two more arrived in the course of the hearing), seated at desks behind the lawyers in court. The prosecution lawyers immediately went into huddle with the US representatives, then went outside the courtroom with them, to decide how to respond on the dates.

After the recess the defence team stated they could not, in their professional opinion, adequately prepare if the hearing date were kept to February, but within Baraitser’s instruction to do so they nevertheless outlined a proposed timetable on delivery of evidence. In responding to this, Lewis’ junior counsel scurried to the back of the court to consult the Americans again while Lewis actually told the judge he was “taking instructions from those behind”. It is important to note that as he said this, it was not the UK Attorney-General’s office who were being consulted but the US Embassy. Lewis received his American instructions and agreed that the defence might have two months to prepare their evidence (they had said they needed an absolute minimum of three) but the February hearing date may not be moved. Baraitser gave a ruling agreeing everything Lewis had said.

At this stage it was unclear why we were sitting through this farce. The US government was dictating its instructions to Lewis, who was relaying those instructions to Baraitser, who was ruling them as her legal decision. The charade might as well have been cut and the US government simply sat on the bench to control the whole process. Nobody could sit there and believe they were in any part of a genuine legal process or that Baraitser was giving a moment’s consideration to the arguments of the defence. Her facial expressions on the few occasions she looked at the defence ranged from contempt through boredom to sarcasm. When she looked at Lewis she was attentive, open and warm.

The extradition is plainly being rushed through in accordance with a Washington dictated timetable. Apart from a desire to pre-empt the Spanish court providing evidence on CIA activity in sabotaging the defence, what makes the February date so important to the USA? I would welcome any thoughts.

Baraitser dismissed the defence’s request for a separate prior hearing to consider whether the extradition treaty applied at all, without bothering to give any reason why (possibly she had not properly memorised what Lewis had been instructing her to agree with). Yet this is Article 4 of the UK/US Extradition Treaty 2007 (https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/243246/7146.pdf) in full:

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/wp/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Screenshot-942.png

On the face of it, what Assange is accused of is the very definition of a political offence – if this is not, then what is? It is not covered by any of the exceptions from that listed. There is every reason to consider whether this charge is excluded by the extradition treaty, and to do so before the long and very costly process of considering all the evidence should the treaty apply. But Baraitser simply dismissed the argument out of hand.

Just in case anybody was left in any doubt as to what was happening here, Lewis then stood up and suggested that the defence should not be allowed to waste the court’s time with a lot of arguments. All arguments for the substantive hearing should be given in writing in advance and a “guillotine should be applied” (his exact words) to arguments and witnesses in court, perhaps of five hours for the defence. The defence had suggested they would need more than the scheduled five days to present their case. Lewis countered that the entire hearing should be over in two days. Baraitser said this was not procedurally the correct moment to agree this but she will consider it once she had received the evidence bundles.

(SPOILER: Baraitser is going to do as Lewis instructs and cut the substantive hearing short).

Baraitser then capped it all by saying the February hearing will be held, not at the comparatively open and accessible Westminster Magistrates Court where we were, but at Belmarsh Magistrates Court, the grim high security facility used for preliminary legal processing of terrorists, attached to the maximum security prison where Assange is being held. There are only six seats for the public in even the largest court at Belmarsh, and the object is plainly to evade public scrutiny and make sure that Baraitser is not exposed in public again to a genuine account of her proceedings, like this one you are reading. I will probably be unable to get in to the substantive hearing at Belmarsh.

Plainly the authorities were disconcerted by the hundreds of good people who had turned up to support Julian. They hope that far fewer will get to the much less accessible Belmarsh. I am fairly certain (and recall I had a long career as a diplomat) that the two extra American government officials who arrived halfway through proceedings were armed security personnel, brought in because of alarm at the number of protestors around a hearing in which were present senior US officials. The move to Belmarsh may be an American initiative.

Assange’s defence team objected strenuously to the move to Belmarsh, in particular on the grounds that there are no conference rooms available there to consult their client and they have very inadequate access to him in the jail. Baraitser dismissed their objection offhand and with a very definite smirk.

Finally, Baraitser turned to Julian and ordered him to stand, and asked him if he had understood the proceedings. He replied in the negative, said that he could not think, and gave every appearance of disorientation. Then he seemed to find an inner strength, drew himself up a little, and said:
I do not understand how this process is equitable. This superpower had 10 years to prepare for this case and I can’t even access my writings. It is very difficult, where I am, to do anything. These people have unlimited resources.
The effort then seemed to become too much, his voice dropped and he became increasingly confused and incoherent. He spoke of whistleblowers and publishers being labeled enemies of the people, then spoke about his children’s DNA being stolen and of being spied on in his meetings with his psychologist. I am not suggesting at all that Julian was wrong about these points, but he could not properly frame nor articulate them. He was plainly not himself, very ill and it was just horribly painful to watch. Baraitser showed neither sympathy nor the least concern. She tartly observed that if he could not understand what had happened, his lawyers could explain it to him, and she swept out of court.

The whole experience was profoundly upsetting. It was very plain that there was no genuine process of legal consideration happening here. What we had was a naked demonstration of the power of the state, and a naked dictation of proceedings by the Americans. Julian was in a box behind bulletproof glass, and I and the thirty odd other members of the public who had squeezed in were in a different box behind more bulletproof glass. I do not know if he could see me or his other friends in the court, or if he was capable of recognising anybody. He gave no indication that he did.

In Belmarsh he is kept in complete isolation for 23 hours a day. He is permitted 45 minutes exercise. If he has to be moved, they clear the corridors before he walks down them and they lock all cell doors to ensure he has no contact with any other prisoner outside the short and strictly supervised exercise period. There is no possible justification for this inhuman regime, used on major terrorists, being imposed on a publisher who is a remand prisoner.

I have been both cataloguing and protesting for years the increasingly authoritarian powers of the UK state, but that the most gross abuse could be so open and undisguised is still a shock. The campaign of demonisation and dehumanisation against Julian, based on government and media lie after government and media lie, has led to a situation where he can be slowly killed in public sight, and arraigned on a charge of publishing the truth about government wrongdoing, while receiving no assistance from “liberal” society.

Unless Julian is released shortly he will be destroyed. If the state can do this, then who is next?

——————————————

onawah

22nd October 2019, 18:49

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

RonPaulLibertyReport
"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."
EkC-s_qjghc

Franny

22nd October 2019, 19:17

Julian Assange's treatment in court and prison is clearly illegal and wrong and is vile and depraved. It's about as low as the two countries' judicial systems can fall, though I expect I'll be proved wrong.

Pompeo and Trump, at best, want Assange extradited for further ill treatment; Qanon may want to clear their minds and catch up to reality.

41726

41727

41728

Franny

22nd October 2019, 21:32

I do hope they are successful.

EDITORIAL: Don’t Railroad Julian Assange to Virginia
October 22, 2019

The WikiLeaks legal team have a strong case to have Assange’s extradition request thrown out after the government that wants him extradited got hold of surveillance video of his privileged attorney-client conversations.

If this were a normal legal case, WikiLeaks’ lawyers would almost certainly be able to get the extradition request by the United States for their client Julian Assange thrown out on the grounds that his privileged conversations with his lawyers at Ecuador’s London embassy were secretly videotaped, and that the very nation that wants him extradited to stand trial in Virginia has obtained access (https://elpais.com/elpais/2019/10/04/inenglish/1570197052_180631.html) to those videos. In a normal extradition case it would be hard to imagine Britain sending a suspect to a country whose government has already eavesdropped on that suspect’s defense preparations.

But this is not a normal legal case.

“The Case should be thrown out immediately. Not only is it illegal on the face of the treaty, the U.S. has conducted illegal operations against Assange and his lawyers which are the subject of a major investigation in Spain,” WikiLeaks Editor-In-Chief Kristinn Hrafnsson said on Monday as the imprisoned Assange appeared before a judge (https://consortiumnews.com/2019/10/21/judge-denies-assange-extension-on-extradition-hearing/) in magistrate’s court in London. “I don’t understand how this is equitable,” Assange told the court. “This superpower had 10 years to prepare for this case and I can’t access my writings. It’s very difficult where I am to do anything but these people have unlimited resources…They are saying journalists and whistleblowers are enemies of the people. They have unfair advantages dealing with documents. They [know] the interior of my life with my psychologist” as the CIA presumably obtained videos of those conversations as well. Assange was then packed off in a van back to his dreary cell at Belmarsh prison.

This is a travesty of justice on many levels. The existence of Section E of the 1917 Espionage Act, which technically incriminates the unauthorized possession and dissemination of U.S. classified material by anyone, anywhere in the world, effectively criminalizes investigative journalism and is a travesty that must be challenged on First Amendment grounds. And now a defendant’s rights to a fair trial here in Virginia have been seriously undermined, indeed practically nullified, after his conversations with his attorneys came into the possession of the government that wants to prosecute him.

But this is not about justice. This is about revenge. No case better illustrates just how corruptly powerful the U.S. and British intelligence services and militaries have become, as well as the justice system of both nations that defend those corrupt interests. No case better illustrates how those powerful interests are being protected by the legal system in punishing the man who did most to expose their crimes to a public made apathetic by an Establishment media that has distracted them, while protecting the powerful and presenting Assange as an enemy of the people. No case better illustrates how the U.S. and Britain, together carrying out illegal mass surveillance and unending war, are clinging to a mere pretense of democracy. That pretense is being imperiled by the adjudication of this case.

If both governments care in the very least about maintaining an appearance of following the rule of law, it has this opportunity: Let Julian Assange go.

onawah

24th October 2019, 06:25

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."

PQEri7m1ZaM

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

"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! "
34Q62f3bqy0

Tintin

24th October 2019, 13:12

NEW from WikiLeaks October 23rd, 2019

One of the panel members was Dr José Bustani, the first Director-General of the OPCW, who concluded that: “The convincing evidence of irregular behaviour in the OPCW investigation of the alleged Douma chemical attack confirms doubts and suspicions I already had. I could make no sense of what I was reading in the international press. Even official reports of investigations seemed incoherent at best. The picture is certainly clearer now, although very disturbing”

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

OPCW Whistleblower Panel on the Douma attack of April 2018 - link to Wikileaks, here: https://wikileaks.org/opcw-douma/#OPCW%20Whistleblower%20Panel%20on%20the%20Douma%20attack%20of%20April%202018
23 October, 2019

Today WikiLeaks publishes a statement made by a panel that listened to testimony and reviewed evidence from a whistleblower from the OPCW (Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons) last week. To accompany this statement, Wikileaks is also publishing a previously leaked engineering assessment of the alleged chemical attack in Douma, Syria on April 7th last year. This assessment was omitted in the final report by the OPCW, which does not support its findings.

WikiLeaks editor Kristinn Hrafnsson took part in the panel to review the testimony and documents from the OPCW whistleblower. He says: “The panel was presented with evidence that casts doubt on the integrity of the OPCW. Although the whistleblower was not ready to step forward and/or present documents to the public, WikiLeaks believes it is now of utmost interest for the public to see everything that was collected by the Fact Finding Mission on Douma and all scientific reports written in relation to the investigation.

We call out to people within the OPCW to leak these documents securely to us via wikileaks.org/#submit One of the panel members was Dr José Bustani, the first Director-General of the OPCW, who concluded that: “The convincing evidence of irregular behaviour in the OPCW investigation of the alleged Douma chemical attack confirms doubts and suspicions I already had. I could make no sense of what I was reading in the international press. Even official reports of investigations seemed incoherent at best. The picture is certainly clearer now, although very disturbing”

In support of the OPCW’s original objectives, the panel called upon the organisation to re-establish its credibility and legitimacy by allowing ‘all inspectors who took part in the Douma investigation to come forward and report their differing observations in an appropriate forum of the States Parties to the Chemical Weapons Convention’

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

Documents available here:
OPCW-Analytical-Points-final - https://wikileaks.org/opcw-douma/document/OPCW-Analytical-Points-final/OPCW-Analytical-Points-final.pdf
OPCW-Statement-final - https://wikileaks.org/opcw-douma/document/OPCW-Statement-final/OPCW-Statement-final.pdf
20190227-Engineering-assessment-of-two-cylinders-observed-at-the-Douma-incident - https://wikileaks.org/opcw-douma/document/20190227-Engineering-assessment-of-two-cylinders-observed-at-the-Douma-incident/20190227-Engineering-assessment-of-two-cylinders-observed-at-the-Douma-incident.pdf

Franny

26th October 2019, 03:24

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 (https://consortiumnews.com/tag/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 (http://johnpilger.com/)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 (https://consortiumnews.com/tag/john-pilger/).

Kryztian

26th October 2019, 04:18

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-rick-sanchez/471784-news-with-rick-sanchez-october/

Bill Ryan

27th October 2019, 22:56

onawah

10th November 2019, 05:51

Julian Assange's father speaks in front of the Home Office in London.
11/9/19
TheWikiLeaksChannel

"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."
chY35HPmtMM

Franny

13th November 2019, 07:23

1192296788889415686

From: The Conservative Treehouse (https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/11/06/curiouser-and-curiouser/#more-175483)

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:

[…] 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 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/justice-dept-trying-to-finish-report-on-russia-probe-before-thanksgiving/2019/11/05/b28e5b78-0018-11ea-8bab-0fc209e065a8_story.html))

Then, moments ago, this little innocuous sighting (https://twitter.com/mkraju/status/1192137226198618112) popped up amid the DC media:

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:

“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 (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry-latest-russia-mueller-ukraine-zelensky-a9181641.html))

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 (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry-latest-russia-mueller-ukraine-zelensky-a9181641.html) 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 (https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/10/01/confirmation-bill-barr-and-john-durham-listened-to-mifsud-audio-tape-deposition-in-italy/)}

In a similar fashion the CIA tasked U.S. intelligence asset Stefan Halper (https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/04/09/heads-up-new-york-times-advanced-narrative-move-ig-office-investigating-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 (https://t.co/yPFwyA3i10).

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 evidenc (https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/05/19/trey-gowdy-says-he-has-seen-exculpatory-transcripts-of-fbi-spies-engaged-with-papadopoulos/)e 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 Strzo (https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/03/28/heres-why-devin-nunes-could-submit-a-criminal-referral-for-cia-director-john-brennan/)k 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 (https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/10/22/durham-looking-at-brennan-a-reminder-of-the-crown-material-conflict/) 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 (https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2018/08/30/dots-connecting-quickly-bruce-ohr-worked-with-andrew-weissmann-while-nellie-ohr-worked-for-fusion-gps-in-2015/); at appropriately the same time as “FBI Contractors (https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/04/25/president-obamas-2016-political-surveillance-coverup-had-two-parallel-tracks/)” 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 (https://www.thedailybeast.com/russian-official-linked-to-natalia-veselnitskaya-the-trump-tower-lawyer-is-dead) 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 (https://www.thedailybeast.com/russian-official-linked-to-natalia-veselnitskaya-the-trump-tower-lawyer-is-dead) 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 (https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/10/25/fisa-virus-maria-butina-released-from-federal-prison-for-immediate-deportation/) 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 (https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/10/25/fisa-virus-maria-butina-released-from-federal-prison-for-immediate-deportation/)}

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 (https://twitter.com/The_War_Economy/status/999075039369744384)]

Recap:
♦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 (https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2018/05/15/ramifications-of-oleg-deripaska-and-contact-by-fbi-in-september-2016/) to participate in running an operation against the Trump campaign and create the impression of Russian involvement. Deripaska refused to participate (https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2018/08/16/giddy-up-president-trump-tweets-olegs-story-yes-the-russians-were-involved-in-the-2016-election/).

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 (https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/10/19/reminder-john-durham-questioning-cia-officials-about-intelligence-community-assessment-2/) 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 (https://www.scribd.com/document/405930233/Julian-Assange-Indictment) was unsealed in the EDVA. From the indictment we discover it was under seal since March 6th, 2018:

(Link to pdf (https://theconservativetreehouse.files.wordpress.com/2019/04/assange-indictment.jpg))

On Tuesday April 15th more investigative (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5911143-Julian-Assange-Affidavit-December-2017.html) material was released. Again, note the dates: Grand Jury, *December of 2017* This means FBI investigation prior to….

https://theconservativetreehouse.files.wordpress.com/2019/04/fbi-investigation-assange.jpg

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.

https://theconservativetreehouse.files.wordpress.com/2019/04/assange-indictment-2.jpg

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.”

(August 2017, The Hill Via John Solomon (https://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/346904-assange-meets-us-congressman-vows-to-prove-russia-did-not-leak-him)) 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 (https://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/346904-assange-meets-us-congressman-vows-to-prove-russia-did-not-leak-him)).

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 (https://www.scribd.com/document/335307016/FBI-Russian-Hacking-Report) (JAR) needed for Obama’s anti-Russia narrative in December ’16; and then a month later the ridiculously political Intelligence Community Assessment (https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf) (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 (https://www.scribd.com/document/406725805/Mueller-Report#from_embed) 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?

41823

Franny

18th November 2019, 02:34

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 (https://www.smh.com.au/link/follow-20170101-p53080) 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 (https://www.smh.com.au/link/follow-20170101-gdpe28), 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

41848

Tintin

18th November 2019, 16:13

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 (https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2019/11/world-exclusive-post-testimony-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_Assange_and_Wikileaks/MURRAY,%20Craig%20(Former%20UK%20ambassador)/Craig_Murray_Post_Testimony_Interview%20with%20Randy%20Credico_Nov_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 (https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2019/11/the-roger-stone-wikileaks-russia-hoax/) |

As ever, the Guardian wins the prize for the most tendentious reporting (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/nov/15/roger-stone-guilty-verdict-wikileaks-hacking-case-latest-news) 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 (https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2019/08/in-the-world-of-truth-and-fact-russiagate-is-dead-in-the-world-of-the-political-establishment-it-is-still-the-new-42/) 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.

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

Transcript

[1:30]
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.

[Continued... (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?106596-Julian-Assange-arrested-after-Ecuador-tears-up-asylum-deal&p=1324053&viewfull=1#post1324053)]

Tintin

18th November 2019, 16:21

[.....Continued....]

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]

——————————————

Cara

19th November 2019, 05:36

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

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

https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/wp-content/uploads/Declassified-alexander-MAIN-GCHQ-BUILDING-1600x800.jpg
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 (https://www.uktech.news/news/darktrace-valued-1-65bn-following-additional-50m-raise-20180927) 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 (https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/judicial-conduct-v2018-final-2.pdf) 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 (https://uk.linkedin.com/in/alexander-arbuthnot) and is likely to be managing the firm’s Darktrace account. Vitruvian, which has a portfolio of over £4-billion (https://uk.linkedin.com/in/alexander-arbuthnot), made its first investment in Darktrace in April 2018 (https://www.vitruvianpartners.com/investment/darktrace/), leading a consortium of firms committing £50-million.

“Alexander Arbuthnot advises Vitruvian on cyber-security” was the headline (https://www.intelligenceonline.com/corporate-intelligence/2019/05/08/alexander-arbuthnot-advises-vitruvian-on-cyber-security,108356194-art) 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 (https://www.vitruvianpartners.com/investment/) cyber-security companies in Vitruvian’s portfolio.

Relations were further cemented (https://uk.linkedin.com/in/sophie-bower-straziota-49b5b820) in 2018 when Alexander Arbuthnot’s colleague Sophie Bower-Straziota, then managing director at Vitruvian, was appointed to the board of Darktrace.

https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/wp-content/uploads/Declassified-alexander-inset-01-DARKTRACE-LOGO.jpg

Darktrace and UK intelligence

Darktrace, which Alexander Arbuthnot describes (https://uk.linkedin.com/in/alexander-arbuthnot) 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 (https://techcrunch.com/2016/12/05/darktrace-2/) investor Mike Lynch—regarded as Britain’s most established (https://www.darktrace.com/en/advisory-board/) technology entrepreneur – who then brokered a meeting between GCHQ officers and Cambridge mathematicians who co-founded the company.

Company material openly mentions (https://www.darktrace.com/en/press/2014/27/) “the UK intelligence officials who founded Darktrace”. It states (https://www.darktrace.com/en/press/2015/34/) 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 (https://www.ft.com/content/f80a931e-39d7-11e8-8eee-e06bde01c544) was Stephen Huxter, a senior figure (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/gchq-defence-chief-to-head-cyber-security-start-up-darktrace-9098180.html) in MI5’s “cyber defence team” who became Darktrace’s managing director. Soon after the company launched in September 2013, Darktrace announced (https://www.darktrace.com/en/press/2013/2/) that former MI5 director-general Sir Jonathan Evans had been appointed to its advisory board. Huxter welcomed (https://www.darktrace.com/en/press/2013/2/) Evans’ “unparalleled stature in the field of cyber operations”.

Huxter then hired (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/gchq-defence-chief-to-head-cyber-security-start-up-darktrace-9098180.html) 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 (https://www.darktrace.com/en/press/2014/8/) of cyber defence operations at GCHQ, where he was charged with (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/gchq-defence-chief-to-head-cyber-security-start-up-darktrace-9098180.html) “protecting government data” from cyber threats.

France is also linked to Alexander Arbuthnot’s father, Lord Arbuthnot, who was until November 2018 a member (https://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/standards-and-interests/register-of-lords-interests/) 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 (https://www.irmsecurity.com/cyber-executive-briefing/)”.

Darktrace later appointed Dave Palmer, who had worked (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2018/09/26/cybersecurity-start-up-darktrace-raises-50-million/) at MI5 and GCHQ, as its director of technology, while John Richardson OBE, director of security, had a long career (https://www.darktrace.com/en/subject-matter-experts/) in “UK government security and intelligence” working on “cyber defence”.

Darktrace staff has also included (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-43879931) ex-MI6 officials, former senior managers (https://uk.linkedin.com/in/david-masson-446988116) at the UK Ministry of Defence, and veterans (https://uk.linkedin.com/in/david-atkinson-50028b156) of the UK military, including the special forces (https://people.equilar.com/bio/craig-sutherland-darktrace/23655393).

“We are a mixture of spooks and geeks,” says Nicole Eagan, the chief executive of Darktrace, which now has a thousand (https://www.linkedin.com/in/marcus-fowler) employees and 40 offices worldwide. Poppy Gustafsson, another co-founder, has said (https://techcrunch.com/2016/12/05/darktrace-2/) 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.

https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/wp-content/uploads/Declassified-alexander-inset-02-CHELSEA-MANNING.jpg
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 (https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/08562035) just four days after the first of the Snowden revelations was published (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/06/nsa-phone-records-verizon-court-order) by The Guardian in June 2013. These showed GCHQ to be operating programmes (https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jun/21/gchq-cables-secret-world-communications-nsa) of mass surveillance.

As Channel 4 News put it (https://www.channel4.com/news/nsa-spying-pattern-of-life-data-analysis-intelligence) 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 (https://www.wired.co.uk/article/darktrace-insider-threats-hackers-security) 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 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-48304792) 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 (https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1153486/download) 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 (https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/assange-ruling-2-feb2018.pdf) 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 (https://wikileaks.org/ciav7p1/) thousands of CIA files in its “Vault 7” exposures in March 2017. The files – the largest leak in CIA history – showed (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/07/WikiLeaks-claims-mi5-cia-developed-spyware-turn-samsung-tvs/) 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 (https://www.darktrace.com/en/press/2015/33/). It adds (https://www.darktrace.com/en/technology/), the “insider threat must be curbed to prevent unwitting vulnerabilities or data leaks”.

Darktrace’s flagship product, called the “enterprise immune system”, is described (https://www.darktrace.com/en/products/enterprise/) 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 (https://www.darktrace.com/en/press/2013/1/) 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 (https://www.darktrace.com/en/industries/), “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 (https://www.darktrace.com/en/industries/#government) to deal with this problem.

https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/wp-content/uploads/Declassified-alexander-inset-03-CAMERON_OBAMA.jpg
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 (https://www.darktrace.com/en/press/2015/34/) 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 (https://www.darktrace.com/en/press/2015/34/) 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 (https://www.darktrace.com/en/press/2015/51/) Cameron on another visit, this time to Asia in July 2015. Cameron said (https://www.marketwatch.com/press-release/darktrace-joins-prime-minister-david-cameron-on-official-trade-mission-to-asia-2015-07-27) Darktrace was “flying the flag” for the UK. She also accompanied (https://www.darktrace.com/en/press/2017/188/) Cameron’s successor, Theresa May on a trip to Japan in August 2017. Two of Darktrace’s founders were awarded (https://www.darktrace.com/en/press/2019/289/) 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 (https://uk.linkedin.com/in/alexander-arbuthnot) at Symantec, a US company producing cyber-security and anti-data leak products which has contracts (https://www.symantec.com/solutions/federal-gov) 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 (https://collateralmurder.wikileaks.org/) and Afghanistan (https://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/jun/16/wikileaks-us-military-afghanistan-garani), Symantec released a report (https://www.symantec.com/content/en/us/enterprise/white_papers/b-avoiding-a-repeat-of-wikileaks_WP_21141461.en-us.pdf) 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 (https://uk.linkedin.com/in/alexander-arbuthnot) working for Symantec four months after WikiLeaks started leaking (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_diplomatic_cables_leak) the US State Department cables it had been given by Chelsea Manning.

Arbuthnot appears to have worked exclusively (https://uk.linkedin.com/in/alexander-arbuthnot) 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 (http://cdn2.hubspot.net/hubfs/407136/PDFs/Symantec/insider-threat-WP4-1.pdf) 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.”

https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/wp-content/uploads/Declassified-alexander-inset-04-ASSANGE-FRONTLINE.jpg
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 (https://uk.linkedin.com/in/alexander-arbuthnot). Rightly states that it aims to solve (https://www.rightly.co.uk/forbusinesses/) 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 (https://uk.linkedin.com/in/alexander-arbuthnot), “We aim to change the world of personal information.”

Darktrace, CIA and NSA

Darktrace has particularly focused (https://www.darktrace.com/en/press/2014/27/) 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 (https://www.darktrace.com/en/press/2013/3/) 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 (https://twitter.com/AlecJRoss/status/531089574651387904) of Julian Assange.

The conference was organised by the Cheltenham cyber-security consultancy IRM, on whose advisory board (https://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/standards-and-interests/register-of-lords-interests/) 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 (https://www.darktrace.com/en/press/2014/27/) 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 (https://www.darktrace.com/en/press/2014/27/) 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 (https://www.darktrace.com/en/press/2014/27/) with US Cyber Command to develop strategic planning for responding to cyber-attacks.

https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/wp-content/uploads/Declassified-alexander-inset-05-TRUMPCIA.jpg
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 (https://www.darktrace.com/en/press/2015/34/) its first US office in Washington DC.

The following year, Darktrace was part of a “select group” (https://www.darktrace.com/en/press/2016/94/) chosen by the US government for a trade mission to Tokyo, Seoul and Taipei. In the same month, Darktrace announced another coup (https://www.darktrace.com/en/press/2016/93/): 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 (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Herndon,+VA,+USA/George+Bush+Center+for+Intelligence,+McLean,+VA+22101,+USA/@38.9549624,-77.151051,15.13z/am=t/data=!4m18!4m17!1m5!1m1!1s0x89b638060f5da643:0x928022b51c6c357d!2m2!1d-77.3860976!2d38.9695545!1m5!1m1!1s0x89b7ca62e48be4f3:0x6a184fd9de99b4b6!2m2!1d-77.1470783!2d38.9508153!3e0!6m3!1i0!2i2!3i1) drive from CIA headquarters.

Another recruit to Darktrace was Justin Fier, its director for cyber intelligence and analytics, who came to the company after (https://www.wired.co.uk/article/darktrace-insider-threats-hackers-security) “working for US intelligence agencies on counterterrorism”. From 2002-2008 Fier worked (https://www.linkedin.com/in/justin-fier-b86a5a9) for arms manufacturer Lockheed Martin, also in Herndon, Virginia.

Earlier this year, Darktrace recruited (https://www.darktrace.com/en/subject-matter-experts/) 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 (https://www.linkedin.com/in/marcus-fowler/).

