CIA Plots To Kill Jullian Assange – WHAT?!

Jullian Assange is back in the news. And unlike the last time I covered his plight back in early 2019, I actually have some sympathy for the man. For it is through him that we now get to see how dark things really got at the upper levels of the Trump administration.

While I fully expect there to be many more frightening revelations in the coming months and years relating to the Trump Administration, this one was certainly a doozy.


The CIA Plot to Kidnap or Kill Julian Assange in London is a Story that is Being Mistakenly Ignored

Three years ago, on 2 October 2018, a team of Saudi officials murdered journalist Jamal Khashoggi in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul. The purpose of the killing was to silence Khashoggi and to frighten critics of the Saudi regime by showing that it would pursue and punish them as though they were agents of a foreign power.

It was revealed this week that a year before the Khashoggi killing in 2017, the CIA had plotted to kidnap or assassinate Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, who had taken refuge five years earlier in the Ecuador embassy in London. A senior US counter-intelligence official said that plans for the forcible rendition of Assange to the US were discussed “at the highest levels” of the Trump administration. The informant was one of more than 30 US officials – eight of whom confirmed details of the abduction proposal – quoted in a 7,500-word investigation by Yahoo News into the CIA campaign against Assange.


As much as this doesn’t really surprise me (given the many times that the US has resorted to underhanded tactics in order to forward its own national and/or corporate interests), it still has quite the punch when viewed from the perspective that is not even a decade ago.


The plan was to “break into the embassy, drag [Assange] out and bring him to where we want”, recalled a former intelligence official. Another informant said that he was briefed about a meeting in the spring of 2017 at which President Trump had asked if the CIA could assassinate Assange and provide “options” about how this could be done. Trump has denied that he did so.

The Trump-appointed head of the CIA, Mike Pompeo, said publicly that he would target Assange and WikiLeaks as the equivalent of “a hostile intelligence service”. Apologists for the CIA say that freedom of the press was not under threat because Assange and the WikiLeaks activists were not real journalists. Top intelligence officials intended to decide themselves who is and who is not a journalist, and lobbied the White House to redefine other high-profile journalists as “information brokers”, who were to be targeted as if they were agents of a foreign power.

Among those against whom the CIA reportedly wanted to take action were Glenn Greenwald, a founder of the Intercept magazine and a former Guardian columnist, and Laura Poitras, a documentary film-maker. The arguments for doing so were similar to those employed by the Chinese government for suppressing dissent in Hong Kong, which has been much criticised in the West. Imprisoning journalists as spies has always been the norm in authoritarian countries, such as Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Egypt, while denouncing the free press as unpatriotic is a more recent hallmark of nationalist populist governments that have taken power all over the world.


Given the things Donald has said in full view of the public, I have no doubt that he inquired about this course of action. In a way, none of this is really news. Everyone already knew that Trump loved the ways of the authoritarian. Shocking as this instance is, it’s just more of the same.

As for Glenn Greenwald, this certainly brings an interesting twist to his new stances. While the money of a grift is certainly good, avoiding being in the bad graces of potential future authoritarian tyrants is certainly also a good incentive. Though still a futile one, since I have no doubt that they will still find a way to make him an enemy.

Wow. This just got a whole lot bleaker.


It is possible to give only a brief precis of the extraordinary story exposed by Yahoo News, but the journalists who wrote it – Zach Dorfman, Sean D Naylor and Michael Isikoff – ought to scoop every journalistic prize. Their disclosures should be of particular interest in Britain because it was in the streets of central London that the CIA was planning an extra-judicial assault on an embassy, the abduction of a foreign national, and his secret rendition to the US, with the alternative option of killing him. These were not the crackpot ideas of low-level intelligence officials, but were reportedly operations that Pompeo and the agency fully intended to carry out.

This riveting and important story based on multiple sources might be expected to attract extensive coverage and widespread editorial comment in the British media, not to mention in parliament. Many newspapers have dutifully carried summaries of the investigation, but there has been no furor. Striking gaps in the coverage include the BBC, which only reported it, so far as I can see, as part of its Somali service. Channel 4, normally so swift to defend freedom of expression, apparently did not mention the story at all.

In the event, the embassy attack never took place, despite the advanced planning. “There was a discussion with the Brits about turning the other cheek or looking the other way when a team of guys went inside and did a rendition,” said a former senior US counter-intelligence official, who added that the British had refused to allow the operation to take place.


I can’t imagine WHY the Brits would refuse to have an operation like that go down right in the heart of Britain’s largest city. I mean, talk about bad optics when that hit the press.

Imagine how many tourists would go to Turkey if it was revealed that they sanctioned the whole Kashoggi thing . . .


But the British government did carry out its own less melodramatic, but more effective measure against Assange, removing him from the embassy on 11 April 2019 after a new Ecuador government had revoked his asylum. He remains in Belmarsh top security prison two-and-a-half years later while the US appeals a judicial decision not to extradite him to the US on the grounds that he would be a suicide risk.

If he were to be extradited, he would face 175 years in prison. It is important, however, to understand, that only five of these would be under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, while the other 170 potential years are under the Espionage Act of 1917, passed during the height of the patriotic war fever as the US entered the First World War.

Only a single minor charge against Assange relates to the WikiLeaks disclosure in 2010 of a trove of US diplomatic cables and army reports relating to the Iraq and Afghan wars. The other 17 charges are to do with labeling normal journalistic investigation as the equivalent of spying.


As much loathing as I have for the man for evading justice for his alleged sexual assault in Sweeden by simply going into hiding in essentially plain sight, even I agree that 170 years (life in prison, really!) is too much.

First off, this seems like a good argument for selectively delaying the statute of limitations of sexual assault cases under some circumstances. In this case, though everyone knew where the man could be found, he was unavailable for prosecution for reasons uncontrollable by either the victims or the authorities trying the case. As such, I don’t think it unreasonable to have a clause in law wherein the statute of limitations for the crime should be put on hold until such a day that it is at least feasible to try the case. Though the Assange situation is a one-off, consider cases where a  person flees town (or even the country) in order to avoid prosecution. Given that a person can hop on a plane and be in a nation without an extradition treaty in under 24 hours, the laws of nations really should really take this into consideration when limitation timeframes are determined.

As for the Assange charges themselves, no, he should not be in prison for 170 years for espionage.

This is a hard thing to consider knowing that the data dumps did in fact put some lives in danger. However, unless there are details that we are not privy to, this does not sound like espionage. Though I touched on an instance of Assange seemingly trying to open up a backchannel with Sean Hannity in order to undermine the Democratic Party, political favouritism is hardly espionage. Treating it as such will only set a dangerous precedent for the future.

