Assange lawyer: Trump offered WikiLeaker a pardon in exchange for denying Russia hacked Democrats' email Julian Assange was offered a pardon by the White House only if he publicly said Russia did not hack the Democratic National Committee, according to the WikiLeaks supremo's lawyer. The bombshell came on Wednesday in Westminster Magistrates' Court amid Assange's attempt to block his extradition from the UK to the US – where he …
"The President barely knows Dana Rohrabacher other than he’s an ex-congressman. He’s never spoken to him on this subject or almost any subject. It is is a complete fabrication and a total lie."
This is what Trump says when he knows the person very well and definitely colluded with him. So, on that basis, Assange is telling the truth.
"The court declaration is a stunning about-face for Assange and WikiLeaks, which have to this point vehemently denied any coordination between its public release of the stolen DNC emails and the Russian government or its agents[...]"
This isn't an about-face from Assange. He said that Trump wanted him to say that Russia wasn't involved. He didn't say it was.
These days do you know, and can prove, who the sources are of anything delivered via the Internet. Assange always posted what he was given, he never investigated the sources enough to know for certain what the sources were although the FBI is convinced (without access to Assange) that the source was Russia
It was Trump who publicly asked the Russians to hack the Democrat systems prior to the election.
It was Trump who publicly asked the Russians to hack the Democrat systems prior to the election.
I don't recall this. I do remember him mockingly suggesting that they might, if they hacked Clinton's email server, be able to provide the emails that had mysteriously vanished and could thus not be used as further evidence of breaking the law.
Did I miss something?
Oh please. It was obvious at the time, and remains obvious now, that he was referring to the alleged hack by Russia of Clinton's emails THAT HAD ALREADY TAKEN PLACE.
Well, obvious to anybody not trying to use his joke to deflect from Clinton having an illegal email server that was allegedly hacked by Russia.
Clearly. Luckily you've helped me by providing context and an explanation of what it was in particular that I missed on this occasion, that means that I appear to remember events very differently to so many other people.
Yes, that's sarcasm. Now ask yourself why I felt the need to clarify this to you.
Balls. complete Balls, and just the sort of lies that the lefties love to push.
It was in a debate and the issue of the 33,000 odd emails that Hilary Clinton had deleted (while under a subpoena to supply !), and scrubbed from her own internal server. Trump's comment was that the Russians probably already had those emails anyway and the ironic suggestion is that maybe the Russians could then release them. BTW, funny how some people with the right connections can completely defy things like subpoenas for documents and suffer zero legal consequences, while others are persecuted for nebulous process crimes and receive prison sentences.
Zero to do with the DNC "hack" which was probably an inside leak not a hack. The DNC emails were remarkably anodyne and had little of interest as they only concerned half a dozen or so mostly admin people. The real meat came from the phish into Podesta's email account which was accessed by fooling him into changing his password via a faked webpage. Phished via a technique used by thousands of script-kiddies world wide.
I love the way trumptards throw around the word 'liberal' as an insult, and then go on to explain why it's really not important that their orange jesus fucks porn stars while his third wife is pregnant.
Those kind of attitudes seem really rather... erm... liberal.
Then again, Bill C got a blowjob from a consenting intern, and they exploded with rage.
I am pretty sure when this is all over, Trumpism will be revealed as some kind of brain disease, probably created by the russians.
Love the way brain-dead "liberals" through around meaningless terms like "trumptard" and think they are being sooooo clever.
Love the misogynistic beliefs that it is OK to have an abusive power trip sexually exploiting young women just because you profess to have the right belief set. Probably Nerry Tutkins has his own souvenir set of Cigars with that special aroma to remind of his hero.
serious Swiss Professors were complaining about media bias in July last year
https://www.kcrw.com/culture/shows/scheer-intelligence/the-media-is-complicit-in-julian-assanges-torture
and seven years ago too
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/mar/12/bradley-manning-cruel-inhuman-treatment-un
but I accept that other people have a different viewpoint, such as Assange's senior judge, Lady Arbuthnbot, if one can believe the documents that these wikileaks people reveal:-
https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2019-11-14-julian-assanges-judge-and-her-husbands-links-to-the-british-military-establishment-exposed-by-wikileaks/
but No Conflict of Interest, nope, look at the orange guy instead....
