Jean-Francois Millet Harvesters Resting1850-53
Former UK diplomat Craig Murray is quite upbeat.
If a Russian opposition politician were dragged out by armed police, and within three hours had been convicted on a political charge by a patently biased judge with no jury, with a lengthy jail sentence to follow, can you imagine the Western media reaction to that kind of kangaroo court? Yet that is exactly what just happened in London. District Judge Michael Snow is a disgrace to the bench who deserves to be infamous well beyond his death. He displayed the most plain and open prejudice against Assange in the 15 minutes it took for him to hear the case and declare Assange guilty, in a fashion which makes the dictators’ courts I had witnessed, in Babangida’s Nigeria or Karimov’s Uzbekistan, look fair and reasonable, in comparison to the gross charade of justice conducted by Michael Snow.
One key fact gave away Snow’s enormous prejudice. Julian Assange said nothing during the whole brief proceedings, other than to say “Not guilty” twice, and to ask a one sentence question about why the charges were changed midway through this sham “trial”. Yet Judge Michael Snow condemned Assange as “narcissistic”. There was nothing that happened in Snow’s brief court hearing that could conceivably have given rise to that opinion. It was plainly something he brought with him into the courtroom, and had read or heard in the mainstream media or picked up in his club. It was in short the very definition of prejudice, and “Judge” Michael Snow and his summary judgement is a total disgrace.
We wrapped up the final Wikileaks and legal team meeting at 21.45 tonight and thereafter Kristian Hrafnsson and I had dinner together. The whole team, including Julian, is energised rather than downhearted. At last there is no more hiding for the pretend liberals behind ludicrous Swedish allegations or bail jumping allegations, and the true motive – revenge for the Chelsea Manning revelations – is now completely in the open.
Deport this clown.
Julian Assange has been branded a “narcissist” by a judge as he faces both a UK prison sentence and being extradited to the US. The Metropolitan Police said the Australian hacker was initially detained at the Ecuadorian embassy for failing to surrender to court. He had been summoned in 2012 over an alleged rape in Sweden, where authorities are now considering reopening their investigation into those allegations.After arriving at a London police station on Thursday morning, the 47-year-old was additionally arrested on behalf of the US under an extradition warrant.
Mr Assange was taken to Westminster Magistrates’ Court and found guilty of breaching bail hours later. He faces a jail sentence of up to a year. He denied the offence, with lawyers arguing that he had a “reasonable excuse” could not expect a fair trial in the UK as its purpose was to “secure his delivery” to the US. District Judge Michael Snow described the defence as “laughable”, adding: “Mr Assange’s behaviour is that of a narcissist who cannot get beyond his own selfish interests. He hasn’t come close to establishing ‘reasonable excuse’.” He remanded Mr Assange in custody ahead of a future sentencing hearing at Southwark Crown Court.
“Assange will be convicted of the felony of causing embarrassment in the first degree.”
The key to prosecuting Assange has always been to punish him without again embarrassing the powerful figures made mockeries by his disclosures. That means to keep him from discussing how the U.S. government launched an unprecedented surveillance program that scooped up the emails and communications of citizens without a warrant or probable cause. He cannot discuss how Democratic and Republican members either were complicit or incompetent in their oversight. He cannot discuss how the public was lied to about the program. A glimpse of that artificial scope was seen within minutes of the arrest. CNN brought on its national security analyst, James Clapper, former director of national intelligence.
CNN never mentioned that Clapper was accused of perjury in denying the existence of the National Security Agency surveillance program and was personally implicated in the scandal that WikiLeaks triggered. Clapper was asked directly before Congress, “Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?” Clapper responded, “No, sir. … Not wittingly.” Later, Clapper said his testimony was “the least untruthful” statement he could make. That would still make it a lie, of course, but this is Washington and people like Clapper are untouchable. In the view of the establishment, Assange is the problem. So on CNN, Clapper was allowed to explain (without any hint of self-awareness or contradiction) that Assange has “caused us all kinds of grief in the intelligence community.”
Indeed, few people seriously believe that the government is aggrieved about password protection. The grief was the disclosure of an abusive surveillance program and a long record of lies to the American people. Assange will be convicted of the felony of causing embarrassment in the first degree. Notably, no one went to jail or was fired for the surveillance programs. Those in charge of failed congressional oversight were reelected. Clapper was never charged with perjury. Even figures shown to have lied in the Clinton emails, like former CNN commentator Donna Brazile (who lied about giving Clinton’s campaign questions in advance of the presidential debates), are now back on television. Assange, however, could well do time.