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” (https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/oct/20/cia-working-take-down-wikileaks-threat-agency-chie/) the WikiLeaks organisation. It was recently revealed (https://elpais.com/elpais/2019/09/25/inenglish/1569384196_652151.html) 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/article/2019-11-15-conflicts-of-interest-judge-in-julian-assange-case-fails-to-declare-sons-links-to-uk-and-us-intelligence/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

~~~

The phrase “nest of vipers” springs to mind.

Tintin

19th November 2019, 13:08

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.

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

jmg
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
https://wikileaks.org/Julian-Assange-Case-Hearing.html

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

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 -

https://web.archive.org/web/20191022132052/https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2019/10/21/world/europe/ap-eu-britain-assange.html

Bill Ryan

19th November 2019, 16:19

Well, here's some good news. Surely.

Reported by the BBC an hour ago:

https://bbc.com/news/world-europe-50473792

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.

Profile: Julian Assange (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-11047811)
Timeline of saga (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11949341)

The Swedish investigation had been shelved in 2017 but was re-opened earlier this year following his eviction from the embassy (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-48253343).

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 (https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/wikileaks-founder-charged-computer-hacking-conspiracy).

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.

How likely is an Assange conviction in US? (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-47874728)

In June, the then UK Home Secretary, Sajid Javid, formally approved an extradition request from the US.

Arcturian108

19th November 2019, 19:15

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:
https://www.seraphimblueprint.org/SeraphsSymbols-Quotes/

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

Franny

19th November 2019, 20:13

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

Thanks for the address!

Sophocles

24th November 2019, 21:36

WikiLeaks UPDATE: 23 November, 2019

Internal OPCW E-Mail (link (https://wikileaks.org/opcw-douma/document/Internal-OPCW-E-Mail/))

OPCW management accused of doctoring Syrian chemical weapons report (https://wikileaks.org/opcw-douma/releases/#OPCW%20Whistleblower%20Panel%20on%20the%20Douma%20attack%20of%20April%202018)

Wikileaks today publishes an e-mail, sent by a member of an OPCW fact-finding mission to Syria to his superiors, in which he expresses his gravest concern over intentional bias introduced to a redacted version of the report he co-authored.

The Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons sent a team of experts to investigate allegations that a chemical attack took place in the Syrian city of Douma on the 7th of April 2018. The author of the e-mail was a member of that team and claims the redacted preliminary version of the report, misrepresents the facts he and his colleagues discovered on the ground. The e-mail is dated 22nd of June. It is addressed to Robert Fairweather, Chief of Cabinet, and forwarded to his deputy Aamir Shouket and members of the fact-finding mission to Douma.

He says this misrepresentation was achieved by selective omission, introducing a bias which undermines the credibility of the report. Further it is claimed that crucial facts, that have remained in the redacted version:

“...have morphed into something quite different to what was originally drafted.”

This is said to have been done at the behest of the Office of the Director General (a post that was held by Turkish diplomat Ahmet Üzümcü at the time, he has since been replaced by Spaniard Fernando Arias).

The attack in question was widely attributed to the Syrian Army, based on reports by rebel forces that were present in Douma at the time, and this assertion was backed up by the United States, British and French governments.

These three countries carried out air strikes against Syrian government targets in response, on the 14th of April 2018. This was before the fact-finding team had gained access to the site in Douma, the mission there was delayed for nearly two weeks by entrenched rebel fighters and subsequent clashes between the rebels and government forces that moved into the area.

Upon arrival the team found much of the physical evidence, including the bodies of the deceased, was no longer available. It was alleged that 49 had died and up to 650 had been seriously affected by a weaponized chemical gas released in a specific area of rebel-held Douma on that day in April. Rebels claimed the gas came from cylinders dropped from aircraft, clearly implicating Syrian government forces who had complete air superiority.

The redacted report seemed to support these conclusions but the author of the released e-mail outlines some specific aspects of it which he considers: “particularly worrisome.”

Firstly, there is a statement in the redacted report. It states that there is sufficient evidence to determine the presence of “chlorine, or another reactive chlorine-containing chemical.”

The e-mail points out that this was:

“likely one or more chemicals that contain a reactive chlorine atom. Such chemicals could include… the major ingredient of household chlorine-based bleach. Purposely singling out chlorine gas as one of the possibilities is disingenuous.”

The redacted report also removed context from a claim in the original draft, which concerned the likelihood of the gas having emanated from cylinders found at the scene in Douma. The original text is said to have purposely emphasised that there was insufficient evidence to affirm this being the case. This is “a major deviation from the original report” according to the author.

He also cites problems with paragraph in the redacted version, which states:

”based on the high levels of various chlorinated organic derivatives detected in environmental samples”.

This is said to overstate the case. According to the e-mail:

“They were, in most cases, present only in parts per billion range, as low as 1-2 ppb, which is essentially trace quantities.”

One piece of evidence, which was shown on news networks across the world, was a video said to show victims being treated in a hospital in the aftermath of the attack in Douma. The symptoms shown were, however, not consistent with what witnesses reported seeing that day. A detailed discussion of this was apparently omitted from the redacted version of the OPCW report.

The e-mail states:

“Omitting this section of the report (including the Epidemiology which has been removed in its entirety) has a serious negative impact on the report as this section is inextricably linked to the chemical agent identified… In this case, the confidence in the identity of chlorine or any other choking agent is drawn into question precisely because of the inconsistency with the reported and observed symptoms. The inconsistency was not only noted by the fact-finding mission team, but strongly supported by three toxicologists with expertise in exposure to chemical warfare agents.”

Yet another point of contention is the placement and condition of the cylinders reported to have contained the chemical agent. It has been alleged that their condition may not be consistent with having been dropped from the air, compared to damaged in the immediate surrounding area. This was discussed in an unreleased engineering report from OPCW that was leaked and Wikileaks published in October 2019 and indicates it is unlikely the cylinders were air-dropped (see previous release: OPCW Whistleblower Panel on the Douma attack of April 2018)

Sections discussing this are largely absent from the redacted report. “This information was important in assessing the likelihood of the ‘presence’ of toxic chemicals versus the ‘use’ of toxic chemicals,” states the e-mail.

The author ends his letter with an appeal to the management to allow him to attach his differing observations to the document.

The annual conference of the states parties of the OPCW that is composed of representatives of all member states of the convention starts Monday November 25th in The Hague.

Media partnership and coordination: La Repubblica (Italy), Stundin (Iceland), Der Spiegel (Germany), Mail on Sunday (U.K.)

Source (https://wikileaks.org/opcw-douma/releases/#OPCW%20Whistleblower%20Panel%20on%20the%20Douma%20attack%20of%20April%202018)

Cara

27th November 2019, 07:03

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?

1199579779130781697

Mikhail Molchanov ☭
‏@MA_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.

Sputnik
Verified account@SputnikInt
OPINION: ‘Symbol of dystopian times’: #Assange’s treatment in Belmarsh and media sets dangerous precedent
https://sputniknews.com/analysis/201911271077412328-symbol-of-dystopian-times-assanges-treatment-in-belmarsh-and-media-sets-dangerous-precedent/?utm_source=https://t.co/KeZPHijVF5&utm_medium=short_url&utm_content=A5m7&utm_campaign=URL_shortening
@wikileaks #JulianAssange

Cara

28th November 2019, 13:37

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):

1199807358420996096

BMJ

1st December 2019, 14:42

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
-ERT64c6T9g
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.

Tintin

4th December 2019, 15:43

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

From Craig Murray's blog (https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2019/12/violence-and-the-state/) 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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DH0s8hGLS6A

Craig Murray

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bih4nOkQeCg

onawah

11th December 2019, 21:19

RT-UN Torture Rapporteur "Julian Assange’s Detention Has No Legal Basis"
Nov 30, 2019

Going Underground on RT

"On this episode of Going Underground, we speak to the UN Rapporteur on Torture Nils Melzer on the ongoing detention of Julian Assange. He says Julian’s detention has no legal basis, explains why the UK’s treatment of Julian is tantamount to torture, why Julian won’t face a fair trial in the US if he is extradited and more! Next we speak to former Ecuadorean Foreign Minister under Rafael Correa, Guillaume Long. He discusses the letter signed by 60 doctors raising the alarm that Julian Assange could die if his current treatment continues, the right wing coup that overthrew elected Bolivian President Evo Morales, the battle the left is facing in Latin America with US-backed right wing governments and more!"

V8RU5MJb1m8

Tintin

20th December 2019, 01:18

It's getting late here and like many of us here on the forum I have been very concerned with how our Hervé may be getting along; fingers crossed, very tightly, he'll be okay :heart: That does seem to be really very much more important than anything else right now. :flower:

However, I did want to also try and update any of you who may be interested in Julian's plight as another story of critical import, lest we may have forgotten, and this is the best and most up to date news I can glean so far. (Minor sub edits from the original re syntactic and typographic anomalies.)

The hearing was today.

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

Source: Defend Wikileaks (https://defend.wikileaks.org/2019/12/19/assanges-defense-outlines-extradition-arguments/)

Assange’s Defense Outlines Extradition Arguments

A case management hearing was held this morning in London for imprisoned WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, who appeared via video link from Belmarsh prison. District Judge Vanessa Baraitser confirmed that Assange’s full extradition hearing will begin on 24 February 2020, but it will now take place over three or four weeks rather than the initially scheduled five days.

Assange’s defense team outlined (https://af.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idAFKBN1YN1G5) the main arguments it will make and witnesses it will call at the full hearing in February. Lawyers announced they will argue that the US-UK Extradition Treaty should not allow Assange’s extradition because it includes an exemption for political offenses.

“We say that there is in the treaty a ban on being extradited for a political offence and these offences as framed and in substance are political offences,” Assange’s lawyer Edward Fitzgerald told the court.

The defense will also include evidence of prejudicial statements from US government officials against Assange, along with information resulting from Chelsea Manning’s US court martial.

Barry Pollack, representing Assange in the United States, said,

“Mr. Assange’s legal team today previewed the powerful reasons he should not be extradited to the United States to face prosecution under the Espionage Act for publishing truthful, newsworthy information that exposed wrongdoing by the United States government.”

Assange’s legal team will present medical evidence as well. Assange’s deteriorating health conditions, particularly since entering solitary confinement on the health ward at Belmarsh, have been of ongoing concern. Following a medical visit in May, UN Special Rapporteur on Torture Nils Melzer wrote that Assange was suffering from psychological torture (https://defend.wikileaks.org/2019/05/31/un-torture-expert-collective-persecution-of-julian-assange-must-end-now/). Last month, more than 60 doctors signed an open letter calling on Belmarsh to release Assange to [so he could] receive proper medical care immediately, warning he could die in prison without adequate treatment.

Finally, Assange’s defense will include evidence from the Spanish investigation into the surveillance of UC Global, a private security company which spied on Assange’s legal, medical, and personal visits in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London and [who] sent recorded material to the CIA.

UC Global director David Morales has been arrested (https://elpais.com/elpais/2019/10/09/inenglish/1570606428_107946.html) in Spain in connection with the illegal surveillance, an astonishing intrusion of Assange’s privacy. Assange is due to testify by video link in the Spanish trial tomorrow.

Assange’s next extradition hearing is scheduled for 23 January 2020.

Franny

20th December 2019, 02:26

I'm with you Tintin, we love and respect them both though Hervé is a little nearer to us than Julian. We are happy and grateful Hervé is being taken care of; and sad Julian is not allowed to get the medical help he needs.

It appears they are doing a slow, 'soft' kill with him and he will be the example for all true journalists to observe and learn from.

onawah

24th December 2019, 23:47

SOMETHING BIG IS ABOUT TO DROP FROM WIKILEAKS: ROBERT DAVID STEELE
December 21, 2019
XX2 report
Summary from Alexandra Bruce:
https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/something-big-is-about-to-drop-from-wikileaks-robert-david-steele/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Something+Big+Is+about+to+Drop+from+Wikileaks%3A+Robert+David+Steele

"Former military intelligence and CIA officer, Robert David Steele joins Dave at the X22 Report to discuss all things coup d’état but I’ve set the inpoint to where he talks about the possibility of a wild card WikiLeaks data dump next February when Julian Assange is expected to be extradited to the US from prison in the UK.

“Imagine a WikiLeaks dump on the 15th of February…everything WikiLeaks has on Hillary Clinton and John Brennan and others. In other words, this is an extrajudicial dump that immediately goes public…

“I personally think that Julian Assange is much more clever than people realize and he has much more information that people realize and even though he is somewhat tainted by reports of Mossad and CIA control and he is alleged to be in very poor condition and MI6 is obviously desperately afraid –

“I mean, it’s now clear that Great Britain and Israel were the two countries that interfered in the 2016 election…I think that England is on notice and there are things that could come out that would cause the American public to become so very angry with Great Britain and so very angry with all political parties, that it could possibly lead to some kind of totally unanticipated Black Swan event…

“From where I sit, the Clintons are merely one of many CIA co-optees. Bill Clinton was created by the CIA and Hillary Clinton was created by the CIA. We now know that Barr worked for the CIA as a law student and we now know that CIA appears to have many, many people who are recruited in their university years and then they’re scattered across the country…

“We need to overhaul the CIA and the FBI in ways that people cannot begin to comprehend…

“Let’s start with blackmailing judges all across the United States of America in order to cover up their profiteering from child trafficking and drug trafficking…

“There are ten different CIAs. There’s the drone-assassination CIA, the safari club-rendition-and-torture CIA, there’s multiple CIAs operating overseas and then there’s at least two, if not three domestic CIAs – and some of those CIAs may be rogue CIAs, that Gina Haspell knows nothing about – or chooses not to know anything about.

“In my judgment, we do not have justice in the United States of America. Rogue elements of the US government are doing more harm to Americans than all criminal cartels combined…

“Legal elements of the CIA get a taste of the illegal profits that are possible and then they start using the legal side of CIA under pretext and they start using military transportation and military bases to smuggle guns and gold and cash and small children and drugs and so what you have, here is I think you have a spectrum that runs from legal to grotesquely illegal and I don’t think anyone has mapped this out and that’s what needs to happen.

“If Donald Trump wants to take down the Deep State, he needs to do two things: he needs to close down all US military bases overseas, which are being used as lily pads for illegal activities and he needs to cut the intelligence community by 70 percent, consolidate the remaining pieces at CIA, eradicate all CIA domestic operations.

“I would abolish the FBI and start over. I mean, the FBI was founded by a pedophile that pioneered political blackmail, J Edgar Hoover. That is a legacy I
don’t like.” "

Fkd-KMGUfyI

X22Report Spotlight
Today's Guest: Robert David Steele
Website:
http://robertdavidsteele.com

*********************************************************
My Take:

(Steele describes himself as having "unflinching integrity"... I don't think anyone but a narcissist would say such a thing.
He also says that a billionaire approached him and asked him if he wanted to buy FOX News and CNN.
Probably he misspoke--I don't think he made billions as a CIA operative, but he didn't correct himself, nor did the interviewer ask him about it, which struck me as odd.
Also what appears to be a rather self-serving mention of things he would like to do if he had adequate funding ( so obviously he's not a billionaire!)
But otherwise some interesting opinions and information, though it seems unlikely that many of his suggestions to Trump will be followed.
He doesn't seem to think that Trump is vulnerable or has handlers too, like all the other politicians, which seems very unlikely to me--wealth only buys so much.
If Roy Cohn were still alive, Trump would probably be keeping him very busy, but I don't think he would be listening much to Steele. See: http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?106544-What-are-you-reading&p=1328414&viewfull=1#post1328414
He says Assange is "alleged" to be very ill, but I think that's pretty much a foregone conclusion; not much discussion otherwise of Assange or Wikileaks.)

onawah

25th December 2019, 19:30

Good news for Assange?
Dec 21, 2019
Gordon Dimmack

( Judge admits the case is complicated, w/ fundamental questions on law and justice, will take more time than one week, but refuses to improve prison conditions for Assange. More newspapers are coming out in favor of Assange, but his health continues to decline. )
24xJJccgihg

onawah

28th December 2019, 07:11

Franny

1st January 2020, 05:42

It just keeps getting worse...

‘I’m slowly dying here’: ‘sedated’ Assange tells friend
... during Christmas Eve call from UK prison as health concerns mount

Julian Assange sounded like a shell of the man he once was during a Christmas Eve phone call, British journalist Vaughan Smith told RT, noting the WikiLeaks founder had trouble speaking and appeared to be drugged.

Assange was allowed to make just a single call from the maximum security Belmarsh prison in southeast London for the Christmas holiday, hoping for a reminder of the world beyond his drab confines of steel and concrete.

“I think he simply wanted a few minutes of escape” and to revive “happy memories,” Smith told RT, adding that Assange had spent the holiday at his home in 2010. The brief conversation was far from cheerful, however, with Assange’s deteriorating condition increasingly apparent throughout the call.

He said to me that: ‘I’m slowly dying here.’

“His speech was slurred. He was speaking slowly,” the journalist continued. “Now, Julian is highly articulate, a very clear person when he speaks. And he sounded awful… it was very upsetting to hear him”

Also on rt.com Assange CANNOT be extradited because of treaty between US-UK argues legal team (https://www.rt.com/news/476379-assange-cannot-be-extradited-treaty/)

Though Assange didn’t say it out loud during the call, Smith said he believes the anti-secrecy activist is being sedated, noting that “It seemed pretty obvious that he was,” and said others who visited Assange were of the same opinion.

Smith isn't the first to raise this issue, but British authorities have so far refused to divulge whether Assange has been given psychotropic drugs in prison, insisting only that they aren’t “mistreating” him. But given that he is “being kept in solitary confinement for 23 hours a day,” with requests by numerous doctors to examine his physical condition denied, Smith said he has a hard time taking the officials at their word.

“Julian was extremely good company over Christmas in 2010,” the journalist said, but the man he talked to on the phone last week sounded like a different person. “I just don’t understand… why he’s in Belmarsh Prison in the first place. He’s a remand prisoner. He’s not a danger to the public."

Also on rt.com Julian Assange will ‘disappear for the rest of his life’ inside ‘inhumane’ US prison, UN envoy warns… if he makes it that far (https://www.rt.com/news/474501-assange-torture-un-berlin-protest/)

Belmarsh is a Category A prison – the highest level in the UK penal system – intended for “highly dangerous” convicts and those likely to attempt escape, typically befitting murderers and terrorists. While Assange meets none of those criteria and was initially locked up for a minor offense of skipping bail, he was nonetheless thrown in Belmarsh and punished as if he were a violent, hardened criminal. He now awaits proceedings for extradition to the US.

The explanation may be as simple as taking revenge against somebody who dared to speak truth to power, Smith believes, and to make an example for anyone who might follow Assange’s lead in fighting state and corporate secrecy.

“What is clear that what is happening to Julian is much more about vengeance and setting an example to dissuade other people from holding American power to account in this way,” he said.

[Assange] delivered a discussion, a debate about what transparency should look like in the digital age... The debate got quashed it never really happened, instead he’s being victimized... That’s’ why he’s in Belmarsh.

Going forward, Smith said it will be important to continue pressuring the British government to answer a litany of questions about Assange, his treatment in prison and his health, as well as to push for an “independent assessment” of the situation. Confined in one form or another since taking refuge in the Ecuadorian Embassy in 2012 and now denied the ability to defend himself in court, Assange should finally receive a fair hearing.

“This whole thing, really we need to be asking more questions. This needs to be held much more in the open... Julian has had his freedom compromised for nearly a decade now,” Smith said. “It’s completely disgraceful. This is bullying. He deserves better.”

Video can be accessed at source link below.

(Source: rt.com; December 31, 2019; https://on.rt.com/a85u)

Tintin

16th January 2020, 12:25

[STATEMENT] JOURNALISTS SPEAK UP FOR JULIAN ASSANGE

Link to statement: https://speak-up-for-assange.org/journalists-speak-up-for-julian-assange/?cf_su=1&cf_id=1469

Link to sign: https://speak-up-for-assange.org/

This may only apply to a relatively small number of us here (as journalists), and consequently, as one of those, I have signed this now.

The statement text reads as follows and is as accurate a summary as you'll find anywhere :flower:

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

Julian Assange, founder and publisher of WikiLeaks, is currently detained in Belmarsh high-security prison in the United Kingdom and faces extradition to the United States and criminal prosecution under the Espionage Act. He risks up to 175 years imprisonment for his part in making public the leak of US military documents from Afghanistan and Iraq, and a trove of US State Department cables. The ‘War Diaries’ provided evidence that the US Government misled the public about activities in Afghanistan and Iraq and committed war crimes. WikiLeaks partnered with a wide range of media organizations worldwide that republished the War Diaries and embassy cables. The legal action underway against Mr Assange sets an extremely dangerous precedent for journalists, media organizations and the freedom of the press.

We, journalists and journalistic organizations around the globe, express our grave concern for Mr Assange’s wellbeing, for his continued detention and for the draconian espionage charges.

This case stands at the heart of the principle of free speech. If the US government can prosecute Mr Assange for publishing classified documents, it may clear the way for governments to prosecute journalists anywhere, an alarming precedent for freedom of the press worldwide. Also, the use of espionage charges against people publishing materials provided by whistleblowers is a first and should alarm every journalist and publisher.

In a democracy, journalists can reveal war crimes and cases of torture and abuse without having to go to jail. It is the very role of the press in a democracy. If governments can use espionage laws against journalists and publishers, they are deprived of their most important and traditional defense – of acting in the public interest – which does not apply under the Espionage Act.

Prior to being moved to Belmarsh prison, Mr Assange spent more than a year under house arrest and then seven years inside the Ecuadorian embassy in London, where he had been granted political asylum. Throughout this time he was subjected to serious violations of his human rights, including having his legally privileged conversations spied on by organizations taking direct instruction from US agencies. Journalists visiting were subjected to pervasive surveillance. He had restricted access to legal defense and medical care and was deprived of exposure to sunlight and exercise. In April 2019, the Moreno government allowed UK law enforcement officers to enter the Ecuador embassy and seize Mr Assange. Since then he has been held in solitary confinement for up to 23 hours a day and, according to visitors, is “heavily medicated”. His physical and mental health have seriously deteriorated.

As early as 2015 the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (WGAD) determined that Mr Assange was arbitrarily detained and deprived of his liberty, and called for him to be released and paid compensation. In May 2019, the WGAD reiterated its concerns and request for his personal liberty to be restored.

We hold the governments of the United States of America, the United Kingdom, Ecuador and Sweden accountable for the human rights violations to which Mr Assange has been subjected.

Julian Assange has made an outstanding contribution to public interest journalism, transparency and government accountability around the world. He is being singled out and prosecuted for publishing information that should never have been withheld from the public. His work has been recognized by the Walkley Award for Most Outstanding Contribution to Journalism in 2011, the Martha Gellhorn Prize for Journalism, the Index on Censorship prize, the Economist’s New Media Award, the Amnesty International New Media Award, the 2019 Gavin MacFadyen Award and many others. WikiLeaks has also been nominated for the UN Mandela Prize in 2015 and for the Nobel Peace Prize seven times (2010-2015, 2019).

Mr Assange’s reporting of abuses and crimes is of historic importance, as have been the contributions by whistleblowers Edward Snowden, Chelsea Manning and Reality Winner, who are now in exile or incarcerated. They have all faced relentless smear campaigns waged by their opponents, campaigns that have often led to erroneous media reports and a lack of scrutiny and media coverage of their predicaments. The systematic abuse of Mr Assange’s rights for the past nine years has been understood and protested by the Committee to Protect Journalists, the International Federation of Journalists and leading human rights organisations. But in public discussion there has been an insidious normalising of how he has been treated.

United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture Nils Melzer investigated the case and in June 2019 wrote:

“it finally dawned on me that I had been blinded by propaganda, and that Assange had been systematically slandered to divert attention from the crimes he exposed. Once he had been dehumanized through isolation, ridicule and shame, just like the witches we used to burn at the stake, it was easy to deprive him of his most fundamental rights without provoking public outrage worldwide. And thus, a legal precedent is being set, through the backdoor of our own complacency, which in the future can and will be applied just as well to disclosures by The Guardian, the New York Times and ABC News”.

“By displaying an attitude of complacency at best, and of complicity at worst, Sweden, Ecuador, UK and US governments have created an atmosphere of impunity encouraging Mr Assange’s uninhibited vilification and abuse. In 20 years of work with victims of war, violence and political persecution I have never seen a group of democratic States ganging up to deliberately isolate, demonize and abuse a single individual for such a long time and with so little regard for human dignity and the rule of law.”

In November 2019, Melzer recommended that Mr Assange’s extradition to US be barred and that he be promptly released. “He continues to be detained under oppressive conditions of isolation and surveillance, not justified by his detention status (…) Mr Assange’s continued exposure to arbitrariness and abuse may soon end up costing his life”, said Melzer.

In 1898, French writer Émile Zola wrote the open letter J’accuse…! (I accuse) to warn about the wrongful sentencing to life in prison of a military officer named Alfred Dreyfus on espionage charges. Zola’s stance entered history books and still today stands for our duty to fight miscarriages of justice and to hold the powerful to account. This duty is as necessary as ever today, when Julian Assange is being victimized by governments and faces 17 charges[1] under the US Espionage Act, legislation that also dates back over hundred years.

As journalists and journalists’ organizations that believe in human rights, freedom of information and of the public’s right to know, we demand the immediate release of Julian Assange.

We urge our governments, all national and international agencies and fellow journalists to call for an end to the legal campaign being waged against him for the crime of revealing war crimes.

We urge our fellow journalists to inform the public accurately about this abuse of fundamental rights.

We urge all journalists to speak up in defense of Julian Assange at this critical time.

Dangerous times call for fearless journalism.

Billy

16th January 2020, 13:24

[STATEMENT] JOURNALISTS SPEAK UP FOR JULIAN ASSANGE

Link to statement: https://speak-up-for-assange.org/journalists-speak-up-for-julian-assange/?cf_su=1&cf_id=1469

This may only apply to a relatively small number of us here, and consequently, as one of those, I have signed this now.
We urge our governments, all national and international agencies and fellow journalists to call for an end to the legal campaign being waged against him for the crime of revealing war crimes.

We urge our fellow journalists to inform the public accurately about this abuse of fundamental rights.

We urge all journalists to speak up in defense of Julian Assange at this critical time.

Dangerous times call for fearless journalism.[/COLOR][/INDENT][/INDENT]

It looks like this is only for journalist world wide to sign.

I also signed the letter and it was accepted by a confirmation email :muscle:

Tintin

16th January 2020, 14:07

The Ellsberg (https://www.npr.org/2018/01/19/579101965/daniel-ellsberg-explains-why-he-leaked-the-pentagon-papers?t=1579182527413) precedent may offer a glimmer of light for Julian - we'll have to really hope that it does, although any optimism is tempered with a little caution. There may even be grounds to dismiss the case entirely.

That would be quite something if that did in fact happen.

As James Goodale writes in The Hill (https://thehill.com/opinion/criminal-justice/477939-will-cia-misbehavior-set-julian-assange-free#bottom-story-socials):

After the trial [of Ellsberg] commenced in San Francisco, it was brought to the judge’s attention that the “White House plumbers” broke into the office of Ellsberg’s psychiatrist. Based on that information and other complaints of government misbehavior, including the FBI’s interception of Ellsberg’s telephone conversations with a government official, Judge William Matthew Byrne decided that the case should be dismissed with prejudice because the government acted outrageously.

James makes this case citing UC Global, acting effectively as a sub-contractor on behalf of the CIA, undertaking spying activities for them while Assange was under house arrest in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London.

There are definite parallels with Ellsberg's case.

________________________________________

The article, in full, here:

Will alleged CIA misbehavior set Julian Assange free?
BY JAMES C. GOODALE, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR — 01/13/20 10:32 AM EST

A few days before Christmas, Julian Assange testified to a Spanish court that a Spanish security company, UC Global S.L., acting in coordination with the CIA, illegally recorded all his actions and conversations, including with his lawyers, and streamed them back in real time to the CIA. He will, at the end of February, make a similar complaint to a British extradition court about the CIA’s alleged misbehavior.

Will such misbehavior, if proven, set Assange free?

The Daniel Ellsberg case may be instructive. You may recall that after the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in the “Pentagon Papers” case, Ellsberg was indicted under the Espionage Act for leaking Pentagon documents to The New York Times and The Washington Post.

After the trial commenced in San Francisco, it was brought to the judge’s attention that the “White House plumbers” broke into the office of Ellsberg’s psychiatrist. Based on that information and other complaints of government misbehavior, including the FBI’s interception of Ellsberg’s telephone conversations with a government official, Judge William Matthew Byrne decided that the case should be dismissed with prejudice because the government acted outrageously.

For similar reasons, the case against Assange should be dismissed, if it reaches the U.S. courts.

The “plumbers” were a covert group formed by the Nixon White House to stop leaks of information from the government, such as the Pentagon Papers. They are notorious for their burglary at the Watergate complex, which led to former President Nixon’s downfall. Approximately nine months before the Watergate break-in, the plumbers, led by former CIA agent E. Howard Hunt, burglarized a psychiatrist’s office to find information that could discredit Ellsberg.

The CIA also was involved with the break-in. It prepared a psychiatric profile of Ellsberg as well as an ID kit for the plumbers, including drivers’ licenses, Social Security cards, and disguises consisting of red wigs, glasses and speech alteration devices.

Additionally, the CIA allowed Hunt and his sidekick, G. Gordon Liddy, to use two CIA safe houses in the D.C. area for meetings and storage purposes. Clearly, the CIA knew the plumbers were up to no good. It is unclear whether the CIA knew Ellsberg was the target, but it would not have taken much to figure it out.

The Spanish newspaper El Pais broke the story (https://elpais.com/elpais/2019/09/25/inenglish/1569384196_652151.html) that UC Global invaded Assange’s privacy at the Ecuadorian embassy and shared its surveillance with the CIA. It demonstrated step-by-step (https://elpais.com/elpais/2019/11/08/inenglish/1573211318_746915.html), document-by-document (https://elpais.com/elpais/2019/06/20/inenglish/1561014443_769230.html), UC Global’s actions and its contacts with the CIA. UC Global reportedly installed cameras throughout Assange’s space in the embassy — including his bathroom — and captured Assange’s every word and apparently livestreamed it, giving the CIA a free TV show of Assange’s daily life.

