AND SO IT BEGINS . . . ASSANGE ARRESTED

On Thursday, British authorities arrested WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange at the Ecuadorian embassy in London after Ecuador abandoned its long-standing commitment to protect Assange from a coordinated effort of the United States and a variety of other countries as intelligence organizations. American intelligence has long demanded the prosecution of Assange who disclosed controversial military operations in the United States. The arrest will now trigger litigation over the status of Assange. Was he acting as a journalist, a whistleblower, a spy, or a dupe?

It has been seven years of confinement for Assange in the embassy — a relationship that turn sour over the years with embassy staff complaining about Assange’s attitude, activities, and even his hygiene.

Ecuador’s president, Lenin Moreno, announced that his “sovereign decision” was based on “repeated violations to international conventions and daily-life”:

“Today I announce that that the discourteous and aggressive behavior of Mr. Julian Assange, the hostile and threatening declarations of its allied organization, against Ecuador, and especially the transgression of international treaties, have led the situation to a point where the asylum of Mr. Assange is unsustainable and no longer viable.”

American nation decided to revoke the political asylum that had given him sanctuary for almost seven years.

London police said they were invited into the embassy by Ecuador’s ambassador. Assange took refuge in the embassy in 2012 after he was released on bail while facing extradition to Sweden on sexual assault allegations that have since been dropped.

Assange has been under U.S. Justice Department scrutiny for years for Wikileaks’ role in publishing thousands of government secrets and was an important figure in the special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia probe as investigators examined how WikiLeaks obtained emails stolen from Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign and Democratic groups.

Ecuador’s president, Lenin Moreno, said his government made a “sovereign decision” to revoke Assange’s political asylum due to “repeated violations to international conventions and daily-life.”

“Today I announce that that the discourteous and aggressive behavior of Mr. Julian Assange, the hostile and threatening declarations of its allied organization, against Ecuador, and especially the transgression of international treaties, have led the situation to a point where the asylum of Mr. Assange is unsustainable and no longer viable,” Moreno said in a video released on Twitter.

In a colossal blunder in 2018, the Justice Department previously revealed that it had a sealed indictment against Assange who faces a U.S. extradition request.

While Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has labeled Assange a “fraud,” “coward,” and “enemy,” a strong argument can be made that he was acting as either a whistleblower or journalist. However, whistleblower defenses are quite limited in national security cases. The status as a journalist has been contested by some and federal law actually does not contain an exemption for the possession or distribution of classified information. However, there is a strong gravitational pull for constitutional protection. This would set up a serious first amendment fight. Putting aside the issue of journalistic defenses, an indictment under the Espionage Act would be quite challenging for the government absent some new evidence establishing a nexus and intent.

I have handled first amendment and national security cases and I would call the Assange arrest the most anticipated case of my generation in defining the outside boundaries of those areas. Ironically, I just spoke in Utah on the changing role and realities of the U.S. media. This could prove one of the most important cases in history.

And so it begins.

298 thoughts on “AND SO IT BEGINS . . . ASSANGE ARRESTED”

  1. Given the treatment of James Rosen and Sheryl Atkinson, I don’t think the Obama Administration was overly concerned about having a chilling effect on journalists.

    1. https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/obama-attacks-trump-for-playing-on-working-class-fears/

      In 2008 at a San Francisco fundraiser, Barack Obama stated: “You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years, and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate, and they have not.

      “And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or antitrade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

      The only difference is that, back then, Obama claimed to have all the answers. Now, after seven years in the White House, he acts if these problems are all due to forces beyond anyone’s control.

      When NPR’s Steve Inskeep asked why so many blame him, Obama answered: (1) They are racists, (2) They don’t think I was born in America, (3) They think I’m a Muslim, or disloyal to the country, and (4) There are always be people who don’t like a president’s policies.

      We’re not making this up.”

  2. The evidence in the indictment is equivocal on this point at best. The lion’s share of it is clearly directed at classical journalism activity, such as encouraging sources to leak more, and even seems to be basing its hacking conspiracy theory at least in part on such traditional journalistic practices as overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy, although this is not completely clear (I think, intentionally) – and, if I understand federal conspiracy law correctly, all it takes is an agreement to commit an illegal act to be ensnared in a conspiracy charge. Nonetheless, there is nothing that anyone should accept as valid about even seeming to try to use the activities of journalists as predicate acts to support a conspiracy charge. That the evidence is so thin so far of Assange actually participating in cracking a computer password, that this indictment is so clearly pointed at nothing less than journalism itself, as well as bolstering the executive’s authority to exclusively control the flow of information to the public, and that it is appearing to use journalism as evidence of a crime, shows that this whole undertaking is an abuse of the law to destroy political enemies. It should opposed lock, stock, and barrel. There is no ambiguity about this. Move to dismiss.

