Evidence the Australian government knew of US charges against Assange since 2010
Tom Coburg18th November 2018
An apparent copy and paste error indicates that charges have been prepared against Wikileaks founder Julian Assange. This is not surprising. Documents seen by The Canary reveal these charges have been known about for years. This includes the Australian government with evidence showing its knowledge dates back to 2010.
Greg Barns, one of Assange’s Australian lawyers, agreed:
Caught out. We have said for some years these charges exist. Australia must prevent handover to the US #auspol @wikileaks Julian Assange has been charged, prosecutors reveal inadvertently in court filing https://t.co/vMpk4i8pyt
— Greg Barns (@BarnsGreg) November 16, 2018
Wikileaks appeared to question whether it was an accident:
Barry Pollack, a US lawyer acting on behalf of Assange, commented:
The only thing more irresponsible than charging a person for publishing truthful information would be to put in a public filing information that clearly was not intended for the public and without any notice to Mr. Assange.
Meanwhile, the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press is seeking for the charges to be unsealed:
Charges could include “conspiracy, theft of government property or violating the Espionage Act”. Regarding the latter, former CIA director Mike Pompeo explained that WikiLeaks had allegedly “directed Chelsea Manning to intercept specific secret information, and it overwhelmingly focuses on the United States”. And the late Michael Ratner (Assange’s US lawyer) was certain that the most likely charge Assange could face was “conspiracy to commit espionage”.
According to researcher Alexa O’Brien, US Attorney General Eric Holder confirmed the Grand Jury investigation into WikiLeaks on 29 November 2010.
Indications that a sealed indictment awaited Assange were revealed by hacked emails from private foreign intelligence company Stratfor. Fred Burton, Stratfor’s vice-president of intelligence – whose name appears on one of the emails – is former chief of counter terrorism at the State Department ‘s diplomatic security service.
According to a US legal website, an indictment is:
A formal accusation of a felony, issued by a grand jury based upon a proposed charge, witnesses’ testimony and other evidence presented by the public prosecutor (District Attorney).
And a sealed indictment is:
An indictment that is sealed so that it stays non-public until it is unsealed.
Wikileaks published over five million Stratfor emails. Activist Jeremy Hammond was subsequently convicted and jailed for ten years for his part in the AntiSec hacking of Stratfor.
US diplomatic cables published by WikiLeaks show that the Australian embassy in Washington was aware that the US Justice Department was conducting an:
active and vigorous inquiry into whether Julian Assange can be charged under US law, most likely the 1917 Espionage Act
A compilation of documents by lawyer Julian Burnside provides an insight into how the Australian government preferred to handle questions about Assange. The documents include a summary statement. This states that according to the Sydney Morning Herald:
the Australian embassy in Washington reported in December 2010 that the Justice Department was pursuing an ”active and vigorous inquiry into whether Julian Assange can be charged under US law, most likely the 1917 Espionage Act’.
The summary statement adds that the Australian and US governments had been in regular contact regarding this since 2011.
Assange believed he was abandoned by Canberra. His lawyers said this became clear after Australian attorney general Nicola Roxon refused to get involved in extradition negotiations between the UK and US.
Assange show trial?
In June 2012, David House told the Grand Jury investigating WikiLeaks and its alleged dealings with Chelsea (then Bradley) Manning:
The show trial that is now underway in Alexandria VA has the potential to set a dangerous precedent for regulating the media. Using Nixonian fear tactics that were honed during the Pentagon Papers investigation, the DoJ is attempting to dismantle a major media organization–WikiLeaks–and indict its editor, Julian Assange.
And National Security Agency whistleblower Edward Snowden agrees:
It’s clear that knowledge of the sealed indictment and likely charges have been known by both private intelligence organisations and governments for at least eight years.
And should it proceed, the prosecution may prove to be a test of just how far the US will go to jail – or worse – a journalist and editor of a publishing house.
https://www.thecanary.co/global/2018/11 ... ince-2010/
Did Someone Plant a Story Tying Paul Manafort to Julian Assange?
Jack ShaferNovember 28, 2018
Mark Wilson/Getty Images
A bombshell report in the Guardian on Tuesday claims Paul Manafort, President Donald Trump’s former campaign chairman, met directly with Julian Assange, the head of WikiLeaks, several times in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London.
If true, the ramifications are immense. It means the guy running Trump’s campaign met directly with the head of the organization that served as a tool of Russia’s intelligence services, distributing stolen Democratic emails in an effort to influence the U.S. presidential election. It could be the proverbial smoking gun that shows Trump’s campaign knew it was receiving help from Russian intelligence services and perhaps even aided the operation.
Luke Harding and Dan Collyns, the reporters behind the Guardian story, do not name their sources, although they claim to have multiple, and they write that they have seen an internal document from Ecuador’s intelligence service listing “Paul Manaford [sic]” as a visitor to the Ecuadorian Embassy in London. Manafort, for his part, has called the Guardian’s report “totally false and deliberately libelous.” And White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said, “Certainly I remain confident in the White House’s assertion that the president was involved in no wrongdoing, was not involved in any collusion.”
While the immediate reaction to the story was a collective “Wow!”, it is fair to take a step back and remain wary. Rather than being the bombshell smoking gun that directly connects the Trump campaign to WikiLeaks, perhaps the report is something else entirely: a disinformation campaign. Is it possible someone planted this story as a means to discredit the journalists?
A number of parties in the Trump-Russia circus have an interest in discrediting the media. Russian President Vladimir Putin has solidified his power in Russia by systematically quashing the free press and controlling the message through friendly media outlets, including the likes of RT and Sputnik. Trump, too, has consistently shouted “Fake News!” at any story he doesn’t like and has made it a theme of late to refer to the media as “the enemy of the people,” a term that has been used by dictators throughout time, including to devastating effect by Joseph Stalin.
Harding is likely a major target for anyone wrapped up in Russia’s intelligence operation against the West’s democratic institutions. He has written a book about the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia—literally titled Collusion, as well as numerous articles related to the case, including about the Steele Dossier, Russia’s plans to help rescue Assange from London and spirit him away to Moscow, Russia’s novichok poisoning operation against Sergei Skripal, and a slew of other “Russia-is-up-to-no-good” stories.
If this latest story about Manafort and Assange is false—that is, if, for example, the sources lied to Harding and Collyns (or if the sources themselves were lied to and thus thought they were being truthful in their statements to the journalists), or if the Ecuadorian intelligence document is a fake, the most logical explanation is that it is an attempt to make Harding look bad. This, in turn, would call into question any of Harding’s past reporting and could be raised any time someone mentions his reporting as evidence of wrongdoing. Any mention of Harding going forward would include the caveat, “according to a reporter who was once duped.” The underlying question would always be: How can anything he writes be trusted?
We’ve seen this game before, even recently. In November last year, when Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore was accused of having several inappropriate relationships with very young girls, a woman approached a Washington Post reporter to tell her story about underage sex with Moore. She was, in fact, working for Project Veritas, a conservative group that purports to police and expose media bias, and had made the story up wholesale, hoping the Post would run it and that Veritas could then debunk it and paint the Post as “fake news.” Presumably, this would have discredited negative reporting about Moore and thus boosted his chances of winning. Unfortunately for the woman, the Post reporters did their due diligence and never published her false account. A woman working for a company hired by Harvey Weinstein similarly attempted to plant a false story in New York magazine in an attempt to discredit any accusations against Weinstein.
It’s an old tactic, used to prime an audience not to believe anything they hear from those whose role it is to hold people in power to account. Autocratic leaders have long planted the seeds of doubt so that no one in their intended audience will believe any information except what the leader himself tells them. The message is simple: Only the leader can be trusted.
I find it hard to believe Harding would not go to great lengths to confirm his story. He must know he is a target for disinformation. But that is not to say it could not happen.
Interestingly, Russia’s disinformation network has jumped into the ring to promote skepticism of the story. Sputnik, one of Russia’s propaganda networks, called the story into question and bolstered the skepticism by quoting tweets from Eva Golinger, a former adviser to the government of the late Venezuelan leader Hugo Chávez and a current contributor to RT’s Spanish-language network; Ivor Crotty, another RT contributor; and WikiLeaks, which the U.S. government has called a nonstate hostile actor and a tool of Russian intelligence. RT, also a Kremlin mouthpiece, echoed Sputnik and WikiLeaks. Do you see a pattern here?
But even if someone managed to dupe the reporters and plant a false story, that tells us something, too. Namely, that someone is nervous and eager to lay the groundwork for yelling “fake news!” at whatever other stories are about to drop. Either they want you not to believe what is, in fact, a true story, or they planted a fake story because they want you not to believe the journalists and any other information that has yet to come out.