Imagine a 2ed Trump presidency (or worse!) with this precedent woven into the fabric of American law.


Pompeo’s determination to conflate journalistic inquiry with espionage has particular relevance in Britain, because the home secretary, Priti Patel, wants to do much the same thing. She proposes updating the Official Secrets Act so that journalists, whistle-blowers and leakers could face sentences of up to 14 years in prison. A consultative paper issued in May titled Legislation to Counter State Threats (Hostile State Activity) redefines espionage as “the covert process of obtaining sensitive confidential information that is not normally publicly available”.

The true reason the scoop about the CIA’s plot to kidnap or kill Assange has been largely ignored or downplayed is rather that he is unfairly shunned as a pariah by all political persuasions: left, right and centre.


Yeah . . . don’t do that Britan. You can do much worse than Brexit and Boris Johnson. If you thought Tony Blair was bad . . .


To give but two examples, the US government has gone on claiming that the disclosures by WikiLeaks in 2010 put the lives of US agents in danger. Yet the US Army admitted in a court hearing in 2013 that a team of 120 counter-intelligence officers had failed to find a single person in Iraq and Afghanistan who had died because of the disclosures by WikiLeaks. As regards the rape allegations in Sweden, many feel that these alone should deny Assange any claim to be a martyr in the cause of press freedom. Yet the Swedish prosecutor only carried out a “preliminary investigation” and no charges were brought.

Assange is a classic victim of “cancel culture”, so demonised that he can no longer get a hearing, even when a government plots to kidnap or murder him.


I was going to ignore the mild Assange pandering in the previous paragraph, as it was mild in comparison to other instances (not to mention that the overarching topic at hand is much more pertinent).

I was going to ignore it. But then the author turned into a rape apologist.

There was only a preliminary investigation and no charges were brought . . . no fucking kidding. There were no charges because he was not even in Sweeden at the time! He left the country and evaded the charges so as not to also deal with being potentially extradited to the United States.

One can certainly point the finger of blame at the United States for causing the whole mess in the first place. And assuming that there are no details of which we are unaware, he should not have to face a lifetime in prison in the US (or elsewhere). However, he is not a victim of cancel culture. HIS VICTIMS are victims of cancel culture, you deluded moron! 

Assange should not be a martyr, PERIOD. For the simple reason that in the eyes of the ideologically focused (or just the idiotic), a martyr can do no wrong. One step above the superstar status of people like Elon Musk, the martyr has the benefit of having even more wiggle room when it comes to curating their own public persona. Though the masses often stop associating human traits (both positive and negative) to both superstars and martyrs, martyrs often are assumed as altruistic strictly on account of the principles n which they stand for. 

I get it. There was a time back in 2016 wherein I just assumed that Jullian Assange would do what was best for the American democratic process. After all, the WikiLeaks stuff was certainly (for the most part, anyway) beneficial to the public good. However, like the human that he is, he soon proved that he did have a favourite pick to win. And also like the human that he is, he used his unique position in order to help boost his chosen political affiliation. And judging by the Hannity revelation of 2018, this behaviour is less an outlier than it is the norm.

Few flawed humans have the self-control to properly bear the title of martyr. Suffice to say, Jullian Assange is NOT one of them.


In reality, Khashoggi and Assange were pursued relentlessly by the state because they fulfilled the primary duty of journalists: finding out important information that the government would like to keep secret and disclosing it to the public.


As scathing as the last paragraph was, I can’t help but agree with this sentiment.

Allowing governing officials to dictate who and what entities are considered to be journalists is dangerous, but particularly so in the face of an ever-evolving media landscape. With many forms of what can be labelled as traditional journalism either stagnant or slowly dying due to changing media consumption habits, it’s risky to assign too much rigidity to the term.

First off, because fledgling traditional journalistic entities are going to be more vulnerable to burying inconvenient stories if pressured to do so. But also because the face of journalism is changing. Information sources (and platforms) are gradually fragmenting. Though the big powerhouses of cable and print news media still dominate the scene today, I suspect that these days are numbered. There is still much to sort out, but I’m almost certain that the media landscape will be very different some 20 or 30 years from now.

Journalism isn’t (or at least, shouldn’t) be about your employer or your job title. It should be about the information that you bring to the table. Be it in front of a TV studio broadcasting to millions, or sitting behind a laptop with a current readership in the tens, journalism comes in many forms.

Fuck Jullian Assange. Long live journalism.

Julian Assange Arrested

It’s finally happened, folks.

Julian Assange arrested after U.S. extradition request, charged with hacking government computer

British police invited to Ecuadorian embassy after asylum withdrawn

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange was arrested by British police on Thursday in the Ecuadorian Embassy where he’d been holed up since 2012 after the United States requested his extradition, London police say.

London police confirmed Assange was arrested “on behalf of the United States,” which requested Assange’s extradition, as well as for breaching British bail conditions.

U.S. prosecutors said they have charged Assange with conspiracy in trying to access a classified U.S. government computer with former U.S. Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning in 2010.

The U.S. indictment accuses Assange of assisting Manning in cracking a password that helped the former intelligence analyst infiltrate Pentagon computers.

Assange faces a maximum penalty of five years in prison, the U.S. Justice Department said in a statement.

On Thursday, Assange was found guilty at London’s Westminster Magistrates’ Court of skipping bail in 2012 after an extradition order to Sweden over an allegation of rape. Assange, who pleaded not guilty, will be sentenced at a later date when he will face a maximum sentence of 12 months in prison for the offence.

The prick has been arrested. And it’s about fucking time.

My opinion towards Julian Assange has changed a lot in the past 3ish years. Up until late 2016, I didn’t give him all that much thought really. Back in October 2016, I viewed him in a manner that turned out to be borderline delusional.

To quote me:

Which makes me wonder . . . is Assange holding out because he views (as many people of intellectual capacity have in recent months) Trump as genuinely dangorous? Is he holding out because he does not want to interfer with the democratic process of a nation? Or was it all just a bluff after all?

I don’t beat myself up too badly for misjudging that one, because pretty much everyone bows at the altar of Julian Assange, Free press advocate for the masses. It would not be until later that I realized how completely wrong I had gotten it. And unlike seemingly 99.9% of his followers, admitted it fully and openly.

Sure, he’s for that. . . for one side.

Hesitant to interfere with the democratic happenings of a sovereign nation?
Not a fucking chance.

And then there are the rape cases in Sweeden, which even many respected femenist journalists like Christopher Hedges like to either ignore or downplay.