Mark Warner conspired with James Comey to keep Assange from talking to the DOJ, as John Solomon revealed last June in How Comey Intervened To Kill Wikileaks’ Immunity Deal. Assange offered to prove there was no link to Russia in the DNC emails case. Now he remains silenced, and Warner can continue to make these crazy claims.
Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) blasted Julian Assange on Thursday after the WikiLeaks founder was arrested in London, casting him as an ally in Russia’s efforts to influence politics in the U.S. and Europe. “Julian Assange has long professed high ideals and moral superiority. Unfortunately, whatever his intentions when he started WikiLeaks, what he’s really become is a direct participant in Russian efforts to undermine the West and a dedicated accomplice in efforts to undermine American security,” Warner, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, said in a statement. “It is my hope that the British courts will quickly transfer him to U.S. custody so he can finally get the justice he deserves,” Warner said, while praising the Ecuadorian government for withdrawing Assange’s asylum.
[..] Manning’s document dump contained approximately 90,000 Afghanistan War–related reports, 400,000 Iraq War–related reports, 800 Guantanamo Bay detainee assessment briefs and 250,000 State Department cables between January and May 2010, many of which were labeled classified, according to Assange’s indictment.
Now, Mark Warner represents the same party as Tulsi Gabbard does. And Hillary. If I were Tulsi, that would make me very uncomfortable.
Democratic presidential hopeful Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) condemned the arrest of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange on Thursday, calling the arrest a threat to journalists. “The arrest of #JulianAssange is meant to send a message to all Americans and journalists: be quiet, behave, toe the line. Or you will pay the price,” Gabbard tweeted. The Democrat’s remark came hours after police in London arrested Assange, citing charges he is facing in the U.S. Assange is accused of conspiring to hack into computers in connection with WikiLeaks’s release of classified documents from former Army private and intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning.
The indictment filed under seal last year in Virginia and released Thursday alleges that Assange helped Manning crack a password stored on a Defense Department computer, which was connected to a government system that stored classified information. U.S. intelligence officials and lawmakers have also voiced concerns about WikiLeaks’s actions during the 2016 election, when they published troves of hacked emails stolen from the Democratic National Committee and 2016 Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton’s campaign. The U.S. has said that Russian hackers were behind stealing the emails. However, Assange has dismissed criticisms surrounding his actions, arguing he acted like other journalists would have by seeking to leak classified documents viewed as in the public interest.
It’s all old hack. Pun intended.
The first crucial fact about the indictment is that its key allegation – that Assange did not merely receive classified documents from Chelsea Manning but tried to help her crack a password in order to cover her tracks – is not new. It was long known by the Obama DOJ and was explicitly part of Manning’s trial, yet the Obama DOJ – not exactly renowned for being stalwart guardians of press freedoms – concluded it could not and should not prosecute Assange because indicting him would pose serious threats to press freedom. In sum, today’s indictment contains no new evidence or facts about Assange’s actions; all of it has been known for years.
The other key fact being widely misreported is that the indictment accuses Assange of trying to help Manning obtain access to document databases to which she had no valid access: i.e., hacking rather than journalism. But the indictment alleges no such thing. Rather, it simply accuses Assange of trying to help Manning log into the Defense Department’s computers using a different user name so that she could maintain her anonymity while downloading documents in the public interest and then furnish them to WikiLeaks to publish.
In other words, the indictment seeks to criminalize what journalists are not only permitted but ethically required to do: take steps to help their sources maintain their anonymity. As long-time Assange lawyer Barry Pollack put it: “the factual allegations…boil down to encouraging a source to provide him information and taking efforts to protect the identity of that source. Journalists around the world should be deeply troubled by these unprecedented criminal charges.” That’s why the indictment poses such a grave threat to press freedom. It characterizes as a felony many actions that journalists are not just permitted but required to take in order to conduct sensitive reporting in the digital age.
[..] The Obama DOJ tried for years to find evidence to justify a claim that Assange did more than act as a journalist – that he, for instance, illegally worked with Manning to steal the documents – but found nothing to justify that accusation and thus never indicted Assange (as noted, the Obama DOJ since at least 2011 was well aware of the core allegation of today’s indictment – that Assange tried to help Manning circumvent a password wall so she could use a different user name – because that was all part of Manning’s charges).
— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) April 11, 2019
The Guardian says Assange can get max 5 years. I don’t believe that for a moment.