"The repeated extradition warrants when Obama was President"
Why would there be an extradition warrant when he was holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy in London while being sought for an extradition warrant to Sweden where the UK courts would have been reluctant to send him to Sweden if there was an existing US warrant that the Swedes would act upon where the death penalty could apply?
Did you miss the whole story? The US, under Obama, were not going to make an extradition request until he was in Swedish custody. The only reason there is now an extradition hearing is because Sweden dropped their charges and the only way the US could get their hands on him is directly from the UK.
Also, and more importantly, Obama's administration tortured Bradley/Chelsea Manning with the intent of getting evidence that Assange/wikileaks actively encouraged and abetted Manning to access, export and pass on confidential information.
"Why would there be an extradition warrant when he was holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy in London while being sought for an extradition warrant to Sweden where the UK courts would have been reluctant to send him to Sweden if there was an existing US warrant that the Swedes would act upon where the death penalty could apply?"
Jeez, not this logical contortion again. An extradition request could have been served to the UK while he was in custody before he absconded. The UK would have had to hold an extradition hearing (like they're doing now) or send him to Sweden. If the US had served an extradition request to Sweden while he was in the UK, the same thing would have applied (but more likely Sweden would have correctly answered, he's not here, you morons).
If an extradition request was served on Sweden *after* he'd been sent there by the UK, then *Sweden* would have held a hearing (incidentally, they're less compliant with the US than the UK are on extradition) but the UK would also have to hold one as a consequence. In this scenario, *both* the UK and Sweden would have to agree to extradite.
"The US, under Obama, were not going to make an extradition request until he was in Swedish custody"
Again, entirely illogical - it was easier to extradite from the UK than it is from Sweden, even without considering that in the latter scenario, both countries would have had to agree to onwardly extradite from Sweden.
"more importantly, Obama's administration tortured Bradley/Chelsea Manning with the intent of getting evidence that Assange/wikileaks actively encouraged and abetted Manning to access, export and pass on confidential information."
I think you mean, more importantly, Obama did the only thing he could to intervene - he pardoned Chelsea Manning. I also don't think there's any question that's exactly what Assange did. The pertinent question seems to be, are those the actions of a journalist? The US thinks yes, the world seems to be split along the lines of whether they think Assange is a colossal tool or not.
@romandog In the words of the late Mr Rich's parents, you're a "disgusting sociopath".
The amount of evidence that the DNC server was hacked is enormous.
The amount of evidence support the disgusting sociopath's vile conspiracy theory is basically nil, beyond claims by other disgusting sociopath's like Newt Gingrich.
All you really need to know about this disgraceful attempt by romandog to further this vicious attempt to use Mr. Rich's death to further their political ends is that, even though Fox News reported the conspiracy theory, they, Fox News, later retracted it. So this is garbage that not even Fox News will print.
I'll close with statements from the victim's family:
"We simply want to find his killers and grieve. Instead, we are stuck having to constantly fight against non-facts, baseless allegations, and general stupidity to defend my brother's name and legacy." (Seth Rich's brother Aaron Rich)
"At this point, only people with transparent political agendas or sociopaths are still perpetuating Seth Rich conspiracies." (Family spokesman).
Here they are so sure of what they want to believe, they jump on anything that works their confirmation bias.
As it turns out, JA's lawyer flip-flopped on this, and the WH denial was not a lie. But almost no one here will go with the truth,as demonstrated with downvotes on every comment that tells it - no matter how easily verifiable. I read:
"Update: The story appears to have changed dramatically. According to Assange's lawyer, Rohrabacher, it was him that informed Gen. Kelly that "Assange would provide information about the purloined DNC emails in exchange for a pardon," but never heard back from the White House.
So, unlike Sky News entirely wrong fake news headline..."
See World News for this update.
There we go, a simple request for some evidential support for an assertion garners 13 downvotes and, surprise surprise, not a whiff of support for the assertion.
The Reg used to be populated by interesting folks. No longer it seems, just over run by retarded leftard commentards and associated trolls
Sorry, had a life to lead!
Anyway, here's a nice summary: https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democratic-national-committee/
Here's a report on actions that the US Government took (before the election) following the conclusions of the Intellgence Community: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/oct/07/us-russia-dnc-hack-interfering-presidential-election
Now run back to Moscow, AC!
Somehow I doubt that the vagaries of the Trump administration constitute a valid prosecution argument.
Let the man go and stop hounding him. Everyone has most certainly had their fair share of Assange pound of flesh. Believe you me, I am no supporter of Mr Assange.
