Swedens decision to drop an investigation into a rape allegation against Julian Assange has both illuminated the situation of the WikiLeaks founder and made it more pressing. He must be defended against extradition to the United States in a case that digs at the foundations of freedom and democracy in both Britain and the US, and could see him sentenced to a total of 175 years.

Mr Assange is in Belmarsh prison, where he served a 50-week sentence for skipping bail. He had entered the Ecuadorian embassy in London to avoid arrest when Sweden asked Britain to extradite him for questioning. Though he denies any wrongdoing, that investigation was appropriate. Prosecuting authorities have said the complainants evidence was credible and reliable, but that the passage of time Mr Assange entered the embassy in 2012 meant that witnesses memories had faded.

The path has now been cleared for the US charges against him. They are entirely different. They relate to the secret military and diplomatic files provided by Chelsea Manning, which exposed appalling abuses by the US, and corrupt and brutal behaviour by other governments. These were covered by the Guardian, the New York Times and others, providing the public with important and necessary information. The Guardian, like others, strongly opposed Mr Assanges subsequent decision to publish unredacted documents in bulk. But the materials importance remains indisputable.

The Obama administration decided against pursuing Mr Assange under the Espionage Act, realising the threat to first amendment rights. Donald Trump enthused about his organisation on the 2016 campaign trail: I love WikiLeaks, he announced, after it published Democratic party emails stolen by Russian state hackers. But his administration has chosen to prosecute Mr Assange, and to do so explicitly on charges of publishing classified information through WikiLeaks.

Press freedom advocates in the US have rightly described this decision as terrifying and a dire threat to reporters, particularly given Mr Trumps relentless assaults upon the media. But Sajid Javid, then home secretary, signed the extradition order and the matter is with the courts. The full proceedings will begin in February.

The case against extradition is strengthened by the nature of the US penal system particularly given concerns about Mr Assanges health and the shameful treatment of Ms Manning. The army whistleblower was held in solitary confinement for years. Though her sentence was commuted by Barack Obama, she has been jailed again, for refusing to cooperate with a grand jury assumed to relate to Mr Assanges case.

This is not a question of how wise Mr Assange is, still less how likable. It is not about his character, nor his judgment. It is a matter of press freedom, and the publics right to know. It is unclear whether it would be safe to extradite Mr Assange to the US. It is certain that it would not be right.

More:
The Guardian view on extraditing Julian Assange: dont do it - The Guardian

Swedish prosecutors have dropped a rape investigation involving WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, the BBC reports. Assange is in custody in the United Kingdom and faces extradition to the United States. Swedens Deputy Chief Prosecutor Eva-Marie Persson made the announcement Tuesday as she gave an update on the case. The statement said the evidence for the 2010 rape allegation has weakened considerably due to the long period of time that has elapsed since it the event. I would like to emphasize that the injured party has submitted a credible and reliable version of events. Her statements have been coherent, extensive, and detailed; however, my overall assessment is that the evidential situation has been weakened to such an extent that that there is no longer any reason to continue the investigation, said Persson. Assange has always denied the accusation. He avoided extradition to Sweden for seven years by hiding in the Ecuadorean embassy in London, but he was evicted in April and sentenced to 50 weeks in jail for breaching his bail conditions.

See the original post:
Swedish Prosecutors Drop Julian Assange Rape Investigation - The Daily Beast

During the five-minute hearing, attended by supporters including his father, John Shipton, Assange's remand in HMP Belmarsh was extended.

He was to be released from the high-security prison in September but was remanded in custody due to fears he would abscond after he spent nearly seven years in the Ecuadorean embassy in London.

Gareth Peirce, representing Assange, told the court her client was unable to adequately prepare for his "very challenging case" as the computer he had been given was not suitable.

"I will put it on the record, you will understand that we are working extremely hard on this very challenging case; however, the most important of the impediments that we are facing is Mr Assange's ability to access what he needs to work on his own case," she said.