Can Assange appeal against an extradition decision?Yes, and there are many levels of appeal he can pass through before a final decision is made. In fact, this is exactly what happened to the request from Sweden. Assange challenged the decision to extradite him to Sweden all the way up to the supreme court, the highest court of appeal for civil cases in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. He can appeal against a judge’s decision to refer an approved extradition request back to the hme secretary and he can also appeal against a decision by the home secretary himself to execute that approved order. To give an idea of timescale, Assange presented himself to the Metropolitan police on the Swedish extradition request on 7 December 2010 and the supreme court hearing was held on 1 and 2 February 2012.
Can Julian Assange be charged with additional offences once he has been extradited to the United States? Normal practice is that anyone extradited can only be prosecuted in the country that sought them for the offences specified on the extradition indictment. That restriction is known as the rule of specialty. There are two possible but difficult-to-use exemptions. The first is that if it could be argued new information had come to light since his extradition, extra charges could conceivably be brought. “That almost never happens,” says Nick Vamos, the former head of extradition at the Crown Prosecution Service who is a partner at the London law firm Peters and Peters. “American prosecutors would also have to seek the consent of the UK to bring in further charges.”
The second exemption covers what happens after someone has been extradited, convicted and then chooses to remain in the country. Essentially the extraditing country has to allow the prisoner time to run away after they have served their sentence. “After a short period, however, usually two months,” Vamos explained, “anyone who remained in the same country would be deemed to be treated like a local citizen and could be charged for other offences”. Neither conditions are likely to be met in Assange’s case. “The US has only put one charge on the indictment and it carries the maximum term of five years in prison. Assange has the opportunity to assent to it. It’s relatively light sentence by US standards.”
The Guardian must have a smear piece on Assange of course. This time they apparently could not locate Luke Harding, so they sent his stupid twin Dan Collyns. The two were responsible for the bombshell fake news piece on Manafort visiting Assange.
Ecuador’s decision to allow police to arrest Julian Assange inside its embassy on Thursday followed a fraught and acrimonious period in which relations between the government in Quito and the WikiLeaks founder became increasingly hostile. In a presentation before Ecuador’s parliament on Thursday, the foreign minister, José Valencia, set out nine reasons why Assange’s asylum had been withdrawn. The list ranged from meddling in Ecuador’s relations with other countries to having to “put up with his rudeness” for nearly seven years. Valencia said Ecuador had been left with little choice but to end Assange’s stay in its London embassy following his “innumerable acts of interference in the politics of other states” which put at risk the country’s relations with them.
His second point focused on Assange’s behaviour, which stretched from riding a skateboard and playing football inside the small embassy building to mistreating and threatening embassy staff and even coming to blows with security workers. Valencia said the whistleblower and his lawyers had made “insulting threats” against the country, accusing its officials of being pressured by other countries. He said Assange “permanently accused [embassy] staff of spying on and filming him” on behalf of the United States and instead of thanking Ecuador for nearly seven years of asylum he and his entourage launched “an avalanche of criticisms” against the Quito government. He referred also to the guest’s “hygienic” problems including one that was “very unpleasant” and “attributed to a digestive problem”.
But Assange’s deteriorating health was also major concern, the minister said, as he could not be properly treated in the embassy building. He added the fact the UK would not consider granting him safe conduct meant Ecuador faced the prospect of him staying “indefinitely in the diplomatic headquarters”. The minister went on to say Ecuador could not extend asylum to a person fleeing justice and there was no extradition request for Assange when Ecuador ended his asylum. The UK had offered sufficient guarantees of due process to Assange, Valencia added, and that he would not be extradited to a country where he could face torture or the death penalty.
Finally, there were “multiple inconsistencies” in how Assange had been granted Ecuadorean citizenship and his stay had proved very costly, the minister said. Ecuador had spent more $5.8m on its guest’s security between 2012 and 2018 and nearly $400,000 on his medical costs, food and laundry, he added. Ecuador’s president, Lenín Moreno, had made little secret of his desire to evict Assange from the embassy building in Knightsbridge, west London, where he had lived since June 2012. Moreno has variously described Assange as a “hacker”, an “inherited problem” and a “stone in the shoe”.
In a video address on Thursday, he accused Assange of breaching the “generous” asylum conditions offered by Ecuador and of meddling in the internal affairs of other states. Moreno claimed Assange had installed forbidden electronic equipment in the embassy, had mistreated guards and “accessed the security files of our embassy without permission”. The final straw came “two days ago”, Moreno suggested, when WikiLeaks directly “threatened the government of Ecuador”. On Tuesday Assange’s legal team gave a press conference in which they accused Quito of illegally spying on him.