Tim Pool has a different take on this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PezvKetZ34k
https://losangeles.cbslocal.com/video/3731570-rohrabacher-make-deal-with-assange-to-disprove-russia-claims/
--------------------------------------------------------
also, extradition to the USA should be illegal under the current Human right laws.
Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment (CAT)
https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/our-human-rights-work/monitoring-and-promoting-un-treaties/convention-against-torture-and-other
returning, expelling or extraditing someone to another country where there are real grounds to believe he or she will face torture
as the UK calls bar fetters, leg restraints and gang chains as items of torture and they are commonly used is the USA jail system.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/controls-on-torture-goods#legislation
"extradition to the USA should be illegal under the current Human right laws."
Ah yes, human rights. I'm sure our current, caring, sharing, Tory government will have human rights at the forefront of their minds...as they hand over anyone the US asks for. Of course, they also believe that the only humans who should have rights are the ones who went to the right schools, and run the right companies.
The only question is, will they repeal human rights legislation, or just ignore it, because they certainly won't obey it.
according to recent news, Julian was being seriously tortured and held in "medical" isolation - thats TORTURE in UK, way before anything the USians might have thought to do
which Human Rights managed to extricate him? - the Glasgow Professor/the UN Swiss Swedish speaking Nils? (nope, not him), the EU (nope), the CoE (Council of Europe - nope)
it was Belmarsh Inmates Prove More Ethical Than Entire Western Empire
the detained murderers, and assorted ne'er-do-wells who forced him into less torture, amazingly.
https://consortiumnews.com/2020/01/25/belmarsh-inmates-prove-more-ethical-than-entire-western-empire/
You link doesn't say anything about 'medical isolation' (isn't that just quarantine?).
The only evidence for the inmates being the reason he was released from solitary comes from the rarely-reliable wikileaks twitter feed, and does beg the question; why would the prison authorities listen to the prisoners?
If the prison governor is going to listen to the inmates, then that suggests a level of compassion that is unlikely, and also that they would have moved Assange out of solitary anyway. It's almost as if they took two events (Assange being sent to the medical wing, and the prisoners complaining), and said that one caused the other with no evidence other than wishful thinking.
I maintain that other people are welcome to their point of view on Assange - even the UN human rights torture guy thought Julian was a really bad guy - until he started to research further.
The 'medical isolation' and torture facts comes from the alt media, Craig Murray etc, the "100 concerned doctors" over the last year - it is obviously hardly reported on in the UK. Look for news on the 1000's of concerned senior journalists who signed the latest petition, out this week - I can't find it on Google. I noticed (from memory as I can't find this docu) that only a couple of BBC journalists consider Assange a journalist enough to sign that petition - I think John Sergeant was the only UK journo that I had heard of!
Well done John Sergeant, integrity & initiative - without being controlled, and thanks phuzz for your sensible questions. There is background on this matter, but you really have to dig for it.
The UK should demand Sacoolas in return, extradition only works if it benefits both sides.
Of course the UK won't, because as with Huawei and everything else, it's not taken back control, it's just exchanged a seat on the board of the largest single market in the word for being the bottom in a one-sided abusive relationship with the new hard-right American reich.
"The emails were credited with helping to turn public opinion in key US states against Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton and allow Trump to claim an upset victory in the Presidential election."
Please site someone that is not a democrat that actually supports that flimsy statement. Do you actually think that people didn't vote for Hillary because her email got hacked? Given the level of antagonism between party supporters, the likelihood that the email issue swayed an entire state is nothing but the excuse of a sore loser (And losers they are).
Oddly enough, this Anonymous Coward is demonstrating a comprehension failure!
The claim is that the email incident _was credited_ with altering the result. It is NOT that the email incident _altered_ the result.
The first is undeniably true, even if the AC doesn't approve of the people who did the crediting (oddly enough, AC discounts all democrats, which includes people who know far more about it than he does, such as the President of the United States at the time).
I generally agree that it it's impossible to determine, and generally unproductive to spend a lot of time considering WHETHER public opinion turned enough to change the election result. But it is certainly prudent to note that Comey's failure to follow policy had an impact.
Personally, I think it appropriate to criminalize and prosecute officials who disregard policy with regards to elections, an I think the statute of limitations should be longer than the term of anyone being elected (perhaps being suspended for the duration that the accused is in office). So I think Trump's violations of campaign finance laws should be prosecuted once he leaves office...