"After months of battle he was provided with a computer but it is not the sort of computer needed to work on the case."

Loading

District Judge Vanessa Baraitser said she had no jurisdiction over prison conditions.

Ms Peirce replied she wanted to "exert pressure as best we can" on Belmarsh to improve the computer facilities.

Speaking outside court, a member of Assange's team said the computer was unlikely to have internet access for research.

District Judge Baraitser remanded Assange in custody ahead of a substantive case management hearing next month.

See the article here:
Prison computer 'not suitable' for Julian Assange, court told

An aerial view of the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) building in Cheltenham, western England. GCHQ is the UKs major surveillance agency. The anti-data leak company Darktrace was founded by GCHQ officials in 2013. (Photo: GCHQ)

The son of Lady Emma Arbuthnot, the Westminster chief magistrate overseeing the extradition proceedings of Julian Assange, is the vice-president and cyber-security adviser of a firm heavily invested in a company founded by GCHQ and MI5 which seeks to stop data leaks, it can be revealed.

Alexander Arbuthnots employer, the private equity firm Vitruvian Partners, has a multimillion-pound investment in Darktrace, a cyber-security company which is also staffed by officials recruited directly from the US National Security Agency (NSA) and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

These intelligence agencies are behind the US governments prosecution of Julian Assange for publishing secret documents. Darktrace has also had access to two former UK prime ministers and former US President Barack Obama.

The revelations raise further concerns about potential conflicts of interests and appearance of bias concerning Lady Arbuthnot and the ties of her family members to the UK and US military and intelligence establishments. Lady Arbuthnots husband is Lord James Arbuthnot, a former UK defence minister who has extensive links to the UK military community.

As far as is known, Lady Arbuthnot has failed to disclose any potential conflicts of interest in her role overseeing Assanges case. However, UK legal guidance states that any conflict of interest in a litigious situation must be declared.

Her son, Alexander Arbuthnot, a graduate of Britains elite school Eton, joined Vitruvian Partners as vice-president in December 2018 and is likely to be managing the firms Darktrace account. Vitruvian, which has a portfolio of over 4-billion, made its first investment in Darktrace in April 2018, leading a consortium of firms committing 50-million.

Alexander Arbuthnot advises Vitruvian on cyber-security was the headline in Intelligence Online when he joined, while the article noted that the company had recently stepped up its investment in cyber-security. Darktrace appears to be one of two cyber-security companies in Vitruvians portfolio.

Relations were further cemented in 2018 when Alexander Arbuthnots colleague Sophie Bower-Straziota, then managing director at Vitruvian, was appointed to the board of Darktrace.

Darktrace and UK intelligence

Darktrace, which Alexander Arbuthnot describes as an AI [artificial intelligence] based cyber-security company, was established by members of the UK intelligence community in June 2013.

GCHQ, the UKs major surveillance agency, approached investor Mike Lynchregarded as Britains most established technology entrepreneur who then brokered a meeting between GCHQ officers and Cambridge mathematicians who co-founded the company.

Company material openly mentions the UK intelligence officials who founded Darktrace. It states that its team includes senior members of the UKs and USs intelligence agencies including the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), the Security Service (MI5) and the NSA.

Another co-founder was Stephen Huxter, a senior figure in MI5s cyber defence team who became Darktraces managing director. Soon after the company launched in September 2013, Darktrace announced that former MI5 director-general Sir Jonathan Evans had been appointed to its advisory board. Huxter welcomed Evans unparalleled stature in the field of cyber operations.

Huxter then hired 30-year GCHQ veteran Andrew France as chief executive of Darktrace. France, like Huxter, had been involved in dealing with cyber threats, rising to the position of deputy director of cyber defence operations at GCHQ, where he was charged with protecting government data from cyber threats.