    1. No matter how many other claims are made that might be left unproven or wrong the prosecutor only requires one good claim with evidence to convict.

      You are trying to dismiss a case before seeing that evidence.

      1. It might raise eyebrows about his own clearance should he represent someone who dumped classified information as a whistleblower. I do think the case has a lot of meat to it, though. Riveting.

  3. This bears repeating:

    “The arrest of #JulianAssange is meant to send a message to all Americans and journalists: be quiet, behave, toe the line. Or you will pay the price.” -Tulsi Gabbard

    ___________________

    Comment downthread:

    Tulsi Gabbard gets it right.

    https://twitter.com/TulsiGabbard/status/1116446982342529024

    Tulsi Gabbard

    Verified account

    @TulsiGabbard

    The arrest of #JulianAssange is meant to send a message to all Americans and journalists: be quiet, behave, toe the line. Or you will pay the price.

    2:04 PM – 11 Apr 2019

      1. She is.

        She trips over her words a bit here, but tells it like it is:

        https://youtu.be/wroVuMHhgK0

        Published on Apr 11, 2019

        “Tulsi Gabbard: The purpose of arresting Julian Assange is to send a message to the people, especially journalists, to be quiet and don’t get out of line. If we, the people, allow the government to control us through fear, we are no longer free, we are no longer America.”

    1. “The arrest of #JulianAssange is meant to send a message to all Americans and journalists: be quiet, behave, toe the line. Or you will pay the price.”
      *****************
      Thanks for the bumper sticker warning, Tulsi. It’s wasted here. When an institution is so compromised by its own anti-American prejudices what value is there in preserving it? So the government scares th e bejezzesus out of a bunch of partisan hacks masquerading as journalists. What have we lost? Propaganda? When journalists become journalists again, I’ll worry about their claimed persecution. Until then, punishing manipulative lairs by any source seems a vice we can live with, if only on a temporary basis until they regain a vestige of the intergrity they once had.

          1. Julian Assange’s lawyer found dead.
            Posted on December 4, 2018 Author Q Comments Off on Julian Assange’s lawyer found dead.

            SUICIDE BY TRAIN…

            “John Jones 48, one of Britain’s top human rights lawyers, who represented Julian
            Assange was killed last Monday, when he was run over by a commuter train. The
            death is being called a suicide.”

            John Jones 48, one of Britain’s top human rights lawyers, who represented Julian
            Assange was killed last Monday, when he was run over by a commuter train. The
            death is being called a suicide.

            British Transport
            Police were called to the West Hampstead train station in North London at 7:07
            AM on Monday April 18, 2016 after a man was struck by a train. He was
            reportedly pronounced dead at the scene and his death has been ruled a suicide
            by British police is not being treated as suspicious. The event occurred almost
            one month to the day that the first batch of Clinton emails were released by
            his client from WikiLeaks.

            The speculation about John Jones’s death has been fueled at least in part by a “death threat” uttered by liberal commentator

            1. Oliver Hardy wants journalists to regain a vestige of the integrity they once had.

              And Stan Laurel replied with a citation from “Q” of Q-Anon fame.

              It’s slapstick at it’s best every day now right here on the Turley blawg.

              This is L4D

  4. OT:

    “Former attorney for Stormy Daniels and potential Presidential candidate Michael Avenatti has been indicted by a federal grand jury in California on 36 counts, including embezzling from a paraplegic, court documents show. …

    Avenatti faces charges of wire fraud, failure to college and withhold payroll taxes, attempting to obstruct the IRS, failing to file tax returns, aggravated identity fraud, bank fraud and false testimony under oath during bankruptcy.

    The charge involving the paraplegic states that Avenatti lied to his client several times, including telling him that L.A. County hadn’t paid him in a $4 million dollar settlement as a lump sum, which the county had.