So you would support the prosecution of Democrat offenders as well ? Like the money laundering that the Clinton-owned DNC did for the 2016 election (it is illegal for the party apparatus to be used to get around the individual donation limits, and when individuals contribute $216,345.25 to the DNC and the DNC passes on $216,345.16 to the Clinton campaign that is pretty strong evidence that those laws are being broken. Complaint has been laid with electoral commission, but Democrat chairperson refuses to pass it on to be investigated) ?
Prosecute one HRC for deliberately deleting emails that were under subpoena at the time ?
Or are we, in typical leftist fashion, assuming that laws are for the "little people" and they don't apply to the self appointed managers of our lives ?
And you also have a bit of a stretch to prove that Trump violated campaign finance laws, although Cohen pleaded guilty to such there's a pretty strong case to be made that he pleaded guilty to a non-crime as part of a political deal to attempt to get at Trump, and on his part to get a reduced sentence for real tax and other (non-Trump related) crimes he was guilty of.
Hi, little coward!
Yes, I would support the prosecution of Democrats.
But sadly for your desperate efforts to muddy the waters, the HRC/subpoena issue was one raised by TRUMP, and is not even vaguely actionable. The subpoena, a copy of which you can read for you little self online (Google "Kendall.Clinton Subpoena - 2015.03.04.pdf" and pick the one from the house.gov server) specifically requires production of documents related to the Benghazi attacks in Libya.
It is not, as you wish to imply, a some kind of blanket records preservation order. So there was no issue whatsoever in deleting emails PROVIDED that they had nothing to do with the subject of the subpoena.
Obviously, because you're a deranged half-witted troll (possibly in the pay of Russia), you'll assert with no evidence that all the deleted emails contained TOTES TOPPIMOST SUPER DUPER SECRETIVE info that should have been disclosed, but there is no evidence that they did (and given that emails typically leave copies around the place -- both at the sender and receiver's end -- it's hard to sustain that claim absent, say, evidence!
Meanwhile, note that Trump's daughter has been selecting which emails are required to be preserved, but I haven't noticed you getting all excitingly frothy over that (I know, your boss only pays you to obfuscate Trump's wrongdoings!)
Lastly, it's not even a teeny-tiny stretch to prove that the man who paid Stormy Daniels via Cohen didn't report it! We KNOW this because TRUMP said he repaid Cohen (first via Giuliani, then directly stating that was via $35K retainer payments...).
We also have the "oops" about the criminal Trump Foundation paying for campaign expenses...
It's pretty self-evidently obvious to anyone with even a half-functioning brain cell who was folloing the presidential election, that the emails had an effect. Just by looking at the polling. Clinton's polling numbers would often drop after yet another leak from Assange (who was doling out the emails slowly rather tha putting them all out at once as Wikileaks normally do).
Also, when Comey put out the story about the FBI investigating the emails again, I seem to recall Clinton had built up a decent polling lead - which instantly disappeared.
Plus Assange appeared (hard to prove of course) to time his releases to when Trump was doing badly. The one I remember being a bunch of emails release soon after the grabbing-them-by-the-pussy tape got published. Of course this might not have been collusion with the Trump campaign, but just Assange being anti-Cllinton for his own reasons (or him colluding with Russia) - or equally could just be him attention seeking, as he had his hands on a big story and leaking it slowly gave him more control and publicity.
I'm sure it wasn't the only reason Clinton lost though. I've read enough stuff from polling experts to know that small variations are usually just random sampling errors and to be ignored. Plus the reasons politicians/commentators settle on for why polls move, aren't always the actual reasons. See the Corbyn supporters saying that they just lost an election because of Labour's Brexit stance alone, and nothing to do with their leader being the most unpopular party leader in British polling history.
Clinton didn't enthuse her own supporters, and had the email scandal, but nonetheless won the popular vote. I suspect that the reason she lost was arrogance, in that the Democrats cut campaigning in states in the mid-West they thought they'd won, and moved resources to try and win in normally Republican states like Arizona. If they'd been less greedy they might well have won the election. Obviously it's nice to get a bigger majority, but you need to make sure you're winning in your traditional heartlands first.