After reading El Pais’s series, you would have to be a dunce not to believe the CIA didn’t monitor Assange’s every move at the Ecuadorian embassy, including trips to the bathroom.

Ecuador granted Assange asylum in their embassy for seven years, after he jumped bail in London to avoid extradition to Sweden for allegedly raping two Swedish women. (Those charges are now dismissed.) If you can believe it, Ecuador had hired UC Global to protect the Ecuadorian embassy and Assange. Not surprisingly, the CIA later made UC Global its spy to surveil Assange.

When there was a change of administration in Ecuador, Assange’s asylum was withdrawn, and he was immediately arrested by British police at the request of U.S. officials. The United States subsequently indicted him for violating the Espionage Act, for publishing the very same information published roughly contemporaneously by The New York Times, The Guardian, El Pais, Le Monde and Der Spiegel. (Assange already was subject to a sealed indictment in the United States for computer hacking.)

The behavior of UC Global and the CIA seems indistinguishable from the government’s behavior in the Ellsberg case, which a federal judge found to have “offended a sense of justice” and “incurably infected the prosecution” of the case. Accordingly, he concluded that the only remedy to ensure due process and the fair administration of justice was to dismiss Ellsberg’s case “with prejudice,” meaning that Ellsberg could not be retried.

Can anything be more offensive to a “sense of justice” than an unlimited surveillance, particularly of lawyer-client conversations, livestreamed to the opposing party in a criminal case? The alleged streaming unmasked the strategy of Assange’s lawyers, giving the government an advantage that is impossible to remove. Short of dismissing Assange’s indictment with prejudice, the government will always have an advantage that can never be matched by the defense.

The usual remedy for warrantless surveillance is to exclude any illegally obtained information from the trial, but that remedy is inapplicable here. The government’s advantage in surveilling Assange is not the acquisition of tangible evidence but, rather, intangible insights into Assange’s legal strategy. There is no way, therefore, to give Assange a fair trial, since his opponents will know every move he will make.

When Assange begins his extradition hearing, this will be part of his argument — that the CIA’s misbehavior violates his human rights by depriving him of his right to a fair trial.

The CIA will no doubt attempt to trump this argument by defending the surveillance on grounds of national security. This may be easier said than done, however: It is one thing to say the CIA can engage in surveillance abroad for its own intelligence-gathering purposes, and another to say it can listen to the private lawyer-client communications of a person against whom the U.S. government has an open criminal investigation.

More to the point, it does not seem immediately clear why eavesdropping on conversations of legal strategy protects U.S. national security. In my experience in national security cases (I led The New York Times lawyers in the “Pentagon Papers” case), every time the government is backed into a corner in such cases, it will simply serve up a defense of “national security” because it is difficult to defend against such an assertion and the government, consequently, has the ability to trump every competing argument.

Violation of Assange’s fair-trial rights is only one of many arguments he can make to defeat extradition. For example, he can argue that his health is so poor that he cannot survive extradition. His father has said (https://www.france24.com/en/20191108-assange-may-die-in-jail-father-warns) Assange will die in prison, and the United Nations Special Rapporteur overseeing his case, Nils Melzer, believes Assange’s mental acuity has been damaged irreparably through “psychological torture (https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=25249).”

Most importantly, Assange can assert that the action of the U.S. government is for its own political benefit. It is standard law that extradition be refused when a country seeks it in order to prosecute a political offense. In this case, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has said the U.S. government would seek to shut down Assange for using “free speech values against us” and characterized Assange’s organization, WikiLeaks, as “a non-state hostile intelligence service.”

That statement does not sound like the government wishes to convict Assange for violating U.S. national security laws as much as to get rid of Assange himself for disclosing embarrassing information that is detrimental to American diplomatic and political interests. Whether the actions the U.S. government takes against Assange constitute a “political” offense will be hotly contested.

Former State Department and National Security Council legal adviser John Bellinger recently predicted on NPR (https://www.npr.org/2019/04/14/713304653/can-julian-assange-legally-be-extradited-to-the-u-s) a “battle royal because Assange and his lawyers will argue very forcefully that … the Trump administration is coming after him for political reasons.”

No doubt there also will be a “battle royal” regarding whether the CIA can, with impunity, surveil Assange’s actions and conversations — including those with his lawyers — and then livestream those to its offices without being heavily penalized for its behavior. It would seem the only appropriate remedy for such outrageous conduct would be to set Assange free.

________________________________________

James C. Goodale was the vice chairman and general counsel of The New York Times and is the author of “Fighting for the Press: The Inside Story of the Pentagon Papers and other battles (https://www.amazon.com/Fighting-Press-Inside-Pentagon-Battles/dp/1939293081).”

onawah

17th January 2020, 04:52

Let's just pray that Assange doesn't get too poisoned or otherwise suicided before he has a chance to defend himself. :pray:

onawah

18th January 2020, 05:09

Julian Assange attends hearing at Westminster Magistrates' Court
Jan 13, 2020
RT UK
"New shots of Julian Assange who attended a hearing at Westminster Magistrates' Court today."

(He was still able to smile, at least.)
mos-vPlA-gs

onawah

18th January 2020, 21:01

Assange 'denied access' to lawyers in UK
Australian Associated Press
Marty Silk
Australian Associated Press16 January 2020
https://au.news.yahoo.com/assange-denied-access-lawyers-uk-120109037--spt.html

https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/i3DiflWz_wtkqB_2Ljd5kg--~A/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9ODAwO2lsPXBsYW5l/http://media.zenfs.com/en_AU/Sports/oly_au_aap/5578926_Legal_Assange_16-9_17921310_1989300_20200113230104b26c0e0-8f1a-475b-b5e7-69aa98bec4db.jpg_sd_1280x720.jpg

"Wikileaks founder Julian Assange has been denied access to evidence and even basic items like paper and pens by British prison officials, putting his US extradition case on the brink of judicial review, his lawyer has warned.

Solicitor Gareth Pierce was shocked to learn that District Judge Vanessa Baraitser only intended to allow the defence team one hour to review evidence with the Australian in the holding cells at the Westminster Magistrates Court on Monday.

He's been charged in the US with 17 counts of spying and one count of computer hacking after WikiLeaks allegedly tried to help US army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning conceal her virtual identity in the release of thousands of classified Pentagon files regarding the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

Some of those files have revealed US war crimes committed in both countries.

Assange's supporters in the public gallery, including British rapper M.I.A., silently waved and raised fists to him and he smiled and nodded before giving them a two-fingered salute.

Ms Pierce, who had expected to have a full day with Assange, explained that her team had previously been allowed just two hours to review evidence with him in prison.

"It set us back in our timetable enormously," she told the court.

"We will do our best but this slippage in the timetable is extremely worrying."

Ms Pierce described how the administration of Belmarsh prison, where he's being held, had obstructed access to her client to the point where she had even had to approach UK government lawyers to assist.

She warned that further denying Assange his "human right" to legal access was putting his case on the brink of a judicial review.

Judge Baraitser adjourned the case until later on Monday afternoon to allow the defence team to review case evidence with Assange.

In that second sitting, Ms Peirce said that she had only had an hour to speak to Assange.

Wikileaks ambassador Joseph Farrell called Assange's severely limited access legal representation to date as outrageous.

"Given the way Belmarsh is dealing with this, it's on the brink of judicial review," he told AAP.

"To have three hours with your lawyers when you're facing 175 years in prison (in the US) is not acceptable."

Academy and Grammy award-nominated hip-hop artist M.I.A., who visited Assange in prison last year, said authorities had even denied him simple things like a pen and paper.

She said some books were denied as well due to concerns he could use them to secretly communicate with outsiders.

"It blows my mind that England can have this going, and with the support of Australia," M.I.A. told AAP.

Mr Farrell said given the amount of stumbling blocks presented to Assange it raised the question of whether the "biggest media freedom case this century" was actually a fair trial.

"More importantly than all that, the fact that this is a trial at all is outrageous," he told AAP.

"This is somebody who is in prison for exposing war crimes, for doing his job. He's in prison for the very same reason as he was given a Walkley Award. This is not something that should be allowed to happen."

Assange's next hearing is scheduled for January 23. He is due to appear via video link from Belmarsh prison.

Full extradition proceedings are expected to commence in February."

(How I wish some benevolent ETs would just teleport him out of there to safety. Let's send him lots of love and light. )

onawah

23rd January 2020, 20:02

WikiLeaks Editor: US Is Saying First Amendment Doesn’t Apply To Foreigners In Assange Case
JANUARY 23, 2020 by CAITLIN JOHNSTONE
https://i2.wp.com/caitlinjohnstone.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Screen-Shot-2020-01-24-at-2.04.23-AM.jpg?w=1179&ssl=1
YwK1tPdaHkY
"WikiLeaks editor-in-chief Kristinn Hrafnsson gave a brief statement to the press after the latest court hearing for Julian Assange’s extradition case in London today, saying the Trump administration is arguing that the First Amendment of the US Constitution doesn’t provide press freedom protection to foreign nationals like Assange.

“We have now learned from submissions and affidavits presented by the United States to this court that they do not consider foreign nationals to have a First Amendment protection,” Hrafnsson said.

“Now let that sink in for a second,” Hrafnsson continued. “At the same time that the US government is chasing journalists all over the world, they claim they have extra-territorial reach, they have decided that all foreign journalists which include many of you here, have no protection under the First Amendment of the United States. So that goes to show the gravity of this case. This is not about Julian Assange, it’s about press freedom.”

Hrafnsson’s very newsworthy claim has as of this writing received no mainstream news media coverage at all. The video above is from independent reporter Gordon Dimmack.

This prosecutorial strategy would be very much in alignment with remarks made in 2017 by then-CIA Director Mike Pompeo. https://www.csis.org/analysis/discussion-national-security-cia-director-mike-pompeo

“Julian Assange has no First Amendment freedoms. He’s sitting in an embassy in London. He’s not a U.S. citizen,” Pompeo told the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

That, like nearly every sound which emits from Pompeo’s amorphous face, was a lie. The First Amendment is not a set of special free speech privileges that the US government magnanimously bestows upon a few select individuals, it’s a limitation placed upon the US government’s ability to restrict rights that all persons everywhere are assumed to have.

This is like a sex offender who’s barred from living within 500 yards of a school claiming that the school he moved in next to is exempt because it’s full of immigrants who therefore aren’t protected by his restriction. It’s a restriction placed on the government, not a right that is given to certain people.

Attorney and Future of Freedom Foundation president Jacob Hornberger explained after Pompeo’s remarks: https://www.fff.org/2017/04/27/cia-director-pompeo-doesnt-understand-first-amendment/ “As Jefferson points out, everyone, not just American citizens, is endowed with these natural, God-given rights, including life, freedom, and the pursuit of happiness. That includes people who are citizens of other countries. Citizenship has nothing to do rights that are vested in everyone by nature and God. At the risk of belaboring the obvious, that includes Julian Assange.”

The Empire’s War On Oppositional Journalism Continues To Escalate

"Journalist Glenn Greenwald has been charged by the Bolsonaro government in Brazil with the same prosecutorial angle used by the US to target WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange." #FreeAssangehttps://t.co/jaWaaB0p3a

— Caitlin Johnstone ⏳ (@caitoz) January 22, 2020

Journalist Glenn Greenwald, who is himself now being legally persecuted by the same empire as Assange under an indictment which Hrafnsson in the aforementioned statement called “almost a carbon copy of the indictment against Julian Assange”, also denounced Pompeo’s 2017 remarks. https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/the-empires-war-on-oppositional-journalism-continues-to-escalate-5dc6bf3b1331

“The notion that WikiLeaks has no free press rights because Assange is a foreigner is both wrong and dangerous,” Greenwald wrote at the time. “When I worked at the Guardian, my editors were all non-Americans. Would it therefore have been constitutionally permissible for the U.S. Government to shut down that paper and imprison its editors on the ground that they enjoy no constitutional protections? Obviously not.”

Greenwald, who is a former litigation attorney, referenced a Salon article he’d written in 2010 skillfully outlining why Senator Susan Collins’ attempts to spin constitutional rights as inapplicable to foreigners would be outlandish, insane, illegal and unconstitutional to put into practice. https://www.salon.com/control/2010/02/01/collins_5/

“To see how false this notion is that the Constitution only applies to U.S. citizens, one need do nothing more than read the Bill of Rights,” Greenwald argued in 2010. “It says nothing about ‘citizens.’ To the contrary, many of the provisions are simply restrictions on what the Government is permitted to do (‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion . . . or abridging the freedom of speech’; ‘No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner’). And where rights are expressly vested, they are pointedly not vested in ‘citizens,’ but rather in ‘persons’ or ‘the accused’ (‘No person shall . . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law’; ‘In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed . . . . and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense’).”

“The U.S. Supreme Court, in 2008, issued a highly publicized opinion, in Boumediene v. Bush, which, by itself, makes clear how false is the claim that the Constitution applies only to Americans,” Greenwald wrote. “The Boumediene Court held that it was unconstitutional for the Military Commissions Act to deny habeas corpus rights to Guantanamo detainees, none of whom was an American citizen (indeed, the detainees were all foreign nationals outside of the U.S.). If the Constitution applied only to U.S. citizens, that decision would obviously be impossible.”

“The principle that the Constitution applies not only to Americans, but also to foreigners, was hardly invented by the Court in 2008,” Greenwald added. “To the contrary, the Supreme Court — all the way back in 1886 — explicitly held this to be the case, when, in Yick Wo v. Hopkins, it overturned the criminal conviction of a Chinese citizen living in California on the ground that the law in question violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process and equal protection. In so doing, the Court explicitly rejected what Susan Collins and many others claim about the Constitution.”

These “and many others” Greenwald referred to would now include both Mike Pompeo and the Department of Justice prosecutors who are attempting to extradite and imprison Assange for publishing information exposing US war crimes.

Kristinn Hrafnsson editor in chief of WikiLeaks: “We learned today from the prosecution that the US does not consider foreign nationals to be protected under the 1st Amendment” #DontExtraditeAssange #FreeJulianAssange pic.twitter.com/9tNb6bCF0s

— Juan Passarelli (@jlpassarelli) January 23, 2020

So let’s be clear here: the Trump administration isn’t just working to establish a legal precedent which will demolish press freedoms around the world, it’s also working to change how the US Constitution operates on a very fundamental level.

Does now seem like a good time to fight against this to you? Because it sure as hell seems like that time to me.

Hrafnsson also said in this same statement that Assange’s extradition trial is going to be split into two separate dates, the first on February 24 for one week and then reconvening again for three weeks starting May 18. If you care about freedom of virtually any sort, I highly recommend paying very, very close attention." https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/6596140/assange-may-not-get-us-press-protection/?cs=14232

onawah

24th January 2020, 06:13

Sanders co-chair: Greenwald charges could cause 'chilling effect on journalism across the world'
BY ZACK BUDRYK - 01/21/20
https://thehill.com/policy/technology/479205-sanders-co-chair-greenwald-charges-could-cause-chilling-effect-on

"Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), a co-chairman for Sen. Bernie Sanders’s (I-Vt.) presidential campaign, spoke out Tuesday against charges by the Brazilian government against American journalist Glenn Greenwald, saying the country illustrated the need for Espionage Act reform in the U.S.

“Prosecuting reporters for doing their work will have chilling effect on journalism across the world,” Khanna tweeted Tuesday. “I'm crafting legislation to protect journalists from being prosecuted over their published work.”

Rep. Ro Khanna
✔
@RepRoKhanna
Prosecuting reporters for doing their work will have chilling effect on journalism across the world.

I'm crafting legislation to protect journalists from being prosecuted over their published work. https://twitter.com/jaketapper/status/1219661479684780032 …

Jake Tapper
✔
@jaketapper
Important context for arrest of ⁦@ggreenwald⁩ — Brazilian President Bolsonaro has been threatening Greenwald for a long time because of his aggressive and excellent journalism https://cpj.org/2019/07/brazilian-president-bolsonaro-says-glenn-greenwald.php …

1,481
12:46 PM - Jan 21, 2020
Twitter Ads info and privacy
443 people are talking about this

Khanna wrote he is currently developing legislation to amend the law, which was the basis for federal charges against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange to ensure it cannot be used to indict journalists.

"The Trump administration charging Assange opened up a chilling effect on journalism," Khanna told CBS News.

"If you are the recipient of information that is sensitive and you haven't been involved in assisting the collection of information, but you're just receiving that information from a source and publishing it for journalistic purposes — then you can't be prosecuted.”

Khanna said that he hopes to work with Rep. Justin Amash (I-Mich.), a co-founder of the House Freedom Caucus who was later removed from it after leaving the Republican Party, as well as conservative members he believes may be similarly concerned about the potential for government overreach.

The eventual bill, he said, “will be a major protection for journalists' ability to work on these critical issues.”

Greenwald, who lives in Brazil, has been accused by prosecutors of cyber crimes in relation to his publication of private phone conversations involving high-level Brazilian officials. He has denied all charges and called them “an obvious attempt to attack a free press” in retaliation for his reporting on President Jair Bolsonaro's government."

onawah

25th January 2020, 04:07

Belmarsh Prison Inmates Prove More Ethical Than Entire Western Empire
by CAITLIN JOHNSTONE
JANUARY 25, 2020
https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2020/01/25/belmarsh-prison-inmates-prove-more-ethical-than-entire-western-empire/

https://i0.wp.com/caitlinjohnstone.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Screen-Shot-2020-01-25-at-12.57.31-PM.jpg?w=1440&ssl=1

"In some refreshingly good news about Julian Assange, WikiLeaks is reporting that its founder has finally been moved out of solitary confinement to a different wing in Belmarsh Prison where he can have normal social interactions with 40 other inmates.

This fantastic news lifts a huge weight from the chests of those of us who’ve been protesting Assange’s cruel and unusual treatment at the hands of an international alliance of governments bent on making a draconian public example of a journalist whose publications exposed US war crimes. Solitary confinement is a form of torture, and a UN Special Rapporteur has confirmed that Assange shows clear symptoms that he is a victim of psychological torture caused by his persecution from coordinated efforts by Washington, London, Stockholm, Canberra and Quito.

So what caused this shift in Assange’s treatment? Did the powerful empire-like alliance loosely centralized around the United States suddenly come to its senses and realize that torturing journalists for telling the truth is the sort of tyrannical abuse that it accuses other governments of perpetrating? Did officials in the British government bow to public pressure from the pro-Assange demonstrations which have been taking place in London month after month and have some faint flickerings of conscience? Did Belmarsh Prison authorities come to their senses after more than a hundred doctors warned that their cruelty was killing the award-winning publisher?

Why no. As it turns out, Assange was in fact rescued from the cruelty of this globe-sprawling empire by the concerted protests of high-security prison inmates.

Prisoners' revolt and pressure from legal team and campaigners forces Belmarsh to move Assange out of solitary. WikiLeaks statement: pic.twitter.com/9Af9y3zC93

— Don't Extradite Assange (@DEAcampaign) January 24, 2020

“In a dramatic climbdown, authorities at Belmarsh Prison have moved Julian Assange from solitary confinement in the medical wing and relocated him to an area with other inmates,” said WikiLeaks Ambassador Joseph Farrell in a statement today. “The move is a huge victory for Assange’s legal team and for campaigners who have been insisting for weeks that the prison authorities must end the punitive treatment of Assange.”

“But the decision to relocate Assange is also a massive victory of prisoners in Belmarsh,” Farrell added. “A group of inmates have petitioned the prison governor on three occasions, insisting that the treatment of Assange was unjust and unfair. After meetings between prisoners, lawyers and the Belmarsh authorities, Assange was moved to a different prison wing — albeit one with only 40 inmates.”

Belmarsh is a notoriously harsh maximum-security prison full of violent offenders and prisoners convicted under anti-terrorism laws, one of many reasons that Assange supporters have so vigorously opposed his confinement there. What does it tell you about the society you are living in that this population has a superior moral compass to the people who are actually running things?

For years I’ve been arguing with Democratic Party-aligned liberals on one side saying that Assange is a Russian agent who deserves to be tortured, and a bunch of Trump-aligned right wingers on the other side saying their president is extraditing Assange for the good of the world. These are the two mainstream views on Assange within the western empire today. And a group of Belmarsh prisoners just proved themselves infinitely more ethical than any of them. They have a better sense of right and wrong than those running the empire, and they have a better sense of right and wrong than the propagandized apologists for that empire.

UN Special Rapporteur on torture: “In 20 years..I have never seen a group of democratic States ganging up to deliberately isolate, demonise and abuse a single individual for such a long time and with so little regard for human dignity and the rule of law”https://t.co/UMGegjYrBS

— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) May 31, 2019

Not that this should surprise us; the US-centralized empire is spectacularly evil, and this this group of Belmarsh prisoners had a unique vantage point on Assange’s plight. The prisoners demonstrated their moral superiority to the mainstream public not because prison inmates are on average inherently better people than those on the outside, but because they were confronted with the reality of Assange’s situation instead of mainlining mass media propaganda about Assange. They were dealing with reality rather than narrative, so they addressed that reality. And they did so admirably.

The smear campaign that has been conducted against Assange by the political/media class has distorted public perception of his plight so severely that there are far more people seeing his case through a distorted understanding than there are people who actually understand what’s happening to him. We saw this illustrated very clearly when the aforementioned UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, Nils Melzer, admitted frankly that before going to investigate Assange’s case for himself he’d been propagandized by this same smear campaign as well.

“When I was first approached by his defense team seeking protection from my mandate in December last year, I was reluctant to do so, because, me too, I had been affected by this prejudice that I had absorbed through all these public narratives spread in the media over the years,” Melzer told Democracy Now in an interview last year. “And only when I scratched the surface a little bit, I saw how little foundation there was to back this up and how much fabrication and manipulation there is in this case. So I encourage everybody to really look below the surface in this case.”

Inmates of Belmarsh prison had a superior understanding of Assange’s plight because they wouldn’t have been affected by these narratives. They would simply have seen what’s right in front of them, with their own eyes: a nonviolent prisoner being caged in solitary confinement 23 hours a day for no discernible reason.

You couldn’t ask for a clearer example of the difference between fact and narrative than this. Whoever controls the narrative controls the world. Whoever can see beyond narrative can see the truth. We must all strive for this."

onawah

9th February 2020, 04:22

Wikileaks Editor in Chief Kristinn Hrafnsson on Julian Assange
Feb 4, 2020
acTVism Munich
40.9K subscribers
https://goo.gl/aMkRjb

"In this speech recorded on the 4th of February 2020 in London, Editor-in-Chief of Wikileaks Kristinn Hrafnsson addresses the case of Julian Assange . Hrafnsson's speech starts with his recent experience with Assange when he visited him recently in Belmarsh prison. Hrafnsson then examines the accusation of the U.S. government that asserts that Assange is a hacker and not a journalist. Thereafter he examines the most significant revelations of Wikileaks when Assange led the organisation, the threat that his extradition to the United States poses to press freedom and concludes by surfacing the importance of collective action.

Kristinn Hrafnsson - editor-in-chief of WikiLeaks since 2018 and an Icelandic investigative journalist. He was named Icelandic journalist of the year three times, in 2004, 2007 and 2010 by Iceland’s National Union of Journalists; the only journalist ever to receive this award thrice.

To read this interview: https://bit.ly/2Uy9BlJ"
KeFPSQVqwPI

onawah

9th February 2020, 05:17

German cross-party appeal for release of Julian Assange launches in Berlin
Streamed live on Feb 6, 2020
Ruptly
996K subscribers
"A cross-party initiative to demand the release of Julian Assange is taking place in Berlin on Thursday, February 6.

The initiative will include the former Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD) chairman Sigmar Gabriel, former German Interior Minister Gerhart Baum (Free Democratic Party; FDP), former German Justice Minister Herta Daubler-Gmelin (SPD), Left Party Bundestag member Sevim Dagdelen, the writer Navid Kermani, and the journalist Günter Wallraff, who are all calling for Assange‘s release as numerous experts consider his state of health to be serious.

Assange is being held in London’s Belmarsh prison prior to his US extradition hearing that will begin in February.

If convicted, Assange faces a prison term of up to 175 years."

tx3kRvpNZu8

(Let's hope that other countries will follow suit. Perhaps if enough do, the UK and US will not find it so easy to ignore.)

onawah

9th February 2020, 20:28

Julian Assange Free the Truth: UN Rapporteur Nils Melzer Abuse of International Law
Feb 3, 2020
EF Press
433 subscribers
UK Justice Condemned. Rogue State Unleashes Terror on Asylum Seeking Journalist.
Nils Melzer (@NilsMelzer): https://twitter.com/NilsMelzer?s=09
qjXyv1RIH3k

onawah

10th February 2020, 21:15

Assange's father John Shipton & Wikileaks Chief Editor Kristinn Hrafnsson on how you can support
Feb 10, 2020
acTVism Munich
41K subscribers
✔ More videos coming on this topic. Subscribe here: https://goo.gl/aMkRjb

In this video we interview Julian Assange's father John Shipton and Chief Editor of Wikileaks Kristinn Hrafnsson about the case of Julian Assange and how individuals can support him and protect press freedom.

Both interviews were recorded on the 4th of February 2020 at the Royal National Hotel in London after the public rally for Julian Assange that was organized by the “Don’t Extradite Assange Campaign.”

Here is a full list of acTVism videos on this topic:
► John McDonnell & John Rees:
https://youtu.be/QpWyTCB1FdM
► Interview with Nils Melzer:
https://youtu.be/f9KRxF9oVxQ
►Tariq Ali's speech:
https://youtu.be/h_KPqLHAGuE
► Jennifer Robinson's speech:
https://youtu.be/gfBHcxK5HkQ
► Nils Melzer's speech:
https://youtu.be/FQrlJOk2YMo
► Don't Extradite Assange Report:
https://youtu.be/AqEz3y4cn0Y
► Kristinn Hrafnsson's speech:
https://youtu.be/KeFPSQVqwPI
► Julian Assange Case: Abby Martin, Snowden, Chomsky, Jill Stein, Varoufakis, Horvat & Richter Respond: https://youtu.be/39IUOeQvaOw
roiyDkNbOkc

onawah

11th February 2020, 23:12

Nils Melzer UN Special Rapporteur on Torture: Assange "has been tortured & continues to be tortured"
Feb 11, 2020
TheWikiLeaksChannel
79.2K subscribers

Nils Melzer, UN Special Rapporteur on Torture spoke at the Don't Extradite Assange Ralley in London and said that Julian Assange "has been tortured & continues to be tortured"
8C2IPNDPABY

Dennis Leahy

12th February 2020, 02:04

I call for a boycott of England (note I didn't say "UK" - the vassal states in the UK are not responsible) until Julian Assange is released and all charges dropped.

The boycott of Israel over the genocide of Palestinians is one of the major topics that faceboog scrubs from itself, at the order of Israel, so yes, national boycotts do have an effect.

onawah

12th February 2020, 03:16

Labour MP Richard Burgon @ Don't Extradite Assange Rally in London
Feb 11, 2020
TheWikiLeaksChannel
79.1K subscribers

"If journalism is really going to speak truth to power, then they need to expose what the powerful do in all or our names."
wm1kjqTVDBk

onawah

13th February 2020, 20:00

What Is Happening to Assange Will Happen to the Rest of Us--Chris Hedges
Truth Dig
FEB 10, 2020
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7998989/Barclays-chief-executive-Jes-Staley-investigated-FCA-links-Jeffrey-Epstein.html
https://www.truthdig.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Fish-We-Are-Julian-Assange-1536x1187.jpg

"David Morales, the indicted owner of the Spanish private security firm Undercover Global, is being investigated by Spain’s high court for allegedly providing the CIA with audio and video recordings of the meetings WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange had with his attorneys and other visitors when the publisher was in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London. The security firm also reportedly photographed the passports of all of Assange’s visitors. It is accused of taking visitors’ phones, which were not permitted in the embassy, and opening them, presumably in an effort to intercept calls. It reportedly stole data from laptops, electronic tablets and USB sticks, all required to be left at the embassy reception area. It allegedly compiled detailed reports on all of Assange’s meetings and conversations with visitors. The firm even is said to have planned to steal the diaper of a baby — brought to visit Assange — to perform a DNA test to establish whether the infant was a secret son of Assange. UC Global, apparently at the behest of the CIA, also allegedly spied on Ecuadorian diplomats who worked in the Londonembassy.

The probe by the court, the Audiencia Nacional, into the activities of UC Global, along with leaked videos, statements, documents and reports published by the Spanish newspaper El País as well as the Italian newspaper La Repubblica, offers a window into the new global security state. Here the rule of law is irrelevant. Here privacy and attorney-client privilege do not exist. Here people live under 24-hour-a-day surveillance. Here all who attempt to expose the crimes of tyrannical power will be hunted down, kidnapped, imprisoned and broken. This global security state is a terrifying melding of the corporate and the public. And what it has done to Assange it will soon do to the rest of us.

The publication of classified documents is not yet a crime in the United States. If Assange is extradited and convicted, it will become one. Assange is not an American citizen. WikiLeaks, which he founded, is not a U.S.-based publication. The extradition of Assange would mean the end of journalistic investigations into the inner workings of power. It would cement into place a terrifying global, corporate tyranny under which borders, nationality andlaw mean nothing. Once such a legal precedent is set, any publication that publishes classified material, from The New York Times to an alternative website, will be prosecuted and silenced."

Kryztian

15th February 2020, 19:13

Nils Melzer, the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture says:

«A murderous system is being created before our very eyes»

The interview is published in English here (https://www.republik.ch/2020/01/31/nils-melzer-about-wikileaks-founder-julian-assange) in the Swiss publication "Media Lens"
https://www.republik.ch/2020/01/31/nils-melzer-about-wikileaks-founder-julian-assange

A few quotes

‘I speak fluent Swedish and was thus able to read all of the original documents. I could hardly believe my eyes: According to the testimony of the woman in question, a rape had never even taken place at all. And not only that: The woman’s testimony was later changed by the Stockholm police without her involvement in order to somehow make it sound like a possible rape. I have all the documents in my possession, the emails, the text messages.’

A woman walks into a police station. She doesn’t want to file a complaint but wants to demand an HIV test. The police then decide that this could be a case of rape and a matter for public prosecutors. The woman refuses to go along with that version of events and then goes home and writes a friend that it wasn’t her intention, but the police want to «get their hands on» Assange. Two hours later, the case is in the newspaper. As we know today, public prosecutors leaked it to the press – and they did so without even inviting Assange to make a statement. And the second woman, who had allegedly been raped according to the Aug. 20 headline, was only questioned on Aug. 21.

The lawyers say that during the nearly seven years in which Assange lived in the Ecuadorian Embassy, they made over 30 offers to arrange for Assange to visit Sweden – in exchange for a guarantee that he would not be extradited to the U.S. The Swedes declined to provide such a guarantee by arguing that the U.S. had not made a formal request for extradition.

He will not receive a trial consistent with the rule of law. That’s another reason why his extradition shouldn’t be allowed. Assange will receive a trial-by-jury in Alexandria, Virginia – the notorious «Espionage Court» where the U.S. tries all national security cases. The choice of location is not by coincidence, because the jury members must be chosen in proportion to the local population, and 85 percent of Alexandria residents work in the national security community – at the CIA, the NSA, the Defense Department and the State Department. When people are tried for harming national security in front of a jury like that, the verdict is clear from the very beginning. The cases are always tried in front of the same judge behind closed doors and on the strength of classified evidence. Nobody has ever been acquitted there in a case like that. The result being that most defendants reach a settlement, in which they admit to partial guilt so as to receive a milder sentence.