France is also linked to Alexander Arbuthnots father, Lord Arbuthnot, who was until November 2018 a member of the advisory board of Information Risk Management (IRM), a cyber-security consultancy based in Cheltenham, the home of GCHQ. France is listed as one of IRMs experts.

Darktrace later appointed Dave Palmer, who had worked at MI5 and GCHQ, as its director of technology, while John Richardson OBE, director of security, had a long career in UK government security and intelligence working on cyber defence.

Darktrace staff has also included ex-MI6 officials, former senior managers at the UK Ministry of Defence, and veterans of the UK military, including the special forces.

We are a mixture of spooks and geeks, says Nicole Eagan, the chief executive of Darktrace, which now has a thousand employees and 40 offices worldwide. Poppy Gustafsson, another co-founder, has said that her work left her feeling like she was living in a story by the novelist John le Carr.

The insider threat

Vitruvians investee Darktrace appears to have been established in response to data leaks from Bradley (now Chelsea) Manning to Julian Assanges WikiLeaks and from NSA whistle-blower Edward Snowden.

Darktrace was, in fact, incorporated just four days after the first of the Snowden revelations was published by The Guardian in June 2013. These showed GCHQ to be operating programmes of mass surveillance.

As Channel 4 News put it when Darktrace launched: In the wake of the massive data leaks from Edward Snowden and Bradley Manning, Darktrace is targeting corporate and government customers by promising to track down troublesome employees or intruders that are already within the firewall.

Another article on Darktrace, this time from Wired in 2018, noted, After Edward Snowdens data dump from the NSA and Chelsea Mannings transfer of military intelligence to WikiLeaks, governments and companies woke up to the dangers of sabotage from within.

Manning is currently in jail in the US after refusing to testify in the new grand jury for the ongoing WikiLeaks case. Assanges conversations with Manning form the basis of the US prosecution and attempts to extradite him from the UK.

Presiding over the UK legal case is Alexander Arbuthnots mother, Lady Arbuthnot, who as a judge has herself previously made rulings on Assange and now oversees the junior judge, Vanessa Baraitser.

MI5 and GCHQ have been especially concerned about leaks of secret government material since WikiLeaks published thousands of CIA files in its Vault 7 exposures in March 2017. The files the largest leak in CIA history showed how UK agencies held workshops with the CIA to find ways to hack into household devices.

Darktrace addresses the challenge of insider threat, the companys promotional literature states. It adds, the insider threat must be curbed to prevent unwitting vulnerabilities or data leaks.

Darktraces flagship product, called the enterprise immune system, is described as a self-learning cyber [artificial intelligence] technology that detects novel attacks and insider threats at an early stage.

The company pinpoints the particular problem of whistle-blowers by stating that Darktrace begins with the premise that a network has already been infiltrated and that some of the risk might come from a companys own employees.

It adds, Malicious employees have the advantage of familiarity with the networks and information they manipulate, and their credentials allow them to exfiltrate the most sensitive such information without raising red flags. Moreover, even well-intentioned employees present major security risks. Darktraces technology is specifically designed to deal with this problem.

The degree of interaction between the intelligence agencies and their ex-employees at Darktrace is not known. However, Darktrace clearly has connections to the highest levels of the UK and US governments.

In January 2015, Nicole Eagan accompanied British prime minister David Cameron on an official visit to Washington DC to discuss cyber-security policy with US President Barack Obama. It is unclear how the company was able to obtain an audience with the US president barely a year after it launched.

Eagan noted at the time that hostile agents develop increasingly stealthy and sophisticated attacks on valued data and lamented the damage that these threats can cause to hard earned reputations. She also noted that traditional methods of security are no longer enough.

Eagan went on to accompany Cameron on another visit, this time to Asia in July 2015. Cameron said Darktrace was flying the flag for the UK. She also accompanied Camerons successor, Theresa May on a trip to Japan in August 2017. Two of Darktraces founders were awarded OBEs earlier this year.