As of this writing, no other news outlet has confirmed the Guardian’s story about Manafort meeting Assange. So is it fake or is it real? If it is real and others confirm it, it would be damning, and many people have an interest in trying to discredit it. On the other hand, if someone managed to dupe Harding and his colleague, it would mean someone was ready to put a lot of effort into discrediting the journalists in order to sow doubt about a wide swath of reporting. In either case, someone has already primed a large audience to dismiss this Manafort-Assange story and any other information that might tie the Trump campaign to Russia. That implies more bad news is coming for Trump and Manafort.
One thing seems clear: Someone is feeling the heat
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story ... nge-222694
If true, the ramifications are immense.
This is a 28-¶ story on Manafort in Ecuador.
Can you point me to any one of those ¶s that explains (who what where when how) whether Assange was going to be brought to this country to face charges or retire at Mar-a-Lago?
Here's the first ¶ where a news story should be expected to say: Ecuador boots Assange ... for charges or retirement?!?!
Two ¶s here. "Handover."
Again, that could mean for prosecution or for retirement.
Which is it?!?!
Reference to Comey being fired and Mueller being appointed is like HOLY SHIT BREAKING THIS IS THE SCOOP!!!!!
If Mueller's hiring interrupted Manafort's efforts to free Ecuador of its Assange problem, then he wasn't coming here to face charges, and if that's true that's YUUUGE.
Manafort Tried to Broker Deal With Ecuador to Hand Assange Over to U.S.
Dec. 3, 2018
A rally in Quito, Ecuador, in support of the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, who has been holed up in the country’s embassy in London since 2012.Jose Jacome/EPA, via Shutterstock
A rally in Quito, Ecuador, in support of the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, who has been holed up in the country’s embassy in London since 2012.Jose Jacome/EPA, via Shutterstock
WASHINGTON — In mid-May 2017, Paul Manafort, facing intensifying pressure to settle debts and pay mounting legal bills, flew to Ecuador to offer his services to a potentially lucrative new client — the country’s incoming president, Lenín Moreno.
Mr. Manafort made the trip mainly to see if he could broker a deal under which China would invest in Ecuador’s power system, possibly yielding a fat commission for Mr. Manafort.
But the talks turned to a diplomatic sticking point between the United States and Ecuador: the fate of the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.
In at least two meetings with Mr. Manafort, Mr. Moreno and his aides discussed their desire to rid themselves of Mr. Assange, who has been holed up in the Ecuadorean Embassy in London since 2012, in exchange for concessions like debt relief from the United States, according to three people familiar with the talks, the details of which have not been previously reported.
They said Mr. Manafort suggested he could help negotiate a deal for the handover of Mr. Assange to the United States, which has long investigated Mr. Assange for the disclosure of secret documents and which later filed charges against him that have not yet been made public.
Within a couple of days of Mr. Manafort’s final meeting in Quito, Robert S. Mueller III was appointed as the special counsel to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 election and related matters, and it quickly became clear that Mr. Manafort was a primary target. His talks with Ecuador ended without any deals.
There is no evidence that Mr. Manafort was working with — or even briefing — President Trump or other administration officials on his discussions with the Ecuadoreans about Mr. Assange.
Nor is there any evidence that his brief involvement in the talks was motivated by concerns about the role that Mr. Assange and WikiLeaks played in facilitating the Russian effort to help Mr. Trump in the 2016 presidential election, or the investigation into possible coordination between Mr. Assange and Mr. Trump’s associates, which has become a focus for Mr. Mueller’s team.
Paul Manafort is said to have suggested that he could help Ecuadorean officials negotiate a deal for the handover of Mr. Assange to the United States.Al Drago for The New York Times
Paul Manafort is said to have suggested that he could help Ecuadorean officials negotiate a deal for the handover of Mr. Assange to the United States.Al Drago for The New York Times
Mr. Manafort and WikiLeaks have both denied a recent report in The Guardian that Mr. Manafort visited Mr. Assange at the Ecuadorean Embassy in London in 2013, 2015 and 2016.
But the revelations about Mr. Manafort’s discussions in 2017 about Mr. Assange in Quito underscore again how his self-styled role as an international influence broker intersected with the questions surrounding the Trump campaign.
And the episode shows how after Mr. Trump’s election, Mr. Manafort sought to cash in on his brief tenure as Mr. Trump’s campaign chairman even as investigators were closing in.
The Ecuadoreans continued to explore the possibility of Chinese investment, but with the United States Justice Department and intelligence agencies stepping up their pursuit of Mr. Assange and WikiLeaks, Mr. Moreno’s team increasingly looked to resolve their Assange problem by turning to Russia.
In the months after Mr. Moreno took office, the Ecuadorean government granted citizenship to Mr. Assange and secretly pursued a plan to provide him a diplomatic post in Russia as a way to free him from confinement in the embassy in London. (That plan was ultimately dropped in the face of opposition from British authorities, who have said they will arrest Mr. Assange if he leaves the embassy.)
Jason Maloni, a spokesman for Mr. Manafort, said that it was Mr. Moreno — not Mr. Manafort — who broached the issue of Mr. Assange and “his desire to remove Julian Assange from Ecuador’s embassy.” Mr. Manafort “listened but made no promises as this was ancillary to the purpose of the meeting,” said Mr. Maloni, adding “There was no mention of Russia at the meeting.”
Late last year, Mr. Mueller’s team charged Mr. Manafort with a host of lobbying, money laundering and tax violations in connection with his consulting work for Russia-aligned interests in Ukraine before the 2016 election. Mr. Manafort was convicted of some of the crimes and pleaded guilty to others as part of an agreement to cooperate with prosecutors. But prosecutors said last week that he violated the deal by repeatedly lying to them. Mr. Manafort remains in solitary confinement in a federal detention center in Alexandria, Va., waiting for a judge to set a sentencing date.
All along, Mr. Manafort and his allies have maintained that his foreign consulting work was aligned with United States interests, though his clients and their initiatives often provoked Washington’s ire.
The trip to Ecuador was part of a whirlwind world tour that represented the last gasps of Mr. Manafort’s once lucrative career.
In those final months, Mr. Manafort pitched officials from a range of governments facing a variety of challenges, from Puerto Rico to Ecuador to Iraqi Kurdistan to the United Arab Emirates. Mr. Manafort, who served on the board of the Overseas Private Investment Corporation in the Reagan administration, presented himself as a liaison to the new Trump administration and, in some cases, as a broker for arranging investments from a fund associated with the state-owned China Development Bank.
President Lenín Moreno of Ecuador and his aides sought to rid themselves of Mr. Assange in exchange for concessions like debt relief from the United States.Daniel Leal-Olivas/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
President Lenín Moreno of Ecuador and his aides sought to rid themselves of Mr. Assange in exchange for concessions like debt relief from the United States.Daniel Leal-Olivas/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
In Quito, he told Mr. Moreno’s team that he could arrange a major cash infusion from the Chinese fund in the Ecuadorean electric utility, and could ease any potential concerns from the Trump administration about such an investment, according to people involved in arranging the meetings.
The week after the Quito trip, Mr. Manafort traveled to Hong Kong to meet with representatives from the China Development Bank’s fund to discuss the possible investment in Ecuador, as well as a proposal being pushed by Mr. Manafort to buy Puerto Rico’s bond debt, possibly in exchange for ownership of the island’s electric utility.
In both cases, Mr. Manafort assured the Chinese, he could win support from Washington, despite Mr. Trump’s oft-expressed qualms about China.
Brokering a deal to bring Mr. Assange to the United States could have been even more complicated. Not only had Mr. Assange not been charged at the time of Mr. Manafort’s trip, but Mr. Assange’s work was — and remains — a particularly fraught matter for Mr. Trump and his team.
Mr. Trump and his allies had cheered on WikiLeaks during the campaign, when it released troves of embarrassing internal emails and documents stolen from the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman. Since then, though, the United States intelligence agencies and Mr. Mueller’s team have made the case that the documents were stolen by Russian government agents, 12 of whom were charged by Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Assange had been pursued by Swedish prosecutors on a rape charge from 2010 that was dropped last year. The Ecuadorean Embassy in London granted him asylum in the summer of 2012. That was under Mr. Moreno’s predecessor, Rafael Correa, whose political identity was based partly on his antagonism toward the United States.
During Mr. Correa’s last day in office, the Ecuadorean government wrote a letter repeating its requests to Britain to accept Mr. Assange’s asylum status. The letter asserts that United States officials had left “no doubt about their intention to persecute Mr. Assange with the aim of punishing him for alleged offenses.”