There is only a single explanation for everything – for the refusal to grant diplomatic assurances, for the refusal to question him in London: They wanted to apprehend him so they could extradite him to the U.S. The number of breaches of law that accumulated in Sweden within just a few weeks during the preliminary criminal investigation is simply grotesque.

That it is a prearranged affair. A show trial is to be used to make an example of Julian Assange. The point is to intimidate other journalists. Intimidation, by the way, is one of the primary purposes for the use of torture around the world. The message to all of us is: This is what will happen to you if you emulate the Wikileaks model. It is a model that is so dangerous because it is so simple: People who obtain sensitive information from their governments or companies transfer that information to Wikileaks, but the whistleblower remains anonymous. The reaction shows how great the threat is perceived to be: Four democratic countries joined forces – the U.S., Ecuador, Sweden and the UK – to leverage their power to portray one man as a monster so that he could later be burned at the stake without any outcry. The case is a huge scandal and represents the failure of Western rule of law. If Julian Assange is convicted, it will be a death sentence for freedom of the press.

If investigative journalism is classified as espionage and can be incriminated around the world, then censorship and tyranny will follow. A murderous system is being created before our very eyes. War crimes and torture are not being prosecuted. YouTube videos are circulating in which American soldiers brag about driving Iraqi women to suicide with systematic rape. Nobody is investigating it. At the same time, a person who exposes such things is being threatened with 175 years in prison.

We give countries power and delegate it to governments – but in return, they must be held accountable for how they exercise that power. If we don’t demand that they be held accountable, we will lose our rights sooner or later. Humans are not democratic by their nature. Power corrupts if it is not monitored. Corruption is the result if we do not insist that power be monitored.

onawah

15th February 2020, 19:43

Intellectual Tariq Ali speaks out on Assange's case & U.S. wars
Feb 7, 2020
acTVism Munich
41.3K subscribers
✔ More videos coming on this topic. Subscribe here: https://goo.gl/aMkRjb

"In this speech given on the 4th of February 2020 in a public rally for Julian Assange at the Royal National Hotel in London, author, writer, filmmaker and public intellectual Tariq Ali speaks about the case of Julian Assange. Furthermore he contextualises Assange’s case by focusing on U.S. wars and points out the double standards observed when it comes to the application of international law. Ali closes the speech by surfacing the importance of collective action around the case of Julian Assange.

To read the transcript of this video: https://bit.ly/2OLuZQE "
h_KPqLHAGuE

onawah

15th February 2020, 20:08

Julian Assange - Public Rally Event with Wikileaks, Nils Melzer, Tariq Ali and more
acTVism Munich
2/12/20

"In this video we publish the complete public rally event for Julian Assange that took place on the 4th of February 2020 at the Royal National Hotel in London. This event was organised by the "Don't Extradite Assange Campaign". Speakers in the video include by order:
► Tom Dawson: Executive Member of the National Union of Journalists of Britain & Ireland
► Kristinn Hrafnsonn: WikiLeaks Editor-in-Chief
► Jennifer Robinson: Human Rights Lawyer & Barrister in Assange's Legal Team
► Richard Burgon: British MP for the Labour Party
► Nils Melzer: UN Special Rapporteur on Torture
► John McDonnell: British MP for the Labour Party
► John Rees: Activist, Academic & Writer
► Tariq Ali: Public Intellectual, Author & Filmmaker
► Moderated by Deepa Govindarajan Driver: University Lecturer & Trade Unionist

List of interviews that we undertook after the event:
► Interview with Assange's Father:
https://youtu.be/roiyDkNbOkc
► Interview with Nils Melzer:
https://youtu.be/f9KRxF9oVxQ
► Report of Event:
https://youtu.be/AqEz3y4cn0Y
► Abby Martin, Snowden, Chomsky, Jill Stein, Varoufakis, Horvat & Richter Respond:
https://youtu.be/39IUOeQvaOw

Our interview with Edward Snowden: https://youtu.be/kTyvLpNpa9E "

QahCPwrZfJY

Dennis Leahy

15th February 2020, 20:21

onawah

17th February 2020, 18:41

MPs ramp up Assange freedom campaign
Feb 12, 2020
Sky News Australia
197K subscribers

"Two federal MPs are taking their fight to free Julian Assange to the United Kingdom.

Independent Andrew Wilkie and Liberal George Christensen will jet to London at their own expense to visit the Wikileaks founder at Belmarsh Prison.

The 'Bring Julian Assange Home Parliamentary Group' co-chairs will also meet British parliamentarians and officials to discuss the matter.

The 48-year-old is due to face an extradition trial later this month over US charges including 17 counts of spying and one count of conspiracy to commit computer intrusion.

Independent MP Andrew Wilkie told Sky News on Thursday "we want to check on Julian Assange's welfare and health and the circumstances of his incarceration".

"I personally want to assure Mr Assange that there are a lot of people very concerned at the injustice he face," he said.

Mr Wilkie said the Australian government was doing very little to help Mr Assange, and "I think a lot of people are very disappointed".

"At the end of the day, Julian Assange is an Australian citizen and you'd think the Australian government would be very concerned," he said."

VfkZCWgqu3M

onawah

17th February 2020, 20:20

Max Blumenthal on the imperial NGOs that ignore Julian Assange - and the billionaires behind them
Feb 16, 2020
The Grayzone

"The Grayzone editor Max Blumenthal speaks about the witch hunt against WikiLeaks publisher and political prisoner Julian Assange, and how billionaire-funded "human rights" and "press freedom" non-profit organizations have refused to support him.

This talk was hosted by the Courage Foundation in New York City on February 15, 2020. "

||| The Grayzone |||

Find more reporting at https://thegrayzone.com
IT1-tbJ9Mak

Kryztian

17th February 2020, 21:15

WikiLeaks Twitter account suspiciously locked just days before Assange extradition hearing

Twitter has locked the account of WikiLeaks.

The publisher's editor-in-chief Kristinn Hrafnsson has taken to Twitter to demand answers after their official account was suspiciously locked just days away from the extradition hearing of its founder Julian Assange.

Hrafnsson exclaimed that the @wikileaks Twitter account had been locked “shortly before Assange extradition hearing” and for seemingly no apparent reason.

Rest of the story is here (https://reclaimthenet.org/wikileaks-twitter-locked/).
https://reclaimthenet.org/wikileaks-twitter-locked/

Andre

17th February 2020, 23:09

I think it's a good idea to keep the points in mind that Miles Mathis makes about ex-CIA operatives ( if there is such a thing, considering the saying "once CIA, always CIA"), when reading anything by R.D. Steele, including post #244, above. SEE: http://mileswmathis.com/chem2.pdf

I read Mile's PDF (the one linked in this thread) and it sounded plausible until he got to chemtrails where he asserts categorically, that the entire program is being executed in order to dump industrial toxic waste in the atmosphere simply to get rid of it. Yet, he gives no explanation whatsoever as to what industries use barium and strontium in such massive amounts that they would need to include it in their dumping. The reason? There aren't any, at least not on the scale that would warrant including these chemicals in the spray mix. And the other ingredient, aluminium as industrial waste is a no-brainer, but even there he doesn't specifically discuss the industries when this is the foundation of his argument.

So, I'm left asking myself, why assert chemtrails are all about industrial waste and not go into the industries at fault? Is it poor research or misinformation? And, are we are expected to believe his "colleagues" are always guilty of the later, and not poor research, while he is simply guilty of poor research. I wonder.

Justjane

19th February 2020, 05:35

It looks like Australia might finally intervene in the situation with Julian Assange. It’s interesting to note that George Christensen is one of our most conservative politicians here in Australia and the Liberal Party has been absolutely against any intervention on behalf of Julian. A, so excited to hear this news.

From the article attached: “Christensen described Assange as "disorientated", "dehumanised" and "depersonalised" and urged British Prime Minister Boris Johnson to step in to prevent a hearing next week that could pave the way for the Wikileaks figure to be sent to the United States to face serious charges.
Both MPs said they had no cause to disagree with an assessment by the United Nations special rapporteur on torture, Nils Melzer, that Assange had been the victim of psychological torture. The UK has defended its handling of the case and the conditions of his imprisonment.
"I walk out of Belmarsh in absolutely no doubt that he has become a political prisoner in this country and that the US is determined to extradite him to get even," Wilkie said.
"There was no espionage. There was no hacking. It was just a person doing the right thing and publishing important information in the public interest and frankly it is an international scandal that he is locked up in there in those conditions as a political prisoner."
"There's information that I now know, that will be known next week, that will probably make people sit up straight and worry about this a hell of a lot.
"I think that now is a time that the government that I'm part of needs to be standing up and saying to both the UK and the US: 'enough is enough, leave our bloke alone and let him come home'."

https://apple.news/A7BDKL-eTQxKDbcoFYpxurw

I wonder what the new information could be?

Tintin

20th February 2020, 11:42

Tintin

20th February 2020, 12:48

"That Assange has been right all along, and getting him to Sweden was a fraud to cover an American plan to "render" him, is finally becoming clear to many who swallowed the incessant scuttlebutt of character assassination.

"I speak fluent Swedish and was able to read all the original documents," Nils Melzer, the United Nations Rapporteur on Torture, said recently, "I could hardly believe my eyes. According to the testimony of the woman in question, a rape had never taken place at all. And not only that: the woman's testimony was later changed by the Stockholm Police without her involvement in order to somehow make it sound like a possible rape. I have all the documents in my possession, the emails, the text messages.""

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

JULIAN ASSANGE MUST BE FREED, NOT BETRAYED
18 February 2020

John Pilger
Source: http://johnpilger.com/articles/julian-assange-must-be-freed-not-betrayed

42534

On Saturday, there will be a march from Australia House in London to Parliament Square, the centre of British democracy. People will carry pictures of the Australian publisher and journalist Julian Assange who, on 24 February, faces a court that will decide whether or not he is to be extradited to the United States and a living death.

I know Australia House well. As an Australian myself, I used to go there in my early days in London to read the newspapers from home. Opened by King George V over a century ago, its vastness of marble and stone, chandeliers and solemn portraits, imported from Australia when Australian soldiers were dying in the slaughter of the First World War, have ensured its landmark as an imperial pile of monumental servility.

As one of the oldest "diplomatic missions" in the United Kingdom, this relic of empire provides a pleasurable sinecure for Antipodean politicians: a "mate" rewarded or a troublemaker exiled.

Known as High Commissioner, the equivalent of an ambassador, the current beneficiary is George Brandis, who as Attorney General tried to water down Australia's Race Discrimination Act and approved raids on whistleblowers who had revealed the truth about Australia's illegal spying on East Timor during negotiations for the carve-up of that impoverished country's oil and gas.

This led to the prosecution of whistleblowers Bernard Collaery and "Witness K", on bogus charges. Like Julian Assange, they are to be silenced in a Kafkaesque trial and put away.

Australia House is the ideal starting point for Saturday's march.

"I confess," wrote Lord Curzon, Viceroy of India, in 1898, "that countries are pieces on a chessboard upon which is being played out a great game for the domination of the world.""

We Australians have been in the service of the Great Game for a very long time. Having devastated our Indigenous people in an invasion and a war of attrition that continues to this day, we have spilt blood for our imperial masters in China, Africa, Russia, the Middle East, Europe and Asia. No imperial adventure against those with whom we have no quarrel has escaped our dedication.

Deception has been a feature. When Prime Minister Robert Menzies sent Australian soldiers to Vietnam in the 1960s, he described them as a training team, requested by a beleaguered government in Saigon. It was a lie. A senior official of the Department of External Affairs wrote secretly that "although we have stressed the fact publicly that our assistance was given in response to an invitation by the government of South Vietnam", the order came from Washington.

Two versions. The lie for us, the truth for them. As many as four million people died in the Vietnam war.

When Indonesia invaded East Timor in 1975, the Australian Ambassador, Richard Woolcott, secretly urged the government in Canberra to "act in a way which would be designed to minimise the public impact in Australia and show private understanding to Indonesia." In other words, to lie. He alluded to the beckoning spoils of oil and gas in the Timor Sea which, boasted Foreign Minister Gareth Evans, were worth "zillions".

In the genocide that followed, at least 200,000 East Timorese died. Australia recognised, almost alone, the legitimacy of the occupation.

When Prime Minister John Howard sent Australian special forces to invade Iraq with America and Britain in 2003, he - like George W. Bush and Tony Blair - lied that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. More than a million people died in Iraq.

WikiLeaks was not the first to call out the pattern of criminal lying in democracies that remain every bit as rapacious as in Lord Curzon's day. The achievement of the remarkable publishing organisation founded by Julian Assange has been to provide the proof.

WikiLeaks has informed us how illegal wars are fabricated, how governments are overthrown and violence is used in our name, how we are spied upon through our phones and screens. The true lies of presidents, ambassadors, political candidates, generals, proxies, political fraudsters have been exposed. One by one, these would-be emperors have realised they have no clothes.

It has been an unprecedented public service; above all, it is authentic journalism, whose value can be judged by the degree of apoplexy of the corrupt and their apologists.

For example, in 2016, WikiLeaks published the leaked emails of Hillary Clinton's campaign manager John Podesta, which revealed a direct connection between Clinton, the foundation she shares with her husband and the funding of organised jihadism in the Middle East - terrorism.

One email disclosed that Islamic State (ISIS) was bankrolled by the governments of Saudi Arabia and Qatar, from which Clinton accepted huge "donations". Moreover, as US Secretary of State, she approved the world's biggest ever arms sale to her Saudi benefactors, worth more than $80 billion. Thanks to her, US arms sales to the world - for use in stricken countries like Yemen - doubled.

Revealed by WikiLeaks and published in The New York Times, the Podesta emails triggered a vituperative campaign against editor-in-chief Julian Assange, bereft of evidence. He was an "agent of Russia working to elect Trump"; the nonsensical "Russiagate" followed. That WikiLeaks had also published more than 800,000 frequently damning documents from Russia was ignored.

On an Australian Broadcasting Corporation programme, Four Corners, in 2017, Clinton was interviewed by Sarah Ferguson, who began: "No one could fail to be moved by the pain on your face at [the moment of Donald Trump's inauguration] ... Do you remember how visceral it was for you?"

Having established Clinton's visceral suffering, the fawning Ferguson described "Russia's role" and the "damage done personally to you" by Julian Assange.

Clinton replied, "He [Assange] is very clearly a tool of Russian intelligence. And he has done their bidding."

Ferguson said to Clinton, "Lots of people, including in Australia, think that Assange is a martyr of free speech and freedom of information. How would you describe him?"

Again, Clinton was allowed to defame Assange - a "nihilist" in the service of "dictators" - while Ferguson assured her interviewee she was "the icon of your generation".

There was no mention of a leaked document, revealed by WikiLeaks, called Libya Tick Tock (https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/23898), prepared for Hillary Clinton, which described her as the central figure driving the destruction of the Libyan state in 2011. This resulted in 40,000 deaths, the arrival of ISIS in North Africa and the European refugee and migrant crisis.

For me, this episode of Clinton's interview - and there are many others - vividly illustrates the division between false and true journalism. On 24 February, when Julian Assange steps into Woolwich Crown Court, true journalism will be the only crime on trial.

I am sometimes asked why I have championed Assange. For one thing, I like and I admire him. He is a friend with astonishing courage; and he has a finely honed, wicked sense of humour. He is the diametric opposite of the character invented then assassinated by his enemies.

As a reporter in places of upheaval all over the world, I have learned to compare the evidence I have witnessed with the words and actions of those with power. In this way, it is possible to get a sense of how our world is controlled and divided and manipulated, how language and debate are distorted to produce the propaganda of false consciousness.

When we speak about dictatorships, we call this brainwashing: the conquest of minds. It is a truth we rarely apply to our own societies, regardless of the trail of blood that leads back to us and which never dries.

WikiLeaks has exposed this. That is why Assange is in a maximum security prison in London facing concocted political charges in America, and why he has shamed so many of those paid to keep the record straight. Watch these journalists now look for cover as it dawns on them that the American fascists who have come for Assange may come for them, not least those on the Guardian who collaborated with WikiLeaks and won prizes and secured lucrative book and Hollywood deals based on his work, before turning on him.

In 2011, David Leigh, the Guardian's "investigations editor", told journalism students at City University in London that Assange was "quite deranged". When a puzzled student asked why, Leigh replied, "Because he doesn't understand the parameters of conventional journalism".

But it's precisely because he did understand that the "parameters" of the media often shielded vested and political interests and had nothing to do with transparency that the idea of WikiLeaks was so appealing to many people, especially the young, rightly cynical about the so-called "mainstream".

Leigh mocked the very idea that, once extradited, Assange would end up "wearing an orange jumpsuit". These were things, he said, "that he and his lawyer are saying in order to feed his paranoia".

The current US charges against Assange centre on the Afghan Logs and Iraq Logs, which the Guardian published and Leigh worked on, and on the Collateral Murder video showing an American helicopter crew gunning down civilians and celebrating the crime. For this journalism, Assange faces 17 charges of "espionage" which carry prison sentences totalling 175 years.

Whether or not his prison uniform will be an "orange jumpsuit", US court files seen by Assange's lawyers reveal that, once extradited, Assange will be subject to Special Administrative Measures, known as SAMS. A 2017 report by Yale University Law School and the Center for Constitutional Rights described SAMS as "the darkest corner of the US federal prison system" combining "the brutality and isolation of maximum security units with additional restrictions that deny individuals almost any connection to the human world ... The net effect is to shield this form of torture from any real public scrutiny."

That Assange has been right all along, and getting him to Sweden was a fraud to cover an American plan to "render" him, is finally becoming clear to many who swallowed the incessant scuttlebutt of character assassination. "I speak fluent Swedish and was able to read all the original documents," Nils Melzer, the United Nations Rapporteur on Torture, said recently, "I could hardly believe my eyes. According to the testimony of the woman in question, a rape had never taken place at all. And not only that: the woman's testimony was later changed by the Stockholm Police without her involvement in order to somehow make it sound like a possible rape. I have all the documents in my possession, the emails, the text messages."

Keir Starmer is currently running for election as leader of the Labour Party in Britain. Between 2008 and 2013, he was Director of Public Prosecutions and responsible for the Crown Prosecution Service. According to Freedom of Information searches by the Italian journalist Stefania Maurizi, Sweden tried to drop the Assange case in 2011, but a CPS official in London told the Swedish prosecutor not to treat it as "just another extradition".

In 2012, she received an email from the CPS: "Don't you dare get cold feet!!!" Other CPS emails were either deleted or redacted. Why? Keir Starmer needs to say why.

At the forefront of Saturday's march will be John Shipton, Julian's father, whose indefatigable support for his son is the antithesis of the collusion and cruelty of the governments of Australia, our homeland.

The roll call of shame begins with Julia Gillard, the Australian Labor prime minister who, in 2010, wanted to criminalise WikiLeaks, arrest Assange and cancel his passport - until the Australian Federal Police pointed out that no law allowed this and that Assange had committed no crime.

While falsely claiming to give him consular assistance in London, it was the Gillard government's shocking abandonment of its citizen that led to Ecuador granting political asylum to Assange in its London embassy.

In a subsequent speech before the US Congress, Gillard, a favourite of the US embassy in Canberra, broke records for sycophancy (according to the website Honest History) as she declared, over and again, the fidelity of America's "mates Down Under".

Today, while Assange waits in his cell, Gillard travels the world, promoting herself as a feminist concerned about "human rights", often in tandem with that other right-on feminist Hillary Clinton.

The truth is that Australia could have rescued Julian Assange and can still rescue him.

In 2010, I arranged to meet a prominent Liberal (Conservative) Member of Parliament, Malcolm Turnbull. As a young barrister in the 1980s, Turnbull had successfully fought the British Government's attempts to prevent the publication of the book, Spycatcher, whose author Peter Wright, a spy, had exposed Britain's "deep state".

We talked about his famous victory for free speech and publishing and I described the miscarriage of justice awaiting Assange - the fraud of his arrest in Sweden and its connection with an American indictment that tore up the US Constitution and the rule of international law.

Turnbull appeared to show genuine interest and an aide took extensive notes. I asked him to deliver a letter to the Australian government from Gareth Peirce, the renowned British human rights lawyer who represents Assange.

In the letter, Peirce wrote, "Given the extent of the public discussion, frequently on the basis of entirely false assumptions... it is very hard to attempt to preserve for [Julian Assange] any presumption of innocence. Mr. Assange has now hanging over him not one but two Damocles swords, of potential extradition to two different jurisdictions in turn for two different alleged crimes, neither of which are crimes in his own country, and that his personal safety has become at risk in circumstances that are highly politically charged."

Turnbull promised to deliver the letter, follow it through and let me know. I subsequently wrote to him several times, waited and heard nothing.

In 2018, John Shipton wrote a deeply moving letter to the then prime minister of Australia asking him to exercise the diplomatic power at his government's disposal and bring Julian home. He wrote that he feared that if Julian was not rescued, there would be a tragedy and his son would die in prison. He received no reply. The prime minister was Malcolm Turnbull.

Last year, when the current prime minister, Scott Morrison, a former public relations man, was asked about Assange, he replied in his customary way, "He should face the music!"

When Saturday's march reaches the Houses of Parliament, said to be "the Mother of Parliaments", Morrison and Gillard and Turnbull and all those who have betrayed Julian Assange should be called out; history and decency will not forget them or those who remain silent now.

And if there is any sense of justice left in the land of Magna Carta, the travesty that is the case against this heroic Australian must be thrown out. Or beware, all of us.

http://johnpilger.com/
@johnpilger (https://twitter.com/johnpilger/status/1229714360861364224)

1229714360861364224

onawah

23rd February 2020, 04:33

Julian Assange "Stop Extradition Protest" in London with Varoufakis, Vivienne Westwood & more!
Feb 22, 2020
acTVism Munich
41.8K subscribers
✔ More videos coming on this topic. Subscribe here: https://goo.gl/aMkRjb

"In this video we document the protest that took place in London on the 22nd of February 2020 to stop the extradition of Julian Assange. This protest was organised by the "Don't Extradite Assange Campaign" .

CORRECTION IN VIDEO AT 00:14: " ... and 1 count of conspiracy "to commit computer intrusion”."

To view more videos on this topics:
► Julian Assange - Public Rally Event:
https://youtu.be/QahCPwrZfJY
► Interview with Assange's Father:
https://youtu.be/roiyDkNbOkc
► Interview with Nils Melzer:
https://youtu.be/f9KRxF9oVxQ
► Report of the 4th of February public rally
https://youtu.be/AqEz3y4cn0Y
► Abby Martin, Snowden, Chomsky, Jill Stein, Varoufakis, Horvat & Richter Respond: https://youtu.be/39IUOeQvaOw

FOLLOW US ONLINE:
► Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/acTVism/
► Instagram: actv_munich
► Website: http://www.actvism.org/
► Twitter: https://twitter.com/acTVismMunich
► YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/acTVismMunich/

tMwXD5tPtrQ

onawah

23rd February 2020, 05:01

Assange most important symbol of press freedom today – journalist
Feb 22, 2020
RT America
1.07M subscribers

"WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has been detained in London’s Belmarsh Prison for almost a year now, but is about to face a month-long hearing next week which will decide whether he can be extradited to the US. He faces up to 175 years in prison and 18 counts under the Espionage Act. Editor-in-chief of Consortium News Joe Lauria breaks it all down. "

nAiss_r9BzU

onawah

23rd February 2020, 18:10

Roger Waters: Washington DC Have Decided They Want Julian Assange Killed
Going Underground on RT
Feb 22, 2020

"On this episode of Going Underground, Going Underground's Social Media Producer Farhaan Ahmed speaks to Richard Burgon MP who is standing to be Deputy Leader of the Labour Party. He discusses the importance of Wikileaks Founder Julian Assange's leaks, what his extradition could mean for press freedom in the UK and around the world and why his extradition should be halted. Next, legendary former Pink Floyd frontman Roger Waters speaks to Afshin Rattansi about the persecution of Julian Assange, ahead of Julian's upcoming extradition trial. He discusses why he believes Washington DC is seeking to imprison Julian Assange for 175 years, the importance of his leaks for billions around the world, the Washington-backed regime change attempt in Venezuela and coup in Bolivia and more! Finally, Farhaan Ahmed speaks to BAFTA Award-Winning actor Steve Coogan and BAFTA Award-Winning Director Michael Winterbottom about their new film 'Greed', a comedy highlighting billionaire excess and the gap between the super-rich and the super-poor."

s6Tjp5ZT3Sk

onawah

23rd February 2020, 18:36

Very puzzling development-- a move on the part of Assange's defense team which could prove disastrous ??
Assange Rorabacher final
Feb 23, 2020
The Duran

nN0og4RY5Zs

Chester

23rd February 2020, 19:46

I would like to see the specific statements made by the Assange attorney to the UK court. Why? Because all the news organizations reporting on this only summarize in their own words what was supposedly conveyed to the court.

As those on this forum (and those who can read these parts of the forum) know... there is reason to believe the e-mails came via copy to a flash drive (see Bill Binney) and extracted by Seth Rich (a big Bernie Sanders supported who, some speculate, was angry as to what the DNC was doing to cheat Sanders out of the nomination). Then there is the individual (I cannot locate his name at the moment) that played a role as currier whose "in hiding?"

A wild conspiracy theory for sure. Yet why was the investigator who brought this theory out to the public on FOX News at that time so quickly squashed?

And check this out... I am certain there are all sorts of links on the internet that explore this alternative theory, yet when typing in "who got the DNC emails to assange?" on Google, you can't find a single one in the first 3 pages and only a few articles questioning the "established theory - Russia did it" on the next few? We know how Google works and we know how they scrub matters such as this. Why go to the truouble when its just some whacky conspiracy theory?

So I would think the exact words provided by the attorney to the UK court are made public because if they are not, I would not be surprised the actual words were used as a basis to spin them as the media has done. That seems like the odds on likelihood in my most humble (and often wrong) opinion.

Add one more thought... why is Australia working so hard to keep Assange from being extradited? Assange has so far shown resolute principle with regards to protecting sources. I think Assange would die, or worse, spend the rest of his life in the solitary cell formerly occupied by Manafort to maintain protecting his sources. But this allows Assange to do one thing, that which he did clearly before, in the interview with Sean Hannity - deny it was Russia.

Note: Early on Wikileaks offered the $20,000 reward for Seth Rich's killer. August of 2016. No one thought Trump would win. What are the chances Trump (through some emissary) could have approached some high up (trusted) Wikileaks official to put that out there just in case Trump wins? And along with that, offer a pardon if he does?

The desperation on the deep state, ET AL. to do everything they can, once again, to curtail as much as possible, the power Trump and the election results (the Senate being "key" but if the House also... huge!) would wield if/when he wins in November... and this is obvious. The public sees the scam. The public sees all the stakeholders in the scam and why they do what they do.

So before all the speculations as to "the apparent dumb risk" taken by the Assange legal team is solidified, I think its important to know exactly, word for word, what Assange's attroney told the UK court.

onawah

23rd February 2020, 20:16

Agreed! It probably won't take long.

I would like to see the specific statements made by the Assange attorney to the UK court. Why? Because all the news organizations reporting on this only summarize in their own words what was supposedly conveyed to the court.

So before all the speculations as to "the apparent dumb risk" taken by the Assange legal team is solidified, I think its important to know exactly, word for word, what Assange's attroney told the UK court.

onawah

24th February 2020, 05:29

Julian Assange - Belmarsh Prison visit by Yanis Varoufakis
Feb 23, 2020
acTVism Munich

✔ More videos coming on this topic. Subscribe here: https://goo.gl/aMkRjb

"In this video we travel to the Belmarsh prison and talk to Yanis Varoufakis to gains insights on the condition of Julian Assange. Yanis Varoufakis visited Julian Assange with John Shipton (father of Assange) earlier on the same day (23rd of February, 2020)."

7rDs78JLgiQ

Tintin

24th February 2020, 12:20

It appears Patrick Henningsen from 21st Century Wire may perhaps have been able to secure one of the fourteen (yes, you read that right, fourteen :facepalm: ) public seats available in the (kangaroo) court inside Belmarsh prison (?) I know Craig Murray (https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/02/the-assange-hearing-a-reticent-request/) was hoping to get a ringside seat as well.

Here's Patrick's latest news which seems to be coming pretty hot-off-the-press:

1231908625821708289

From Craig:

1231821949740998658

Dennis Leahy

25th February 2020, 03:04

Consortium News is in London to cover the formal extradition process of WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange and will provide updates today and throughout the week.
6:45 pm London time: WikiLeaks tweets that the defense will present its case “in earnest” on Tuesday at Woolwich Crown Court. Consortium News will continue its Live Updates Tuesday unless it gets a place inside the courtroom, in which case we will present a full report at the end of the day.
Defense begins in earnest Tomorrow https://t.co/fgq8D0zptr
— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) February 24, 2020 (https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/1231989713986297856?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw)
Assange’s lawyer tells court prosecution cares little for justice and is politically motivated. Says extradition should be barred because of prosecutions’ “political motives.” Judge is told that Assange will not likely give testimony during this opening week of the hearing.
Julian Assange's lawyer Edward Fitzgerald QC: "Prosecution is not motivated by genuine concern for criminal justice but by politics.
"This extradition should be barred because the prosecution is being pursued for political motives and not in good faith."
— Tristan Kirk (@kirkkorner) February 24, 2020 (https://twitter.com/kirkkorner/status/1231972275529900032?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw)

He says Assange would face "inhuman and degrading treatment" and attacks Pres. Trump: "(He) came into power with a new approach for freedom of the press… amounting effectively to declaring war on investigative journalists."
— Tristan Kirk (@kirkkorner) February 24, 2020 (https://twitter.com/kirkkorner/status/1231972674567626754?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw)

Mr Fitzgerald restates the claim that Assange was offered a pardon through a Trump intermediary, and says Assange will dispute the 'misleading' claim that WikiLeaks published unredacted cables.
— Tristan Kirk (@kirkkorner) February 24, 2020 (https://twitter.com/kirkkorner/status/1231973195823140868?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw)

Judge told it is 'very unlikely' that Julian Assange will give evidence during the extradition hearing.
— Tristan Kirk (@kirkkorner) February 24, 2020 (https://twitter.com/kirkkorner/status/1231973378694811652?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw)
3:10 pm London time: U.S. lawyer in court is trying to turn normal journalistic practice into a crime by confusing Assange’s attempts to help Chelsea Manning (who had top secret clearance and legal access to the documents she leaked) hide her identity by logging in as an administrator, not to help her hack the material, which she didn’t need to do. The two indictments against Assange make it perfectly clear that that is what happened and that Assange was not engaged in hacking.
Nearing the end of his #Assange (https://twitter.com/hashtag/Assange?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw) opening, US lawyer mentions phone hacking by the News of the World: "There's no licence to commit a criminal offence simply because you say it's for a journalistic purpose. There is no public interest defence under the Computer Misuse Act".
— Tristan Kirk (@kirkkorner) February 24, 2020 (https://twitter.com/kirkkorner/status/1231925469882306560?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw)
2:55 pm London time: The hundreds of people demonstrating outside Woolwich Crown Court are making so much noise that it is making it difficult to hear inside the courtroom. Even Assange said so.
Julian Assange has told the court he is "having difficulty concentrating – this noise is not helpful".
He wants the demo to stop disrupting the court proceedings.
"I'm very appreciative of the public support, I understand they must be disgusted", #Assange (https://twitter.com/hashtag/Assange?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw) said. https://t.co/MJ6WIfrctW
— Tristan Kirk (@kirkkorner) February 24, 2020 (https://twitter.com/kirkkorner/status/1231927035687243777?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw)
2:50 pm London time: WikiLeaks Editor-in-Chief Kristinn Hrafnsson has left the courthouse and addressed the media. He asked why the court was discussing the alleged harm done by the releases on Afghanistan and Iraq in 2010 and not the war crimes that those documents revealed. “That is what we should be talking about in a courtroom in this country.