Assange took refuge in the embassy to avoid being extradited to Sweden, where authorities wanted to question him as part of a sexual assault investigation. That probe was later dropped, but Sweden’s prosecution authority said Thursday the legal counsel of the alleged victim has requested that the preliminary investigation be reopened. That request has been assigned to a prosecutor who will determine how to proceed.

Assange hadn’t left the embassy since August 2012 for fear that if he steps off Ecuador’s diplomatic soil he will be arrested and extradited to the U.S. for publishing thousands of classified military and diplomatic cables through WikiLeaks.

He was running from a rape charge. But the United States just so happened to come up as a convenient scapegoat to avoid prosecution. Fortunately for Assange, one of the cases has already been closed on account to the statute of limitations running out. The other one times out next year, however. Though that likely won’t matter either, since he will be spending 5 years in prison (apparently the maximum sentence for the crime. Which fits . . .it’s a computer crime).

Speaking of his sentence:

Assange faces a maximum penalty of five years in prison, the U.S. Justice Department said in a statement.

On Thursday, Assange was found guilty at London’s Westminster Magistrates’ Court of skipping bail in 2012 after an extradition order to Sweden over an allegation of rape. Assange, who pleaded not guilty, will be sentenced at a later date when he will face a maximum sentence of 12 months in prison for the offence.

5 years! Really, he fled to avoid a 5-year sentence?!

What a goddamned pussy. Jesus Christ.

But the fun doesn’t stop there, oh no. The reason why the Ecuadorians eventually decided to give him the boot is even more hilarious. Primarily in its exposure of how much of an entitled jackass the man is.

In a statement earlier Thursday, London police said they arrested Assange after being “invited into the embassy by the ambassador, following the Ecuadorian government’s withdrawal of asylum.”

Ecuadorian President Lenin Moreno said Assange’s diplomatic asylum was withdrawn for repeated violations of international conventions. Ecuador received a guarantee from Britain that Assange would not be extradited to a country where he could face the death penalty, Moreno said.

Ecuador’s foreign minister also announced that Assange’s Ecuadorian citizenship was suspended.

And then there was this:

Assange’s relationship with his hosts collapsed after Ecuador accused him of leaking information about Moreno’s personal life. Moreno had previously said Assange has violated the terms of his asylum.

So, not only did he not stop attempting to meddle in the affairs of other soverign nations whilst in their embassy (putting Equador in an extremely diplomatically awkward position), he also directly bit the hand that feeds him. Granted, it was a new administration that wasn’t as friendly to his presence as the previous one.

None the less . . . Jackass.

As reported before, a certified roommate from hell. But also a roommate from hell that actively targeted you and your friend’s personal lives in order to post the goods on facebook and twitter. To any of us, a scumbag worthy of landing on the street without our remorse. To a nation-state granting assylum, a potential risk to national security.

Now, despite all of the barbs in which I have tossed towards Assange, I admit that I am not sure that I agree with why he has become the martyr that he now is.

Should the alleged rapist have to face the music in Sweeden?


Should he have to face the music for his part on bringing some transparency to the otherwise opaque entity that is the American military-industrial complex?

I don’t know. Even the way I worded that is quite, slanted. Not untrue . . . just very biased.

Either way, should he (and others involved) be punished for bringing some transparency to the citizens of the United States (and the world)?
Again, I don’t know.
The idealists and the free speech absolutists would likely say that the answer to that question is obvious. Maybe for them. But much like my view of free speech absolutism itself, I need more information before I can make a judgement.
In the case of free speech, are the potential downstream ramifications worth the open and unchecked platforms?
And in the case of Wikileaks and Assange, was the damage done and the doxing of informants worth the release of the information in its entirety?

Of course, the Department of Justice and the US Government are going to stick to one extreme, and the Assange and Wiki followers to the other, with likely no hope in hell of some sort of rational compromise being discussed in the middle. None the less, I live in the middle. Even if it often leads to my stance on a great many issues being very . . . uncommitted.

Either way, if you are one that STILL worships at the altar of Jullian Assange, I implore you to do a little digging. Even aside from matters in his personal life, the man is hardly a non-partisan actor in the worldwide political scene.

He may have once had credibility. But it is now LONG gone.

Some of my previous explorations:

Is Julian Assange Holding Out On Us? – October 10, 2016

“Crucifying Julian Assange” – (Truthdig) – November 12, 2018

Assange Is Going Home – November 27, 2018

“Julian Assange Receives His Passport” – (Counterpunch) – March 6, 2019

“Julian Assange Receives His Passport” – (Counterpunch)

The man is in the news again. Well, sort of. Let’s see who’s bending over to polish the dong today.

A Counterpunch journalist named Binoy Kampmark. Let’s see what he has to say.

In March 2008, one Michael Horvath of the US Army Counterintelligence Center within the Cyber Intelligence Assessments Branch considered the risks posed by WikiLeaks in a 32-page document. Created under the auspices of the Department of Defence’s Intelligence Analysis Program. The overview suggests, importantly, the interest shown in Assange by the defense wing of the United States at the time it was starting to make more than a generous ripple across the pond of information discourse. Importantly, it suggests a direct interest of the military industrial complex in the activities of a guerrilla (read radical transparency) group.
The question it asks remains a source of ongoing interest and curiosity about the role played by WikiLeaks in the information wars: “ – An Online Reference to Foreign Intelligence Services, Insurgents, or Terrorist Groups?” The answer is implicit in the text: its all of the above.

The typo isn’t mine. It happens to the best of us.

As for the real meat of the matter, it’s hard to see how there isn’t a connection to at least one of the 3.

Foreign intelligence services.

But I suppose that one could say I am jumping ahead of the evidence a bit. None the less, I maintain that WikiLeaks credibility went with Assange’s attempt to open a back channel to Sean Hannity. Unaffiliated or not with the founder, Wikileaks status as a saintly defender of freedom is gone.

Get with the program.

The document remains salient for the persistent strategy adopted against WikiLeaks and its chief publishing head throughout. To avoid the integrity and credibility of the information, target the man, the organization and the method. Suggest he is wonky, a crank, generally wobbly on principles and ethics. Suggest, as well, that his reputation is questionable, as are his moral inclinations.

Even without the data releases, I would suspect he would be JUST as wobbly on principals and ethics, with a questionable reputation and questionable moral inclinations.

Notice what is obvious to the ones who pay attention:

Top prosecutor Marianne Ny said his arrest warrant was being revoked as it was impossible to serve him notice.

Mr. Assange, 45, has lived in the Ecuadorean embassy in London since 2012. He fears extradition to Sweden would lead to extradition to the US where he is wanted over leaks.

Ecuador has called on the UK to allow him safe passage out of the country.