Mr. Moreno had signaled during his campaign that he would like to wash his hands of Mr. Assange. And last December, Ecuador began carrying out the plan to move Mr. Assange to Russia as a diplomat, which would require him to become an Ecuadorean citizen.
In a citizenship interview at the embassy in London, Mr. Assange explained that he wanted to become a citizen because “I’ve been welcomed here for the last five years and I feel practically Ecuadorean,” according to a written summary of the meeting.
Within 10 days, Mr. Assange was granted citizenship, according to documents released by Paola Vintimilla, an Ecuadorean lawmaker who opposes Mr. Assange’s presence in the embassy. But a subsequent effort to grant Mr. Assange diplomatic status, and the immunity that would come with it, was rejected by the British government.
Kenneth P. Vogel reported from Washington, and Nicholas Casey from Quito, Ecuador.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/03/us/p ... uador.html
THE YEAR LONG TRUMP FLUNKY EFFORT TO FREE JULIAN ASSANGE
December 4, 2018/9 Comments/in 2016 Presidential Election, emptywheel, Mueller Probe, WikiLeaks /by empty wheel
The NYT has an unbelievable story about how Paul Manafort went to Ecuador to try to get Julian Assange turned over. I say it’s unbelievable because it is 28 paragraphs long, yet it never once explains whether Assange would be turned over to the US for prosecution or for a golf retirement. Instead, the story stops short multiple times of what it implies: that Manafort was there as part of paying off Trump’s part of a deal, but the effort stopped as soon as Mueller was appointed.Within a couple of days of Mr. Manafort’s final meeting in Quito, Robert S. Mueller III was appointed as the special counsel to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 election and related matters, and it quickly became clear that Mr. Manafort was a primary target. His talks with Ecuador ended without any deals.
The story itself — which given that it stopped once Mueller was appointed must be a limited hangout revealing that Manafort tried to free Assange, complete with participation from the spox that Manafort unbelievably continues to employ from his bankrupt jail cell — doesn’t surprise me at all.
After all, the people involved in the election conspiracy made multiple efforts to free Assange.
WikiLeaks kicked off the effort at least by December, when they sent a DM to Don Jr suggesting Trump making him Australian Ambassador to the US.Hi Don. Hope you’re doing well! In relation to Mr. Assange: Obama/Clinton placed pressure on Sweden, UK and Australia (his home country) to illicitly go after Mr. Assange. It would be real easy and helpful for your dad to suggest that Australia appoint Assange ambassador to DC “That’s a really smart tough guy and the most famous australian you have! ” or something similar. They won’t do it, but it will send the right signals to Australia, UK + Sweden to start following the law and stop bending it to ingratiate themselves with the Clintons. 12/16/16 12:38PM
Weeks later, Hannity would go to the Embassy to interview Assange. Assange fed him the alternate view of how he obtained the DNC emails, a story that would be critical to Trump’s success at putting the election year heist behind him, if it were successful. Trump and Hannity pushed the line that the hackers were not GRU, but some 400 pound guy in someone’s basement.
Then the effort actually shifted to Democrats and DOJ. Starting in February through May 2017, Oleg Deripaska and Julian Assange broker Adam Waldman tried to convince Bruce Ohr or Mark Warner to bring Assange to the US, using the threat of the Vault 7 files as leverage. In February, Jim Comey told DOJ to halt that effort. But Waldman continued negotiations, offering to throw testimony from Deripaska in as well. He even used testimony from Christopher Steele as leverage.
This effort has been consistently spun by the Mark Meadows/Devin Nunes/Jim Jordan crowd — feeding right wing propagandists like John Solomon — as an attempt to obstruct a beneficial counterintelligence discussion. It’s a testament to the extent to which GOP “investigations” have been an effort to spin an attempt to coerce freedom for Assange.
Shortly after this effort failed, Manafort picked it up, as laid out by the NYT. That continued until Mueller got hired.
There may have been a break (or maybe I’m missing the next step). But by the summer, Dana Rohrabacher and Chuck Johnson got in the act, with Rohrabacher going to the Embassy to learn the alternate story, which he offered to share with Trump.
Next up was Bill Binney, whom Trump started pushing Mike Pompeo to meet to hear an alternative story.
At around the same time, WikiLeaks released the single Vault 8 file they would release, followed shortly by Assange publicly re-upping his offer to set up a whistleblower hotel in DC.
Those events contributed to a crackdown on Assange and may have led to the jailing of accused Vault 7 source Joshua Schulte.
In December, Ecuador and Russia started working on a plan to sneak Assange out of the Embassy.
A few weeks later, Roger Stone got into the act, telling Randy Credico he was close to winning Assange a pardon.
These efforts have all fizzled, and I suspect as Mueller put together more information on Trump’s conspiracy with Russia, not only did the hopes of telling an alternative theory fade, but so did the possibility that a Trump pardon for Assange would look like anything other than a payoff for help getting elected. In June, the government finally got around to charging Schulte for Vault 7. But during the entire time he was in jail, he was apparently still attempting to leak information, which the government therefore obtained on video.
Ecuador’s increasing crackdown on Assange has paralleled the Schulte prosecution, with new restrictions, perhaps designed to provide the excuse to boot Assange from the Embassy, going into effect on December 1.
Don’t get me wrong: if I were Assange I’d use any means I could to obtain safe passage.
Indeed, this series of negotiations — and the players involved — may be far, far more damning for those close to Trump. Sean Hannity, Oleg Deripaska, Paul Manafort, Chuck Johnson, Dana Rohrabacher, Roger Stone, and Don Jr, may all worked to find a way to free Assange, all in the wake of Assange playing a key role in getting Trump elected. And they were conducting these negotiations even as WikiLeaks was burning the CIA’s hacking tools.
https://www.emptywheel.net/2018/12/04/t ... e-release/
Paul Manafort says Ecuador's president asked him about Julian Assange
Former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort travelled to Ecuador last year in an effort to broker an investment deal between that country and China, his spokesman told CBS News. And during that trip, the spokesman said, Ecuador's president raised the possibility of a deal that would remove Wikileaks founder Julian Assange from the country's embassy in London.
Manafort's trip to Ecuador and what he discussed regarding Assange, has become a subject of speculation in recent weeks. Manafort recently dismissed a story that he met with Assange in person during the 2016 campaign as "false and deliberately libelous." On Monday, The New York Times reported that Manafort discussed Assange's fate with Ecuadorean President Lenin Moreno at least twice.
A deal between Ecuador and China would likely have been quite lucrative for Manafort, who was styling himself as an international power broker during his mid-2017 meeting with Moreno. But Moreno turned the conversation to Assange, who has resided in Ecuador's London embassy since 2012.
"When Mr. Manafort met with President Moreno of Ecuador to discuss the China Development Fund, the president raised with Mr. Manafort his desire to remove Julian Assange from Ecuador's embassy," Manafort spokesman Jason Maloni told CBS News. "Mr. Manafort listened but made no promises as this was ancillary to the purpose of the meeting. There was no mention of Russia at the meeting."
Assange is wanted by both U.S. and British authorities, making his refuge at the London embassy a sticking point between Ecuador and the two world powers. Moreno has in the past indicated that he would like to find a way to resolve the impasse, at the Times reported that he has considered giving him a diplomatic post in Russia. The U.K., however, scuttled that plan, informing Ecuador that Assange would be arrested, should he ever leave the embassy.
Assange and Wikileaks are also players in the investigations into Russian interference in the 2016 election. President Trump and his allies were regular cheerleaders of Wikileaks' dissemination of hacked Democratic Party emails. However, U.S. intelligence agencies have determined that the emails were hacked by Russian government officials.
In August, Manafort was found guilty on eight counts of financial crimes and then later pleaded guilty to obstruction of justice and conspiracy against the U.S. He agreed to cooperate with Special Counsel Robert Mueller's office in September, but prosecutors said that Manafort broke that agreement by lying to them about "a variety of subject matters."
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/paul-manaf ... n-assange/
28 MINUTES AGO
Ecuador: U.K. Has Made Enough Guarantees for Assange to Leave Embassy
Ecuadorian President Lenin Moreno said Thursday that he had received written promises from the U.K. to not extradite Julian Assange to a country where he could face the death penalty, according to a report from the Associated Press. In a radio interview, Moreno said that the promises were enough for Assange to be able to leave Ecuador’s London embassy, where he has been living in asylum for the past six years. He noted that the country will not force Assange out, however, and because Assange reportedly believes he could be extradited to the U.S. for leaking government information on WikiLeaks, he is unlikely to actually leave.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/ecuador-u ... ve-embassy
Julian Assange rejects UK-Ecuador deal for him to leave the embassy
Julian Assange's lawyer has rejected an agreement announced by Ecuador's president to see him leave the Ecuadorean embassy in London, after six years inside.