Breaking: @khrafnsson (https://twitter.com/khrafnsson?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw) leaves courtroom and asks "why aren't we here talking in court about the war crimes, the assassination of innocent civilians?" #assange (https://twitter.com/hashtag/assange?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw)@TheCanaryUK (https://twitter.com/TheCanaryUK?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw) pic.twitter.com/zXCRjqq5db (https://t.co/zXCRjqq5db)
— John McEvoy (@jmcevoy_2) February 24, 2020 (https://twitter.com/jmcevoy_2/status/1231923554809262080?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw)
12:08 pm London time: Julian Assange’s father, John Shipton, spoke with the press outside the courthouse during a break and denounced the prosecutors’ allegation that Assange had endangered the lives of U.S. informants:
“The essential part of the argument of the prosectors’ case is that WikiLeaks publications endangered sources. This is simply not true. The Pentagon admitted, under oath, in Chelsea Manning’s trial that nobody had been hurt by the releases.
Robert Gates, ex-secretary of defense, in testimony before Congress said it’s awkward, it’s embarrassing, but no damage was done. I’ll note that the prosecutor didn’t give one example of a broken fingernail. He just said sources were endangered. Well it’s simply not true.”
Longtime Assange associate, Joseph Farrell, also spoke to the press:
Breaking: WikiLeaks spokesperson Joseph Farrell at the recess says the prosecution has proposed a "flat contradiction and a repeat of the Manning trial" pic.twitter.com/S2cS1k0XWj (https://t.co/S2cS1k0XWj)
— John McEvoy (@jmcevoy_2) February 24, 2020 (https://twitter.com/jmcevoy_2/status/1231908694700548096?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw)
11:45 am London time: The formal hearing to determine whether Julian Assange will be extradited to the United States to stand trial on 17 counts of the Espionage Act has begun in London on Monday morning. Assange’s lawyers arrived at Woolwich Crown Court with stacks of evidence that will presented during the first week of the hearing, which will resume in May.
Julian Assange's legal team bringing in the evidence #Assange (https://twitter.com/hashtag/Assange?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw) #AssangeCase (https://twitter.com/hashtag/AssangeCase?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw) #WikiLeaks (https://twitter.com/hashtag/WikiLeaks?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw) @AAPNewswire (https://twitter.com/AAPNewswire?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw) pic.twitter.com/gF1OCETBQh (https://t.co/gF1OCETBQh)
— Marty Silk (@MartySilkHack) February 24, 2020 (https://twitter.com/MartySilkHack/status/1231860612998844416?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw)
Yellow Vests, who’ve traveled to London from Paris to protest outside the courthouse, present a vest to John Shipton to give to his son Julian Assange.
#GiletsJaunes (https://twitter.com/hashtag/GiletsJaunes?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw) who have travelled from #Paris (https://twitter.com/hashtag/Paris?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw) give a yellow vest to Julian #Assange (https://twitter.com/hashtag/Assange?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw). Presenting it to his father before the extradition hearing in #London (https://twitter.com/hashtag/London?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw) begins. #FreeAssange (https://twitter.com/hashtag/FreeAssange?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw)#DontExtraditeAssange (https://twitter.com/hashtag/DontExtraditeAssange?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw)
pic.twitter.com/0BVhcH7bu8 (https://t.co/0BVhcH7bu8)
— nonouzi (@Gerrrty) February 24, 2020 (https://twitter.com/Gerrrty/status/1231866156241358850?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw)
U.S. prosecutors began by arguing that Assange is not a journalist and that he risked the lives of U.S. informants.
BREAKING: UK/US GOVERNMENT CLAIM ASSANGE IS BEING PURSUED FOR RISKING OR PUBLISHING NAMES OF SOURCES PUTTING THEM AT RISK. "#JULIANASSANGE (https://twitter.com/hashtag/JULIANASSANGE?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw) IS NO JOURNALIST" HE'S NOT CHARGED WITH PUBLISHING EMBARRISING OR AWKWARD INFO@SputnikInt (https://twitter.com/SputnikInt?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw) pic.twitter.com/9Qgt8DYPEu (https://t.co/9Qgt8DYPEu)
— M. A. E. (@MElmaazi) February 24, 2020 (https://twitter.com/MElmaazi/status/1231892020068847622?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw)
Revealing the names of U.S. informants is not a crime and is not listed on Assange’s indictment as a statute U.S. prosecutors are alleging Assange has violated. After more than ten years, there is absolutely no evidence that any informant’s life was harmed by WikiLeaks revelations, said (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FIGkd_qR_a8&t=481s) WikiLeaks Editor-in-Chief Kristinn Hrafnsson at a press conference on Wednesday.

2395

Tags: John Shipton (https://consortiumnews.com/tag/john-shipton/) Joseph Farrell (https://consortiumnews.com/tag/joseph-farrell/) Julian Assange (https://consortiumnews.com/tag/julian-assange/) Kristinn Hrafnsson (https://consortiumnews.com/tag/kristinn-hrafnsson/)

(this was all copy/pasted from Consortium News: https://consortiumnews.com/2020/02/24/live-updates-from-london-assange-extradition-hearing/)

onawah

25th February 2020, 04:23

I'm having the same problem--nothing of the text is visible. I'm using Chrome, but I don't Tweet.

Do we need to have a twitter account to see posts with "tweet" tags? I don't see anything. Thanks, Tintin.

That's a good question Dennis. And I'm stumped, to be honest. Do you mean you can't access Twitter content via the embedded tweets? (Click within the embeds and that should allow you to go to Twitter). No, you shouldn't need a Twitter account to be able to see that content.

Probably best we tease this out offline. :)
If I quote your post, I can see the tweet tags and the numbers between the tags. But here on the forum, nothing shows up at all (as shown on my post including your quote.) I'm using Firefox latest browser.

onawah

25th February 2020, 05:16

Julian Assange Will Face a Show Trial in the United States!- UN Torture Rapporteur Nils Melzer
Feb 24, 2020
Going Underground on RT

"We speak to the UN’s Special Rapporteur on Torture Nils Melzer about the persecution of Julian Assange. He discusses the threat Assange’s persecution poses to press freedom, why mainstream media are starting to slowly support the Wikileaks founder, the allegations Julian Assange faced in Sweden, governments not cooperating with him despite his UN mandate and more!"
f4rTv8FL6lg

Dennis Leahy

25th February 2020, 14:32

Snippet of article from: https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/world/2020/02/25/julian-assange-bin-laden/

Barrister Edward Fitzgerald was asked by District Judge Vanessa Baraitser if Assange would testify during the month-long hearing.

“Madam, it’s very unlikely that he would,” Mr Fitzgerald said.

Arguing against extradition, he said the dividing line between US courts and the president has been “blurred” in the decade-long pursuit of his client.

Mr Fitzgerald told the packed court a witness will confirm the US had even contemplated more “extreme measures” against the Australian.
“Such as kidnapping or poisoning Julian Assange in the embassy,” he said, referring to Assange’s seven-year asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy in London.

Mr Fitzgerald detailed how the Americans had spied on his meetings with lawyers in the embassy. He also maintained that US congressman Dana Rohrabacher had indeed offered Assange a pardon on orders of President Donald Trump (https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/world/2020/02/20/trump-assange-pardon-court/), a claim both American men denied last week.

“President Trump denies everything and we say ‘well, he would, wouldn’t he’,” Mr Fitzgerald said.

Outside court, journalists and human rights group said the case could have wide-ranging impacts for media freedoms and whistleblowers.

Praxis

25th February 2020, 15:23

Tintin

25th February 2020, 15:39

(From Craig Murray (https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/02/your-man-in-the-public-gallery-assange-hearing-day-1/) who has, thankfully for all of us, managed to obtain a seat in the hearing. NB: a correction to my post here (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?101183-Current-Wikileaks-and-Assange-News-Releases&p=1337519&viewfull=1#post1337519) - there are sixteen seats, not fourteen as I had originally posted.)

"There was a separate media entrance and a media room with live transmission from the courtroom, and there were so many scores of media I thought I could relax and not worry as the basic facts would be widely reported. In fact, I could not have been more wrong. I followed the arguments very clearly every minute of the day, and not a single one of the most important facts and arguments today has been reported anywhere in the mainstream media. That is a bold claim, but I fear it is perfectly true. So I have much work to do to let the world know what actually happened. The mere act of being an honest witness is suddenly extremely important, when the entire media has abandoned that role."

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

Your Man in the Public Gallery – Assange Hearing Day 1 [February 24th 2020]

Posted February 25th 2020

Woolwich Crown Court is designed to impose the power of the state. Normal courts in this country are public buildings, deliberately placed by our ancestors right in the centre of towns, almost always just up a few steps from a main street. The major purpose of their positioning and of their architecture was to facilitate public access in the belief that it is vital that justice can be seen by the public.

Woolwich Crown Court, which hosts Belmarsh Magistrates Court, is built on totally the opposite principle. It is designed with no other purpose than to exclude the public. Attached to a prison on a windswept marsh far from any normal social centre, an island accessible only through navigating a maze of dual carriageways, the entire location and architecture of the building is predicated on preventing public access. It is surrounded by a continuation of the same extremely heavy duty steel paling barrier that surrounds the prison. It is the most extraordinary thing, a courthouse which is a part of the prison system itself, a place where you are already considered guilty and in jail on arrival. Woolwich Crown Court is nothing but the physical negation of the presumption of innocence, the very incarnation of injustice in unyielding steel, concrete and armoured glass. It has precisely the same relationship to the administration of justice as Guantanamo Bay or the Lubyanka. It is in truth just the sentencing wing of Belmarsh prison.

When enquiring about facilities for the public to attend the hearing, an Assange activist was told by a member of court staff that we should realise that Woolwich is a “counter-terrorism court”. That is true de facto, but in truth a “counter-terrorism court” is an institution unknown to the UK constitution. Indeed, if a single day at Woolwich Crown Court does not convince you the existence of liberal democracy is now a lie, then your mind must be very closed indeed.

Extradition hearings are not held at Belmarsh Magistrates Court inside Woolwich Crown Court. They are always held at Westminster Magistrates Court as the application is deemed to be delivered to the government at Westminster. Now get your head around this. This hearing is at Westminster Magistrates Court. It is being held by the Westminster magistrates and Westminster court staff, but located at Belmarsh Magistrates Court inside Woolwich Crown Court. All of which weird convolution is precisely so they can use the “counter-terrorist court” to limit public access and to impose the fear of the power of the state.

One consequence is that, in the courtroom itself, Julian Assange is confined at the back of the court behind a bulletproof glass screen. He made the point several times during proceedings that this makes it very difficult for him to see and hear the proceedings. The magistrate, Vanessa Baraitser, chose to interpret this with studied dishonesty as a problem caused by the very faint noise of demonstrators outside, as opposed to a problem caused by Assange being locked away from the court in a massive bulletproof glass box.

Now there is no reason at all for Assange to be in that box, designed to restrain extremely physically violent terrorists. He could sit, as a defendant at a hearing normally would, in the body of the court with his lawyers. But the cowardly and vicious Baraitser has refused repeated and persistent requests from the defence for Assange to be allowed to sit with his lawyers. Baraitser of course is but a puppet, being supervised by Chief Magistrate Lady Arbuthnot, a woman so enmeshed in the defence and security service establishment I can conceive of no way in which her involvement in this case could be more corrupt (https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2020-02-21-revealed-chief-magistrate-in-assange-case-received-financial-benefits-from-secretive-partner-organisations-of-uk-foreign-office/).

It does not matter to Baraitser or Arbuthnot if there is any genuine need for Assange to be incarcerated in a bulletproof box, or whether it stops him from following proceedings in court. Baraitser’s intention is to humiliate Assange, and to instill in the rest of us horror at the vast crushing power of the state. The inexorable strength of the sentencing wing of the nightmarish Belmarsh Prison must be maintained. If you are here, you are guilty.

It’s the Lubyanka. You may only be a remand prisoner. This may only be a hearing not a trial. You may have no history of violence and not be accused of any violence. You may have three of the country’s most eminent psychiatrists submitting reports of your history of severe clinical depression and warning of suicide. But I, Vanessa Baraitser, am still going to lock you up in a box designed for the most violent of terrorists. To show what we can do to dissidents. And if you can’t then follow court proceedings, all the better.

You will perhaps better accept what I say about the Court when I tell you that, for a hearing being followed all round the world, they have brought it to a courtroom which had a total number of sixteen seats available to members of the public. 16. To make sure I got one of those 16 and could be your man in the gallery, I was outside that great locked iron fence queuing in the cold, wet and wind from 6am. At 8am the gate was unlocked, and I was able to walk inside the fence to another queue before the doors of the courtroom, where despite the fact notices clearly state the court opens to the public at 8am, I had to queue outside the building again for another hour and forty minutes. Then I was processed through armoured airlock doors, through airport type security, and had to queue behind two further locked doors, before finally getting to my seat just as the court started at 10am. By which stage the intention was we should have been thoroughly cowed and intimidated, not to mention drenched and potentially hypothermic.

There was a separate media entrance and a media room with live transmission from the courtroom, and there were so many scores of media I thought I could relax and not worry as the basic facts would be widely reported. In fact, I could not have been more wrong. I followed the arguments very clearly every minute of the day, and not a single one of the most important facts and arguments today has been reported anywhere in the mainstream media. That is a bold claim, but I fear it is perfectly true. So I have much work to do to let the world know what actually happened. The mere act of being an honest witness is suddenly extremely important, when the entire media has abandoned that role.

James Lewis QC made the opening statement for the prosecution. It consisted of two parts, both equally extraordinary. The first and longest part was truly remarkable for containing no legal argument, and for being addressed not to the magistrate but to the media. It is not just that it was obvious that is where his remarks were aimed, he actually stated on two occasions during his opening statement that he was addressing the media, once repeating a sentence and saying specifically that he was repeating it again because it was important that the media got it.

I am frankly astonished that Baraitser allowed this. It is completely out of order for a counsel to address remarks not to the court but to the media, and there simply could not be any clearer evidence that this is a political show trial and that Baraitser is complicit in that. I have not the slightest doubt that the defence would have been pulled up extremely quickly had they started addressing remarks to the media. Baraitser makes zero pretence of being anything other than in thrall to the Crown, and by extension to the US Government.

The points which Lewis wished the media to know were these: it is not true that mainstream outlets like the Guardian and New York Times are also threatened by the charges against Assange, because Assange was not charged with publishing the cables but only with publishing the names of informants, and with cultivating Manning and assisting him to attempt computer hacking. Only Assange had done these things, not mainstream outlets.

Lewis then proceeded to read out a series of articles from the mainstream media attacking Assange, as evidence that the media and Assange were not in the same boat. The entire opening hour consisted of the prosecution addressing the media, attempting to drive a clear wedge between the media and Wikileaks and thus aimed at reducing media support for Assange. It was a political address, not remotely a legal submission. At the same time, the prosecution had prepared reams of copies of this section of Lewis’ address, which were handed out to the media and given them electronically so they could cut and paste.

Following an adjournment, magistrate Baraitser questioned the prosecution on the veracity of some of these claims. In particular, the claim that newspapers were not in the same position because Assange was charged not with publication, but with “aiding and abetting” Chelsea Manning in getting the material, did not seem consistent with Lewis’ reading of the 1989 Official Secrets Act, which said that merely obtaining and publishing any government secret was an offence. Surely, Baraitser suggested, that meant that newspapers just publishing the Manning leaks would be guilty of an offence?

This appeared to catch Lewis entirely off guard. The last thing he had expected was any perspicacity from Baraitser, whose job was just to do what he said. Lewis hummed and hawed, put his glasses on and off several times, adjusted his microphone repeatedly and picked up a succession of pieces of paper from his brief, each of which appeared to surprise him by its contents, as he waved them haplessly in the air and said he really should have cited the Shayler case but couldn’t find it. It was liking watching Columbo with none of the charm and without the killer question at the end of the process.

Suddenly Lewis appeared to come to a decision. Yes, he said much more firmly. The 1989 Official Secrets Act had been introduced by the Thatcher Government after the Ponting Case, specifically to remove the public interest defence and to make unauthorised possession of an official secret a crime of strict liability – meaning no matter how you got it, publishing and even possessing made you guilty. Therefore, under the principle of dual criminality, Assange was liable for extradition whether or not he had aided and abetted Manning. Lewis then went on to add that any journalist and any publication that printed the official secret would therefore also be committing an offence, no matter how they had obtained it, and no matter if it did or did not name informants.

Lewis had thus just flat out contradicted his entire opening statement to the media stating that they need not worry as the Assange charges could never be applied to them. And he did so straight after the adjournment, immediately after his team had handed out copies of the argument he had now just completely contradicted. I cannot think it has often happened in court that a senior lawyer has proven himself so absolutely and so immediately to be an unmitigated and ill-motivated liar. This was undoubtedly the most breathtaking moment in today’s court hearing.

Yet remarkably I cannot find any mention anywhere in the mainstream media that this happened at all. What I can find, everywhere, is the mainstream media reporting, via cut and paste, Lewis’s first part of his statement on why the prosecution of Assange is not a threat to press freedom; but nobody seems to have reported that he totally abandoned his own argument five minutes later. Were the journalists too stupid to understand the exchanges?

The explanation is very simple. The clarification coming from a question Baraitser asked Lewis, there is no printed or electronic record of Lewis’ reply. His original statement was provided in cut and paste format to the media. His contradiction of it would require a journalist to listen to what was said in court, understand it and write it down. There is no significant percentage of mainstream media journalists who command that elementary ability nowadays. “Journalism” consists of cut and paste of approved sources only. Lewis could have stabbed Assange to death in the courtroom, and it would not be reported unless contained in a government press release.

I was left uncertain of Baraitser’s purpose in this. Plainly she discomfited Lewis very badly on this point, and appeared rather to enjoy doing so. On the other hand the point she made is not necessarily helpful to the defence. What she was saying was essentially that Julian could be extradited under dual criminality, from the UK point of view, just for publishing, whether or not he conspired with Chelsea Manning, and that all the journalists who published could be charged too. But surely this is a point so extreme that it would be bound to be invalid under the Human Rights Act? Was she pushing Lewis to articulate a position so extreme as to be untenable – giving him enough rope to hang himself – or was she slavering at the prospect of not just extraditing Assange, but of mass prosecutions of journalists?

The reaction of one group was very interesting. The four US government lawyers seated immediately behind Lewis had the grace to look very uncomfortable indeed as Lewis baldly declared that any journalist and any newspaper or broadcast media publishing or even possessing any government secret was committing a serious offence. Their entire strategy had been to pretend not to be saying that.

Lewis then moved on to conclude the prosecution’s arguments. The court had no decision to make, he stated. Assange must be extradited. The offence met the test of dual criminality as it was an offence both in the USA and UK. UK extradition law specifically barred the court from testing whether there was any evidence to back up the charges. If there had been, as the defence argued, abuse of process, the court must still extradite and then the court must pursue the abuse of process as a separate matter against the abusers. (This is a particularly specious argument as it is not possible for the court to take action against the US government due to sovereign immunity, as Lewis well knows). Finally, Lewis stated that the Human Rights Act and freedom of speech were completely irrelevant in extradition proceedings.

Edward Fitzgerald then arose to make the opening statement for the defence. He started by stating that the motive for the prosecution was entirely political, and that political offences were specifically excluded under article 4.1 of the UK/US extradition treaty. He pointed out that at the time of the Chelsea Manning Trial and again in 2013 the Obama administration had taken specific decisions not to prosecute Assange for the Manning leaks. This had been reversed by the Trump administration for reasons that were entirely political.

On abuse of process, Fitzgerald referred to evidence presented to the Spanish criminal courts that the CIA had commissioned a Spanish security company to spy on Julian Assange in the Embassy, and that this spying specifically included surveillance of Assange’s privileged meetings with his lawyers to discuss extradition. For the state trying to extradite to spy on the defendant’s client-lawyer consultations is in itself grounds to dismiss the case. (This point is undoubtedly true. Any decent judge would throw the case out summarily for the outrageous spying on the defence lawyers).

Fitzgerald went on to say the defence would produce evidence the CIA not only spied on Assange and his lawyers, but actively considered kidnapping or poisoning him, and that this showed there was no commitment to proper rule of law in this case.

Fitzgerald said that the prosecution’s framing of the case contained deliberate misrepresentation of the facts that also amounted to abuse of process. It was not true that there was any evidence of harm to informants, and the US government had confirmed this in other fora, eg in Chelsea Manning’s trial. There had been no conspiracy to hack computers, and Chelsea Manning had been acquitted on that charge at court martial. Lastly it was untrue that Wikileaks had initiated publication of unredacted names of informants, as other media organisations had been responsible for this first.

Again, so far as I can see, while the US allegation of harm to informants is widely reported, the defence’s total refutation on the facts and claim that the fabrication of facts amounts to abuse of process is not much reported at all. Fitzgerald finally referred to US prison conditions, the impossibility of a fair trial in the US, and the fact the Trump Administration has stated foreign nationals will not receive First Amendment protections, as reasons that extradition must be barred. You can read the whole defence statement, but in my view the strongest passage was on why this is a political prosecution, and thus precluded from extradition.

For the purposes of section 81(a), I next have to deal with the question of how
this politically motivated prosecution satisfies the test of being directed against
Julian Assange because of his political opinions. The essence of his political
opinions which have provoked this prosecution are summarised in the reports
of Professor Feldstein [tab 18], Professor Rogers [tab 40], Professor Noam
Chomsky [tab 39] and Professor Kopelman:-

i. He is a leading proponent of an open society and of freedom of expression.
ii. He is anti-war and anti-imperialism.
iii. He is a world-renowned champion of political transparency and of the
public’s right to access information on issues of importance – issues such
as political corruption, war crimes, torture and the mistreatment of
Guantanamo detainees.

5.4.Those beliefs and those actions inevitably bring him into conflict with powerful
states including the current US administration, for political reasons. Which
explains why he has been denounced as a terrorist and why President Trump
has in the past called for the death penalty.

5.5.But I should add his revelations are far from confined to the wrongdoings of
the US. He has exposed surveillance by Russia; and published exposes of Mr
Assad in Syria; and it is said that WikiLeaks revelations about corruption in
Tunisia and torture in Egypt were the catalyst for the Arab Spring itself.

5.6.The US say he is no journalist. But you will see a full record of his work in
Bundle M. He has been a member of the Australian journalists union since
2009, he is a member of the NUJ and the European Federation of Journalists.
He has won numerous media awards including being honoured with the
highest award for Australian journalists.

His work has been recognised by the Economist, Amnesty International and the Council of Europe. He is the winner of the Martha Gelhorn prize and has been repeatedly nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize, including both last year and this year. You can see from the materials that he has written books, articles and documentaries. He has had articles published in the Guardian, the New York Times, the Washington Post and the New Statesman, just to name a few.

Some of the very publications for which his extradition is being sought have been refereed to and relied upon in Courts throughout the world, including the UK Supreme Court and the European Court of Human Rights. In short, he has championed the cause of transparency and freedom of information throughout the world.

5.7.Professor Noam Chomsky puts it like this: – ‘in courageously upholding
political beliefs that most of profess to share he has performed an
enormous service to all those in the world who treasure the values of
freedom and democracy and who therefore demand the right to know
what their elected representatives are doing’ [see tab 39, paragraph 14].

So Julian Assange’s positive impact on the world is undeniable.

The hostility it has provoked from the Trump administration is equally undeniable.

The legal test for ‘political opinions’ 5.8.I am sure you are aware of the legal authorities on this issue: namely whether a request is made because of the defendant’s political opinions.

A broad approach has to be adopted when applying the test. In support of this we rely on the case of Re Asliturk [2002] EWHC 2326 (abuse authorities, tab 11, at
paras 25 – 26) which clearly establishes that such a wide approach should be
adopted to the concept of political opinions. And that will clearly cover Julian
Assange’s ideological positions.

Moreover, we also rely on cases such as Emilia Gomez v SSHD [2000] INLR 549 at tab 43 of the political offence authorities bundle. These show that the concept of “political opinions” extends to the political opinions imputed to the individual citizen by the state which prosecutes him. For that reason the characterisation of Julian Assange and WikiLeaks as a “non-state hostile intelligence agency” by Mr Pompeo makes clear that he has been targeted for his imputed political opinions.

All the experts whose reports you have show that Julian Assange has been targeted
because of the political position imputed to him by the Trump administration –
as an enemy of America who must be brought down.

Tomorrow the defence continue. I am genuinely uncertain what will happen as I feel at the moment far too exhausted to be there at 6am to queue to get in. But I hope somehow I will contrive another report tomorrow evening.

With grateful thanks to those who donated or subscribed to make this reporting possible.

This article is entirely free to reproduce and publish, including in translation, and I very much hope people will do so actively. Truth shall set us free.

Innocent Warrior

25th February 2020, 19:25

1232320502548566018

1232215744185802757

The page dedicated to documenting the first part of the extradition hearing, day by day, with relevant links, images, and other useful information -
https://challengepower.info/usa_vs_julian_assange_extradition_hearing_part_1_24-28_feb

*****

https://challengepower.info/_media/ja_defence_opening.pdf

Link to PDF HERE (https://challengepower.info/_media/ja_defence_opening.pdf).

*****

1232338352252293121

1232297893450698752

1232132457232764929

*****

1232268371665747970

1232322479982551040

Julian Assange’s lawyer claims US wanted to kill WikiLeaks founder and make it look like accident (https://nypost.com/2020/02/25/julian-assanges-lawyer-claims-us-wanted-to-kill-wikileaks-founder-and-make-it-look-like-accident/?utm_source=NYPTwitter&utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_medium=SocialFlow) (New York Post, Feb 25)

onawah

26th February 2020, 01:24

WikiLeaks – public enemy Julian Assange | DW Documentary
Feb 25, 2020
DW Documentary
1.28M subscribers

"The Wikileaks revelations shocked the world, and co-founder Julian Assange shot to fame. WikiLeaks exposed U.S. army war crimes, the secret emails of top international politicians and controversial secret service surveillance methods.

Assange’s relentless pursuit of total transparency has changed the face of journalism and given rise to much imitation, as well as fierce criticism.

But it seems the spell has broken. After spending seven years in the Ecuadorian embassy in London, Julian Assange is now in a cell at Belmarsh, a maximum-security prison in London. In many ways, he is being treated as a terrorist. His health has suffered. The UN Special Rapporteur on Torture Nils Melzer has even referred to a "murderous system” designed to make an example of Assange.

Assange took on a very powerful opponent. The U.S.A. is pressing charges for obtaining and disclosing classified information. Now, the extradition hearing is about to begin in London. If Assange is extradited from England to the U.S.A., he faces up to 175 years in jail for espionage. Experts are expecting one of the most significant trials of its kind to date.

"WikiLeaks - Public Enemy Julian Assange” is a detailed depiction of the rise and fall of Julian Assange. The film reveals some personal glimpses into different aspects of the story: meetings with Assange’s worried father, talks with high-ranking U.S. officials, an exclusive interview with whistleblower Edward Snowden. And every time the key question re-emerges: Is Julian Assange a journalist or a spy?"

pgw6FoFPhjo

Tintin

26th February 2020, 10:38

"Day 2 proceedings had started with a statement from Edward Fitzgerald, Assange’s QC, that shook us rudely into life. He stated that yesterday, on the first day of trial, Julian had twice been stripped naked and searched, eleven times been handcuffed, and five times been locked up in different holding cells. On top of this, all of his court documents had been taken from him by the prison authorities, including privileged communications between his lawyers and himself, and he had been left with no ability to prepare to participate in today’s proceedings."

Your Man in the Public Gallery – Assange Hearing Day 2
By Craig Murray (https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/02/your-man-in-the-public-gallery-assange-hearing-day-2/)

This afternoon Julian’s Spanish lawyer, Baltasar Garzon, left court to return to Madrid. On the way out he naturally stopped to shake hands with his client, proffering his fingers through the narrow slit in the bulletproof glass cage. Assange half stood to take his lawyer’s hand. The two security guards in the cage with Assange immediately sprang up, putting hands on Julian and forcing him to sit down, preventing the handshake.

That was not by any means the worst thing today, but it is a striking image of the senseless brute force continually used against a man accused of publishing documents. That a man cannot even shake his lawyer’s hand goodbye is against the entire spirit in which the members of the legal system like to pretend the law is practised. I offer that startling moment as encapsulating yesterday’s events in court.

Day 2 proceedings had started with a statement from Edward Fitzgerald, Assange’s QC, that shook us rudely into life. He stated that yesterday, on the first day of trial, Julian had twice been stripped naked and searched, eleven times been handcuffed, and five times been locked up in different holding cells. On top of this, all of his court documents had been taken from him by the prison authorities, including privileged communications between his lawyers and himself, and he had been left with no ability to prepare to participate in today’s proceedings.

Magistrate Baraitser looked at Fitzgerald and stated, in a voice laced with disdain, that he had raised such matters before and she had always replied that she had no jurisdiction over the prison estate. He should take it up with the prison authorities. Fitzgerald remained on his feet, which drew a very definite scowl from Baraitser, and replied that of course they would do that again, but this repeated behaviour by the prison authorities threatened the ability of the defence to prepare. He added that regardless of jurisdiction, in his experience it was common practice for magistrates and judges to pass on comments and requests to the prison service where the conduct of the trial was affected, and that jails normally listened to magistrates sympathetically.

Baraitser flat-out denied any knowledge of such a practice, and stated that Fitzgerald should present her with written arguments setting out the case law on jurisdiction over prison conditions. This was too much even for prosecution counsel James Lewis, who stood up to say the prosecution would also want Assange to have a fair hearing, and that he could confirm that what the defence were suggesting was normal practice. Even then, Baraitser still refused to intervene with the prison. She stated that if the prison conditions were so bad as to reach the very high bar of making a fair hearing impossible, the defence should bring a motion to dismiss the charges on those grounds. Otherwise they should drop it.

Both prosecution and defence seemed surprised by Baraitser’s claim that she had not heard of what they both referred to as common practice. Lewis may have been genuinely concerned at the shocking description of Assange’s prison treatment yesterday; or he may have just had warning klaxons going off in his head screaming “mistrial”. But the net result is Baraitser will attempt to do nothing to prevent Julian’s physical and mental abuse in jail nor to try to give him the ability to participate in his defence. The only realistic explanation that occurs to me is that Baraitser has been warned off, because this continual mistreatment and confiscation of documents is on senior government authority.