However, police in London said they would still be obliged to arrest him if he left

It isn’t that he was proven innocent. It’s that he committed a crime against the United States that the world, unfortunately, prioritizes above the justice of a rape victim.

That’s right. If not for WikiLeaks, the seemingly unending defense of this rapist would be asinine.

The document highlights a feature that gained momentum in the 2016 US presidential elections: that WikiLeaks might serve “as an instrument of propaganda, and is a front organization for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).” (The only difference in 2016 was that the CIA had fallen out of the orbit of paranoid reckoning, replaced by wily Russian operatives in the US imaginary of electoral manipulation.) Not only had the organization denied this, but there was also “no evidence” mustered “to support such assertions.”
The DoD document makes the objective clear; nothing else will suffice than a campaign ranging on various fronts to target WikiLeaks and its system of obtaining and releasing information. “The identification, exposure, termination of employment, criminal prosecution, legal action against current and former insiders, leakers or whistleblowers could potentially damage or destroy the center of gravity and deter others considering similar actions from using the Web site.”

Reading this, I can’t help but see the word imaginary used in the context of what we KNOW is a reality. What the HELL are you talking about?!

As for whistleblowers, the WikiLeaks contribution to the election was hardly voluntarily obtained. THAT was the result of a spear phishing attack on an organization woefully unprepared for the entity that had them in its sight.

But I suppose this predates 2016. On that note, given that I have it on good authority that those documents put REAL lives at risk, what was the US intelligence apparatus supposed to do?! Issue a pardon?!

Uh. . .

I won’t disagree about the public service aspect of the data releases. But it was not entirely without cost. Trying to paint the situation as anything but is delusional.

The center of gravity here is a critical point. It is one that is being persistently targeted, using Assange as a convenient focal point of derangement, treachery and both. The memo from Ecuadorean officials from October last year was a laundry list for model good behavior, effectively the conditions of his continued tenancy in the embassy, along with using the internet. Press outlets saw it as lunacy taking hold. He had to refrain from “interfering in the internal affairs of other states” and activities “that could prejudice Ecuador’s good relations with other states.” His pet cat also had to be looked after lest it is banished to an animal shelter. Sanitation was also noted.

Of course. Another knob gobbler, eager to bob on the Assange wang.

I have heard of roommates from hell like Julian Assange. Good for little but leaving messes all over the place. And GOOD LUCK getting any money out of them. However, not all roommates have to worry about their asshole apartment mate wrecking their nations international ties with other nations.

Let us remember that one of the so-called inhumane stipulations was being asked to not watch porn on embassy equipment. You know, the most widely utilized content online (as well as most malware-infected content online). The bane of company IT personnel everywhere. Imagine what the poor bastard in the EMBASSY felt!

Why the FUCK people continue to defend this scumfuck is beyond me.

Each granular detail of his fate garners international headlines in an ongoing battle of attrition. Will he step out? Will he seek medical treatment he urgently needs? What will the local constabulary do? Statements from the Metropolitan Police and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office suggest that he will be medically tended to but will also have to face the charge of violating his bail conditions when he entered the Ecuadorean embassy in 2012. Once that door opens, the narrow horizon to a US prison cell becomes a realistic prospect, even if it is bound to be a protracted matter.

Oh, just send the prick a doctor, already. Send the bill to his native Australia.

He may be an asshole, but im not THAT vindictive. It’s certainly more than his rape victims ever got.

The recent turn has also excited commentary, though it is not the same mould as the cudgel like recommendations of the 2008 DoD memo. The Australian dissident figure of the publishing world has been granted a passport by the Australian authorities. This was something, if only to suggest that those in Canberra, previously keen to see Assange given the roughing over, had warmed somewhat. In 2016, the then Australian foreign minister Julie Bishop had, at the very least, offered Assange what he was due: consular assistance.
While the grant took place either last September or October, confirmation of its existence was revealed in a Senate estimates hearing. Australian Senator Rex Patrick of the Centre Alliance pressed officials from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade whether they had engaged their US counterparts about possible safe passage for Assange in the event he left the embassy.
DFAT’s chief legal officer James Larsen claimed to have no knowledge of any US proceedings against Assange (untutored, mute and ill-informed is Larsen, on this subject); that being so, there was nothing to discuss. “We are not aware, on the Australian government’s side, of any legal proceedings initiated within, or by, the United States, concerning Assange.” Larsen had no “record before me of what our engagement with the United States is specifically concerning Mr Assange.”

Talk about living under a rock. But hey. . . apparently he has more important things to attend to.

What mattered were the remarks made by first assistance secretary of the Consular and Crisis Management Division. “Mr Assange,” Andrew Todd confirmed, “does have an Australian passport.” Some lifting of the dark had taken place, suggesting, as one of legal advisers, Greg Barnes, has been saying for some time: “The Australian government does have a role to play in the resolution of the Julian Assange case.”

I agree.

Take him out of the Ecuadorian embassy and get him straight to Heathrow. Then throw him in coach on a Qantas 747, and ship his ass straight to the Sweedish embassy as soon as the bird hits the tarmac in Sydney.

Justice for Assange.

Who’s with me?

A potential stumbling block for Assange in getting a passport was section 13 of the Australian Passports Act 2005. Facing a “serious foreign offence” within that section’s meaning would have scotched the application. “In order to progress your application,” DFAT informed him, “we require confirmation that section 13 is not enlivened by your circumstances. To this end, we ask that you provide us with confirmation that section 13 no longer applies to you. Until this time, your passport application will remain on hold.”
There is an element of dark farce to this. To show that he was eligible to receive a passport, he had to show that he did not face a serious foreign offence. But pieced evidence revealed thus far demonstrates that a US prosecution assisted by a range of security agencies has busied themselves with making sure he does face such an offence. Thankfully, WikiLeaks has not been able, in their quest for a totally transparent record, to find any relevant corroborating indictment, a point that seemed to seep through the Senate estimates hearings. In such cases, ignorance can remain, if not blissful, then useful.

Ignorance is indeed bliss when you are defending a rapist.

Even without any of the WikiLeaks stuff, would the Swedish charges also qualify in tripping the section 13 clause?

It’s a question worth asking.

Assange Is Going Home

It seems that Julian Assange’s luck is up, and he will soon be headed back to the United States to face the music.

Earlier this month, I wrote a fairly extended piece outlining the many reasons why this no longer bothered me. Truth be told, the man was never a hero in my eyes to begin with, but I couldn’t deny the public service he had done. However, that credibility was dealt a massive blow in late 2016. And it completely vanished earlier this year with Assange’s attempt at opening up a twitter backchannel to Sean Hannity. This, to feed him more ill-begotten dirt on selected Democrats.