    Good Lord. If that’s true, and let’s emphasize that it hasn’t yet been proven, Avenatti would reset the scale for despicable. In typical fashion, Avenatti responded with a come at me bro statement, along with a somewhat bizarre biblical reference under the circumstances:

    For 20 years, I have represented Davids vs. Goliaths and relied on due process and our system of justice. Along the way, I have made many powerful enemies. I am entitled to a FULL presumption of innocence and am confident that justice will be done once ALL of the facts are known.

    — Michael Avenatti (@MichaelAvenatti) April 11, 2019

    𝑫𝒂𝒗𝒊𝒅 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝑮𝒐𝒍𝒊𝒂𝒕𝒉? 𝑴𝒂𝒚𝒃𝒆 𝑹𝒐𝒃𝒊𝒏 𝑯𝒐𝒐𝒅 𝒊𝒔 𝒂 𝒃𝒆𝒕𝒕𝒆𝒓 𝒉𝒊𝒔𝒕𝒐𝒓𝒊𝒄𝒂𝒍 𝒂𝒏𝒂𝒍𝒐𝒈𝒚, 𝒐𝒏𝒍𝒚 𝒘𝒊𝒕𝒉 𝒂 𝒉𝒆𝒇𝒕𝒚 𝒕𝒓𝒂𝒏𝒔𝒂𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏𝒂𝒍 𝒇𝒆𝒆 𝒊𝒇 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒂𝒍𝒍𝒆𝒈𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏𝒔 𝒂𝒓𝒆 𝒂𝒄𝒄𝒖𝒓𝒂𝒕𝒆. 𝑨𝒏𝒅 𝒐𝒏𝒄𝒆 𝒂𝒈𝒂𝒊𝒏, 𝒍𝒆𝒕 𝒖𝒔 𝒓𝒆𝒗𝒆𝒍 𝒊𝒏 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒊𝒓𝒐𝒏𝒚 𝒐𝒇 𝑨𝒗𝒆𝒏𝒂𝒕𝒕𝒊’𝒔 𝒆𝒎𝒃𝒓𝒂𝒄𝒆 𝒐𝒇 𝒅𝒖𝒆 𝒑𝒓𝒐𝒄𝒆𝒔𝒔 𝒂𝒇𝒕𝒆𝒓 𝒉𝒊𝒔 𝒃𝒊𝒛𝒂𝒓𝒓𝒆 𝒂𝒕𝒕𝒆𝒎𝒑𝒕 𝒕𝒐 𝒓𝒂𝒊𝒍𝒓𝒐𝒂𝒅 𝑩𝒓𝒆𝒕𝒕 𝑲𝒂𝒗𝒂𝒏𝒂𝒖𝒈𝒉 𝒅𝒖𝒓𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒉𝒊𝒔 𝒄𝒐𝒏𝒇𝒊𝒓𝒎𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝒑𝒓𝒐𝒄𝒆𝒔𝒔 𝒕𝒐 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝑺𝒖𝒑𝒓𝒆𝒎𝒆 𝑪𝒐𝒖𝒓𝒕. 𝑨𝒏𝒚 𝒂𝒑𝒑𝒆𝒂𝒍𝒔 𝒕𝒉𝒂𝒕 𝒓𝒆𝒂𝒄𝒉 𝒕𝒉𝒂𝒕 𝒍𝒆𝒗𝒆𝒍 𝒔𝒉𝒐𝒖𝒍𝒅 𝒃𝒆 𝒇𝒖𝒏 𝒇𝒖𝒏 𝒇𝒖𝒏.” [emphasis truly mine].

    https://hotair.com/archives/2019/04/11/double-doj-avenatti-face-new-36-count-federal-indictment/

    1. Mr Avenatti has some problems on his hands, but scienter can be hard to prove. We shall see.

      One thing he’s made huge mistakes on is becoming a publicity hound. Bad idea, usually hurts a lawyer in the long run

      1. You withhold money from a paraplegic, doling out his millions in $1,900.00 increments to him, while you blow his millions, scienter, my dear counselor, isn’t merely presumed, it’s concluded.

    2. The federal authorities have, unfortunately, seized Michael Avenatti’s $4.5 million Honda HA-420 twin engine private jet. This seems a bit extreme. How is Mr. Avenatti going to travel throughout the United States to spread the vital message about the urgent actions required to address climate change?

  5. Glenn Greenwald about his most recent article:

    “As we detail, today’s reporting has relied on 2 myths deliberately propagated by the DOJ press release: 1) Trump DOJ found new evidence against Assange (no: it’s all been public for years); 2) the indictment alleged Assange tried to help Manning “hack” (no: just avoid detection).”