2 for the price of one.
Ecuador’s Interior Minister has confirmed that a person who is alleged to have links to WikiLeaks co-founder Julian Assange has been arrested as he attempted to take a flight to Japan. She also spoke of two ‘Russian hackers.’ Ecuador’s Interior Minister María Paula Romo said Thursday that a man was taken into custody in one of the airports as he was about to board a plane to Japan. There is little official information about his identity or the reasons for his arrest, with Romo telling a local radio station the individual was arrested on Thursday afternoon for the purposes of investigation. Shortly after Assange’s own arrest in London earlier that day, Romo hinted that the Ecuadorian government is about to unleash a crackdown on Assange’s supposed web of connections on the Ecuadorian soil.
She claimed that a “key” member of WikiLeaks, who is also “close to Julian Assange,” has been a resident of Ecuador for several years and has engaged in malicious activity to undermine the government. “We have sufficient evidence that he has been collaborating with destabilization attempts against the government, ” Romo said. The minister claimed that the individual used to accompany Minister of Foreign Affairs in the Rafael Correa government, Ricardo Patiño, on trips overseas. “Along with Ricardo Patiño he has traveled twice last year to Peru and also to Spain,” she said, adding that the two also took a trip to Venezuela in February this year one day apart.
While the Interior Ministry did not reveal the identity of Assange’s supposed helper, an anonymous official told AP that the arrested man was a Swedish software developer by the name of Ola Bini, a resident of Ecuador’s capital Quito. Bini appears to run a Twitter account under his own name, which is filled with reposts of news developments surrounding Assange around the time of the publisher’s arrest. Bini also retweeted the news about Romo announcing that a person who is “part of WikiLeaks” is living in Ecuador. He called “very worrisome” her remark that the information on the individual and the “two Russian hackers” might be soon handed over to prosecution. That was the accounts last tweet before going silent for 14 hours at the time of writing.
Yeah, the story of Assange working for Trump is pretty much done. But they’ll just make him Putin’s puppet and keep smearing.
It bears repeating, given the nearly past three years of ‘Russiagate’ collusion hysteria which focused heavily and uncritically on the role of WikiLeaks in both Hillary’s defeat and the rise of Trump, and centrally the “Russian connection” supposedly tying it all together: there seems yet more daily and weekly evidence demonstrating how absurd the claims were and are. With Thursday’s dramatic UK arrest of WikiLeaks founder and leader Julian Assange, revealed to be based largely on a US extradition request, which we’ve all now learned has been pursued for the past two years by the Trump Department of Justice, another conspiracy theory bites the dust.
Journalist Aaron Maté points out “over the last 2 years, just as Maddow et al were feverishly speculating that Trump and Assange secretly conspired, Trump’s DOJ was secretly trying to extradite Assange.” So much of it continues to unravel. Maté continues: “The conspiracy theory never slowed even after Roger Stone’s indictment revealed that a) Trump camp had no advance knowledge of WL releases b) they tried to find out from Stone, who also had no advance knowledge. Maté adds that further “Stone had no such knowledge because he had no actual contact to WikiLeaks.”
She doth protest too much?!
The very same congressional Democrats who maintain ‘Russiagate’ was real are denouncing Attorney General William Barr’s claim there was improper surveillance of the Trump campaign as a conspiracy theory. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-New York) demanded of Barr to retract his statement, made earlier on Wednesday, that “spying did occur” during the 2016 presidential campaign. Barr “must retract his statement immediately or produce specific evidence to back it up. Perpetuating conspiracy theories is beneath the office of the Attorney General,” Schumer tweeted. House Democrats were also pushing the “conspiracy theory” talking point on Wednesday, with Judiciary Committee chair Jerry Nadler (D-New York) contrasting it to what he said was fact of Russiagate, and Intelligence Committee chair Adam Schiff (D-California) calling it “another destructive blow to our democratic institutions.”
Though he was supposed to testify about the Department of Justice’s 2020 budget, Barr found himself answering questions about the report by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, which he said showed no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. Unwilling to give up the conspiracy theory they’ve pushed for almost three years, Democrats are demanding Barr release the full, unredacted Mueller report. “I don’t trust Barr, I trust Mueller,” Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-California) told AP. “He is acting as an employee of the president,” said House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Maryland). “I believe the Attorney General believes he needs to protect the president of the United States.”
Haven’t heard from DBRS in a while.