In other words, MORE attempts to manipulate the internal political affairs of a sovereign nation-state. Since Assange proponents are not beyond using the realm of speculation as an argument, it makes me wonder. . . how many other nation states has he influenced?

Given the circumstances, it’s possible that we may find out. But we shall see. Either way, I won’t shed a tear for this asshole of a man.

One aspect of this saga that came as a bit of a surprise to me was how the 2 sexual assaults that started it all have continually been either overlooked or quickly dismissed. One of the instances timed out due to the statute of limitations running out, but the other has about a year left. Both of which have always been pushed to the sidelines in light of the whole Wikileaks thing, and both of which will likely end up timing out in light of the other charges from a far more powerful nation-state. That is unless Sweden is allowed a crack at him as well. Though seemingly doubtful, one can hope. . .

In a great many instances, this oversight can be understandable. For YEARS, the media (at any level) didn’t do all that great a job at telling this side of the story. Had I not looked into it myself for the previous piece, I also wouldn’t pay much heed to it.

One expects this from a majority of proponents. The biggest reason for this is ignorance of the story, followed by bigotry (the segment that always values male livelihood more than justice). These 2 don’t surprise me.

What DOES surprise me, however, is how Julian Assange can make otherwise progressive individuals seemingly turn a part of this philosophy off in support of the man. This comes to mind when reading the article above (the sexual assaults are not mentioned at all), but this could also be just ignorance again. Christopher Hedges article, however, was less excusable.

Assange was granted asylum in the embassy in 2012 to avoid extradition to Sweden to answer questions about sexual offense allegations that were eventually dropped.

Dropped, because his stint in the embassy lasted long enough to run out the statute of limitations. Given differing political trade winds to the ones that ended up coming to be, he may well have timed out both.

Something Hedges readily acknowledges in his article.

Assange feared that once he was in Swedish custody he would be extradited to the United States. The British government has said that, although he is no longer wanted for questioning in Sweden, Assange will be arrested and jailed for breaching his bail conditions if he leaves the embassy.

The UK adds yet another bend to this, but such is their right. It all still boils down to a journalist who seemingly can’t see past Assange’s own delusions of grandeur. Even when the character has displayed characteristics contrary to this journalists own values.

Should Jillian Assange even be facing charges in the United States?

I suppose now would be a good time to again say, I’m not sure. There is plenty of bias on either side of that debate to go around. But personally, I don’t know.

All I do know is that the man is undeserving of the cult following of which he has amassed. He is not the Jesus Christ of free speech. He is just another rapist without a guilty verdict.

“Crucifying Julian Assange” – (Truthdig)

Today’s piece is looking at a recent article by the honorable journalist Christopher Hedges. I’ve read Hedges work many times before, disagreeing with him enough to feel the need to write a rebuttal at least once beforehand. Today, I am doing the same.

Whilst I respect Christopher’s work and contributions to righting humanities oh so wrongful course, I can’t help but think he has hitched onto a trojan horse this time around.

Julian Assange’s sanctuary in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London has been transformed into a little shop of horrors. He has been largely cut off from communicating with the outside world for the last seven months. His Ecuadorian citizenship, granted to him as an asylum seeker, is in the process of being revoked. His health is failing. He is being denied medical care. His efforts for legal redress have been crippled by the gag rules, including Ecuadorian orders that he cannot make public his conditions inside the embassy in fighting revocation of his Ecuadorian citizenship.

Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison has refused to intercede on behalf of Assange, an Australian citizen, even though the new government in Ecuador, led by Lenín Moreno—who calls Assange an “inherited problem” and an impediment to better relations with Washington—is making the WikiLeaks founder’s life in the embassy unbearable. Almost daily, the embassy is imposing harsher conditions for Assange, including making him pay his medical bills, imposing arcane rules about how he must care for his cat and demanding that he perform a variety of demeaning housekeeping chores.

Oh lordy. Where do I even begin?

1.) As cliche and idiotic as this statement is, I can’t help but say it in this context . . . LEAVE!

There are plenty of nations that would likely be happy to grant you honorary citizenship. The Donald’s list of favorite dictatorial leaders is a good start. At the top of that list, Russia. Go join Edward Snowden and bask in the freedoms afforded to you by the Russian Federation that you won’t have anywhere else.

It’s not like you haven’t already been talking to them in the first place. I was naive enough (back in October 2016) to think that you took your role as a potential influencer of the internal politics of a sovereign nation seriously enough not to be partisan. I was wrong, and it certainly won’t happen again.

Now, if only the rest of your liberal defenders (it would seem, including Christopher Hedges) would also get the message.

2.) I can’t help but think that I am missing something in terms of the gag order of which forbids Assange from talking about conditions within the embassy. Not to mention the whole health failing thing.

It’s also noted that Equador doesn’t seem to want to pay the man’s medical bills. This, I admit, does put me into a bit of a personal catch 22. On one hand, I am a proponent of universal healthcare for ALL (ie. everyone alive), because that is just the right thing to do. But at the same time, this small nation DID inherit this problem due to no fault of their own. Citizens of the nation should have a say in the matter.

The obvious band-aid (at least for the time being) would seem to be to have Australia foot the bill for its own citizen.

3.) Of all that I have just read, THIS is the part that made me almost fall out of my chair in a fit of laughter:

imposing arcane rules about how he must care for his cat and demanding that he perform a variety of demeaning housekeeping chores.

What in the FUCK are you TALKING about?!

Interestingly enough, this is not the first time this aspect of this story has come onto my radar this month. The investigators (CBC) briefly mentioned an article outlining both some of the nonsense that embassy staff has been having to deal with on account to Assange AND their growing anger with the horrible hygiene demonstrated by Assange (including a disgusting litter box). A story I would come across the next day in Wired Magazine. The whole thing reminded me of an ex-roommate endured by a friend a year or so ago. A seemingly mature adult man with a job. But also a man that didn’t purchase anything for himself to eat, nor clean any of his messes afterward. Dishes literally rusted away in the sink for months, even after he was booted from the wifi with a not so subtle message (Network Name: *SoAndSo* Do Dishes).

And so the ordeal went on until he had no choice but to evict since my friend himself was moving. Not that it helped matters. He just left the mess (of which included full 2 and 4L bottles of urine.  Keep in mind, this bedroom had its own adjoining bathroom). All this garbage of which was left on the front lawn of his parents (the guys then new address).

Fitting, really. I didn’t learn NOT to be a disgusting pig out of my own volition. There was guidance (at least from one parent).