        1. It’s late but,

          Vault 7 that wikileaks released shows the ABC’s groups like the CIA & other so called professional intel could make it appear info was on or coming from a certain person of country’s computer.

          So I would assume if discovery takes place with any case against Assange/Wikileaks all of that & much more info on the sources & methods, I mean Lies N Spies will once again come in front of the public’s eyes. …. ABC’s accessories to crimes, once again.

          Most likely that’s why the Deep State risk the Coup they’ve been busted for as the other crimes they’ve been up to are far worst. Makes sense does it not?

  6. Glenn Greenwald

    Verified account

    @ggreenwald
    22m22 minutes ago

    As we detail, today’s reporting has relied on 2 myths deliberately propagated by the DOJ press release: 1) Trump DOJ found new evidence against Assange (no: it’s all been public for years); 2) the indictment alleged Assange tried to help Manning “hack” (no: just avoid detection). -Tweet by Glenn Greenwald

  7. THE U.S. GOVERNMENT’S INDICTMENT OF JULIAN ASSANGE POSES GRAVE THREATS TO PRESS FREEDOMS

    Glenn Greenwald, Micah Lee

    April 11 2019, 7:53 p.m

    https://theintercept.com/2019/04/11/the-u-s-governments-indictment-of-julian-assange-poses-grave-threats-to-press-freedoms/

    Just a portion of the article:

    So much of what has been reported today about this indictment has been false. Two facts in particular have been utterly distorted by the DOJ and then misreported by numerous media organizations.

    The first crucial fact about the indictment is that its key allegation – that Assange did not merely receive classified documents from Chelsea Manning but tried to help her crack a password in order to cover her tracks – is not new. It was long known by the Obama DOJ and was explicitly part of Manning’s trial, yet the Obama DOJ – not exactly renown for being stalwart guardians of press freedoms – concluded it could not and should not prosecute Assange because indicting him would pose serious threats to press freedom. In sum, today’s indictment contains no new evidence or facts about Assange’s actions; all of it has been known for years.

    The other key fact being widely misreported is that the indictment accuses Assange of trying to help Manning obtain access to document databases to which she had no valid access: i.e., hacking rather than journalism. But the indictment alleges no such thing. Rather, it simply accuses Assange of trying to help Manning log into the Defense Department’s computers using a different user name so that she could maintain her anonymity while downloading documents in the public interest and then furnish them to WikiLeaks to publish.

    In other words, the indictment seeks to criminalize what journalists are not only permitted but ethically required to do: take steps to help their sources maintain their anonymity. As former Assange lawyer Barry Pollack put it: “the factual allegations…boil down to encouraging a source to provide him information and taking efforts to protect the identify of that source. Journalists around the world should be deeply troubled by these unprecedented criminal charges.”

    That’s why the indictment poses such a grave threat to press freedom. It characterizes as a felony many actions that journalists are not just permitted but required to take in order to conduct sensitive reporting in the digital age.

    But because the DOJ issued a press release with a headline that claimed that Assange was accused of “hacking” crimes, media outlets mindlessly repeated this claim even though the indictment contains no such allegation. It merely accuses Assange of trying to help Manning avoid detection. That’s not “hacking.” That’s called a core obligation of journalism. (end of excerpt)

    1. “Rather, (the indictment) simply accuses Assange of trying to help Manning log into the Defense Department’s computers using a different user name so that she could maintain her anonymity while downloading documents in the public interest and then furnish them to WikiLeaks to publish. The indictment seeks to criminalize what journalists are not only permitted but ethically required to do.”

      Oh I don’t think so. You do not work with your source in any way to hack a computer. As a journalist, you accept information. And that’s it.

      1. oh, the journalists think they can cross the line a lot, and enter into what would be a criminal conspiracy for anybody else.

        they often pay sources to steal things, for example. that should be used against the mischief makers at various different watchdog “charities”

        when people leak and hack, and they pay them, i ask you– are they receiving stolen property? is information not property? do journalists have a privilege to steal?

        So I have a certain amount of dislike for “journalists” who often think they are above the laws that apply to the rest of us

        NONETHELESS Assange, deserves a fair trail and presumption of innocence, and I find him a sympathetic accused.

      2. ” . . . using a different user name so that she could maintain her anonymity . . .”