Lenin Moreno, the president of Ecuador, has made no secret of his wish to be rid of the WikiLeaks founder, who sought asylum inside the embassy in June 2012 and has not left since.
On Thursday Mr Moreno announced that a deal had been reached between London and Quito to allow Mr Assange, 47, to be released.
"The way has been cleared for Mr Assange to take the decision to leave in near-liberty," said Mr Moreno.
He did not specify what "near liberty" meant.
Julian Assange, pictured in May 2016 with his kitten. In October the embassy ordered him to take better care of the cat
Mr Moreno earlier this year announced that he was severing Mr Assange's telephone and internet links, and in October said he was banning him from making "political statement" that jeopardised Ecuador's relations with other countries. Mr Assange then sued for a breach of his human rights.
From December, he was also due to pay for his own costs of food, medical care and laundry, in yet another sign of the growing impatience of the Ecuadorean government.
Mr Moreno added that Britain had guaranteed that the Australian would not be extradited to any country where his life is in danger.
But Mr Assange's lawyer, Barry Pollack, told The Telegraph that the deal was not acceptable.
The legal team have long argued that they will not accept any agreement which risks his being extradited to the United States.
Julian Assange participates via video link at a news conference marking the 10th anniversary of WikiLeaks, in Berlin in October 2016
Last year Jeff Sessions, the former US attorney general, said arresting Mr Assange was a priority.
In November a filing error revealed that Mr Assange faced charges in the US - although it was not clear what those charges were.
Many speculate they would be connected to the release of classified information, and Mr Assange fears a long prison sentence in the US for what his supporters say is publishing information in the public interest.
"The suggestion that as long as the death penalty is off the table, Mr Assange need not fear persecution is obviously wrong," said Mr Pollack.
"No one should have to face criminal charges for publishing truthful information.
"Since such charges appear to have been brought against Mr Assange in the United States, Ecuador should continue to provide him asylum."
Mr Assange fled to the embassy to avoid charges of rape, sexual molestation and coercion. All charges were dropped by May 2017.
He does, however, still face charges in the UK of skipping bail.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/1 ... ssion=true
GOVERNMENT REQUESTS HARSH NEW CONDITIONS GOVERNING JOSHUA SCHULTE’S ACCESS TO CLASSIFIED DISCOVERY
December 12, 2018/5 Comments/in Cybersecurity, Leak Investigations, WikiLeaks /by emptywheel
When we last heard from Joshua Schulte, he had been thrown in solitary in response to FBI’s discovery that he had a cellphone in his jail cell at Metropolitan Correctional Center, after which FBI discovered he had other devices and 13 email and social media accounts.In or about early October 2018, the Government learned that Schulte was using one or more smuggled contraband cellphones to communicate clandestinely with third parties outside of the MCC. The Government and the FBI immediately commenced an investigation into Schulte’s conduct at the MCC. That investigation involved, among other things, the execution of six search warrants and the issuance of dozens of grand jury subpoenas and pen register orders. Pursuant to this legal process, in the weeks following the Government’s discovery of Schulte’s conduct at the MCC, the FBI has searched, among other things, the housing unit at the MCC in which Schulte was detained; multiple contraband cellphones (including at least one cellphone used by Schulte that is protected with significant encryption); approximately 13 email and social media accounts (including encrypted email accounts); and other electronic devices.
Today, the government asked for supplemental protective order governing Schulte’s access to a special secure facility from which he can review classified discovery. Among other things, it requires his attorney to be searched for devices upon entering the facility, it requires him to remain in manacles throughout the time he is there, and sets up a clean team to monitor both what happens in the room and the computer the defense uses to review discovery.The defense council will be screened for electronic devices prior to entering the SCIF when she meets with her client. Once inside the Secure Area, the defendant will be allowed to meet with cleared counsel during normal business hours. The Secure Area contains equipment (the “Computer Equipment”) to allow the defendant and cleared defense counsel to review the Classified Information produced by the Government. The Computer Equipment shall be used only for purposes of preparing the defense, and is enabled to log computer activity occurring on the equipment and is equipped with security measures. These logs may be reviewed by law enforcement agents or personnel who are not involved in the prosecution of the defendant (the “Wall Team”). In the event the Wall Team determines the Computer Equipment has been used in an unauthorized manner, including by attempting to circumvent any security measures or logging features, the Wall Agent will report that information to the CISO, who will notify the Court for further action.
When the defendant is present in the Secure Area, the Secure Area will be monitored for security purposes through closed circuit television (“CCTV”) by the Marshals and an authorized FBI agent for all scheduled productions. The CCTV will allow only for visual monitoring of the defendant and cleared defense counsel, and will not include audio. The CCTV will not be recorded. Should any Marshal or member of the Wall Team hear any conversation between the defendant and any of his counsel, those conversations will not be communicated to any member of the government prosecution team, including, but not limited to attorneys, agents, and support staff.
The Defendant will be in full restraints during the time he is in the SCIF and secured to a bolt in the floor. The Defendant will be stripped searched after departing the SCIF at the conclusion of each session. The Defense attorney will sign a waiver of liability due to the fact she will be alone and in close proximity to the defendant. The USMS reserves the right to terminate these meetings if security issues arise during any session.
While there’s no hint that one of Schulte’s defense attorneys was responsible for the past acquisition of contraband, the FBI sure seems intent on making sure that avenue isn’t possible going forward.
I believe when Schulte was arraigned on the new charge of leaking from jail, the government said that CIA hadn’t continued to give Schulte access to classified information after he left. Which suggests the stuff he tried to leak from jail included information he saw in discovery (presumably including how the FBI figured out he was the one leaking CIA’s tools).
https://www.emptywheel.net/2018/12/12/g ... discovery/
‘He did nothing wrong’: Giuliani defends Assange’s decision to publish Hillary campaign emails
Published time: 1 Jan, 2019 12:32 Edited time: 2 Jan, 2019 10:12
‘He did nothing wrong’: Giuliani defends Assange’s decision to publish Hillary campaign emails
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange did nothing wrong by publishing Hillary Clinton’s campaign emails, just like the US mainstream media wasn’t punished for publishing the Pentagon Papers, ex-NYC mayor Rudy Giuliani said.
Giuliani made the comments on Sunday after he was asked on Fox & Friends whether he was “open to the idea” that the emails stolen from Hillary Clinton’s staffers “may have been accepted” by her rivals in the team of then-candidate Donald Trump.
In 2016, unidentified hackers gained access to the personal Gmail account of John Podesta, who led Clinton’s presidential campaign. WikiLeaks subsequently obtained a cache of emails extracted from the account and published it weeks before Election Day. This sparked widespread outrage within the Democratic Party.
Podesta emails showed Facebook colluded with Clinton, Assange reminds
WikiLeaks has never revealed the source of the hacked emails, saying only that it was not Russia and it was “not a state party.”
Giuliani, who is Trump’s attorney and long-time friend, acknowledged that the hack itself was a crime and those responsible for it should “go to jail.” Nevertheless, he defended Assange’s decision to publish the emails.
“No press person or person disseminating that for the purpose of informing did anything wrong.”
The former mayor of New York also pointed out that the US mainstream media chose to publish the Pentagon Papers – classified documents on the Vietnam War which were leaked to the press – and information on the abuse of detainees by US troops in Abu Ghraib, Iraq in the 2000s.
“The Pentagon Papers were stolen property, weren’t they? They were stolen from the Pentagon and given to the New York Times and the Washington Post,” Giuliani stated on Fox & Friends. “Nobody went to jail at the New York Times and the Washington Post.”
Once media outlets obtain leaked information, they “can publish it for the purpose of informing people,” and the same applies to Assange, he said.
You can’t put Assange in a different position. We may not like what he communicates, but he was a media facility. He was putting that information out. Every newspaper [and] station grabbed it and published it.
Over the years, WikiLeaks, under Assange’s leadership, published several high-profile leaks of classified materials, including internal documents relating to the US war in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as American diplomatic cables. He was granted political asylum by Ecuador and since 2012 has been living the South American nation’s embassy in London.
In 2010, Sweden issued an international arrest warrant for Assange over allegations of sexual assault and rape. He denied the allegations and they were later dropped.