All of which makes this latest Assange revelation all the more amusing. Also of which makes the Hedges (and no doubt, others) reaction a bit perplexing. Is it not fair that one would expect a tenant or houseguest to behave in a clean and/or sanitary manner? And if household chores are demeaning, does this mean that it’s the job of the embassy staff? Not to mention that it makes me a bit inquisitive of personal beliefs. Would it be demeaning to you, Christopher Hedges, to do household chores? Considering many of the areas in which your activism covers, this blatant display of seemingly unrealized privilege stands in stark contrast.

I am likely very wrong about this. Even so, the idiocy of the criticism still stands out.

Also on the topic of house rules, the censorship of him from the internet comes to mind. The last reason I found from the embassy was that he was using embassy equipment to access pornography and other related stuff. If I were in charge of IT at an EMBASSY (let alone THAT embassy), I would probably have a heart attack if I found this out too. Particularly if the device was not isolated to its own broadband connection.

Then there are the potential political implications of some of the things that Assange was seemingly up to in the realms of the world wide web. Though the treasure trove of Russian origin DNC and Hillary emails can’t really be attributed to Assange (innocent until proven guilty), he has tried ONCE to open a backchannel since then. Unfortunately for him, it was with an amused imposter of the real figure (who had been booted from Twitter temporarily).

The fake Sean Hannity Twitter account had only been up for a few hours, but apparently that’s all it took to fool Julian Assange into sliding into the account’s DMs, offering information on Sen. Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Senate committee investigating Russian meddling in the presidential election.

The drama began when the real Fox New host’s Twitter was briefly taken down Friday night. Soon after, Dell Gilliam, a technical writer from Texas, created an account with the handle @SeanHannity__, quickly earning 24,000 followers — and the attention of the founder of WikiLeaks, the secret document-dump service that the CIA director has called a “hostile intelligence service.”

There, Assange defenders, is your fucking red pill. Swallow that shit and quit making me want to wolf my cookies with your endless praise of this mans utmost respect for freedom.

As for political implications, consider the place of the Ecuadorian government in this. For the Assange unaffiliated data dump of before, they hold no culpability on what can’t be proven. But in a case where the man was caught RED HANDED in an attempt to AGAIN influence the internal politics of a sovereign nation, the stakes become much more . . . tricky.
Just him using the broadband connection of the Embassy itself could be seen as an acceptance of the activity itself. And even if that is not the case, just allowing him to reside in the embassy could count as a similar expression of consent. As if associating with the rest of the Western powers wasn’t already challenging enough.

I don’t like Assange. No kidding!

Indeed, I come at this with a degree of bias. I have never really been on the Snowden/Assange/Manning as Hero’s bandwagon, to begin with. I attribute most of their infamy to the collective burying of peoples heads in the sand.

The NSA has become super good at what it always has been (collecting and sorting signals intelligence)? The US government has been involved in all manner of shocking and horrifying actions, both past and present?



America was fucking with the Latin and South American continents just as much (if not more) than they have been the middle east. If Iran and Saudi Arabia are the proxy powers of the middle east, then the USA is the Iran/Saudi Arabia of the Americas.

And America regards the refugees created by these foreign policy decisions in exactly the same way. And this was BEFORE Trump sent the military to the border. Long before.

As you can see, my irritation is not just reserved for the enemies of liberal principals. While I used to be harder on people for being so blind to the obvious (why are a bunch of social media addicts complaining about their loss of privacy?!), I eventually had to realize that not everyone is me. Most people don’t have the time (or the want) for contemplation that I have. Making the culmination of the Snowden/Assange/Manning leaks a public service.

But though I haven’t heard much about the other 2 (and really don’t have much to say about them), Assange has long since burned up any credibility that Wikileaks afforded him. And so has WikiLeaks, frankly. It’s almost unthinkable that someone in the RNC and it’s affiliated entities didn’t also get burnt. And indeed the hackers got into some old RNC and GOP domains (along with their email payload), but not the current setup. And despite it likely being impossible for there NOT to be anything interesting in even the old emails, none of it was ever released.

Quite the public service.

The Ecuadorians, reluctant to expel Assange after granting him political asylum and granting him citizenship, intend to make his existence so unpleasant he will agree to leave the embassy to be arrested by the British and extradited to the United States. The former president of Ecuador, Rafael Correa, whose government granted the publisher political asylum, describes Assange’s current living conditions as “torture.”

His mother, Christine Assange, said in a recent video appeal, “Despite Julian being a multi-award-winning journalist, much loved and respected for courageously exposing serious, high-level crimes and corruption in the public interest, he is right now alone, sick, in pain—silenced in solitary confinement, cut off from all contact and being tortured in the heart of London. The modern-day cage of political prisoners is no longer the Tower of London. It’s the Ecuadorian Embassy.”

Good grief. I have seen less graphic descriptions of starving Yemeni children.

“Here are the facts,” she went on. “Julian has been detained nearly eight years without charge. That’s right. Without charge. For the past six years, the U.K. government has refused his request for access to basic health needs, fresh air, exercise, sunshine for vitamin D and access to proper dental and medical care. As a result, his health has seriously deteriorated. His examining doctors warned his detention conditions are life-threatening. A slow and cruel assassination is taking place before our very eyes in the embassy in London.”

“In 2016, after an in-depth investigation, the United Nations ruled that Julian’s legal and human rights have been violated on multiple occasions,” she said. “He’d been illegally detained since 2010. And they ordered his immediate release, safe passage and compensation. The U.K. government refused to abide by the U.N.’s decision. The U.S. government has made Julian’s arrest a priority. They want to get around a U.S. journalist’s protection under the First Amendment by charging him with espionage. They will stop at nothing to do it.”

“As a result of the U.S. bearing down on Ecuador, his asylum is now under immediate threat,” she said. “The U.S. pressure on Ecuador’s new president resulted in Julian being placed in a strict and severe solitary confinement for the last seven months, deprived of any contact with his family and friends. Only his lawyers could see him. Two weeks ago, things became substantially worse. The former president of Ecuador, Rafael Correa, who rightfully gave Julian political asylum from U.S. threats against his life and liberty, publicly warned when U.S. Vice President Mike Pence recently visited Ecuador a deal was done to hand Julian over to the U.S. He stated that because of the political costs of expelling Julian from their embassy was too high, the plan was to break him down mentally. A new, impossible, inhumane protocol was implemented at the embassy to torture him to such a point that he would break and be forced to leave.”

Again, I have to suspend my disdain in order to keep to my principals.

I’m not sure that I agree with the United States’s overzealous need to get their hands on and prosecute the man for at least his past crimes. It’s a bit of a grey zone for me because I know for a fact that some of the information put real living, breathing, people at undue risk. Yet at the same time, the reason that much information is flagged as classified is often that we don’t want the public privy to it. Sometimes for good reason, often times because . . . humans.