See Labour in 2019 shifting campaigning resources from the North to try to win seats off the Lib Dems in the South - and also pouring campaigners into the seats of the defectors from Labour who'd gone to the Lib Dems - which probably gave a few seats to the Conservatives they'd have otherwise lost. While also starving their Northern heartlands of resources to stave off the Conservative wins up there. I've seen analysis that suggests just targeting those resources better would have seen the Tory majority being 40-50 now instead of 80.
I, an unaffiliated voter, did not vote for Hillary partly because of the email issue - not because of the hacking, but because she set up a private server (no issue with that, I used to have one) that handled government emails, despite being warned repeatedly not to (which she lied about), some of which were classified (which she lied about), and even marked classified (which she lied about).
In other words, it wasn't that her email got hacked - it's that she willfully broke federal law by using private email for marked-classified messages, and then lied about practically every part of it.
Unfortunately, breaking that particular federal law seems to be a thing you just do. I seem to remember some of Bush's team using non-government email addresses in order to circumvent having their emails archived. Then Obama's team doing the same (there was an ex-Google boss hired in as a tech advisor to the President using a gmail account for example). Plus Clinton of course.
I've also read that Trump tears up loads of official correspondence (breaking a Federal law on archiving) and the White House employ people to go through his bins and stick it all back together again with sellotape!
US politicians need to make laws and then fucking stick to them. Or if they can't, change the laws. And you can't shout at the other side, when you're also doing it. And that means some kind of reform of the awful campaign finance. I think the last Presidential election (plus house and senate for that year) cost a total of $4 billion! In a UK election the record spending by one party is about £20m - OK we've only got 20% of the US population - so scale that up to the most expensive of our elections costing an equivalent of about $350m dollars. That's what Bloomberg has spent on the Democratic Primaries alone! Although admittedly an unprecedentedly high figure. But he's not finished spending yet. Although at least he's in little danger of taking bribes I suppose...
If you need to raise these eye-wateringly huge amounts of cash, you guarantee massive corruption and vote-buying. What we need is a bit more discipline from politicians.
HRC was on the 2016 ballot, the others weren't.
HRC and #44 were the SOURCE of her credibility problems. Without the appalling Benghazi incident where Americans died while BO and HRC skived off, her and the administration's subsequent mendacious statements about the incident and subsequent damage control trying to weasel their way out of responsibility, there would NEVER have been an email scandal!
Using private email servers for secure government business is retarded and specifically illegal. Ding them all, Republicans and Democrats.
While it's fun to claim the reason people used personal email addresses was to circumvent records laws, the much more likely explanation is the one that multiple people have offered: the US Government is crap at IT
Colin Powell, when he had Hilary's job as SecState, gave the same rationale as Clinton on the use of personal Emails: the security folks had gotten confused about who the boss was. It is not IT's job to tell the boss what to do, but rather to facilitate delivery pf the boss's needs. Clinton asked for a secure "blackberry" (actually made by General Dynamics, as Obama used), and the twats at State refused. So she used her own setup. SecState is the most senior cabinet post in the government...
As regards the classified information issue: precisely three (of 30,000) emails contained even partial security markings, and those were the (C) for Confidential ones. A total of 110 messages contained classified material at the time.
HOWEVER, the effort to throw political mud at Clinton ignores the fact that those 110 messages should not have been sent on unclassified email, regardless whether the unclass email servers were run by the State Department, Clinton, or AOL! So this is not an issue concerned with personal servers, just a perfectly conventional "information mishandling" issue. The State Department is also obfuscating this point because they don't want to look to see who else has been sending sensitive information on the wrong side of the red/black divide...
No Rs were ever going to vote for her, and a lot of Ds refused to vote for her simply because of the way the DNC handled Sanders, not because of her emails. The emails are just an easy excuse, so they don't have to be honest about it.
The way Sanders is polling now, they're going to have to pull something again, we'll see what they come up with now. I personally don't understand why they let a person who runs as an Independent run with their party anyways.
Precisely: Pardons are generally written to be inclusive of unindicted crimes as well as indicted ones, in theory to avoid any double jeopardy confusion (does jeopardy attach if you're convicted of a crime for a related act, and then pardoned?).
For example, racist ex-sherrif Joe Arpaio was technically not convicted, as although the jury had found him guilty, the judge had not sentenced him (in certain circumstances, a judge can overturn a jury conviction... that wasn't going to happen with Arpaio, but it's why he had not technically been convicted as he awaited sentencing -- found guilty, but not yet convicted). Trump pardoned him as a sop to his fellow racists and as part of Trump's strategy of demonizing Latinos.