Assange is still wanted in Britain for skipping bail. He refuses to leave the Ecuadorian Embassy out of fear of being extradited to the US and prosecuted there for revealing government secrets.
https://www.rt.com/news/447877-rudy-giu ... nge-media/
Giuliani Says Assange Should Not Be Prosecuted
https://consortiumnews.com/2018/12/31/g ... rosecuted/
The Complete List of 140 Things You Can’t Say About Assange or WikiLeaks
EmmaBestJanuary 7, 2019
Update: After publication, WikiLeaks responded by tweeting a version on pastelink. They posted 1.3, archived here, compared to v1.2 which was sent out to journalists yesterday. This is the third time in 24 hours WikiLeaks has gone to lengths to deprive me of credit for releasing materials. Differences in v1.3 include WikiLeaks deleting the “under the stairs” remark after someone made a Harry Potter joke. The line about it being defamatory to say Assange stinks was also retracted in the version WikiLeaks posted.
On Sunday, January 6, Reuters reported that WikiLeaks had sent out an email with a list of 140 things journalists weren’t supposed to say about Julian Assange. A complete copy of the email marked “Confidential legal communication. Not for publication.” follows:
From: WikiLeaks / Sunshine Press <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: CONFIDENTIAL: Assange & WikiLeaks inaccurate and defamatory claims v1.2
CONFIDENTIAL LEGAL COMMUNICATION
NOT FOR PUBLICATION.
WikiLeaks and Julian Assange have published the largest, most accurate leaks in the history of the CIA, State Department, Pentagon, U.S. politics, and Saudi-Arabia, among many others. Predictably, given the nature of some of these entities, numerous falsehoods have been subsequently spread about WikiLeaks and its publisher.
Additional falsehoods have been spread by media competitors, click-bait sites, political party loyalists, and by those linked to, or paid by, the governments WikiLeaks or Julian Assange are litigating or have litigated (UK, US, Ecuador, Sweden), which seek his arrest (U.S., U.K), expulsion (Ecuador), or who have formal criminal investigations against his publishing work (U.S., Saudi Arabia, Australia), or who have banned or censored WikiLeaks (Saudi-Arabia, Turkey, China).
Since Mr. Assange’s isolation and gagging on March 28, 2018 the publication of false and defamatory claims about him has accelerated, perhaps because there is an incorrect view that Mr. Assange is has no means to defend his reputation from falsehoods in such grave circumstances.
This climate of falsehood reached a new nadir with a front page, intelligence-linked fabrication in the Guardian newspaper, which falsely claimed that Julian Assange had secret meetings with Paul Manafort right down to a description of his pants (“sandy coloured chinos”) [see https://theintercept.com/2019/01/02/fiv ... newalling/].
It is well documented that there is a pervasive climate of inaccurate claims about WikiLeaks and Julian Assange, including purposeful fabrications planted in large and otherwise “reputable” media outlets.
Consequently journalists and publishers have a clear responsibility to carefully fact-check from primary sources and to consult the following list to ensure they are not spreading, and have not spread, defamatory falsehoods about WikiLeaks or Julian Assange.
Defamation list 1.2
It is false and defamatory to suggest that Julian Assange is, or has ever been, charged with an offence by the United Kingdom or Sweden [see https://defend.wikileaks.org/about-julian/].
It is false and defamatory to suggest that Julian Assange is, or has ever been, an agent or officer of any intelligence service [see https://defend.wikileaks.org/].
It is false and defamatory to suggest that WikiLeaks is, or has ever been alleged by the U.S. government to be, a State “foreign intelligence service”.
It is false and defamatory to suggest that WikiLeaks or Julian Assange has ever been contacted by the Mueller investigation.
It is false and defamatory to suggest that there is any evidence that the U.S. charges against Julian Assange relate to the Mueller investigation.
It is false and defamatory to suggest that Julian Assange or Wikileaks is, or has ever been alleged by the U.S. government to be Russian, Russian owned, a Russian subsidiary, contracted by Russia, Russian staffed, based in Russia, “in league” with Russia, an “arm of Russia” or a “Russian cutout” [see https://defend.wikileaks.org/].
It is false and defamatory to suggest that the U.S. government claims that Julian Assange or WikiLeaks directed, conspired, colluded or otherwise engaged in a crime, to obtain information from the Democratic National Committee or John Podesta [in fact, the government has made no such claim].
It is false and defamatory to suggest that the Democratic National Committee has claimed that Julian Assange directed, conspired, or colluded to hack the Democratic National Committee or John Podesta [in fact, the DNC makes no such claim: https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-conte ... aksDNC.pdf].
It is false and defamatory to suggest that WikiLeaks was alone in publishing materials alleged by U.S. intelligence services to obtained by hacking [in fact, most U.S. media organizations did so: Politico, the Hill, The Intercept, The Daily Beast, The Smoking Gun, Gawkler Facebook, WordPress and Twitter, and every press outlet, including CNN and the New York Times, republished these original reports, see https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-conte ... aksDNC.pdf].
It is false and defamatory to suggest that Julian Assange has ever met or communicated with Paul Manafort [see https://theintercept.com/2019/01/02/fiv ... newalling/].
It is false and defamatory to suggest that Julian Assange has ever met or communicated with George Cottrell [see https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/10 ... 0314676225].
It is false and defamatory to suggest that WikiLeaks or Julian Assange privately provided information about its then pending 2016 U.S. election-related publications to any outside party, including Nigel Farage, Roger Stone, Jerome Corsi, Donald Trump Jr., Michael Flynn, Michael Flynn Jr., Cambridge Analytica, or Rebecca Mercer [it is defamatory because it falsely imputes that Julian Assange acted without integrity in his role as the editor of WikiLeaks, associates with criminals, or has committed a crime].
It is false and defamatory to suggest that Julian Assange or WikiLeaks has ever colluded with or conspired with, or compromised the integrity of its journalism for, any political campaign or State [in fact, published communication records show WikiLeaks doing exactly the opposite: rejecting approaches by Cambridge Analytica and the Trump campaign for information on its pending publications, see https://defend.wikileaks.org/].
It is false and defamatory to suggest that Julian Assange was in communication with Roger J. Stone during, or prior to, the U.S. 2016 presidential election [in fact, the only message sent from WikiLeaks was a demand that Mr. Stone cease falsely stating that he had “communicated” with Julian Assange].
It is false and defamatory to suggest that there was a “back channel” between Julian Assange and Roger J. Stone during, or prior to, the U.S. 2016 presidential election.
It is false and defamatory to suggest that Nigel Farage met with Julian Assange during, or prior to, the U.S. 2016 presidential election.
It is false and defamatory to suggest that the purpose of Nigel Farage’s meeting with Julian Assange in 2017, after the U.S. election, was in any way improper or not journalistic.
It is false and defamatory to suggest that WikiLeaks or Julian Assange timed the publication of its series on John Podesta to conceal the Access Hollywood “grab them by the pussy” video of Donald Trump [in fact, it is well documented that the video release was moved forward three days to be on the day of WikiLeaks’ publication, see https://consortiumnews.com/2018/07/19/i ... the-world/].
It is false and defamatory to suggest that Julian Assange is “anti-American” or “anti-U.S.” [in fact, he has an abiding love for the United States, see https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... story.html].
It is false and defamatory to suggest that Julian Assange and WikiLeaks have not published critical information on Russia, Syria or Donald Trump [in fact, WikiLeaks has published hundreds of thousands of documents on Russia, millions on Syria, and thousands on Donald Trump, see https://wikileaks.org/spyfiles/russia/, https://search.wikileaks.org/?query=rus ... ow#results, https://wikileaks.org/syria-files/ & https://search.wikileaks.org/?query=trump#results].
It is false and defamatory to suggest that Julian Assange has ever worked for, or has ever been employed by “Russia Today”, “RT” or the Russian government.
It is false and defamatory to suggest that Julian Assange was “given a show”, “made a host”, or “hosted a show” on RT [in fact, in 2012, he and two British companies, Dartmouth Films and Journeyman Pictures conceived, produced and distributed “The World Tomorrow”, which was licensed to a dozen broadcasters and newspapers, only one of which was RT].
It is false and defamatory to suggest that WikiLeaks “works with RT” or “works with Russian State media” [in fact, only once, for one publication in 2012, was RT part of a consortium of nearly two dozen re-publishers of WikiLeaks’ series on the private surveillance industry, the SpyFiles].
It is false and defamatory to suggest that Julian Assange or WikiLeaks arranged for Edward Snowden to go to Russia [in fact, WikiLeaks gave legal assistance to Mr. Snowden to obtain asylum in Ecuador, but the U.S. government cancelled Mr. Snowden’s passport mid-flight, stranding him in a Moscow transit lounge for 40 days [see https://edwardsnowden.com/].