WHOOPS! Better sweep that under the rug . . .

And if there is something to this speculated partnership with the United States to break Assange down mentally that goes beyond conspiracy theory, then, of course, I don’t condone this.

Frankly, it’s hard to make heads or tails out of any of this due to the sources of all the information. Of course a loving mother is going to describe in great detail every single trail of her own flesh and blood.

Assange was once feted and courted by some of the largest media organizations in the world, including The New York Times and The Guardian, for the information he possessed. But once his trove of material documenting U.S. war crimes, much of it provided by Chelsea Manning, was published by these media outlets he was pushed aside and demonized. A leaked Pentagon document prepared by the Cyber Counterintelligence Assessments Branch dated March 8, 2008, exposed a black propaganda campaign to discredit WikiLeaks and Assange. The document said the smear campaign should seek to destroy the “feeling of trust” that is WikiLeaks’ “center of gravity” and blacken Assange’s reputation. It largely has worked. Assange is especially vilified for publishing 70,000 hacked emails belonging to the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and senior Democratic officials. The Democrats and former FBI Director James Comey say the emails were copied from the accounts of John Podesta, Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, by Russian government hackers. Comey has said the messages were probably delivered to WikiLeaks by an intermediary. Assange has said the emails were not provided by “state actors.”

My god, Christopher Hedges really does have his head WAY up his ass on this one.

The Democratic Party—seeking to blame its election defeat on Russian “interference” rather than the grotesque income inequality, the betrayal of the working class, the loss of civil liberties, the deindustrialization and the corporate coup d’état that the party helped orchestrate—attacks Assange as a traitor, although he is not a U.S. citizen. Nor is he a spy. He is not bound by any law I am aware of to keep U.S. government secrets. He has not committed a crime. Now, stories in newspapers that once published material from WikiLeaks focus on his allegedly slovenly behavior—not evident during my visits with him—and how he is, in the words of The Guardian, “an unwelcome guest” in the embassy. The vital issue of the rights of a publisher and a free press is ignored in favor of snarky character assassination.

Assange was granted asylum in the embassy in 2012 to avoid extradition to Sweden to answer questions about sexual offense charges that were eventually dropped. Assange feared that once he was in Swedish custody he would be extradited to the United States. The British government has said that, although he is no longer wanted for questioning in Sweden, Assange will be arrested and jailed for breaching his bail conditions if he leaves the embassy.

1.) Yes, the Democratic Party has not yet honestly assessed their reasons for losing the most winnable election in American history. The only thing more terrifying than the goings on in the Whitehouse in the past 2 years (which has become eerily reminiscent of the Ministry of Magic in Deathly Hollows Parts I and II) are the reactions of the DNC. An organization that seems to have learned NOTHING.

Actually no, that’s wrong. They seem to have only picked up on a very BAD lesson. The need for a celebrity candidate. I don’t care who it is . . . for the love of GOD, not now!

And as for Hillary . . . BACK THE FUCK OFF! I like you, I think you would have been an acceptable president (extraordinary, given the current comparison), but none the less . . . step aside.

2.) I don’t like the casual way in which Hedges seems to deal with the sexual assault charges (the charges have been dropped). There are 2 victims listed in the article, listed as Miss A and Miss W. Both allege that a consensual sexual encounter become non-consensual when Assange refused to wear a condom.

Imagine that.

Either way, Miss A’s charges went away because the statute of limitations expired. The charges related to the Miss W encounter don’t expire until 2020. He WAS arrested on those charges already (in Britan, as asked to do so by Sweeden), but was bailed out by high-level supporters and fellow journalists.

Next, it looks like Britan decided to extradite Assange back to Sweeden to face the music. By this point, the Wikileaks stuff had blown up and the FBI wanted him as well, throwing another kink into this international mess. Assange’s lawyers unsuccessfully fought the extradition (fearing Sweeden would allow his extradition to the US), so he sought refuge in the Ecuadorian embassy for the past 8 years.

I don’t fully agree with how the Americans have been playing this. But it is also unfortunate that the initial sexual assaults seemed to fall by the wayside to this mess. No doubt because they are unimportant, given the context.

It’s an oversight of the many. Welcome to the patriarchy!

But given the last topic in which I and Christopher Hedges butted heads on, I am a bit disappointed at the lack of oxygen given to this important aspect of the story. The charges stemming from the Wikileaks stuff was on top of the other stuff. NOT the show with a side of sexual assault.

By the looks of things, the 2020 charges may well also expire in the shadow of the persecuted messiah Julian story. Is this right?

WikiLeaks and Assange have done more to expose the dark machinations and crimes of the American Empire than any other news organization. Assange, in addition to exposing atrocities and crimes committed by the United States military in our endless wars and revealing the inner workings of the Clinton campaign, made public the hacking tools used by the CIA and the National Security Agency, their surveillance programs and their interference in foreign elections, including in the French elections. He disclosed the conspiracy against British Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn by Labour members of Parliament. And WikiLeaks worked swiftly to save Edward Snowden, who exposed the wholesale surveillance of the American public by the government, from extradition to the United States by helping him flee from Hong Kong to Moscow. The Snowden leaks also revealed, ominously, that Assange was on a U.S. “manhunt target list.”

What is happening to Assange should terrify the press. And yet his plight is met with indifference and sneering contempt. Once he is pushed out of the embassy, he will be put on trial in the United States for what he published. This will set a new and dangerous legal precedent that the Trump administration and future administrations will employ against other publishers, including those who are part of the mob trying to lynch Assange. The silence about the treatment of Assange is not only a betrayal of him but a betrayal of the freedom of the press itself. We will pay dearly for this complicity.

Dear lord. The last person to be persecuted as brutally as Assange is being (allegedly!) may well be Jesus Christ himself.

Uh . . . Assange helped to expose the inner workings (and failings) of pretty much every governing body with which his organization would come to touch on. WE GET IT.

Can we now be honest?

Be honest in saying that the man who should terrify the press (I guess that also includes me now) does not give a flying FUCK about the freedoms he has become the poster boy of? Do I really have to mention “SEAN HANNITY BACKCHANNEL!!” again?!

Even if the Russians provided the Podesta emails to Assange, he should have published them. I would have. They exposed practices of the Clinton political machine that she and the Democratic leadership sought to hide. In the two decades I worked overseas as a foreign correspondent I was routinely leaked stolen documents by organizations and governments. My only concern was whether the documents were forged or genuine. If they were genuine, I published them. Those who leaked material to me included the rebels of the Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front (FMLN); the Salvadoran army, which once gave me blood-smeared FMLN documents found after an ambush; the Sandinista government of Nicaragua; the Israeli intelligence service, the Mossad; the Federal Bureau of Investigation; the Central Intelligence Agency; the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) rebel group; the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO); the French intelligence service, Direction Générale de la Sécurité Extérieure, or DGSE; and the Serbian government of Slobodan Milosovic, who was later tried as a war criminal.