        Did that happen with or without the password? How many different user names can share the same password?

        This is L4D

  8. CHARGE AGAINST ASSANGE..

    IS END-RUN AROUND FIRST AMENDMENT ISSUES

    Under the federal law governing computer crimes, prosecutors faced a deadline to file charges within eight years of the 2010 disclosures that put him in their crosshairs. The single-count indictment unsealed in Alexandria federal court Thursday shows they did so just under the deadline. It accuses Assange of conspiring to help former Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning crack a password so she could log on to a Defense Department computer anonymously. The indictment does not include evidence that Assange and Manning ever succeeded.

    Analysts said focusing narrowly on that incident is a deft way of fending off criticism that the case puts news organizations in legal jeopardy.

    Charging a conspiracy to hack a computer system “definitely gets prosecutors over the First Amendment issue,” said Mary McCord, former acting head of the Justice Department’s national security division.

    Ryan Fayhee, who previously worked in the Justice Department’s counterespionage section, said the charge also probably will make it easier to extradite Assange, who was arrested Thursday morning at the Ecuadoran Embassy in London after years spent in asylum there. British authorities would not hand over Assange to the United States if they deem the offense with which he is charged a political one, Fayhee said, but “the cyber charge is clean for extradition purposes — crime here, crime in the U.K. to seek to intrude upon a protected computer.”

    A lawyer for Assange in London said he will fight extradition. Barry Pollack, an attorney representing Assange in the United States, maintained that even the limited charge imperils freedom of the press, saying “the factual allegations against Mr. Assange boil down to encouraging a source to provide him information and taking efforts to protect the identity of that source.”

    More charges are probably forthcoming; prosecutors have 60 days to present a final case to authorities in Britain. The grand jury investigating Assange is still active, and Manning is being held in jail for refusing to testify before it.

    The Virginia prosecutors have also been in touch with federal prosecutors in New York who are probing the disclosures of CIA cyber tools, according to people familiar with the conversations.

    Edited from: “After Years Of Debate Trump Administration Chose To Pursue Criminal Case Against Assange”

    This evening’s WASHINGTON POST

    1. “More charges are probably forthcoming; prosecutors have 60 days to present a final case to authorities in Britain.”

      It’s possible to add charges before Assange is extradited. But the Rule of Specialty in the 2003 extradition treaty between the U. S. and the U. K. will not allow additional charges to be tried after Assange is extradited. If the U. S. wants to waive the Rule of Specialty, then the U. S. will have to do so before Assange is extradited. Waiving the Rule of Specialty might make it less likely that the U. K. would extradite Assange to the U. S.

      What we really need from Julian Assange is radical transparency–namely, the truth about pretty much everything Assange has been up to since 2010 or thereabouts. The best way to get the truth from Assange is to grant him transactional immunity for specific alleged crimes about which Assange presumably has information to share.

      This is L4D.

  9. I’m hearing that Assange is not being indicted in the United States for publishing anything. Rather, he is being indicted for assisting Manning in cracking a password in order to hack a computer.

    So it’s pretty limited indictment. Assange is being charged with being complicit in computer hacking and nothing more. IF they actually have the evidence for that, that’s a pretty solid indictment. So this indictment won’t have a lot of 1st amendment issues connected with it.

    1. I shouldn’t have qualified that last statement. There aren’t ANY 1st amendment issues in that indictment.

      1. The Obama Justice Department declined to prosecute Assange on the same evidence because Obama’s DOJ was worried about the chilling effect it might have on press freedom. The Trump Justice Department has no such compunctions. That the interpretation of the law changes from one administration to the next could be exculpatory or at least admissible as a possible defense for Assange.

        This is L4D.

      2. Steve J.,
        Given the claims and counter-claims, we’ll have to wait and see the actual indictment(s) themselves.
        I don’t think they’ve been made public yet, but maybe I missed it if they have.
        But you’re correct about the 1st Amendment not being a defense if there are no charges related to publication of the hacked material.
        If WikiLeaks/Assange are participants in the hacking itself…..if that what the indictment is about….we should eventually learn more about that aspect of WikiLeaks activities.

  10. “Images of Ecuador’s ambassador inviting the UK’s secret police into the embassy to drag a publisher of–like it or not–award-winning journalism out of the building are going to end up in the history books. Assange’s critics may cheer, but this is a dark moment for press freedom.” -Edward Snowden

    https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/1116288726601277440

    Repeating:

    “…this is a dark moment for press freedom.”