It is false and defamatory to suggest that Julian Assange applied for a Russian visa in 2010 or obtained a Russian visa in 2010 or subsequently.
It is false and defamatory to suggest that there was a “Russian plan” to “smuggle”, or to otherwise remove, Julian Assange from the Ecuadorian embassy in London or that Fidel Narvaez, or anyone else, was in contact with the Russian embassy in London in relation to such a claimed plan [see https://therealnews.com/stories/ecuador ... t-is-false].
It is false and defamatory to suggest that Julian Assange was made an Ecuadorian diplomat to Russia [in fact, his diplomatic credentials were lodged to the government of the United Kingdom and he was appointed as an Ecuadorian diplomat to the United Kingdom; at no point were they lodged with Russia].
It is false and defamatory to suggest that WikiLeaks or Julian Assange claimed that any person or entity was their source for WikiLeaks’ 2016 U.S. election publications [it is defamatory because Julian Assange’s professional reputation is substantially based on source protection].
It is false and defamatory to suggest that WikiLeaks does not have a perfect record of accurately verifying its publications.
It is false and defamatory to suggest that the U.S. government has ever denied the authenticity of a WikiLeaks publication.
It is false and defamatory to deny that DNC Chair Donna Brazile and Senator Elizabeth Warren admitted that Julian Assange was, in fact, correct and that the DNC had indeed “rigged” the 2016 primary election in favour of Hillary Clinton [see https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/926250463594516480 and https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/926094515261378561].
It is false and defamatory to suggest that John Podesta or Donna Brazile deny the authenticity of emails about them published by WikiLeaks [in fact, Brazile confessed that WikiLeaks was correct and she had indeed shared debate questions with the Hillary Clinton campaign https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/843216277225308161].
It is false and defamatory to suggest that the French government found that “MacronLeaks” were hacked by Russia [in fact, the head of the French cyber-security agency, ANSSI, said that they did not have evidence connecting the hack with Russia, see https://wikileaks.org/macron-emails/].
It is false and defamatory to suggest that WikiLeaks “targetted” the French presidential election of 2017 and published “MacronLeaks” during that election [in fact, WikiLeaks published MacronLeaks after the election].
It is false and defamatory to suggest any of the MacronLeaks published by WikiLeaks are inauthentic or that President Macron attempted to make such a claim after the publication by WikiLeaks.
It is false and defamatory to suggest that Julian Assange or WikiLeaks has ever stated that Russia was not behind the attempted murder of former Russian spy Sergei Skripal [in fact, Julian Assange stated that it was “reasonable” to view Russia as “the leading suspect”].
It is false and defamatory to suggest that Julian Assange or WikiLeaks has ever stated it was not appropriate to expel Russian diplomats and spies over the attempted murder of Sergei Skripal.
It is false and defamatory to suggest that Ecuador isolated and gagged Mr. Assange due to his comments on Sergei Skripal [in fact, he was isolated over his refusal to delete a factually accurate tweet about the arrest of the president of Catalonia by Spain in Germany, along with U.S. debt pressure on Ecuador. The president of Ecuador Lenin Moreno admitted that these two countries were the issue, see https://defend.wikileaks.org/about-julian/].
It is false and defamatory to suggest that Julian Assange does not have political asylum or is merely “seeking asylum” [in fact, he won his asylum case in relation to U.S. government moves to prosecute him on August 16, 2012 and was granted formal refugee status under the 1951 Refugee Convention, see https://defend.wikileaks.org/about-julian/].
It is false and defamatory to suggest that Julian Assange “fled” to the Embassy of Ecuador [in fact, he walked into the embassy and lodged an asylum claim; it was not until 10 days later that the UK government issued a warrant for his arrest. see https://defend.wikileaks.org/about-julian/].
It is false and defamatory to suggest that Julian Assange is, or has been, “hiding” in the embassy [in fact, his location is well known and his formal legal status is “political refugee”; it is incorrect to suggest that refugees, by virtue of being in the jurisdiction of refuge, are “hiding”].
It is false and defamatory to deny that Julian Assange has been formally investigated since 2010 and charged by the U.S. federal government over his publishing work [it is defamatory because such a claim falsely imputes that Mr. Assange’s asylum is a sham and that he is a liar, see https://defend.wikileaks.org/].
– It is false and defamatory to suggest that such U.S. charges have not been confirmed [in fact, they have, most recently by Associated Press (AP) and the Washington Post in November 2018].
– It is false and defamatory to suggest that the U.S. government denies the existence of such charges.
– It is false and defamatory to suggest that Julian Assange is not wanted for extradition by the U.S. government [in fact, public records from the Department of Justice show that the U.S. government says it had been intentionally concealing its charges against Mr. Assange from the public specifically to decrease his ability to “avoid arrest and extradition”].
– It is false and defamatory to suggest that the U.S. government has not publicly confirmed that it has an active grand jury, or pending or prospective proceedings, against Julian Assange or WikiLeaks, each year since 2010.
It is false and defamatory to suggest that Julian Assange’s asylum is “self-imposed” or that he is “free to walk out any time he likes” [in fact, the UK government states that he will be immediately arrested, the U.S. government seeks his extradition and the exits to the embassy are under 24-hour surveillance; it is self-evident that refugees, having been compelled by the risk of persecution to seek asylum are not “free” to return to the area of risk, any more than one is free to leave a house with a bear on the porch, see https://defend.wikileaks.org].
It is false and defamatory to suggest that Julian Assange applied for political asylum over “sex allegations” or “extradition to Sweden” or to “avoid questioning” [in fact, he formally applied for and received political asylum over the U.S. grand jury proceedings against him; the UN and the Swedish courts found that Sweden was improperly refusing to question him, not the other way around, see https://defend.wikileaks.org/about-julian/].
It is false and defamatory to suggest that Julian Assange is merely a “guest” of the embassy and does not have refugee status, including under the 1951 Refugee Convention, or that the UK is not a party to the Convention, or that Julian Assange received only “diplomatic asylum” or that his refugee status is, in any sense, improper or incomplete [it is defamatory because it suggests that Julian Assange committed a crime by applying for asylum, which is false, see https://defned.wikileaks.org/].
It is false and defamatory to suggest that Julian Assange, as a political refugee, does not have the right to voice his political opinions or a right to communicate them [it is defamatory because it falsely suggests Mr. Assange is a liar when he states he has never agreed to be gagged and when he asserts that it is a fact that refugees have the legal right to express political opinions and because his reputation is to a significant degree based on the accuracy of his statements and in being the world’s best-known free speech proponent and practitioner].
It is false and defamatory to suggest that Julian Assange did not have the right to apply for asylum or committed an offence in doing so [in fact, he has not been charged with an offence in the UK at any time and a “reasonable excuse” is a complete defence against any hypothetical future charge of “failing to surrender” under UK law and there has been no legal finding that his defence is invalid, see https://defend.wikileaks.org/about-julian/].
It is false and defamatory to suggest that the terminated Swedish preliminary investigation started prior to the U.S. grand jury proceedings [in fact, the U.S. grand jury proceedings started in June 2010, three months before the Swedish preliminary investigation].
It is false and defmatory to suggest that the dropped Swedish preliminary investigation against Julian Assange ever had any legitimacy whatsoever [in fact, already by August 2010, the Chief Prosecutor of Stockholm found that “no crime at all” had been committed, and SMS messages from the alleged complainant showed that she “did not want to accuse Assange of anything”, that she felt “railroaded by police and others around her”, and that “police made up the charges”; documents from the UK government prove serious impropriety by the state, and the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (UN WGAD)found Sweden’s conduct to be illegal, see https://defend.wikileaks.org/about-julian/].
It is false and potentially defamatory to suggest that the UN WGAD decision finding Julian Assange to be unlawfully detained in the UK is not legally binding [in fact, the UN has released two statements in response to such false reporting, stating that the decision is “legally binding” https://twitter.com/UN_SPExperts/status ... 6629158914].
It is false and defamatory to suggest that Julian Assange has ever been charged with, or committed, an offence in the United Kingdom.
It is false and defamatory to suggest that Julian Assange has ever “breached his bail”, “jumped bail”, absconded, fled an arrest warrant, or that he has ever been charged with such at any time.
It is false and defamatory to suggest that Julian Assange has a sentence to serve or has ever avoided serving a sentence.