We learned from the emails published by WikiLeaks that the Clinton Foundation received millions of dollars from Saudi Arabia and Qatar, two of the major funders of Islamic State. As secretary of state, Hillary Clinton paid her donors back by approving $80 billion in weapons sales to Saudi Arabia, enabling the kingdom to carry out a devastating war in Yemen that has triggered a humanitarian crisis, including widespread food shortages and a cholera epidemic, and left close to 60,000 dead. We learned Clinton was paid $675,000 for speaking at Goldman Sachs, a sum so massive it can only be described as a bribe. We learned Clinton told the financial elites in her lucrative talks that she wanted “open trade and open borders” and believed Wall Street executives were best-positioned to manage the economy, a statement that directly contradicted her campaign promises. We learned the Clinton campaign worked to influence the Republican primaries to ensure that Donald Trump was the Republican nominee. We learned Clinton obtained advance information on primary-debate questions. We learned, because 1,700 of the 33,000 emails came from Hillary Clinton, she was the primary architect of the war in Libya. We learned she believed that the overthrow of Moammar Gadhafi would burnish her credentials as a presidential candidate. The war she sought has left Libya in chaos, seen the rise to power of radical jihadists in what is now a failed state, triggered a massive exodus of migrants to Europe, seen Libyan weapon stockpiles seized by rogue militias and Islamic radicals throughout the region, and resulted in 40,000 dead. Should this information have remained hidden from the American public? You can argue yes, but you can’t then call yourself a journalist.

Is that a strawman?

I don’t disagree. The information had its rightful place in the public discourse. But so to, did the emails snatched from the old Republican server.

This is not partisanship. This is integrity. Frankly, me holding Hedges to his own standards.

“They are setting my son up to give them an excuse to hand him over to the U.S., where he would face a show trial,” Christine Assange warned. “Over the past eight years, he has had no proper legal process. It has been unfair at every single turn with much perversion of justice. There is no reason to consider that this would change in the future. The U.S. WikiLeaks grand jury, producing the extradition warrant, was held in secret by four prosecutors but no defense and no judge. The U.K.-U.S. extradition treaty allows for the U.K. to extradite Julian to the U.S. without a proper basic case. Once in the U.S., the National Defense Authorization Act allows for indefinite detention without trial. Julian could very well be held in Guantanamo Bay and tortured, sentenced to 45 years in a maximum-security prison, or face the death penalty. My son is in critical danger because of a brutal, political persecution by the bullies in power whose crimes and corruption he had courageously exposed when he was editor in chief of WikiLeaks.”

Assange is on his own. Each day is more difficult for him. This is by design. It is up to us to protest. We are his last hope, and the last hope, I fear, for a free press.

I puked in my mouth a little, there.

A man that helped fascism AGAIN regain a foothold in the liberal democracies of the western world, is the last hope for a free press.

Give me a break.

 “We need to make our protest against this brutality deafening,” his mother said. “I call on all you journalists to stand up now because he’s your colleague and you are next. I call on all you politicians who say you entered politics to serve the people to stand up now. I call on all you activists who support human rights, refugees, the environment, and are against war, to stand up now because WikiLeaks has served the causes that you spoke for and Julian is now suffering for it alongside of you. I call on all citizens who value freedom, democracy and a fair legal process to put aside your political differences and unite, stand up now. Most of us don’t have the courage of our whistleblowers or journalists like Julian Assange who publish them, so that we may be informed and warned about the abuses of power.”

I call on you, the information-consuming public, to drop whatever illusions you may still have about the intentions of Wikileaks and Jullian Assange. Your failure to do so, I fear, places you at odds with the promoters of liberal values and hand in hand with the perpetrators of illiberal fascism. Of all the things I never thought I would say of Christopher Hedges, that one is WAY up on the list.

Jullian Assange should face a fair trial in the context of both sets of charges in which he is accused. But it’s time to drop the messiah complex that has infected seemingly every iota of reporting in terms of Jullian Assange. At one time, he did the world a great public service. As time went on, it would seem that he was more driven by an agenda than anything else. Though he was once a poster child of freedom and liberty, those days are LONG gone. Claims for which can now be backed with real-world evidence (as of January 2018).

Jullian Assange is no hero. It’s time to give up the illusion.

Is Julian Assange Holding Out On Us? 

Todays big story gave me a bit of a chuckle. Trump supporters (and Hillary dislikers alike, really) got quite a surprise from Assange, when he didn’t effectively end Hillary’s career, as many were expecting. In fact, not only did he not drop anything on that front, he also used the limelight to plug his new book.

So, the October surprise was . . . his new book? 

If that was the plan all along, well played. He forced people to listen to his speech in its entirety. And he got (or, will get) to ride the wave of free publicity that comes with annoyed people venting on social media about his trickery (and of course, the media coverage). If that was the plan all along, again, well played. He baited the hook, and they bit down hard. 

A part of me wonders if there is more to this, however. 

Wikileaks exists for the purpose of transparency. How much transparency is necessary (and where one draws the line) is debatable. But the organization has a purpose. One that im thinking has kept a lot of people more on their toes than they would have ever thought necessary before. 

But as they say, with great power  comes great responsibility. To be Assange or Wikileaks, is to have great power. Though one can argue that transparency overrides all other considerations, there are situations in which real world threats may be attached to the release of a given set information.  Or if not an explicit threat, than an overt amount of influence. 

Back when this wikileaks stuff got big, a couple people I know  were angry, because some of the releaseses may have put close acquaintances of theirs at risk. I suspect them to be judged as acceptable collateral to the bigger picture that is transparency. 

What we have with possible Hillary information however, it  is not as much danger (though one could also argue that hypothesis) as it is the possibility of influencing a national election. One with a baboon for a Republican candidate, no less. 

Which makes me wonder . . . is Assange holding out because he views (as many people of intellectual capacity have in recent months) Trump as genuinely dangorous? Is he holding out because he does not want to interfer with the democratic process of a nation? Or was it all just a bluff after all? 

At this point, I guess we will see. If the information was extremely damning, I doubt that Assange or Wikileaks would hold onto it. As for the conspiracy angle (the DNC threatened Assange!), I highly doubt it. If he still walks this earth after the releases up until now, I doubt the DNC offers any threat. 

Either way, I guess we will know once November 2ed is upon us.