Trump's pardon included the phrase "for any other offenses under Chapter 21 of Title 18, United States Code that might arise, or be charged, in connection with Melendres v. Arpaio".
Oddly enough, Trump pardoned Arpaio "for his conviction" before he'd actually been convicted (see above, he was awaiting sentencing), so a purist might argue that the part of the pardon was moot, and it's only the second part ("for any other offenses...") that truly applies. Of course, it doesn't actually matter, as no Federal prosecutor or judge is going to try to upset that particular apple cart.
Fortunately, though, no state prosecutor need give a flying fig what Trump did, as the Trump cannot pardon anyone for state crimes. Which is unfortunate for, err, him...
Presidents have also issued mass pardons, such as John Adams' general amnesty for participants in Fries's Rebellion, and Johnson pardoned nearly everyone who had been in the Confederacy. In all Johnson pardoned over 7000 people. Truman pardoned around 1500 draft-dodgers. Eisenhower introduced a new type of "master warrant" for mass pardons, and also delegated pardon authority to his AG; someone later (Bush 1.0?) established an office of Pardon Attorney.
Those mass pardons frequently include people who haven't been charged yet, and sometimes people who haven't even been identified yet.
No one should even have an extradition case, let alone be extradited to the US until Anne Sacoolas is extradited from the US for Harry Dunns death.
Plenty of reasons not send Assange to the barbaric third world like american jail system anyway.
Time to undo Blairs extradition gift to America too as it was not in the interest of the UK, much like his illegal war.
The source is a certain "Dana Rohrabacher" and not Assange. Rohrabacher is a republican member of congress, who has been known for lying through his teeth for decades now. Amongst other things, the human turd is an admirer of Putin.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dana_Rohrabacher
Life in a US prison might be the only way to longevity, I don't see Assange being allowed to live very long if he's released back into the real world. He's got the dirty on a number of people and we all know how certain "authorities" react to people they don't like. Novichok cocktail anyone?
No dog in this fight but if the following is true then the claim makes little sense-
WikiLeaks, in two tweets after Wednesday’s hearing, seemed to confirm that a presidential pardon had been offered to Assange, but also said that the offer came 10 months “after Julian Assange had already independently stated that Russia was not the source of the DNC publication.”
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/02/19/trump-offered-julian-assange-pardon-for-covering-up-russian-hacking.html
"Assange had first sought asylum at the Ecuadorean embassy in 2012 to avoid extradition to Sweden, where he was accused of sexual assault."
An impartial reporter wanting to share all the facts would have written,
"Assange had first sought asylum at the Ecuadorean embassy in 2012 to avoid extradition to Sweden, where he was accused of sexual assault , a country from which US renditions outside legal frameworks had previously been sanctioned".
Assange wasn't principally worried about the sexual assault case. Nor was he overly concerned about formal extradition from Sweden. The REAL threat was "rendition", something Sweden had previously allowed. Paranoid? Maybe. But the facts on the ground are that Sweden was happy to allow rendition from Sweden by the US to destinations unknown.
When Malcolm Rifkind was chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament he forwarded his work emails to his BT account. I know that because I emailed his parliamentary account at 3am one Saturday and got a reply ten minutes later from his BT account. That and the fact that official US mail servers are so often hacked are reasons I'm sanguine - unimpressed but unsurprised - about US political email leaks.
Nobody should be extradited from the UK to the US unless they are a fugitive US citizen who committed their crimes on US soil. US courts are political, US prisons are barbaric.
I don't believe Russia was involved in the various email hacks, but they were and are definitely mucking around in the US elections. Beating up Assange in a '24' scenario won't affect that, and I suspect it's not intended to. Amnesty International correctly ascribes it as a deliberate 'chilling effect' against journalists.
"The US government’s unrelenting pursuit of Julian Assange for having published disclosed documents that included possible war crimes committed by the US military is nothing short of a full-scale assault on the right to freedom of expression,” said Massimo Moratti, Amnesty International’s Deputy Europe Director.“The potential chilling effect on journalists and others who expose official wrongdoing by publishing information disclosed to them by credible sources could have a profound impact on the public's right to know what their government is up to. All charges against Assange for such activities must be dropped."
Edit to add: Tory MPs all use Signal today. That change is not for state security, it's because they were getting caught out on sexual and financial scandals.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