It is false and defamatory to suggest that Julian Assange fled Sweden [in fact, the state prosecutor granted him permission to leave, he was not wanted for arrest or charged with an offence at the time he left Sweden, and he left for a publicly scheduled talk in Geneva, see https://defend.wikileaks.org/about-julian/].
It is false and defamatory to suggest that Julian Assange has been accused by any person of raping them [in fact, both so-called Swedish “complainants”, who were falsely reported to have made such an accusation, denied that they had been raped, see https://defend.wikileaks.org/about-julian/].
It is false and defamatory to suggest that the Swedish preliminary investigation was closed due to an inability to proceed caused by Mr. Assange or a statute of limitations [in fact, the prosecution abandoned the entire preliminary investigation, the arrest warrant was dropped, and the file closed and destroyed as the direct result of Julian Assange filing a case against the government of Sweden for its abuse of legal due process; the UN WGAD also twice found that Sweden had acted unlawfully, see https://defend.wikileaks.org/about-julian/].
It is false and defamatory to suggest that Julian Assange was never interviewed by Swedish officials or has ever attempted to avoid being interviewed by Swedish officials [see https://defend.wikileaks.org/about-julian/].
It is false and defamatory to suggest that there was ever a charge, case or prosecution against Julian Assange in Sweden [in fact, the matter never reached beyond the “preliminary investigation” stage].
It is false and defamatory to deny that WikiLeaks is a media organization [in fact, WikiLeaks has won many media awards, is registered as a media organization, has been repeatedly found to be a “media organization” by the UK courts, and employs top journalists who (including Julian Assange) are members of their respective media unions, see https://defend.wikileaks.org/].
It is false and defamatory to deny that Julian Assange is an award-winning editor, journalist, publisher, author and producer who has won the highest journalism award in his country, the Walkley, among many others. [https://defend.wikileaks.org/about-julian/]
It is false and defamatory to suggest that Julian Assange or WikiLeaks has ever, through intent or negligence, revealed a source [in fact, in the case of alleged source Chelsea Manning, the allegation by the State is that Manning spoke, in a knowing breach of WikiLeaks’ security rules, to a reseacher for Wired magazine, Adrian Lamo, who promised him journalistic confidentiality, only to then inform on him to the FBI. Lamo subsequently died in March 2018, aged 37].
It is false and defamatory to suggest that WikiLeaks is a “group”, that it has “members” or that Julian Assange is a “member” of WikiLeaks [in fact, WikiLeaks is a publication and a publishing organization; it has a highly accomplished salaried staff, not members; it is not al-Qaeda].
It is false and defamatory to suggest that Julian Assange or WikiLeaks has ever directed, conspired, or colluded in a criminal manner with its sources.
It is false and defamatory to suggest that Julian Assange claimed “informants deserve to die” [in fact, Der Spiegel signed a statement refuting a false claim that he did, see https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/762711823216996352].
It is false and defamatory to suggest that WikiLeaks or Julian Assange has asserted that the Syrian government did not conduct chemical attacks during the war in Syria [in fact, WikiLeaks has published millions of documents from the Syrian government, including Bashar al-Assad’s personal emails https://wikileaks.org/syria-files/].
It is false and defamatory to suggest that WikiLeaks publications have caused deaths [in fact, the Pentagon’s General Robert Carr, who was assigned to look at their impact, admitted under oath in the trial of Chelsea Manning that the U.S. government had not been able to find any such incidents].
It is false and defamatory to suggest that Julian Assange or WikiLeaks recklessly published unredacted U.S. diplomatic cables [see https://wikileaks.org/Guardian-journali ... ently.html].
It is false and defamatory to suggest that Julian Assange is not an Australian citizen.
It is false and defamatory to deny that Julian Assange is the sole founder of WikiLeaks.
It is false and defamatory to suggest that Julian Assange is not the sole first inventor of cryptographically secure “drop boxes” to protect whistleblowers and journalistic sources.
It is false and defamatory to deny that Julian Assange co-founded the Freedom of the Press Foundation with John Perry Barlow.
It is false and defamatory to deny that Julian Assange was the founder of the Icelandic Modern Media Initiative.
It is false and defamatory to suggest that Julian Assange’s profession is “computer programmer”.
It is false and defamatory to suggest that WikiLeaks or Julian Assange is, or has ever been, close to the Russian state, the Kremlin or Vladimir Putin.
It is false and defamatory to suggest that Julian Assange was charged with an offence at any time by Bermuda.
It is false and defamatory to suggest that Julian Assange or WikiLeaks promoted or invented the “pizzagate” conspiracy theory.
It is false and defamatory to suggest that Julian Assange “sued” Ecuador [in fact, he filed a legal “protection measure”, or injunction, to force it to cease gagging and isolating him and threatening to violate his asylum in breach of international and domestic law].
It is false and defamatory to suggest that Julian Assange filed a lawsuit or any other measure against Ecuador over his pet cat, laundry or cleaning [in fact, his cat is not at the embassy since before the protection case was even filed, see https://defend.wikileaks.org/about-julian/].
It is false and defamatory to suggest that WikiLeaks tried to have the Trump administration appoint Julian Assange as an ambassador or to have any other person or state appoint him as an ambassador.
It is false and defamatory to suggest that Julian Assange has ever extorted the United States government.
It is false and defamatory to suggest that Julian Assange has ever called to overthrow the Spanish state by calling for the independence of Catalonia [in fact, he never called for the independence of Catalonia].
It is false and defamatory to suggest that Julian Assange’s reporting on the violence and censorship inflicted against Catalans in any way connected to Russia [in fact, the managing editor of El Pais David Alandete was fired for spreading this false claim].
It is false and defamatory to suggest that the Catalan government, or any other entity, paid Julian Assange to report on the violence and censorship inflicted against Spain’s Catalan minority, or to otherwise support their right to self-determination [in fact, Spanish prosecutors stated that there were no records of Mr. Assange receiving such payments].
It is false and defamatory to suggest that “Wikileaks Founder Julian Assange [told] Russia-Aligned Media…” anything about his Protective Action filing in Ecuador [in fact, he testified, via video link, to a panel of three judges in an appeals court and did not speak to media].
It is false and defamatory to suggest that Julian Assange, or his mother, or his father, is, or was ever, a member of a cult.
It is false and defamatory to suggest that Julian Assange bleaches his hair.
It is false and defamatory to suggest that Julian Assange’s mother is, or ever was, a “hippie”.
It is false and defamatory to suggest that Julian Assange is a “hacker”.
It is false and defamatory to suggest that Ecuador’s threats to terminate Julian Assange’s asylum have anything whatsoever to do with his conduct in the embassy [in fact, a new government was elected in 2017 and the U.S. government made support for loans to Ecuador conditional on handing over Assange, see https://defend.wikileaks.org/].
It is false and defamatory to suggest that “Tommy Robinson” ever took a photo on the steps of the Ecuadorian embassy in London.
It is false and defamatory to suggest that Julian Assange has ever walked into embassy meeting rooms in his underwear.
It is false and defamatory to suggest that Julian Assange drinks to excess.
It is false and defamatory to suggest that Ecuador suggested that Julian Assange did not look after his cat or asked him to improve his care of it.
It is false and defamatory to suggest that Julian Assange has ever neglected an animal.
It is false and defamatory to suggest that Ecuador asked Julian Assange to improve his hygiene.
It is false and defamatory to suggest that Julian Assange is “far left’ or “far right”.
It is false and defamatory to suggest that Julian Assange is “an anarchist”.
It is false and defamatory to suggest that Julian Assange is a racist.
It is false and defamatory to suggest that Julian Assange is an anti-semite.
It is false and defamatory to suggest that Julian Assange is a mysogynist or sexist.
It is false and defamatory to suggest that Julian Assange is a paedophile.
It is false and defamatory to suggest that Julian Assange is a rapist.
It is false and defamatory to suggest that Julian Assange is a murderer.
It is false and defamatory to suggest that Julian Assange is a communist.
It is false and defamatory to suggest that Julian Assange is a member of the Muslim Brotherhood.
It is false and defamatory to suggest that Julian Assange stinks.
It is false and defamatory to suggest that Julian Assange has ever tortured a cat or dog.
It is false and defamatory to suggest that Julian Assange does not use cutlery or does not wash his hands.
It is false and defamatory to suggest that Julian Assange lives, or has ever lived, in a basement, cupboard or under the stairs.
It is false and defamatory to suggest that Julian Assange has ever proposed that he not publish, censor or delay a publication in exchange for any thing.
It is false and defamatory to suggest that Julian Assange has ever agreed to do anything or to not do anything as a condition of his asylum.
It is false and defamatory to suggest that the administration of President Rafael Correa imposed any conditions or exchange for his refugee status or asylum.