Nonbank lending, an industry that played a central role in the financial crisis, has been expanding rapidly and is still posing risks should credit conditions deteriorate. Often called “shadow banking” — a term the industry does not embrace — these institutions helped fuel the crisis by providing lending to underqualified borrowers and by financing some of the exotic investment instruments that collapsed when subprime mortgages fell apart. The companies face less regulation than traditional banks and thus have been associated with higher levels of risk. In the years since the crisis, global shadow banks have seen their assets grow to $52 trillion, a 75% jump from the level in 2010, the year after the crisis ended.
The asset level is through 2017, according to bond ratings agency DBRS, citing data from the Financial Stability Board. The U.S. still makes up the biggest part of the sector with 29% or $15 trillion in assets, though its share of the global pie has fallen. China has seen particularly strong growth, with its $8 trillion in assets good for 16% of the total share. Within shadow banking, the biggest growth area has been “collective investment vehicles,” a term that encompasses many bond funds, hedge funds, money markets and mixed funds. The group has seen its assets explode by 130% to $36.7 trillion. It poses particular danger because of its volatility and susceptibility to “runs” and is part of the “significant risks” DBRS sees from the industry.
Theresa May has paved the way for a final shot at pushing a Brexit deal through the House of Commons ahead of European elections in May. The prime minister and her aides repeatedly highlighted that the country could avoid the ignominy of electing British MEPs to the European parliament if the Commons passes a deal in the coming weeks.= It would also mean Britain would not need the full extension of the Article 50 negotiating period until 31 October offered by European leaders last night – a proposal that saw Tory Brexiteers demand Ms May resign on Thursday. No 10 said talks with Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour to find a compromise that might enjoy a Commons majority would not continue “for the sake of it”, in a sign they are not progressing.
Officials underlined the PM’s desire to bring a series of options before MPs for voting – including her original withdrawal deal – if talks with Mr Corbyn collapse. Having to take part in European elections on 23 May would be a humiliation for the prime minister, with her spokesman refusing to even say on Thursday that she would campaign. In a Commons statement following Wednesday’s EU summit, Ms May insisted it is still possible Britain could avoid voting in the elections if MPs pass a deal before then. She added: “The choices we face are stark and the timetable is clear. I believe we must now press on at pace with our efforts to reach a consensus on a deal that is in the national interest.”
6,000 people were working on it.
The government has halted all emergency planning for a no-deal Brexit despite committing £4bn to preparations, according to reports. A leaked email reportedly sent to all civil servants in an unnamed “front line Brexit department” said no-deal operational planning had been suspended with “immediate effect”. The decision was made by cabinet secretary Mark Sedwill, according to the email seen by Sky News. Downing Street said departments were taking “sensible decisions” about the timing of their no-deal preparations following the agreement by EU leaders to extend the Article 50 withdrawal process to 31 October. However the move is likely to infuriate Tory Brexiteers already angry at the latest delay to Britain’s departure from the EU.
The government has committed a staggering £4bn to no-deal preparations, but some MPs believe the six-month extension shows Theresa May was never prepared to countenance leaving without a deal. Former Brexit minister Steve Baker, who is now deputy chairman of the pro-Brexit European Research Group, accused the government of acting out of “sheer spite”. “Officials have worked exceptionally hard to deliver our preparedness and deserve better,” he tweeted. According to Sky, the email said: “In common with the rest of government, we have stood down our no-deal operational planning with immediate effect.
“..some smaller businesses “won’t survive” the delay because they had ploughed resources into planning for a spring Brexit.”
The decision to extend the UK’s Brexit deadline will mean another six months of uncertainty for business, the head of the International Monetary Fund has warned. Christine Lagarde, the IMF’s managing director, said that while she welcomed the fact that Britain would not leave the EU without a deal on Friday, nothing had been resolved. The decision gave more time for discussions between the political parties and for companies to prepare for all options, Lagarde said. “On the other hand, it is obvious it is continued uncertainty. And it does not resolve, other than by postponing what would have been a terrible outcome.”
The IMF said earlier this week that leaving the EU without a deal risked pushing the UK into a two-year recession. UK business leaders have warned the government against wasting the Brexit extension, sounding the alarm that another deadlock in six months’ time would inflict renewed damage on the UK economy. Stephen Phipson, the chief executive of the manufacturing lobby group Make UK, said some smaller businesses “won’t survive” the delay because they had ploughed resources into planning for a spring Brexit. Businesses lower down the manufacturing supply chain have been forced to borrow money to pay for stockpiling. The extra burden of financing their lending for another six months could push some companies under, he said.