A last small incident for me to recount: having queued again from the early hours, I was at the final queue before the entrance to the public gallery, when the name was called out of Kristin Hrnafsson, editor of Wikileaks, with whom I was talking at the time. Kristin identified himself, and was told by the court official he was barred from the public gallery.

Now I was with Kristin throughout the entire proceedings the previous day, and he had done absolutely nothing amiss – he is rather a quiet gentleman. When he was called for, it was by name and by job description – they were specifically banning the editor of Wikileaks from the trial. Kristin asked why and was told it was a decision of the Court.

At this stage John Shipton, Julian’s father, announced that in this case the family members would all leave too, and they did so, walking out of the building. They and others then started tweeting the news of the family walkout. This appeared to cause some consternation among court officials, and fifteen minutes later Kristin was re-admitted. We still have no idea what lay behind this. Later in the day journalists were being briefed by officials it was simply over queue-jumping, but that seems improbable as he was removed by staff who called him by name and title, rather than had spotted him as a queue-jumper.

None of the above goes to the official matter of the case. All of the above tells you more about the draconian nature of the political show-trial which is taking place than does the charade being enacted in the body of the court. There were moments today when I got drawn in to the court process and achieved the suspension of disbelief you might do in theatre, and began thinking “Wow, this case is going well for Assange”. Then an event such as those recounted above kicks in, a coldness grips your heart, and you recall there is no jury here to be convinced. I simply do not believe that anything said or proved in the courtroom can have an impact on the final verdict of this court.

So to the actual proceedings in the case.

For the defence, Mark Summers QC stated that the USA charges were entirely dependent on three factual accusations of Assange behviour:

1) Assange helped Manning to decode a hash key to access classified material.
Summers stated this was a provably false allegation from the evidence of the Manning court-martial.

2) Assange solicited the material from Manning
Summers stated this was provably wrong from information available to the public

3) Assange knowingly put lives at risk
Summers stated this was provably wrong both from publicly available information and from specific involvement of the US government.

In summary, Summers stated the US government knew that the allegations being made were false as to fact, and they were demonstrably made in bad faith. This was therefore an abuse of process which should lead to dismissal of the extradition request. He described the above three counts as “rubbish, rubbish and rubbish”.

Summers then walked through the facts of the case. He said the charges from the USA divide the materials leaked by Manning to Wikileaks into three categories:

a) Diplomatic Cables
b) Guantanamo detainee assessment briefs
c) Iraq War rules of engagement
d) Afghan and Iraqi war logs

Summers then methodically went through a), b), c) and d) relating each in turn to alleged behaviours 1), 2) and 3), making twelve counts of explanation and exposition in all. This comprehensive account took some four hours and I shall not attempt to capture it here. I will rather give highlights, but will relate occasionally to the alleged behaviour number and/or the alleged materials letter. I hope you follow that – it took me some time to do so!

On 1) Summers at great length demonstrated conclusively that Manning had access to each material a) b) c) d) provided to Wikileaks without needing any code from Assange, and had that access before ever contacting Assange. Nor had Manning needed a code to conceal her identity as the prosecution alleged – the database for intelligence analysts Manning could access – as could thousands of others – did not require a username or password to access it from a work military computer. Summers quoted testimony of several officers from Manning’s court-martial to confirm this. Nor would breaking the systems admin code on the system give Manning access to any additional classified databases.

Summers quoted evidence from the Manning court-martial, where this had been accepted, that the reason Manning wanted to get in to systems admin was to allow soldiers to put their video-games and movies on their government laptops, which in fact happened frequently.

Magistrate Baraitser twice made major interruptions. She observed that if Chelsea Manning did not know she could not be traced as the user who downloaded the databases, she might have sought Assange’s assistance to crack a code to conceal her identity from ignorance she did not need to do that, and to assist would still be an offence by Assange.

Summers pointed out that Manning knew that she did not need a username and password, because she actually accessed all the materials without one. Baraitser replied that this did not constitute proof she knew she could not be traced. Summers said in logic it made no sense to argue that she was seeking a code to conceal her user ID and password, where there was no user ID and password. Baraitser replied again he could not prove that. At this point Summers became somewhat testy and short with Baraitser, and took her through the court martial evidence again. Of which more…

Baraitser also made the point that even if Assange were helping Manning to crack an admin code, even if it did not enable Manning to access any more databases, that still was unauthorised use and would constitute the crime of aiding and abetting computer misuse, even if for an innocent purpose.

After a brief break, Baraitser came back with a real zinger. She told Summers that he had presented the findings of the US court martial of Chelsea Manning as fact. But she did not agree that her court had to treat evidence at a US court martial, even agreed or uncontested evidence or prosecution evidence, as fact. Summers replied that agreed evidence or prosecution evidence at the US court martial clearly was agreed by the US government as fact, and what was at issue at the moment was whether the US government was charging contrary to the facts it knew. Baraitser said she would return to her point once witnesses were heard.

Baraitser was no making no attempt to conceal a hostility to the defence argument, and seemed irritated they had the temerity to make it. This burst out when discussing c), the Iraq war rules of engagement. Summers argued that these had not been solicited from Manning, but had rather been provided by Manning in an accompanying file along with the Collateral Murder video that showed the murder of Reuters journalists and children. Manning’s purpose, as she stated at her court martial, was to show that the Collateral Murder actions breached the rules of engagement, even though the Department of Defense claimed otherwise. Summers stated that by not including this context, the US extradition request was deliberately misleading as it did not even mention the Collateral Murder video at all.

At this point Baraitser could not conceal her contempt. Try to imagine Lady Bracknell saying “A Handbag” or “the Brighton line”, or if your education didn’t run that way try to imagine Pritti Patel spotting a disabled immigrant. This is a literal quote:

“Are you suggesting, Mr Summers, that the authorities, the Government, should have to provide context for its charges?”

An unfazed Summers replied in the affirmative and then went on to show where the Supreme Court had said so in other extradition cases. Baraitser was showing utter confusion that anybody could claim a significant distinction between the Government and God.

The bulk of Summers’ argument went to refuting behaviour 3), putting lives at risk. This was only claimed in relation to materials a) and d). Summers described at great length the efforts of Wikileaks with media partners over more than a year to set up a massive redaction campaign on the cables. He explained that the unredacted cables only became available after Luke Harding and David Leigh of the Guardian published the password to the cache as the heading to Chapter XI of their book Wikileaks, published in February 2011.

Nobody had put 2 and 2 together on this password until the German publication Die Freitag had done so and announced it had the unredacted cables in August 2011. Summers then gave the most powerful arguments of the day.

The US government had been actively participating in the redaction exercise on the cables. They therefore knew the allegations of reckless publication to be untrue.

Once Die Freitag announced they had the unredacted materials, Julian Assange and Sara Harrison instantly telephoned the White House, State Department and US Embassy to warn them named sources may be put at risk. Summers read from the transcripts of telephone conversations as Assange and Harrison attempted to convince US officials of the urgency of enabling source protection procedures – and expressed their bafflement as officials stonewalled them. This evidence utterly undermined the US government’s case and proved bad faith in omitting extremely relevant fact. It was a very striking moment.

With relation to the same behaviour 3) on materials d), Summers showed that the Manning court martial had accepted these materials contained no endangered source names, but showed that Wikileaks had activated a redaction exercise anyway as a “belt and braces” approach.

There was much more from the defence. For the prosecution, James Lewis indicated he would reply in depth later in proceedings, but wished to state that the prosecution does not accept the court martial evidence as fact, and particularly does not accept any of the “self-serving” testimony of Chelsea Manning, whom he portrayed as a convicted criminal falsely claiming noble motives. The prosecution generally rejected any notion that this court should consider the truth or otherwise of any of the facts; those could only be decided at trial in the USA.

Then, to wrap up proceedings, Baraitser dropped a massive bombshell. She stated that although Article 4.1 of the US/UK Extradition Treaty forbade political extraditions, this was only in the Treaty. That exemption does not appear in the UK Extradition Act. On the face of it therefore political extradition is not illegal in the UK, as the Treaty has no legal force on the Court. She invited the defence to address this argument in the morning.

It is now 06.35am and I am late to start queuing…

With grateful thanks to those who donated or subscribed to make this reporting possible.

This article is entirely free to reproduce and publish, including in translation, and I very much hope people will do so actively. Truth shall set us free.

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

EDITED: Craig Murray comments from outside Belmarsh Prison, day 3 (February 26th).

'Why would any country sign and ratify any treaty with the UK if the UK can simply say it doesn't apply even though we signed it.'

1232679713048604677

Tintin

26th February 2020, 12:18

[BRIEF LIBRARY UPDATE NOTE]

Just a reminder for anybody who has been following Wikileaks over the years that there is a fairly comprehensive one-stop shop that contains a more or less complete history, in the library: it is pretty extensive.

Periodic updates are being made as well relating to the historic developments concerning Julian and his recent travails, and Wikileaks in general.

http://avalonlibrary.net/Julian_Assange_and_Wikileaks/

Tintin

26th February 2020, 12:46

For context: David Leigh (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Leigh_(journalist)), former Guardian editor.

From Kristinn Hrafnsson

"David Leigh again dismisses his responsibility for the release of the unredacted cables. He posted a password for its encrypted file - in his book. Now claims Assange told him the password was temporary. Leigh himself writes in his book about a temporary WEBSITE. Not the same."

Link: https://twitter.com/khrafnsson/status/1232404629314572289

1232404629314572289

And on Julian's treatment from day 2 of the hearing, even the legendary and highly respected BBC broadcaster and correspondent John Simpson appears aghast:

John Simpson
@JohnSimpsonNews (https://twitter.com/JohnSimpsonNews)
·
21h

"If it’s true, as Julian Assange’s lawyers say, that his prison wardens have handcuffed him 11 times, forced him to strip naked twice, & confiscated his case notes, this sounds like vindictiveness & is completely unacceptable."

Link: https://twitter.com/JohnSimpsonNews/status/1232328141273780230

1232328141273780230

Dennis Leahy

26th February 2020, 14:10

Bear in mind, as you read the account of this overtly kangaroo court and the physical abuse and legal abuse inflicted upon Julian Assange, that this is DIRECTLY from Donald Trump, hero of the thoroughly brainwashed "patriots", and pseudo-fighter of the Deep State that Julian Assange actually unmasked. Never lose sight of the actual facts, the truth.

(Mods, not to worry, the people I'm blasting don't even read this thread nor care about Julian Assange, because they were told by "Republican Agent Q" not to care, and because "some Democrats are going to go down, just wait and see...", and they have abandoned any semblance of discernment and blocked the obvious reality in their political partisan fury.)

MOD Note: :) No worry here at all Dennis, trust us. Keep up the splendid work out there :thumbsup: (Tintin)

Mike Gorman

26th February 2020, 17:16

Praxis

26th February 2020, 18:00

Another fork in the road: You either support Julian Assange or Donald Trump.

It is not possible to do both any longer. These two things are antithetical to each other.

Trump, could, right now as CEO of the United States drop all the charges against Assange and see Julian free which is what should happen.

Julian Assange does a public service that allows us to know things we wouldnt otherwise. Attacks on journalist and whistleblowers should not be tolerated, ESPECIALLY here at Avalon.

I for one stand with Julian Assange and hope that others on this board too.

It is hard not to suspect Trump of forging a deal with his military intelligence keepers-he professed to 'love Wikileaks' back in his campaign highlights of 2016, perhaps now his survival politically depends on his renouncing Assange. However this has not yet played out, Julian has not yet been totally betrayed by the U.K establishment, they are under a lot of public pressure. Plus there is an anti-Trump element amongst the U.K/City of London team who were complicit in the Steele Dossier rubbish, this is a complex chess board and Trump I sense is but a major piece being moved, I don;t think he holds much love personally for the intelligence communities dominated by the left side of politics (the climate change/carbon tax/U.N connection). I am seeing how this finally falls out, there is much to be revealed.

I am curious as to which ones you would put under this label?
I would consider myself knowledgeable about the US IC and there is no part of it I would label as left side of politics. I can't point to an organization within the NSA, CIA, NRO, DIA, NGA, DSCA, FBI, etc. that I would classify as left leaning. Quite the contrary. This is also backed up with programs and directors with obvious agendas(allen dulles for example but also Bobby Ray Inman who is on the board of Acadmi Services(what was Blackwater).

All I have to do to prove my point is link part one of the Church Committee report and it lays the perfect foundation. Then I introduce the phoenix program( thanks Douglas Valentine) and then round off with Iran Contra. Then there is 9-11 and all the subsequent nonsense.

Where in this malaise of neo ideologies(neo con, neo liberal) do you find left leaning tendencies? Yes the CIA funded abstract art. No that does not count.

Franny

26th February 2020, 21:29

While Trump dishes out pardons to others, Assange is left to twist in the wind

Kurt Nimmo
Another Day in the Empire
Fri, 22 Jun 2018 00:00 UTC

It was a fool's errand.

On the day Donald Trump was elected his supporters asked him to pardon the founder and frontman of WikiLeaks, Julian Assange. They flooded social media demanding Assange be allowed to leave the Ecuadorian embassy in London without arrest and extradition to the United States.

Stone silence from Trump and his administration.

A few months before the election, WikiLeaks released a searchable archive of over 30,000 emails and attachments taken from Hillary Clinton's not-so private email server.

Trump held no aversion to exploiting the emails. He called them the Crooked Hillary emails and said they endangered the national security of the United States.

Democrats called foul, said Assange had colluded with Putin and the Russians.

In April, they filed a lawsuit in federal court against the Russian government, the Trump campaign, and WikiLeaks. They argue there was a widespread conspiracy to swing the 2016 election.

They have zero evidence of this. Evidence is no longer required. Accusations alone now serve to take down leaders and destroy careers.

Julian Assange and WikiLeaks are no longer of use to Donald Trump.

He dished out pardons to ex-Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio and neocon leaker Scooter Libby. Trump mulled other pardons, including a posthumous one for Muhammad Ali to wipe out his draft dodging conviction. It was reported in June Trump insiders are pushing to pardon the junk bond king Michael Milken and reverse his conviction on securities fraud. The Milken pardon is being pushed by Goldman Sachs alumnus and current Treasury secretary Steven Mnuchin and Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner.

Meanwhile, Julian Assange is left to twist in the wind.

Both Trump's attorney general and his former CIA director, now secretary of state Mike Pompeo want Assange extradited to the United States where he will face trial and possible execution for espionage.

AG Jeff Sessions said the arrest and prosecution of Assange is a priority for the United States government, while Pompeo denounced him as a "hostile intelligence service," never mind he had no problem using the Clinton emails to accuse the DNC of sabotaging the Bernie Sanders campaign.

The US has leaned heavy on Ecuador.

Following a meeting with General Joseph DiSalvo of the Southern Command-ostensibly to discuss "security cooperation"-Ecuadorian president Lenín Moreno rolled back security at the embassy and denied Assange access to family, friends, and doctors. They also shut down his internet connection.

This week Ecuador's Foreign Minister Jose Valencia said his government working on an "exit" plan to remove Assange from the embassy where he has lived the past six years. Valencia told the Associated Press the plan would be "one that encourages an exit, that we do not want to be traumatic... we do not want it to be an exit that may cause dissonance with international law."

Moreno said Assange interfered in Ecuador's relationship with other countries by tweeting on political events. He also lamented the "nuisance" of Assange's political asylum and said the Australian whistleblower is an "inherited problem" left over from the previous administration.

Moreno's government granted Assange citizenship in a hope diplomatic immunity would be granted and he would leave the embassy. Assange knows better than to fall for this. Immunity or no, he will be arrested the minute he walks out of the embassy.

Activist and filmmaker John Pilger took the Left to task for abandoning Assange. "There is a silence among many who call themselves left," he said in a statement. "The silence is Julian Assange. As every false accusation has fallen away, every bogus smear shown to be the work of political enemies, Julian stands vindicated as one who has exposed a system that threatens humanity."

For the establishment, it's imperative Assange be arrested, extradited, and brought up on espionage charges in the United States. The message will be priceless, the chilling effect invaluable.

The dirty secrets of war, political subterfuge, election fixing, and assorted other crimes and misdeeds are not for public consumption.

The release of the Collateral Damage video and the war logs of Afghanistan and Iraq should have resulted in a larger and more active antiwar movement. This didn't happen.

Liberal and leftist opposition to war only occurs when a Republican sits in the Oval Office. Obama effectively destroyed what remained of the Bush era antiwar movement. Eights year of Obama worked like a lobotomy on the Left.

Democrats supported Hillary Clinton's war on the people of Libya. They didn't have a problem when she arranged weapons collected from the battlefields of Libya to be sent by the CIA to the "rebels" in Syria.

Democrats call for overthrowing Bashar al-Assad in Syria. They believe Russia got Trump elected and Vladimir Putin spreads lies and false news to undermine and destroy our democracy. Large NGOs, foundations, and think tanks are pushing this nonsense.

Due mostly to indoctrination as a result of public education and a herd mentality inculcated by leaders and media, it is a relatively easy task for the financial oligarchy and its corporate partners to brainwash the public. It now disguises war and conquest as humanitarianism.

I'm old enough to remember when millions of Americans praised Daniel Ellsberg for releasing the Pentagon Papers. That was then, this is now. Now liberals and progressives want to string up whistleblowers, same as their conservative Republican and neocon counterparts.

Gore Vidal said America suffers from amnesia.

Americans are largely blind to the war and financial crimes perpetuated in their name. Part of this is the result of indoctrination through propaganda media, but to a large degree Americans are incurious and unbothered by the criminality of their leaders and institutions.

Most don't care Julian Assange is a dead man walking.

They are unable to see the criminal state for what it is-a global Mafia operation that shakes down entire continents and wages wars of conquest and pillage for profit.

The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them.

- George Orwell

Full List of Presidential Pardons (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_granted_executive_clemency_by_Donald_Trump)

Tintin

27th February 2020, 12:23

Your Man in the Public Gallery – The Assange Hearing Day 3
By Craig Murray (https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/02/your-man-in-the-public-gallery-the-assange-hearing-day-3/)

In yesterday’s proceedings in court, the prosecution adopted arguments so stark and apparently unreasonable I have been fretting on how to write them up in a way that does not seem like caricature or unfair exaggeration on my part. What has been happening in this court has long moved beyond caricature. All I can do is give you my personal assurance that what I recount actually is what happened.

As usual, I shall deal with procedural matters and Julian’s treatment first, before getting in to a clear account of the legal arguments made.

Vanessa Baraitser is under a clear instruction to mimic concern by asking, near the end of every session just before we break anyway, if Julian is feeling well and whether he would like a break. She then routinely ignores his response. Yesterday he replied at some length he could not hear properly in his glass box and could not communicate with his lawyers (at some point yesterday they had started preventing him passing notes to his counsel, which I learn was the background to the aggressive prevention of his shaking Garzon’s hand goodbye).

Baraitser insisted he might only be heard through his counsel, which given he was prevented from instructing them was a bit rich. This being pointed out, we had a ten minute adjournment while Julian and his counsel were allowed to talk down in the cells – presumably where they could be more conveniently bugged yet again.

On return, Edward Fitzgerald made a formal application for Julian to be allowed to sit beside his lawyers in the court. Julian was “a gentle, intellectual man” and not a terrorist. Baraitser replied that releasing Assange from the dock into the body of the court would mean he was released from custody. To achieve that would require an application for bail.

Again, the prosecution counsel James Lewis intervened on the side of the defence to try to make Julian’s treatment less extreme. He was not, he suggested diffidently, quite sure that it was correct that it required bail for Julian to be in the body of the court, or that being in the body of the court accompanied by security officers meant that a prisoner was no longer in custody. Prisoners, even the most dangerous of terrorists, gave evidence from the witness box in the body of the court nest to the lawyers and magistrate. In the High Court prisoners frequently sat with their lawyers in extradition hearings, in extreme cases of violent criminals handcuffed to a security officer.

Baraitser replied that Assange might pose a danger to the public. It was a question of health and safety. How did Fitzgerald and Lewis think that she had the ability to carry out the necessary risk assessment? It would have to be up to Group 4 to decide if this was possible.

Yes, she really did say that. Group 4 (https://www.g4s.com/en-gb) would have to decide.

Baraitser started to throw out jargon like a Dalek when it spins out of control. “Risk assessment” and “health and safety” featured a lot. She started to resemble something worse than a Dalek, a particularly stupid local government officer of a very low grade. “No jurisdiction” – “Up to Group 4”. Recovering slightly, she stated firmly that delivery to custody can only mean delivery to the dock of the court, nowhere else in the room. If the defence wanted him in the courtroom where he could hear proceedings better, they could only apply for bail and his release from custody in general. She then peered at both barristers in the hope this would have sat them down, but both were still on their feet.

In his diffident manner (which I confess is growing on me) Lewis said “the prosecution is neutral on this request, of course but, err, I really don’t think that’s right”. He looked at her like a kindly uncle whose favourite niece has just started drinking tequila from the bottle at a family party.

Baraitser concluded the matter by stating that the Defence should submit written arguments by 10am tomorrow on this point, and she would then hold a separate hearing into the question of Julian’s position in the court.

The day had begun with a very angry Magistrate Baraitser addressing the public gallery. Yesterday, she said, a photo had been taken inside the courtroom. It was a criminal offence to take or attempt to take photographs inside the courtroom. Vanessa Baraitser looked at this point very keen to lock someone up. She also seemed in her anger to be making the unfounded assumption that whoever took the photo from the public gallery on Tuesday was still there on Wednesday; I suspect not. Being angry at the public at random must be very stressful for her. I suspect she shouts a lot on trains.

Ms Baraitser is not fond of photography – she appears to be the only public figure in Western Europe with no photo on the internet. Indeed the average proprietor of a rural car wash has left more evidence of their existence and life history on the internet than Vanessa Baraitser. Which is no crime on her part, but I suspect the expunging is not achieved without considerable effort. Somebody suggested to me she might be a hologram, but I think not. Holograms have more empathy.

I was amused by the criminal offence of attempting to take photos in the courtroom. How incompetent would you need to be to attempt to take a photo and fail to do so? And if no photo was taken, how do they prove you were attempting to take one, as opposed to texting your mum? I suppose “attempting to take a photo” is a crime that could catch somebody arriving with a large SLR, tripod and several mounted lighting boxes, but none of those appeared to have made it into the public gallery.

Baraitser did not state whether it was a criminal offence to publish a photograph taken in a courtroom (or indeed to attempt to publish a photograph taken in a courtroom). I suspect it is. Anyway Le Grand Soir (https://www.legrandsoir.info/compte-rendu-du-proces-assange-2eme-jour.html) has published a translation of my report yesterday, and there you can see a photo of Julian in his bulletproof glass anti-terrorist cage. Not, I hasten to add, taken by me.

We now come to the consideration of yesterday’s legal arguments on the extradition request itself. Fortunately, these are basically fairly simple to summarise, because although we had five hours of legal disquisition, it largely consisted of both sides competing in citing scores of “authorities”, e.g. dead judges, to endorse their point of view, and thus repeating the same points continually with little value from exegesis of the innumerable quotes.

As prefigured yesterday by magistrate Baraitser, the prosecution is arguing that Article 4.1 of the UK/US extradition treaty has no force in law.

(Linked here in the library (http://avalonlibrary.net/Extradition_Treaty_between_UK_Government_and_USA_Government%20(2007)/uk-usa-extradition-treaty%202007.pdf))

http://avalonlibrary.net/Extradition_Treaty_between_UK_Government_and_USA_Government%20(2007)/uk-usa-extradition-treaty%202007.pdf

The UK and US Governments say that the court enforces domestic law, not international law, and therefore the treaty has no standing. This argument has been made to the court in written form to which I do not have access. But from discussion in court it was plain that the prosecution argue that the Extradition Act of 2003, under which the court is operating, makes no exception for political offences. All previous Extradition Acts had excluded extradition for political offences, so it must be the intention of the sovereign parliament that political offenders can now be extradited.

Opening his argument, Edward Fitzgerald QC argued that the Extradition Act of 2003 alone is not enough to make an actual extradition. The extradition requires two things in place; the general Extradition Act and the Extradition Treaty with the country or countries concerned. “No Treaty, No Extradition” was an unbreakable rule. The Treaty was the very basis of the request. So to say that the extradition was not governed by the terms of the very treaty under which it was made, was to create a legal absurdity and thus an abuse of process. He cited examples of judgements made by the House of Lords and Privy Council where treaty rights were deemed enforceable despite the lack of incorporation into domestic legislation, particularly in order to stop people being extradited to potential execution from British colonies.

Fitzgerald pointed out that while the Extradition Act of 2003 did not contain a bar on extraditions for political offences, it did not state there could not be such a bar in extradition treaties. And the extradition treaty of 2007 was ratified after the 2003 extradition act.

At this stage Baraitser interrupted that it was plain the intention of parliament was that there could be extradition for political offences. Otherwise they would not have removed the bar in previous legislation. Fitzgerald declined to agree, saying the Act did not say extradition for political offences could not be banned by the treaty enabling extradition.

Fitzgerald then continued to say that international jurisprudence had accepted for a century or more that you did not extradite political offenders. No political extradition was in the European Convention on Extradition, the Model United Nations Extradition Treaty and the Interpol Convention on Extradition. It was in every single one of the United States’ extradition treaties with other countries, and had been for over a century, at the insistence of the United States. For both the UK and US Governments to say it did not apply was astonishing and would set a terrible precedent that would endanger dissidents and potential political prisoners from China, Russia and regimes all over the world who had escaped to third countries.

Fitzgerald stated that all major authorities agreed there were two types of political offence. The pure political offence and the relative political offence. A “pure” political offence was defined as treason, espionage or sedition. A “relative” political offence was an act which was normally criminal, like assault or vandalism, conducted with a political motive. Every one of the charges against Assange was a “pure” political offence. All but one were espionage charges, and the computer misuse charge had been compared by the prosecution to breach of the official secrets act to meet the dual criminality test. The overriding accusation that Assange was seeking to harm the political and military interests of the United States was in the very definition of a political offence in all the authorities.

In reply Lewis stated that a treaty could not be binding in English law unless specifically incorporated in English law by Parliament. This was a necessary democratic defence. Treaties were made by the executive which could not make law. This went to the sovereignty of Parliament. Lewis quoted many judgements stating that international treaties signed and ratified by the UK could not be enforced in British courts. “It may come as a surprise to other countries that their treaties with the British government can have no legal force” he joked.

Lewis said there was no abuse of process here and thus no rights were invoked under the European Convention. It was just the normal operation of the law that the treaty provision on no extradition for political offences had no legal standing.

Lewis said that the US government disputes that Assange’s offences are political. In the UK/Australia/US there was a different definition of political offence to the rest of the world. We viewed the “pure” political offences of treason, espionage and sedition as not political offences. Only “relative” political offences – ordinary crimes committed with a political motive – were viewed as political offences in our tradition. In this tradition, the definition of “political” was also limited to supporting a contending political party in a state. Lewis will continue with this argument tomorrow.

That concludes my account of proceedings.

I have some important commentary to make on this and will try to do another posting later today. Now rushing to court.

With grateful thanks to those who donated or subscribed to make this reporting possible.

This article is entirely free to reproduce and publish, including in translation, and I very much hope people will do so actively. Truth shall set us free.

Tintin

28th February 2020, 16:53

"Fitzgerald [for the defence] replied that the entire extradition request is on the basis of the treaty. It is an abuse of process for the authorities to rely on the treaty for the application but then to claim that its provisions do not apply."

“On the face of it, it is a very bizarre argument that a treaty which gives rise to the extradition, on which the extradition is founded, can be disregarded in its provisions. It is on the face of it absurd.”

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

Your Man in the Public Gallery – Assange Hearing Day 4
By Craig Murray (https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/02/your-man-in-the-public-gallery-assange-hearing-day-four/)

Please try this experiment for me.

Try asking this question out loud, in a tone of intellectual interest and engagement: “Are you suggesting that the two have the same effect?”.

Now try asking this question out loud, in a tone of hostility and incredulity bordering on sarcasm: “Are you suggesting that the two have the same effect?”.

Firstly, congratulations on your acting skills, you take direction very well. Secondly, is it not fascinating how precisely the same words can convey the opposite meaning dependent on modulation of stress, pitch, and volume?

Yesterday the prosecution continued its argument that the provision in the 2007 UK/US Extradition Treaty that bars extradition for political offences is a dead letter, and that Julian Assange’s objectives are not political in any event. James Lewis QC for the prosecution spoke for about an hour, and Edward Fitzgerald QC replied for the defence for about the same time. During Lewis’ presentation, he was interrupted by Judge Baraitser precisely once. During Fitzgerald’s reply, Baraitser interjected seventeen times.

In the transcript, those interruptions will not look unreasonable:
“Could you clarify that for me Mr Fitzgerald…”
“So how do you cope with Mr Lewis’s point that…”
“But surely that’s a circular argument…”
“But it’s not incorporated, is it?…”

All these and the other dozen interruptions were designed to appear to show the judge attempting to clarify the defence’s argument in a spirit of intellectual testing. But if you heard the tone of Baraitser’s voice, saw her body language and facial expressions, it was anything but.

The false picture a transcript might give is exacerbated by the courtly Fitzgerald’s continually replying to each obvious harassment with “Thank you Madam, that is very helpful”, which again if you were there, plainly meant the opposite. But what a transcript will helpfully nevertheless show was the bully pulpit of Baraitser’s tactic in interrupting Fitzgerald again and again and again, belittling his points and very deliberately indeed preventing him from getting into the flow of his argument. The contrast in every way with her treatment of Lewis could not be more pronounced.

So now to report the legal arguments themselves.