It is false and defamatory to suggest that Julian Assange is a criminal or has a criminal record [in fact, his convictions for offences as a teenager in Australia have been expunged].
It is false and defamatory to suggest that Julian Assange has committed a criminal offence since his teenage convictions were expunged.
It is false and defamatory to suggest that Julian Assange has ever revealed a source intentionally or through negligence.
It is false and defamatory to suggest that Julian Assange has ever hacked the state of Ecuador.
It is false and defamatory to suggest that Julian Assange has ever attacked a member of staff at the embassy.
It is false and defamatory to suggest that Julian Assange has ever played soccer or used a skateboard during week days or office hours at the embassy.
It is false and defamatory to suggest that WikiLeaks or Julian Assange is tied to, or is close to, the Kremlin.
It is false and defamatory to suggest that WikiLeaks or Julian Assange shared documents with a dictator.
It is false and defamatory to suggest that Julian Assange or WikiLeaks ever employed, or contracted, a holocaust denier.
It is false and defamatory to suggest that Julian Assange has ever attempted to pass information on opposition figures or dissidents to any government.
It is false and defamatory to suggest that Julian Assange has ever insisted on Russian bodyguards.
It is false and defamatory to suggest that Julian Assange called the Panama Papers “a Soros-funded attack against Putin” [see https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/717810984673484800].
It is false and defamatory to suggest that Julian Assange has ever diverted any supporters’ donations intended for WikiLeaks to fund his own legal case.
It is false and defamatory to suggest that WikiLeaks or Julian Assange has ever published, uttered or tried to promote a “conspiracy theory”.
It is false and defamatory to suggest that WikiLeaks or Julian Assange has ever published, uttered or tried to promote alleged conspiracy theories claiming “John Podesta engaged in satanic rituals”, the “Democratic Party had Seth Rich Killed”, “Clinton wore earpieces to the 2016 US election debates”, on “Clinton’s health” or “Clinton kidnapping children”.
It is false and defamatory to suggest that WikiLeaks or Julian Assange has ever stated or suggested that any particular person was their source for any publication, including Seth Rich.
It is false and defamatory to suggest that WikiLeaks or Julian Assange has been “presenting its disclosures in misleading and conspiratorial ways to harm”.
It is false and defamatory to suggest that any of WikiLeaks’ claims about its 2017 CIA leak, Vault 7, “were later retracted”.
It is false and defamatory to suggest that WikiLeaks’ publication about the ruling Turkish political party AKP was “nothing but mundane mailing lists of tens of thousands of ordinary people who discussed politics online”.
It is false and defamatory to suggest that WikiLeaks or Julian Assange harmed homosexuals in Saudi Arabia [see https://wikileaks.org/10years/distorted-facts.html].
It is false and defamatory to suggest that WikiLeaks or Julian Assange has ever suppressed materials critical of Israel, Russia or any other State.
It is false and defamatory to suggest that WikiLeaks possessed unpublished leaked material on the Trump campaign or the GOP or Russia and surpressed it.
It is false and defamatory to suggest that Julian Assange is “anti-military”.
It is false and defamatory to suggest that Julian Assange wants to harm the United States or any other State or people.
Other important facts and corrections to false reporting can be found at https://defend.wikileaks.org/, https://justice4assange.com/, https://wikileaks.org/, https://twitter.com/wikileaks, https://twitter.com/assangedefence/, https://twitter.com/assangelegal and https://twitter.com/khrafnsson/
https://emma.best/2019/01/07/140-things ... wikileaks/
WikiLeaks founder addresses death of DNC staffer Seth Rich in Fox News interview
http://amp.fox5dc.com/news/wikileaks-fo ... -interview
Fidel Narváez’s complaint challenges The Guardian reporting about Assange
Fidel Narváez’s complaint to The Guardian over their reporting on Julian Assange contests several articles of key contention. These include reports of a plan to smuggle Assange to Russia, and of a series of meetings between Paul Manafort and Julian Assange.
Regarding the story about the plot to squirrel Assange away to Russia, Narváez says that he was the only identified source, but that he knows of no such plot, nor has he spoken to any Russian diplomats about Assange.
I am the only identified source, portrayed as “a close confidante of Julian Assange” and yet I explained to The Guardian journalist, Stephanie Kirchgaessner, who contributed to the article, that ‘I know of no “escape plan” to “smuggle” Julian Assange out of the Embassy, much less in collaboration with a third country. I have never spoken to a Russian diplomat in London, or anywhere else, about Julian
Assange’s case, or anything else’.
The Guardian has not, and cannot, substantiate with solid evidence its following false assertions:
“Russian diplomats held secret talks in London last year with people close to Julian Assange to assess whether they could help him flee the UK…”
“A tentative plan was devised that would have seen the Wikileaks founder smuggled out of Ecuador’s London embassy…”
The reference to me: ” …Fidel Narváez, a close confidante of Assange who until recently served as Ecuador’s London consul, served as a point of contact with Moscow,” is a defamatory untruth and must be proved or retracted with a public apology, in recognition of harm caused me through associating me with Russian plots.
The reach of The Guardian in the UK, and the times the report has been used by media worldwide as the basis for their own inaccurate reporting, has caused irreparable damage to my reputation, career, and untold other aspects.
The Guardian replied that their article noted his denial, but also cited his Narváez’s close relationship with Assange and his role in helping Edward Snowden reach Moscow. “I am not aware of evidence of inaccuracy, though I acknowledge your denial,” the editor said near the close of their email.
Narváez replied that “The inclusion of my denial in the article does not change the fact that, overall, the newspaper has published a fabricated “escape” story, placing me at its centre… A false story cannot hide behind unspecified ‘good grounds’ for confidence. I challenge the veracity of those grounds, and the reliability of the journalist’s “sources”. The Guardian has not provided evidence in the article to corroborate the source’s false statements but has instead cited known or partial facts in order to lend credence to a central falsehood.”
He also challenged the characterization of his role in the Snowden matter. “The document I issued for Edward Snowden was to help him get to Ecuador, not to Moscow.”
The editor responded in a lengthy letter that read, in part:
Having considered again the article and your responses (of 9 October and 16 November), and having again consulted all three journalists about the basis for the phrase appearing in the article, I have again concluded that the article does not fall below the editorial standards.
I cannot go into detail about the sources, but I can assure you that I have tested with the journalists the underpinnings of the relevant section of the article and, as presently advised, I believe that it does not require amendment.
In my view it is more likely than not that you were involved in the plan, executed unsuccessfully and dismantled in late 2017/early 2018, to make Julian Assange an Ecuadorian citizen, then diplomat and then post him to Moscow from the Ecuadorian embassy in London where he has been a resident since 2012.
My conclusion largely rests on these factors –
• Much of your longstanding service at the Ecuadorian embassy in London, which I understand ended in about the middle of this year, coincided with the period in which Julian Assange has been a resident. You were among those in closest proximity to him in what is a small place.
• In 2013, when Julian Assange and WikiLeaks assisted the US whistleblower Edward Snowden, you personally provided the document necessary for Snowden’s travel, and when he first was in Moscow you were involved in efforts to help him further.
• During at least part of the period relevant to the plan for Julian Assange to serve as a diplomat in Russia you were, in the ambassador’s absence, in charge of embassy affairs.
• Official documents demonstrate your involvement in the plan. For example, after the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) declined to recognise Julian Assange as an Ecuadorian diplomat (Note No A295/17) the Ecuadorian authorities revoked his appointment as political counsellor in London and his posting to Moscow and you were designated to advise Julian Assange of the revocations.
Having reviewed, in light of the documents, notes of the interview in August 2018 between you and one of the three authors of the article, I think it is fair to note that, in my view, what the documents indicate about your knowledge of the plan points in a different direction than some of your answers in the interview.
The editor also suggested that Narváez could file an appeal with the Review Panel, which Narváez said he would do.
You can read the exchange below, or download a copy here.
https://emma.best/2019/01/06/fidel-narv ... t-assange/
#WikiLeaks deleted this in v1.3, which they posted shortly after I leaked the version that was email outed, and after someone made a #HarryPotter joke. #Assange must be sensitive about that.
OMFG #WikiLeaks retracted the line about it being defamatory to say #Assange stinks. It's absent from the version they leaked in response to my copy, which they actually emailed out
Further evidence that #WikiLeaks hastily edited this and posted it in response to the version I leaked (that they emailed out): the edited line about #Assange's cat not having been at the embassy for awhile now. "Inunction" isn't a word, but it is a typo you'd make in a rush.
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 5 guests