  11. An interesting but never answered point made some time ago. “A group of Russians IN Russia were accused of hacking etc .

    “Where in US Law or any other countries laws was this illegal and follow that with What part of Russian Law made it illegal?

  12. THE THING THAT WOULDN’T LEAVE!

    ASSANGE DESCRIBED AS ABUSIVE GUEST

    Mr. Assange’s isolation was wearing on him, a friend said on Thursday, especially the long, lonely weekends in an essentially empty embassy he could not leave.

    Even his friends have described him as difficult, a narcissist with an outsized view of his importance and a disinterest in mundane matters like personal hygiene.

    He was becoming deeply depressed and wondered about simply walking out, the friend said, speaking on condition of anonymity. And relations with his hosts were becoming deeply strained, even adversarial.

    Among Mr. Falconí’s top concerns was Mr. Assange’s penchant for riding a skateboard and playing soccer with visitors. His skateboarding, Mr. Falconí said, had “damaged floors, walls and doors.”

    The ambassador said the soccer games had destroyed embassy equipment. When an embassy security agent stopped the game and took away the ball, Mr. Assange “began to shake, insult and push the agent,” reclaimed the ball and then “launched the ball at his body.”

    The letter said Mr. Assange had invited a television reporter to interview them at the embassy and had showed the visitor off-limits parts of the building.

    At one point, according to the letter, Mr. Assange used the alarm setting on a megaphone “to attract the police” to record them for the show.

    “This last action, in the middle of the night, was a clear attempt to annoy the police,” Mr. Falconí wrote.

    Another time, the letter said, Mr. Assange “violently hit the embassy control room door” demanding in a “threatening manner” that one of the guards come out to speak to him.

    The guards came out, only to be harassed by Mr. Assange, who yelled and shoved them, Mr. Falconí wrote.

    Mr. Assange’s long presence in the embassy, long after the Ecuadorean president who granted him political asylum had been replaced, finally became too much for the Ecuadorean government.

    “In a sovereign decision Ecuador withdrew the asylum status to Julian Assange after his repeated violations to international conventions and daily-life protocols,” he said.

    He accused Mr. Assange of having installed forbidden “electronic and distortion equipment,” accessing the embassy’s security files without permission, blocking the embassy’s security cameras and mistreating its personnel, including guards.

    In March of last year, the Ecuadorean government severed his internet access, saying that he had violated an agreement to stop commenting on, or trying to influence, the politics of other countries.

    The government also limited his visitors and required him to clean his bathroom and look after his cat. Mr. Assange then sued the Ecuadorean government in October, claiming that it was violating his rights.

    He hired the Spanish human rights jurist, Baltasar Garzón, who filed suit against the Ecuadorean government in its own courts, saying Mr. Assange’s rights were violated. He also filed a second complaint with the Inter-American Human Rights Commission, an international body that mediates rights issues.

    Both cases were rejected by officials, and further angered Mr. Moreno’s government.

    Edited from: “Julian Assange’s Seven Strange Years In Self-Imposed Isolation”

    Today’s NEW YORK TIMES

    1. RE. ABOVE:

      This section stands out:

      “The government also limited his visitors and required him to clean his bathroom and look after his cat. Mr. Assange then sued the Ecuadorean government in October, claiming that it was violating his rights.

      He hired the Spanish human rights jurist, Baltasar Garzón, who filed suit against the Ecuadorean government in its own courts, saying Mr. Assange’s rights were violated. He also filed a second complaint with the Inter-American Human Rights Commission, an international body that mediates rights issues”.

      See that? The Embassy only ‘limited’ Assange’s visitors and required him to clean his bathroom and the cat pan. For that Assange sued his hosts! ..What a jerk..!!

    2. Peter Shill writes “THE THING THAT WOULDN’T LEAVE!”

      So what made you turn on Hillary?
      We have all been begging for Hillary to get off the drunken stage and yet here you are finally singing from the same chorus

      What took you so long Peter Shill?

  13. Well Julian can take comfort in the fact that he will be prosecuted under the Revised Deep State US Code that applies one set of Nuremberg Style Laws to people who are not democrats and NO laws to democrats.
    This means he will never have to share a cell with Comey, Rosenstein, Ohr, Brennen, Clinton or Obama.

Leave a Reply to mespo727272 Cancel reply