James Lewis for the prosecution, continuing his arguments from the day before, said that Parliament had not included a bar on extradition for political offences in the 2003 Act. It could therefore not be reintroduced into law by a treaty. “To introduce a Political Offences bar by the back door would be to subvert the intention of Parliament.”

Lewis also argued that these were not political offences. The definition of a political offence was in the UK limited to behaviour intended “to overturn or change a government or induce it to change its policy.” Furthermore the aim must be to change government or policy in the short term, not the indeterminate future.

Lewis stated that further the term “political offence” could only be applied to offences committed within the territory where it was attempted to make the change. So to be classified as political offences, Assange would have had to commit them within the territory of the USA, but he did not.

If Baraitser did decide the bar on political offences applied, the court would have to determine the meaning of “political offence” in the UK/US Extradition Treaty and construe the meaning of paragraphs 4.1 and 4.2 of the Treaty. To construe the terms of an international treaty was beyond the powers of the court.

Lewis perorated that the conduct of Julian Assange cannot possibly be classfied as a political offence. “It is impossible to place Julian Assange in the position of a political refugee”. The activity in which Wikileaks was engaged was not in its proper meaning political opposition to the US Administration or an attempt to overthrow that administration. Therefore the offence was not political.

For the defence Edward Fitzgerald replied that the 2003 Extradition Act was an enabling act under which treaties could operate. Parliament had been concerned to remove any threat of abuse of the political offence bar to cover terrorist acts of violence against innocent civilians. But there remained a clear protection, accepted worldwide, for peaceful political dissent. This was reflected in the Extradition Treaty on the basis of which the court was acting.

Baraitser interrupted that the UK/US Extradition Treaty was not incorporated into English Law.

Fitzgerald replied that the entire extradition request is on the basis of the treaty. It is an abuse of process for the authorities to rely on the treaty for the application but then to claim that its provisions do not apply.

“On the face of it, it is a very bizarre argument that a treaty which gives rise to the extradition, on which the extradition is founded, can be disregarded in its provisions. It is on the face of it absurd.” Edward Fitzgerald QC for the Defence.

Fitzgerald added that English Courts construe treaties all the time. He gave examples.

Fitzgerald went on that the defence did not accept that treason, espionage and sedition were not regarded as political offences in England. But even if one did accept Lewis’s too narrow definition of political offence, Assange’s behaviour still met the test. What on earth could be the motive of publishing evidence of government war crimes and corruption, other than to change the policy of the government? Indeed, the evidence would prove that Wikileaks had effectively changed the policy of the US government, particularly on Iraq.

Baraitser interjected that to expose government wrongdoing was not the same thing as to try to change government policy. Fitzgerald asked her, finally in some exasperation after umpteen interruptions, what other point could there be in exposing government wrongdoing other than to induce a change in government policy?

That concluded opening arguments for the prosecution and defence.

MY PERSONAL COMMENTARY

Let me put this as neutrally as possible. If you could fairly state that Lewis’s argument was much more logical, rational and intuitive than Fitzgerald’s, you could understand why Lewis did not need an interruption while Fitzgerald had to be continually interrupted for “clarification”. But in fact it was Lewis who was making out the case that the provisions of the very treaty under which the extradition is being made, do not in fact apply, a logical step which I suggest the man on the Clapham omnibus might reason to need rather more testing than Fitzgerald’s assertion to the contrary. Baraitser’s comparative harassment of Fitzgerald when he had the prosecution on the ropes was straight out of the Stalin show trial playbook.

The defence did not mention it, and I do not know if it features in their written arguments, but I thought Lewis’s point that these could not be political offences, because Julian Assange was not in the USA when he committed them, was breathtakingly dishonest. The USA claims universal jurisdiction. Assange is being charged with crimes of publishing committed while he was outside the USA. The USA claims the right to charge anyone of any nationality, anywhere in the world, who harms US interests. They also in addition here claim that as the materials could be seen on the internet in the USA, there was an offence in the USA. At the same time to claim this could not be a political offence as the crime was committed outside the USA is, as Edward Fitzgerald might say, on the face of it absurd. Which curiously Baraitser did not pick up on.

Lewis’ argument that the Treaty does not have any standing in English law is not something he just made up. Nigel Farage did not materialise from nowhere. There is in truth a long tradition in English law that even a treaty signed and ratified with some bloody Johnny Foreigner country, can in no way bind an English court. Lewis could and did spout reams and reams of judgements from old beetroot faced judges holding forth to say exactly that in the House of Lords, before going off to shoot grouse and spank the footman’s son. Lewis was especially fond of the Tin Council case (https://www.jstor.org/stable/4507355?seq=1).

There is of course a contrary and more enlightened tradition, and a number of judgements that say the exact opposite, mostly more recent. This is why there was so much repetitive argument as each side piled up more and more volumes of “authorities” on their side of the case.

The difficulty for Lewis – and for Baraitser – is that this case is not analagous to me buying a Mars bar and then going to court because an International Treaty on Mars Bars says mine is too small.

Rather the 2003 Extradition Act is an Enabling Act on which extradition treaties then depend. You can’t thus extradite under the 2003 Act without the Treaty. So the Extradition Treaty of 2007 in a very real sense becomes an executive instrument legally required to authorise the extradition. For the executing authorities to breach the terms of the necessary executive instrument under which they are acting, simply has to be an abuse of process. So the Extradition Treaty owing to its type and its necessity for legal action, is in fact incorporated in English Law by the Extradition Act of 2003 on which it depends.

The Extradition Treaty is a necessary precondition of the extradition, whereas a Mars Bar Treaty is not a necessary precondition to buying the Mars Bar.

That is as plain as I can put it. I do hope that is comprehensible.

It is of course difficult for Lewis that on the same day the Court of Appeal was ruling against the construction of the Heathrow Third Runway, partly because of its incompatibility with the Paris Agreement of 2016, despite the latter not being fully incorporated into English law by the Climate Change Act of 2008.

VITAL PERSONAL EXPERIENCE

It is intensely embarrassing for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) when an English court repudiates the application of a treaty the UK has ratified with one or more foreign states. For that reason, in the modern world, very serious procedures and precautions have been put into place to make certain that this cannot happen. Therefore the prosecution’s argument that all the provisions of the UK/US Extradition Treaty of 2007 are not able to be implemented under the Extradition Act of 2003, ought to be impossible.

I need to explain I have myself negotiated and overseen the entry into force of treaties within the FCO. The last one in which I personally tied the ribbon and applied the sealing wax (literally) was the Anglo-Belgian Continental Shelf Treaty of 1991, but I was involved in negotiating others and the system I am going to describe was still in place when I left the FCO as an Ambassador in 2005, and I believe is unchanged today (and remember the Extradition Act was 2003 and the US/UK Extradition Treaty ratified 2007, so my knowledge is not outdated). Departmental nomenclatures change from time to time and so does structural organisation. But the offices and functions I will describe remain, even if names may be different.

All international treaties have a two stage process. First they are signed to show the government agrees to the treaty. Then, after a delay, they are ratified. This second stage takes place when the government has enabled the legislation and other required agency to implement the treaty. This is the answer to Lewis’s observation about the roles of the executive and legislature. The ratification stage only takes place after any required legislative action. That is the whole point.

This is how it happens in the FCO. Officials negotiate the extradition treaty. It is signed for the UK. The signed treaty then gets returned to FCO Legal Advisers, Nationality and Treaty Department, Consular Department, North American Department and others and is sent on to Treasury/Cabinet Office Solicitors and to Home Office, Parliament and to any other Government Department whose area is impacted by the individual treaty.

The Treaty is extensively vetted to check that it can be fully implemented in all the jurisdictions of the UK. If it cannot, then amendments to the law have to be made so that it can. These amendments can be made by Act of Parliament or more generally by secondary legislation using powers conferred on the Secretary of State by an act. If there is already an Act of Parliament under which the Treaty can be implemented, then no enabling legislation needs to be passed. International Agreements are not all individually incorporated into English or Scottish laws by specific new legislation.

This is a very careful step by step process, carried out by lawyers and officials in the FCO, Treasury, Cabinet Office, Home Office, Parliament and elsewhere. Each will in parallel look at every clause of the Treaty and check that it can be applied. All changes needed to give effect to the treaty then have to be made – amending legislation, and necessary administrative steps. Only when all hurdles have been cleared, including legislation, and Parliamentary officials, Treasury, Cabinet Office, Home Office and FCO all certify that the Treaty is capable of having effect in the UK, will the FCO Legal Advisers give the go ahead for the Treaty to be ratified.

You absolutely cannot ratify the treaty before FCO Legal Advisers have given this clearance.

This is a serious process. That is why the US/UK Extradition Treaty was signed in 2003 and ratified in 2007. That is not an abnormal delay.

So I know for certain that ALL the relevant British Government legal departments MUST have agreed that Article 4.1 of the UK/US Extradition Treaty was capable of being given effect under the 2003 Extradition Act. That certification has to have happened or the Treaty could never have been ratified.

It follows of necessity that the UK Government, in seeking to argue now that Article 4.1 is incompatible with the 2003 Act, is knowingly lying. There could not be a more gross abuse of process.

I have been keen for the hearing on this particular point to conclude so that I could give you the benefit of my experience. I shall rest there for now, but later today hope to post further on yesterday’s row in court over releasing Julian from the anti-terrorist armoured dock.

With grateful thanks to those who donated or subscribed to make this reporting possible. I wish to stress again that I absolutely do not want anybody to give anything if it causes them the slightest possibility of financial strain.

This article is entirely free to reproduce and publish, including in translation, and I very much hope people will do so actively. Truth shall set us free.

——————————————

Innocent Warrior

28th February 2020, 20:20

From Craig Murray’s, “Roger Waters on Julian Assange (https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/02/roger-waters-on-julian-assange/)” article (Feb 23) -

WE ARE HERE TODAY FOR JULIAN ASSANGE.
But I have four names on this piece of paper.
The First and last of course is Julian Assange, A Journalist, a courageous shiner of light into the dark places from which the powers that be would dearly like to have us turn away.
Julian Assange. A name to be carved with pride intoany monument to human progress.
Julian is why we are here today, but this is no parochial protest. We are today part of a global movement, a global movement that might be the beginning of the global enlightenment that this fragile planet so desperately needs.
Ok. Second Name. Sent to me by my friend VJ Prashad.
Second name is Aamir Aziz, Aamir is a young poet and activist in Delhi involved in the fight against Modi and his rascist Citizenship law.
Everything Will Be Remembered
Kill us, we will become ghosts and write
of your killings, with all the evidence.
You write jokes in court;
We will write ‘justice’ on the walls.
We will speak so loudly that even the deaf will hear.
We will write so clearly that even the blind will read.
You write ‘injustice’ on the earth;
We will write ‘revolution’ in the sky.
Everything will be remembered;
Everything recorded
This out pouring of the human spirit from India is taking place in a time of revolt, when the fetters of propriety are set aside.
As we meet here in London, across the Atlantic in Argentina thousands of women are taking to the streets to demand the legalization of abortion from President Fernandez.
It’s not just Argentina. This last year we have seen major protests erupt across the whole world against neoliberal/fascist regimes. In Chile, The Lebanon, Colombia, Ecuador, Haiti,France and now, of course also in Bolivia fighting the new US imposed military dictatorship there.
When will we see the name of England appended to that noble list? I sense the scratching of heads in drawing rooms across the home counties, “What’s he talking about, the man’s a bloody pinkopervert, bloody anti semite, what’s he talking about? We don’t live in a dictatorship, this is a free country, a democracy, with all the finest traditions of fair play, pah!”
Well, I’ve got news for you Disgruntled of Tunbridge Wells. We’d like to think this is a free country, but are we really free? Why, when Julian Assange is brought to the dock in the tiny magistrates court inside Belmarsh prison are so many seats occupied by anonymous American suits, whispering instructions into the attentive ear of the prosecution’s lead barrister, James Lewis QC?
Why?
Because we don’t live in a free country, we live in a glorified dog kennel and we bark and/or wag our tails at the bidding of our lords and masters across the pond.
I stand here today, in front of the Mother of Parliaments, and there she stands blushing in all her embarrassment. And just upstream from here is Runnemede, where in 1215, we, the English, laid out the rudiments of common law. Magna Carta, ratified in 1297 article 29 of whichgave us Habeus Corpus. Or did it? It stated:
“The body of a free man is not to be arrested, or imprisoned, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any way ruined, nor is the king to go against him or send forcibly against him, except by judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.”
Sadly, Article 29 is not enforceable in modern law. Magna Carta is only an idea, and in this propaganda driven modern world, it provides no check in principle to Parliament legislating against the rights of citizens.
We do however have an extradition treaty with the USA and in the first paragraph of article 4 of that treaty it states. “Extradition shall not be granted if the offense for which extradition is requested is a political offense.” Julian Assange has committed no crime but he has committed a political act. He has spoken truth to power. He has angered some of our masters in Washington by telling the truth and in retribution for the act of telling the truth they want his blood.
Yesterday in front of Battersea Power Station I did a TV interview for SKY news to promote this event, there was no visual link, so my only contact with the lady asking me questions was via an ear bud on a curly wire. I learned something about telling truth in the phrasing of her questions to me. She came at me like some crazed Don Quixote every question laced, thick with the smears and innuendo and the false accusations with which the powers that be have been trying to blacken Julian Assange’s name. She rattled off the tired, but well prepared narrative, and then interrupted constantly when I made reply. I don’t know who she is, she may mean well. If she does, my advice would be to stop drinking the Kool-aid, and if she actually gives a fig for her chosen profession get her sorry ass down here and join us.
So England. I call upon our prime minister,Boris Johnson, to declare his colours, does he support the spirit of Magna Carta? Does he believe in, democracy, freedom, fair play, free speech, and especially the freedom of the press? If the answer to those questions is yes, then come on Prime Minister be the British Bulldog you would have us all believe you are? Stand up to the bluster of American hegemony, call off this show trial, this charade, this kangaroo court. “The evidence before the court is incontrovertible.” Julian Assange is an innocent man. A journalist doing very important work for “we the people” by exposing the crimes of powerful sociopaths in the corridors of power.
I call on you to free him today.
I cannot leave this stage without mention of Chelsea Manning, who provided some of the material that Julian published.
Chelsea has been in a federal prison for a year incarcerated by the Americans for refusing, on principle, to give evidence to a grand jury specifically convened to make an example of Julian Assange. What courage. They are also fining her $1,000 a day. Chelsea yours is another name to be carved in pride, I’ve been reading the latest on your case, it looks as if your legal team are finding light at the end of the tunnel, please god, you get out soon back to your loved ones, you are a true hero.You exemplify the bulldog spirit that I was talking about a few moments ago.
Also Daniel Hale
Daniel is a whistle-blower you may not know yet. He was in a great documentary movie National Bird, made by my good friend Sonia Kennebeck. He was part of the US drone program targeting Afghans in their own country from some mobile command center in Navada. When his stint in the USAF was over. Daniel’s good heart refused to edit out the burden of remorse he carried and he very bravely decided to tell his story. The FBI/CIA have pursued Daniel remorselessly ever since and he is now in prison awaiting trial. Daniel’s is another name to be carved in pride. Those of us who have never compromised our liberty in the cause of freedom, who have never picked up the burning torch and held it trembling over the crimes of their superior officers, can only wonder at the extraordinary courage of those who have.
There are other speakers here, so I will make way, I could stand here all day railing against the dying of the light should we not stand Bulldog like, with arms linked, ranks closed in front of our brother and comrade Julian Assange. And when the lackies of the American Empire come to take him, to destroy him and hang him in the hedge as a warning to frighten future journalists, we will look them in the eye and steadfast with one voice we will intone.
“Over our dead ****ing bodies.”

~ Roger Waters Feb 22nd 2020

onawah

28th February 2020, 20:35

Former UK MP George Galloway - US plotted to murder Julian Assange
RT America
2/2620

"Shocking allegations are surfacing on the third day of Julian Assange's extradition hearing. Lawyers of the WikiLeaks founder are now suggesting that Washington may have contemplated kidnapping or poisoning him. Former UK MP and friend of Julian Assange George Galloway. "
-cge5cEhZhQ

Innocent Warrior

1st March 2020, 05:55

And here's another interesting piece of news (https://www.rohrabacher.com/news/my-meeting-with-julian-assange):

Link: https://www.rohrabacher.com/news

My Meeting with Julian Assange
2/19/2020 from Dana Rohrabacher

There is a lot of misinformation floating out there regarding my meeting with Julian Assange so let me provide some clarity on the matter:

At no time did I talk to President Trump about Julian Assange. Likewise, I was not directed by Trump or anyone else connected with him to meet with Julian Assange. I was on my own fact finding mission at personal expense to find out information I thought was important to our country. I was shocked to find out that no other member of Congress had taken the time in their official or unofficial capacity to interview Julian Assange.

At no time did I offer Julian Assange anything from the President because I had not spoken with the President about this issue at all. However, when speaking with Julian Assange, I told him that if he could provide me information and evidence about who actually gave him the DNC emails, I would then call on President Trump to pardon him. At no time did I offer a deal made by the President, nor did I say I was representing the President.

Upon my return, I spoke briefly with Gen. Kelly. I told him that Julian Assange would provide information about the purloined DNC emails in exchange for a pardon. No one followed up with me including Gen. Kelly and that was the last discussion I had on this subject with anyone representing Trump or in his Administration.

Even though I wasn't successful in getting this message through to the President I still call on him to pardon Julian Assange, who is the true whistleblower of our time. Finally, we are all holding our breath waiting for an honest investigation into the murder of Seth Rich.

Snippet of article from: https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/world/2020/02/25/julian-assange-bin-laden/

Barrister Edward Fitzgerald was asked by District Judge Vanessa Baraitser if Assange would testify during the month-long hearing.

“Madam, it’s very unlikely that he would,” Mr Fitzgerald said.

Arguing against extradition, he said the dividing line between US courts and the president has been “blurred” in the decade-long pursuit of his client.

Mr Fitzgerald told the packed court a witness will confirm the US had even contemplated more “extreme measures” against the Australian.
“Such as kidnapping or poisoning Julian Assange in the embassy,” he said, referring to Assange’s seven-year asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy in London.

Mr Fitzgerald detailed how the Americans had spied on his meetings with lawyers in the embassy. He also maintained that US congressman Dana Rohrabacher had indeed offered Assange a pardon on orders of President Donald Trump (https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/world/2020/02/20/trump-assange-pardon-court/), a claim both American men denied last week.

“President Trump denies everything and we say ‘well, he would, wouldn’t he’,” Mr Fitzgerald said.

Outside court, journalists and human rights group said the case could have wide-ranging impacts for media freedoms and whistleblowers.

From The Courage Foundation’s coverage of the hearing (https://defend.wikileaks.org/extradition-hearing/) (emphasis mine) -

“US Congressman Offers Assange Pardon

Assange barrister Jennifer Robinson has provided testimony about US Republican Congressman Dana Rohrabacher’s 2017 visit to Assange in the embassy in which Rohrabacher made clear that he was representing President Trump. Rohrabacher offered Assange a preemptive pardon or otherwise helpful deal in exchange for Assange identifying the source of the 2016 DNC leaks. Assange refused the offer, and Trump later denied any knowledge of the offer — as Fitzgerald said, “He would, wouldn’t he.”

The pardon offer shows just how little the Trump Administration actually cares about prosecuting a violation of the law, and instead shows Trump’s interest in cutting a deal that served himself.”

Tintin

2nd March 2020, 15:53

Even the Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, John McDonnell, has put on record his view on the injustice of Julian's incarceration. It remains never to be known what could have transpired had a Labour administration been voted in last autumn/fall.

“Please don’t underestimate the importance of this case for the future of our democracy”

Link: https://twitter.com/DoubleDownNews/status/1234420109285916672

1234420109285916672

Tintin

2nd March 2020, 16:23

"They are relentlessly enforcing the systematic denial of any basic human comfort, like the touch of a friend’s fingertips or the blocking of the relief that he might get just from being alongside somebody friendly. They are ensuring the continuation of the extreme psychological effects from isolation of a year of virtual solitary confinement. A tiny bit of human comfort could do an enormous amount of good to his mental health and resilience. They are determined to stop this at all costs. They are attempting to make him kill himself – or create in him the condition where his throttling death might be explained away as suicide." - Craig Murray (March 2020)

The Armoured Glass Box is an Instrument of Torture
By Craig Murray (https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/03/the-armoured-glass-box-is-an-instrument-of-torture/)
March 2nd, 2020

In Thursday’s separate hearing on allowing Assange out of the armoured box to sit with his legal team, I witnessed directly that Baraitser’s ruling against Assange was brought by her into court BEFORE she heard defence counsel put the arguments, and delivered by her entirely unchanged.

I might start by explaining to you my position in the public gallery vis a vis the judge. All week I deliberately sat in the front, right hand seat. The gallery looks out through an armoured glass window at a height of about seven feet above the courtroom. It runs down one side of the court, and the extreme right hand end of the public gallery is above the judge’s bench, which sits below perpendicular to it. Remarkably therefore from the right hand seats of the public gallery you have an uninterrupted view of the top of the whole of the judge’s bench, and can see all the judge’s papers and computer screen.

Mark Summers QC outlined that in the case of Belousov vs Russia (https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-166937%22]}) the European Court of Human Rights at Strasbourg ruled against the state of Russia because Belousov had been tried in a glass cage practically identical in construction and in position in court to that in which Assange now was. It hindered his participation in the trial and his free access to counsel, and deprived him of human dignity as a defendant.

Summers continued that it was normal practice for certain categories of unconvicted prisoners to be released from the dock to sit with their lawyers. The court had psychiatric reports on Assange’s extreme clinical depression, and in fact the UK Department of Justice’s best practice guide for courts stated that vulnerable people should be released to sit alongside their lawyers. Special treatment was not being requested for Assange – he was asking to be treated as any other vulnerable person.

The defence was impeded by their inability to communicate confidentially with their client during proceedings. In the next stage of trial, where witnesses were being examined, timely communication was essential. Furthermore they could only talk with him through the slit in the glass within the hearing of the private company security officers who were guarding him (it was clarified they were Serco, not Group 4 as Baraitser had said the previous day), and in the presence of microphones.

Baraitser became ill-tempered at this point and spoke with a real edge to her voice. “Who are those people behind you in the back row?” she asked Summers sarcastically – a question to which she very well knew the answer. Summers replied that they were part of the defence legal team. Baraitser said that Assange could contact them if he had a point to pass on. Summers replied that there was an aisle and a low wall between the glass box and their position, and all Assange could see over the wall was the top of the back of their heads. Baraitser said she had seen Assange call out. Summers said yelling across the courtroom was neither confidential nor satisfactory.

This is the photo taken illegally (not by me) of Assange in the court:

42653

If you look carefully, you can see there is a passageway and a low wooden wall between him and the back row of lawyers. You can see one of the two Serco prison officers guarding him inside the box.

Baraitser said Assange could pass notes, and she had witnessed notes being passed by him. Summers replied that the court officers had now banned the passing of notes. Baraitser said they could take this up with Serco, it was a matter for the prison authorities.

Summers asserted that, contrary to Baraitser’s statement the previous day, she did indeed have jurisdiction on the matter of releasing Assange from the dock. Baraitser intervened to say that she now accepted that. Summers then said that he had produced a number of authorities to show that Baraitser had also been wrong to say that to be in custody could only mean to be in the dock. You could be in custody anywhere within the precincts of the court, or indeed outside. Baraitser became very annoyed by this and stated she had only said that delivery to the custody of the court must equal delivery to the dock.

To which Summers replied memorably, now very cross “Well, that’s wrong too, and has been wrong these last eight years.”

Drawing argument to a close, Baraitser gave her judgement on this issue. Now the interesting thing is this, and I am a direct eyewitness. She read out her judgement, which was several pages long and handwritten. She had brought it with her into court in a bundle, and she made no amendments to it. She had written out her judgement before she heard Mark Summers speak at all.

Her key points were that Assange was able to communicate to his lawyers by shouting out from the box. She had seen him pass notes. She was willing to adjourn the court at any time for Assange to go down with his lawyers for discussions in the cells, and if that extended the length of the hearing from three to six weeks, it could take as long as required.

Baraitser stated that none of the psychiatric reports she had before her stated that it was necessary for Assange to leave the armoured dock. As none of the psychiatrists had been asked that question – and very probably none knew anything about courtroom layout – that is scarcely surprising

I have been wondering why it is so essential to the British government to keep Assange in that box, unable to hear proceedings or instruct his lawyers in reaction to evidence, even when counsel for the US Government stated they had no objection to Assange sitting in the well of the court.

The answer lies in the psychiatric assessment of Assange given to the court by the extremely distinguished Professor Michael Kopelman (who is familiar to everyone who has read Murder in Samarkand (https://www.amazon.co.uk/Murder-Samarkand-Mr-Craig-Murray/dp/1975977920/ref=sr_1_1?crid=3CHDITTZVR23I&keywords=murder+in+samarkand&qid=1583141939&sprefix=murder+in+samarkand%2Caps%2C149&sr=8-1)):

“Mr Assange shows virtually all the risk factors which researchers from Oxford
have described in prisoners who either suicide or make lethal attempts. … I
am as confident as a psychiatrist can ever be that, if extradition to the United
States were to become imminent, Mr Assange would find a way of suiciding.”

The fact that Kopelman does not, as Baraitser said, specifically state that the armoured glass box is bad for Assange reflects nothing other than the fact he was not asked that question. Any human being with the slightest decency would be able to draw the inference. Baraitser’s narrow point that no psychiatrist had specifically stated he should be released from the armoured box is breathtakingly callous, dishonest and inhumane. Almost certainly no psychiatrist had conceived she would determine on enforcing such torture.

So why is Baraitser doing it?

I believe that the Hannibal Lecter style confinement of Assange, this intellectual computer geek, which has no rational basis at all, is a deliberate attempt to drive Julian to suicide. The maximum security anti-terrorist court is physically within the fortress compound that houses the maximum security prison. He is brought handcuffed and under heavy escort to and from his solitary cell to the armoured dock via an underground tunnel.

In these circumstances, what possible need is there for him to be strip and cavity searched continually? Why is he not permitted to have his court papers? Most telling for me was the fact he is not permitted to shake hands or touch his lawyers through the slit in the armoured box.

They are relentlessly enforcing the systematic denial of any basic human comfort, like the touch of a friend’s fingertips or the blocking of the relief that he might get just from being alongside somebody friendly. They are ensuring the continuation of the extreme psychological effects from isolation of a year of virtual solitary confinement. A tiny bit of human comfort could do an enormous amount of good to his mental health and resilience. They are determined to stop this at all costs. They are attempting to make him kill himself – or create in him the condition where his throttling death might be explained away as suicide.

This is also the only explanation that I can think of for why they are risking the creation of such obvious mistrial conditions. Dead people cannot appeal.

I would remind you that Julian is a remand prisoner who has served his unprecedentedly long sentence for bail-jumping. His status is supposedly at present that of an innocent man facing charges. Those charges are for nothing except for publishing Chelsea Manning’s revelations of war crimes.

That Baraitser is acting under instructions seems to me certain. She has been desperate throughout the trial to seize any chance to deny any responsibility for what is happening to Julian. She has stated that she has no jurisdiction over his treatment in prison, and even when both defence and prosecution combined to state it was normal practice for magistrates to pass directions or requests to the prison service, she refused to accept it was so.

Baraitser is plainly attempting psychologically to distance herself from any agency in what is being done. To this end she has made a stream of denials of jurisdiction or ability to influence events. She has said that she has no jurisdiction to interfere with the strip searching, handcuffing and removal of Assange’s papers or with his being kept in solitary.

She has said she has no jurisdiction to request that his defence lawyers have more access to their client in jail to prepare his defence. She has said she has no jurisdiction over his position in the courtroom. She has suggested at various times it is up to Serco to decide if he may pass notes to his lawyers and up to Group4 to decide if he can be released from the armoured dock. The moments when she looks most content listening to the evidence, are those when prosecution counsel James Lewis argues that she has no decision to make but to sign the extradition because it is in good form and that Article 4 of the Treaty has no legal standing.

A member of the Assange family remarked to me at the end of week one that she seems very lazy, and thus delighted to accept any arguments that reduce the amount she needs to do. I think it is different to that. I think there is a corner of the mind of this daughter of dissidents from apartheid that rejects her own role in the torture of Assange, and is continually urging “I had no choice, I had no agency”. Those who succumb to do evil must find what internal comfort they may.

With grateful thanks to those who donated or subscribed to make this reporting possible. I wish to stress again that I absolutely do not want anybody to give anything if it causes them the slightest possibility of financial strain.

This article is entirely free to reproduce and publish, including in translation, and I very much hope people will do so actively. Truth shall set us free.

Tintin

3rd March 2020, 12:13

Yet more corroboration on Julian's general state of wellbeing, as if any were needed, this time from Sevim Dagdalen (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sevim_Da%C4%9Fdelen) via Afshin Rattansi on RT.

Afshin Rattansi
@afshinrattansi

"What you won't see on @BBCNews ... #FreeJulianAssange"

Link: https://twitter.com/afshinrattansi/status/1234493282861899778

1234493282861899778

Tintin

3rd March 2020, 16:50

Veteran journalist and filmmaker John Pilger, just about one of the very best there's ever been, who always manages to so concisely and eloquently say it how it really is:

"Compliant journalists in the UK, US, Australia suppressed the significance of the outrage of the #Assange (https://twitter.com/hashtag/Assange?src=hashtag_click) trial: the obscene bias, the studied cruelty. Is this the press freedom we are fighting for? The Guardian's deceit about its role in unredacted cables shames real journalism."

Link: https://twitter.com/johnpilger/status/1233934453057052672

1233934453057052672

....and something from 2011, from Julian himself:

http://avalonlibrary.net/Julian_Assange_and_Wikileaks/Julian_Assange_excerpt_from_interview_2011.mp4

http://avalonlibrary.net/Julian_Assange_and_Wikileaks/Julian_Assange_excerpt_from_interview_2011.mp4

Innocent Warrior

4th March 2020, 00:24

From The Watchdog - Leaked evidence shows that Assange arrest came after Wikileaks publisher refused to name sources

U.S. President Donald Trump offered Julian Assange clemency in return for confirmation that Seth Rich was the source of leaked Democratic Party emails — only to push for the indictment of the Wikileaks founder when he refused to comply.

Text messages released last week by Kim Dotcom, the internet entrepreneur and close associate of Assange, revealed how he helped facilitate a 2017 meeting (https://dailycaller.com/2017/08/16/exclusive-republican-congressman-meets-with-wikileaks-founder-julian-assange/) between the 48-year-old Australian and former U.S. Congressman Dana Rohrabacher (R-Cal).

After his first meeting with Trump in April of that year (https://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/dana-rohrabacher-meets-trump-white-house-236874), Rohrabacher travelled to meet Assange — then arbitrarily detained in Ecuador’s London embassy — after Dotcom brokered the arrangement through his friend and Fox News host, Sean Hannity.

In personal messages between the two, Hannity told Dotcom that the idea of a presidential pardon was “met with enthusiasm” by Trump (demarcated as T in the exchanges). That followed a number of Dotcom’s messages urging the cable news host to push for the arrangement.

“Remind T about the art of the deal,” one of them read.

“I have discussed it [the Assange deal] with him many times,” Hannity responded.

1232122991527354368

The tweets came after Rohrabacher released a press statement confirming he had indeed made an informal quid-pro-quo proposition to Assange, but denied he had been sent on Trump’s instructions.

“At no time did I talk to President Trump about Julian Assange,” Rohrabacher said.

“Likewise, I was not directed by Trump or anyone else connected with him to meet with Julian Assange. I was on my own fact-finding mission at personal expense to find out information I thought was important to our country.”

“When speaking with Assange,” he later added, “I told him that if he could provide me information and evidence about who actually gave him the DNC emails, I would then call on President Trump to pardon him.”

White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham also dismissed the notion (https://www.forbes.com/sites/lisettevoytko/2020/02/19/trump-says-he-barely-knows-dana-rohrabacher-after-julian-assange-makes-pardon-claim/#5741bc5069fc) of a Trump-endorsed pardon offer, calling the claim “absolutely and completely false.” She added that Trump “barely knows” Rohrabacher and had “never spoken to him on this subject.” This denial came despite their earlier phone call between the two and a 45-minute meeting at the White House attended by former chief of staff Reince Priebus and former chief strategist Steve Bannon.

The messages released by Dotcom reveal a different version of events than those expressed by Rohrabacher and the White House, however. In a further screenshot, this time between him and Assange, the interactions showed Trump had first-hand knowledge of the pardon agreement.

1232153471006019584

The message came one day after the Rohrabacher meeting where Assange refused to reveal his source. Accordingly, Trump’s patience was tested.

“When is this all finally coming out,” Trump said of Rich according to the screen shots. Assange, however, maintained his position.

In turn, Trump took his vengeance. Because not only would the admission that Rich — a DNC staffer who was murdered in Washington D.C. — discredit the unsubstantiated Russia allegations that swirled at the time of the Democrat-led Mueller investigation, the information could have provided useful ammunition for the upcoming election.

“I have no need to do anyone favours,” Assange said in response to Trump’s request. He was then charged with 18 espionage-linked indictments after refusing to supply the evidence.

And if the texts alone were insufficient to show the political nature of the persecution of Assange, Dotcom’s screen-grabs were then quickly followed by another set of damning revelations: Cassandra Fairbanks, a Conservative journalist and confidant of Assange’s, leaked audio recordings (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lj0C0rqSZVw) from calls between her and Arthur Schwartz, a middle-aged political consultant known as Donald Trump Jr.’s “fixer”.

The first phone call of note came after Fairbanks visited Assange in October 2018 and after she penned a now-deleted article on the persecuted journalist. In it, Fairbanks had interviewed Assange’s mother, Christine Assange, and had hoped to raise sympathy among Conservative circles.

Instead, after the article was shared in a group message with Schwartz and his boss, Rick Grenell — the former U.S. Ambassador to Germany and Trump’s new Director of National Intelligence — Fairbanks received a phone call from the Trump operative that she described as “insane”.

“A little bit after I published this article,” Fairbanks said, “I posted it in the group hoping that someone would see it and maybe they would feel bad or would maybe be moved to share it with people who could make a difference…

“… About ten minutes later, I got this insane phone call and it was Arthur Schwartz and he was completely erratic. He was saying that I needed to stop trying, that a deal had already been made to arrest Julian, that they were going to go in the embassy to get him.”

According to Fairbanks, Schwartz went on to repeat the false allegations (https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/jasonleopold/secret-government-report-chelsea-manning-leaks-caused-no) that Assange’s disclosures had led to harm and to the torture of U.S. military informants, even asking the then 33-year-old mother how she would feel if her young daughter was subject to the same circumstances.

“I took it as very threatening,” she continued. “He was threatening my reputation. Some of it, I perceived, as even more sinister than that.”

She then began recording her calls — and what took place after was most revealing.

After Fairbanks maintained her support of Assange, visiting him once again in January and March 2019, she asked Schwartz why she was subjected to greater levels of monitoring in the embassy. It was then she received the second of two recorded phone calls.

1232439425629483009

It came after Schwartz had previously told Fairbanks that the U.S. State Department was aware she had told Assange about the plans to arrest him and that they had launched an investigation into how she received the information.

“Someone’s going to go to jail,” Schwartz said. “You need to stop this. I don’t want to go to jail!”

The phone call also came after Fairbanks tweeted about the subject, telling Conservatives supportive of Wikileaks to be careful of Grenell given that he had been instrumental in crafting assurances to the Ecuadorian government that Assange would not be given the death sentence if British forces were invited into the embassy to arrest him. The deal was first reported by ABC News (https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/us-gave-verbal-pledge-death-penalty-assange-sources/story?id=62414643) and was later mentioned in Fairbanks’ reporting.

“They [the State Department] look at you and they see that we speak,” Schwartz continued. “That’s bad!

“Rick [Grenell] is taking order from the president! You’re going to punish me because he took orders from the president?”

The revelations, both of Fairbanks and Dotcom, are significant because they give further weight to arguments made by Assange’s lawyers at the opening of his extradition hearings last week.

They said Assange’s indictment was “clearly” political, arguing his extradition should be barred based on article 4(1) of the U.S.-U.K. extradition treaty. The article forbids both parties from handing over prisoners for political offences.

The extradition hearings will continue on May 18 and will include further details of Fairbanks’ evidence. Jennifer Robinson, an Assange barrister from Doughty Street Chambers in London, will also submit a written statement from Assange’s meeting with Rohrabacher.

Further information about the nature of the evidence is expected to be made public at a case-management hearing at Belmarsh Magistrates’ Court on April 7.

Link to source HERE (https://thewatchdog.net/2020/03/02/leaked-evidence-shows-that-assange-arrest-came-after-wikileaks-publisher-refused-to-name-sources/?fbclid=IwAR1gA9yMQLQXcX3nvIqx41OnrQlpeGddPhDiUPGJGPAh5RtMqXSgOe1ztSc).

Tintin

4th March 2020, 12:34

Tintin

4th March 2020, 14:03

Letter from The Council of Bar and Law Societies of Europe (CCBE) to UK authorities about the interception of communications between Julian Assange and his lawyers

This tweet from an Aitor Martinez contains images of a letter sent by the CCBE (https://www.ccbe.eu/search/?tx_kesearch_pi1[sword]=Human%20Rights%20Letters): Council of Bar and Law Societies Europe which is heavily critical of the UK government's actions, to date.

1232987190373777408

Link: https://twitter.com/AitorxMartinez/status/1232987190373777408

The letter sent to the current UK Home Secretary, Priti Patel, and deals with the illegality of the interceptions of Julian's lawyers' correspondences and communications. (Letter (https://www.ccbe.eu/fileadmin/speciality_distribution/public/documents/SURVEILLANCE/SVL_Letters/EN_SVL_20200224_CCBE-Letter-regarding-the-interception-of-communications-between-Julian-Assange-and-his-lawyers.pdf) from CCBE site)

Letter page 1 - http://avalonlibrary.net/Julian_Assange_and_Wikileaks/%5bLetter%5d_CCBE_to_Priti_Patel_Feb_24_2020_illegal_interceptions/Letter_from_CCBE%20(1).png
Letter page 2 - http://avalonlibrary.net/Julian_Assange_and_Wikileaks/%5bLetter%5d_CCBE_to_Priti_Patel_Feb_24_2020_illegal_interceptions/Letter_from_CCBE%20(2).png
Letter page 3 - http://avalonlibrary.net/Julian_Assange_and_Wikileaks/%5bLetter%5d_CCBE_to_Priti_Patel_Feb_24_2020_illegal_interceptions/Letter_from_CCBE%20(3).png

PDF version here (http://avalonlibrary.net/Julian_Assange_and_Wikileaks/%5bLetter%5d_CCBE_to_Priti_Patel_Feb_24_2020_illegal_interceptions/EN_SVL_20200224_CCBE-Letter-regarding-the-interception-of-communications-between-Julian-Assange-and-his-lawyers.pdf)

http://avalonlibrary.net/Julian_Assange_and_Wikileaks/%5bLetter%5d_CCBE_to_Priti_Patel_Feb_24_2020_illegal_interceptions/EN_SVL_20200224_CCBE-Letter-regarding-the-interception-of-communications-between-Julian-Assange-and-his-lawyers.pdf

Tintin

4th March 2020, 14:10

[CAMPAIGN]

Save My Son Julian GoFundMe (https://www.gofundme.com/f/save-my-son-julian?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=p_cp+share-sheet) campaign

Christine Assange is organising this fundraiser.
Created 1 day ago (March 3rd, 2020)

"My son, Julian Assange, is a multi-award winning Australian journalist who is facing the fight of his life. He is currently detained in Belmarsh, as a prisoner facing US extradition.

If he is convicted, he will be subjected to 175 years in a US prison.

He will never be released.

Through his organisation WikiLeaks, he published evidence of widespread abuse of power, including systemic corruption and war crimes committed all over the world. He published this material in the public interest. He believed that all people have the right to know the truth and what goes on behind closed doors.

Julian is an Australian citizen who is up against powerful States that have an unlimited amount of resources at their disposal. These States want to make an example out of him.

I can't fight this on my own. I am raising money to fund a hand-picked, highly professional and experienced media and diplomatic team in Australia.

My son's life is at risk.

Please help me to save my son. Your support is priceless and any small amount will be greatly appreciated."

Innocent Warrior

5th March 2020, 06:55

Innocent Warrior/Rach: :highfive: EXCELLENT article - a very important piece in the evidence chain that one assumes Julian's defence team will, as outlined, submit.

LIBRARY UPDATE

A specific folder (http://avalonlibrary.net/Julian_Assange_and_Wikileaks/%5bAUDIO_leak%5d_Cassandra_Fairbanks_telephone_calls_audio_w_Arthur_Schwartz_US-Ecuador_deal_for_Assange_Grenell_involvement_FEB_2020/) containing the following documentation, for the all important record:

The Watchdog article
Link: http://avalonlibrary.net/Julian_Assange_and_Wikileaks/%5bAUDIO_leak%5d_Cassandra_Fairbanks_telephone_calls_audio_w_Arthur_Schwartz_US-Ecuador_deal_for_Assange_Grenell_involvement_FEB_2020/Leaked_evidence_shows_that_Assange_arrest_came_after_Wikileaks_publisher_refused_to_name_sources_(Th e_Watchdog_Feb_2020).pdf
MP3 and MP4 of the telephone calls - MP3 linked below: the text from the youtube source reads -

I have received full permission from Cassandra to splice together and upload these streams to my channel so they can be shared easier. This is being provided in the interests of journalism, of preserving the information, and to support accurate reporting on the developing situation.

Link: http://avalonlibrary.net/Julian_Assange_and_Wikileaks/%5bAUDIO_leak%5d_Cassandra_Fairbanks_telephone_calls_audio_w_Arthur_Schwartz_US-Ecuador_deal_for_Assange_Grenell_involvement_FEB_2020/%5bAUDIO_leak%5d_Cassandra_Fairbanks_telephone_calls_audio_w_Arthur_Schwartz_US-Ecuador_deal_for_Assange_Grenell_involvement.mp3

Great, thank you very much, Tintin. :heart:

Dotcom told VICE News he gave Assange’s lawyers “338 pages of text messages with Trump’s best friend, who is also a secret supporter of truth-teller Julian Assange. I would never have made some of those messages public if Trump didn’t lie by saying he knew nothing about the pardon proposal to Julian.”

Source (https://www.vice.com/amp/en_us/article/939zwy/heres-why-wikileaks-founder-julian-assange-is-dangerous-for-trump).

Julian, the man who offered himself up to the US for a fair trial in exchange for Chelsea’s freedom (Obama admin), was never going to agree to that deal. Evidently, it’s difficult enough to protect sources, imagine what would happen if he was willing to confirm a source after they were murdered. o_O He’ll never compromise WikiLeaks and its sources like that, no matter what it costs him.

Trump appears to have no idea of who he’s dealing with, evidenced by the foolish deal he made with Ecuador. The most powerful people don’t wear crowns or live in the White House, and some of the most free are locked in prison cells. I doubt he can wrap his head around that, Chelsea and Julian are more free than he’ll ever be. Contrary to popular belief, not everyone has a price, not all the money and force in the world will move them to compromise themselves, giving up true freedom in the process.

This is like watching a game of chicken, knowing one side will allow themselves to be run down if it comes to that, but at great cost to the blind ‘victor’. Trump should bail from this game. Others around him would know this, others who were the secret clients of the security company spying on Assange, who had copies of his legal strategy made while the documents were left unattended. And here we are, Julian Assange Vs USA government, the platform on which the true nature of Trump’s motivations will be exposed.

Thanks for posting Craig Murray’s reports on the hearing BTW, not only is he factual and highly intelligent, his clarity commands the reader to listen to his voice with their heart. Imagine if all journalists were educated and free to write as authentically.

Tintin

6th March 2020, 15:13

LONDON EVENT - April 20th, 2020
Free The Truth (https://www.eventbrite.com/e/free-the-truth-london-april-20-6pm-freethetruth-tickets-98461477931)

I have booked my ticket for this event. It's free to attend but a donation is requested on arrival, minimum £7.

Provided there aren't restrictions on persons' movements due to the virus situation I should be able to make it along without any issues.

Description
Mark Curtis, Andrew Feinstein, Peter Oborne, Chris Williamson and eminent experts will join us on Monday 20th April 2020 in London to examine the extradition of award-winning journalist and publisher Julian Assange.

If extradited Julian will be tried in the US, without First Amendment protections, under special administrative measures (ie neither he nor his lawyers will be able to communicate with the press) and will face a potential sentence of 175 years in prison. The US authorities have confirmed that they may add further charges after extradition.

If you would like to read about the travesty that was the first phase of Julian's extradition trial, former diplomat Craig Murray has written about it here https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/02/your-man-in-the-public-gallery-assange-hearing-day-1/

Having served his prison sentence for seeking asylum, Julian is currently being held at Belmarsh prison pending extradition to the US for "conspiring with Chelsea Manning to publish the Iraq War logs, the Afghanistan war logs and the State Department cables". Prof Nils Melzer, the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture and Arbitrary Detention describes the British state's complicity in his torture in this revealing interview https://www.republik.ch/2020/01/31/nils-melzer-about-wikileaks-founder-julian-assange

We welcome trade unionists, politicians, media, students, academics and all members of the public. Entry to the event is free. We request that guests make a donation in excess of £7 per ticket (at the door) towards covering costs.

Doors Open at 6:00 pm

Discussions commence at 6:30 pm sharp.

Discussions end at 9 pm

Due to the high levels of interest in this event, those who have registered beforehand will be given priority until 6:15 pm. Thereafter, any remaining seats will be made available on a first-come-first-served basis. Please bring a copy of your reservation with you.

Those with accessibility or other constraints should please feel free to contact us via email at jadc@protonmail.ch or via Twitter @deepa_driver

After registration, if you are no longer able to attend, please contact us as set out above, so your seat can be offered to someone else.

We would like to acknowledge those who toil behind the scenes to make #FreeTheTruth (https://twitter.com/hashtag/FreeTheTruth?src=hashtag_click) events possible. We are particulary grateful to:

Dr Catherine Brown @neolawrencian {Transcription}

Committee to Defend Julian Assange (JADC) {Solidarity and stewarding}

@somersetbean {Graphics}

onawah

8th March 2020, 00:04

Julian Assange Forced to Change Prison Cell 5 TIMES at Night!
Mar 2, 2020
Going Underground on RT

"We speak to Sevim Dagdelen MdB of Die Linke after she witnessed the trial in court during Julian Assange’s Extradition. She discusses the treatment of Julian Assange in the court, bias of the judges, the Wikileaks Editor-in-Chief Kristin Hrafnsson being temporarily banned from viewing the proceedings. She also invites Kier Starmer to witness the extradition trial!"

RIDmX3JZnSU

onawah

8th March 2020, 00:26

Sneers and imperious indifference--Vanessa Baraitser serves as a District Judge at Westminster Magistrates' Court...
(she's not a judge, actually, according to this article, but a magistrate, and apparently a psychotic)
...where, on 21 October 2019, she refused to extend Julian Assange's UK extradition proceedings, telling Assange his full extradition case would begin on 24 February 2020.[1]
(Very odd that she would ride a bicycle home after the proceedings, though perhaps that's one reason why she doesn't want photos taken even outside the courtroom. If I were her, I would definitely be going home in a car, and leaving by a back door.)
https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Vanessa_Baraitser

"Sneers and imperious indifference"
On 28 October 2019, John Pilger (http://johnpilger.com/articles/did-this-happen-in-the-home-of-magna-carta-) described the disturbing scene inside a London courtroom the previous week when the WikiLeaks publisher, Julian Assange, appeared at the start of a landmark extradition case that will define the future of free journalism:

"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 be 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?

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 samizdat 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 Julian Assange's courage."

Extradition case

MOD NOTE: Craig Murray article already published here (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?101183-Current-Wikileaks-and-Assange-News-Releases&p=1338092&viewfull=1#post1338092)

https://wikispooks.com/w/images/thumb/d/d8/ERyoZm2WsAAI44T.jpg/300px-ERyoZm2WsAAI44T.jpg

https://wikispooks.com/w/images/thumb/2/21/Vanessa_Baraitser2.jpg/300px-Vanessa_Baraitser2.jpg

References
"Julian Assange extradition judge refuses request for delay (https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/oct/21/julian-assange-extradition-judge-refuses-request-for-delay-wikileaks)"
"Did this happen in the home of Magna Carta? (http://johnpilger.com/articles/did-this-happen-in-the-home-of-magna-carta-)"
"The judge...#VanessaBaraitser cycles home after court!"
"Two flames"
"Your Man in the Public Gallery – The Assange Hearing Day 3 (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?101183-Current-Wikileaks-and-Assange-News-Releases&p=1338092&viewfull=1#post1338092)"

Dennis Leahy

8th March 2020, 01:28

gini

8th March 2020, 18:17

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azjUBSolWPc The Duran discus the latest Tucker Carlson interview with Rogers Waters about the media spin around Julian Assange. The actual interview starts at 10.00.

Tintin

10th March 2020, 15:28

A statement released today by the IBAHRI condemning Julian's treatment with kind acknowledgement to Nils Melzer for bringing this to our attention.

1237371979440807936

Tweet link: https://twitter.com/NilsMelzer/status/1237371979440807936

Text:

Thanks to the International Bar Asscoiation @IBAHRI (https://twitter.com/IBAHRI) for its timely condemnation of the #UK judiciary for its sustained exposure of #Assange to gross due process violations & #PsychologicalTorture in his US extradition trial!

Their statement, in full, below.

IBAHRI condemns UK treatment of Julian Assange in US extradition trial
Tuesday 10 March 2020

The International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute (https://www.ibanet.org/IBAHRI.aspx) (IBAHRI) condemns the reported mistreatment of Julian Assange during his United States extradition trial in February 2020, and urges the government of the United Kingdom to take action to protect him. According to his lawyers, Mr Assange was handcuffed 11 times; stripped naked twice and searched; his case files confiscated after the first day of the hearing; and had his request to sit with his lawyers during the trial, rather than in a dock surrounded by bulletproof glass, denied.

The UK hearing, which began on Monday 24 February 2020 at Woolwich Crown Court in London, UK, will decide whether the WikiLeaks founder, Mr Assange, will be extradited to the US, where he is wanted on 18 charges of attempted hacking and breaches of the 1917 Espionage Act. He faces allegations of collaborating with former US army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning to leak classified documents, including exposing alleged war crimes in Afghanistan and Iraq. The hearing was adjourned after four days, with proceedings set to resume on 18 May 2020.

IBAHRI Co-Chair, the Hon Michael Kirby AC CMG, commented:

‘The IBAHRI is concerned that the mistreatment of Julian Assange constitutes breaches of his right to a fair trial and protections enshrined in the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/ProfessionalInterest/cat.pdf), to which the UK is party. It is deeply shocking that as a mature democracy in which the rule of law and the rights of individuals are preserved, the UK Government has been silent and has taken no action to terminate such gross and disproportionate conduct by Crown officials. As well, we are surprised that the presiding judge has reportedly said and done nothing to rebuke the officials and their superiors for such conduct in the case of an accused whose offence is not one of personal violence. Many countries in the world look to Britain as an example in such matters. On this occasion, the example is shocking and excessive. It is reminiscent of the Abu Grahib Prison Scandal which can happen when prison officials are not trained in the basic human rights of detainees and the Nelson Mandela Rules.’

In accordance with the Human Rights Act 1998 (https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/human-rights/human-rights-act), which came into force in the UK in October 2000, every person tried in the UK is entitled to a fair trial (Article 6 (https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/human-rights-act/article-6-right-fair-trial)) and freedom from torture and inhuman or degrading treatment (Article 3 (https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/human-rights-act/article-3-freedom-torture-and-inhuman-or-degrading-treatment)). Similarly, Article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/) upholds an individual’s right to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal.

IBAHRI Co-Chair, Anne Ramberg Dr jur hc, commented:

‘The IBAHRI concurs with the widespread concern over the ill-treatment of Mr Assange. He must be afforded equality in access to effective legal representation. With this extradition trial we are witnessing the serious undermining of due process and the rule of law. It is troubling that Mr Assange has complained that he is unable to hear properly what is being said at his trial, and that because he is locked in a glass cage is prevented from communicating freely with his lawyers during the proceedings commensurate with the prosecution.’

A recent report (http://avalonlibrary.net/Julian_Assange_and_Wikileaks/%5bREPORT%5d_Nils_Melzer_report_to_UNHRC_Feb_Mar_2020/Melzer_Nils_Report_to_UNHRC_A_HRC_43_49_AUV.pdf) from Nils Melzer, the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture and Inhumane Treatment, presented during the 43rd session of the UN Human Rights Council (24 February – 20 March 2020), argues that the cumulative effects of Mr Assange’s mistreatment over the past decade amount to psychological torture. If Mr Assange was viewed as a victim of psychological torture, his extradition would be illegal under international human rights law.

ENDS

Notes to the Editor

Related material: Watch the interview of Julian Assange (https://www.ibanet.org/Conferences/238921283.aspx) given to IBA Executive Director Mark Ellis during the IBA’s 2017 Annual Conference in Sydney, Australia. www.ibanet.org/Conferences/238921283.aspx

The International Bar Association (IBA), the global voice of the legal profession, is the foremost organisation for international legal practitioners, bar associations and law societies. Established in 1947, shortly after the creation of the United Nations, it was born out of the conviction that an organisation made up of the world's bar associations could contribute to global stability and peace through the administration of justice.

In the ensuing 70 years since its creation, the organisation has evolved from an association comprised exclusively of bar associations and law societies to one that incorporates individual international lawyers and entire law firms. The present membership is comprised of more than 80,000 individual international lawyers from most of the world’s leading law firms and some 190 bar associations and law societies spanning more than 170 countries.

The IBA has considerable expertise in providing assistance to the global legal community, and through its global membership, it influences the development of international law reform and helps to shape the future of the legal profession throughout the world.

The IBA’s administrative office is in London, United Kingdom. Regional offices are located in: São Paulo, Brazil; Seoul, South Korea; and Washington DC, United States, while the International Bar Association’s International Criminal Court and International Criminal Law Programme (https://www.ibanet.org/ICC_ICL_Programme/Home.aspx) (ICC & ICL) is managed from an office in The Hague, the Netherlands.

The International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute (IBAHRI), an autonomous and financially independent entity, works to promote, protect and enforce human rights under a just rule of law, and to preserve the independence of the judiciary and the legal profession worldwide.

Mari

10th March 2020, 20:38

Makes me wonder if there are English activists that are trying to formulate a plan for the citizens of England to take over the English government, and end the monarchy. You do know you need it as bad as the USA does, right?

(I say "England" rather than "the UK" because the other nations (and the north of Ireland) that got absorbed into the UK really need to Wexit and Scexit and NIexit the hell out of the UK.) That ain't your queen. That ain't your "crown."

She ain't mine either. We have become too dumbed-down ( I never thought I'd ever say this) & any 'voices' out there are systematically drowned out by our 'media' - which of course is the 100% propaganda arm of the establishment - which I have to say is still very much alive & kicking over here!

Tintin

11th March 2020, 14:28

[LETTER] Doctors for Assange: End torture and medical neglect of Julian Assange

Link: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30383-4/fulltext

Published in The Lancet, a copy of the letter and supplementary appendix can be found here in the library (http://avalonlibrary.net/Julian_Assange_and_Wikileaks/%5bLetter%5d_DoctorsforAssange_End_torture_and_medical_neglect_of_Julian_Assange_%5bThe_Lancet_corre spondence_Feb_17_2020%5d/)

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

On Nov 22, 2019, we, a group of more than 60 medical doctors, wrote to the UK Home Secretary (https://medium.com/@doctors4assange/concerns-of-medical-doctors-about-the-plight-of-mr-julian-assange-ffb09a5dd588) to express our serious concerns about the physical and mental health of Julian Assange.1In our letter,1 we documented a history of denial of access to health care and prolonged psychological torture. We requested that Assange be transferred from Belmarsh prison to a university teaching hospital for medical assessment and treatment. Faced with evidence of untreated and ongoing torture, we also raised the question as to Assange's fitness to participate in US extradition proceedings.

Having received no substantive response from the UK Government, neither to our first letter1 nor to our follow-up letter (https://medium.com/@doctors4assange/second-open-letter-to-the-uk-government-d5b58bca88),2 we wrote to the Australian Government (https://medium.com/@doctors4assange/open-letter-to-the-australian-government-e19a42597e45), requesting that it intervene to protect the health of its citizen.3 To date, regrettably, no reply has been forthcoming. Meanwhile, many more doctors from around the world have joined us in our call. Our group currently numbers 117 doctors, representing 18 countries.

The case of Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, is multifaceted. It relates to law, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, journalism, publishing, and politics. It also clearly relates to medicine. The case highlights several concerning aspects that warrant the medical profession's close attention and concerted action.

We were prompted to act following the harrowing eyewitness accounts of former UK diplomat Craig Murray and investigative journalist John Pilger, who described Assange's deteriorated state at a case management hearing on Oct 21, 2019.4, 5 Assange had appeared at the hearing pale, underweight, aged and limping, and he had visibly struggled to recall basic information, focus his thoughts, and articulate his words. At the end of the hearing, he “told district judge Vanessa Baraitser that he had not understood what had happened in court”.6

We drafted a letter to the UK Home Secretary, which quickly gathered more than 60 signatures from medical doctors from Australia, Austria, Germany, Italy, Norway, Poland, Sri Lanka, Sweden, the UK, and the USA, concluding: “It is our opinion that Mr Assange requires urgent expert medical assessment of both his physical and psychological state of health. Any medical treatment indicated should be administered in a properly equipped and expertly staffed university teaching hospital (tertiary care). Were such urgent assessment and treatment not to take place, we have real concerns, on the evidence currently available, that Mr Assange could die in prison. The medical situation is thereby urgent. There is no time to lose.”1

On May 31, 2019, the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, Nils Melzer, reported on his May 9, 2019, visit to Assange in Belmarsh, accompanied by two medical experts: “Mr Assange showed all symptoms typical for prolonged exposure to psychological torture, including extreme stress, chronic anxiety and intense psychological trauma.”7 On Nov 1, 2019, Melzer warned, “Mr. Assange's continued exposure to arbitrariness and abuse may soon end up costing his life”.8 Examples of the mandated communications from the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture to governments are provided in the appendix.

Such warnings and Assange's presentation at the October hearing should not perhaps have come as a surprise. Assange had, after all, prior to his detention in Belmarsh prison in conditions amounting to solitary confinement, spent almost 7 years restricted to a few rooms in the Ecuadorian embassy in London. Here, he had been deprived of fresh air, sunlight, the ability to move and exercise freely, and access to adequate medical care.

Indeed, the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention had held the confinement to amount to “arbitrary deprivation of liberty”.9

The UK Government refused to grant Assange safe passage to a hospital, despite requests from doctors who had been able to visit him in the embassy.10 There was also a climate of fear surrounding the provision of health care in the embassy. A medical practitioner who visited Assange at the embassy documented what a colleague of Assange reported:

“[T]here had been many difficulties in finding medical practitioners who were willing to examine Mr Assange in the Embassy. The reasons given were uncertainty over whether medical insurance would cover the Equadorian Embassy (a foreign jurisdiction); whether the association with Mr Assange could harm their livelihood or draw unwanted attention to them and their families; and discomfort regarding exposing this association when entering the Embassy.

One medical practitioner expressed concern to one of the interviewees after the police took notes of his name and the fact that he was visiting Mr Assange. One medical practitioner wrote that he agreed to produce a medical report only on condition that his name not be made available to the wider public, fearing repercussions.”11

Disturbingly, it seems that this environment of insecurity and intimidation, further compromising the medical care available to Assange, was by design. Assange was the subject of a 24/7 covert surveillance operation inside the embassy, as the emergence of secret video and audio recordings has shown.12 He was surveilled in private and with visitors, including family, friends, journalists, lawyers, and doctors. Not only were his rights to privacy, personal life, legal privilege, and freedom of speech violated, but so, too, was his right to doctor–patient confidentiality.

We condemn the torture of Assange.

We condemn the denial of his fundamental right to appropriate health care. We condemn the climate of fear surrounding the provision of health care to him. We condemn the violations of his right to doctor–patient confidentiality. Politics cannot be allowed to interfere with the right to health and the practice of medicine. In the experience of the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, the scale of state interference is without precedent: “In 20 years of work with victims of war, violence and political persecution I have never seen a group of democratic states ganging up to deliberately isolate, demonise and abuse a single individual for such a long time and with so little regard for human dignity and the rule of law.”7

We invite fellow doctors to join us as signatories to our letters to add further voice to our calls. Since doctors first began assessing Assange in the Ecuadorian embassy in 2015, expert medical opinion and doctors' urgent recommendations have been consistently ignored. Even as the world's designated authorities on arbitrary detention, torture, and human rights added their calls to doctors' warnings, governments have sidelined medical ethics, medical authority, and the human right to health. This politicisation of foundational medical principles is of grave concern to us, as it carries implications beyond the case of Assange.

Abuse by politically motivated medical neglect sets a dangerous precedent, whereby the medical profession can be manipulated as a political tool, ultimately undermining our profession's impartiality, commitment to health for all, and obligation to do no harm.

Should Assange die in a UK prison, as the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture has warned, he will effectively have been tortured to death. Much of that torture will have taken place in a prison medical ward, on doctors' watch. The medical profession cannot afford to stand silently by, on the wrong side of torture and the wrong side of history, while such a travesty unfolds.

In the interests of defending medical ethics, medical authority, and the human right to health, and taking a stand against torture, together we can challenge and raise awareness of the abuses detailed in our letters. Our appeals are simple: we are calling upon governments to end the torture of Assange and ensure his access to the best available health care before it is too late. Our request to others is this: please join us.

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

This online publication has been corrected. The corrected version first appeared at thelancet.com on February 19, 2020

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

Mari

11th March 2020, 19:23