Arbuthnot, Symantec and WikiLeaks

Alexander Arbuthnot is linked to another company concerned with countering leaks, and WikiLeaks in particular. During 2010-16 he worked at Symantec, a US company producing cyber-security and anti-data leak products which has contracts with the US government. Arbuthnot eventually became head of global sales at the company.

In 2010, after Julian Assange and WikiLeaks hit the headlines with their revelations on US war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan, Symantec released a report titled, Avoiding a repeat of WikiLeaks: What can be done to prevent malicious insiders?

The report notes, Symantec has identified a distinct pattern of malicious insider activity that is easily blocked. It adds, In most cases the perpetrators are in a heightened state of emotional distress and very sloppy about their trade craft. The report makes clear that it regards Chelsea Manning as such a malicious insider.

Alexander Arbuthnot began working for Symantec four months after WikiLeaks started leaking the US State Department cables it had been given by Chelsea Manning.

Arbuthnot appears to have worked exclusively on issues of cyber-security and data protection since he joined Symantec, where he managed 22 people across the companys Americas, Europe and Asia sales team. It is likely that in this role, Arbuthnot championed sales of products intended to avoid a repeat of Wikileaks, in the words of the Symantec report.

Symantec has also published a document called Going all in on defending against insider threats which states, Government agencies have always been exceedingly concerned about security but that concern ramped up significantly in the wake of the Edward Snowden and Bradley Manning scandals. Regardless of the threat level, a systematic plan to combat insider threats is a must.

After Symantec, Arbuthnot went on to co-found Rightly, another company focused on data security, in April 2017. Rightly states that it aims to solve the problem of the public losing faith in companies to handle their personal data, due to the behaviour of a few key organisations, without naming those organisations. It adds: We work closely with web security firms to ensure that we exceed expectations for data security.

Arbuthnot himself states, We aim to change the world of personal information.

Darktrace, CIA and NSA

Darktrace has particularly focused on breaking into the US market and has recruited former CIA and NSA intelligence officers.

In November 2013, Mike Lynch, the investor initially approached with the idea of Darktrace, extolled the virtues of the company on a conference platform in London with Alec Ross, the then secretary of state Hillary Clintons technology adviser, and Martin Howard, GCHQs director of cyber policy. Ross has been personally critical of Julian Assange.

The conference was organised by the Cheltenham cyber-security consultancy IRM, on whose advisory board Lady Arbuthnots husband, Lord Arbuthnot, sat until November 2018.

The company quickly tapped the US intelligence community for new personnel. In July 2014, Darktrace announced the recruitment of two senior officials from the US intelligence community, specifically the NSA.

One was Jim Penrose, who spent 17 years at the agency as an expert in data security, and served as chief of the Operational Discovery Center, helping to develop new signals intelligence capabilities the mass surveillance programmes revealed by Edward Snowden.

The other recruit was Jasper Graham, another NSA veteran who as technical director worked with US Cyber Command to develop strategic planning for responding to cyber-attacks.

Little over a year after Darktrace launched, the company opened its first US office in Washington DC.

The following year, Darktrace was part of a select group chosen by the US government for a trade mission to Tokyo, Seoul and Taipei. In the same month, Darktrace announced another coup: the recruitment of the CIAs former chief intelligence officer, Alan Wade, to its board of advisors.

Wade spent 35 years in the CIA also serving as director of security before retiring in 2005 and was a recipient of several medals for his service. He now sits on the board of Assyst, a cyber-security company based in Herndon, Virginia, a 20-minute drive from CIA headquarters.

Another recruit to Darktrace was Justin Fier, its director for cyber intelligence and analytics, who came to the company after working for US intelligence agencies on counterterrorism. From 2002-2008 Fier worked for arms manufacturer Lockheed Martin, also in Herndon, Virginia.

Earlier this year, Darktrace recruited Marcus Fowler, a former Marine and 15-year veteran of the CIA, to be its new director of strategic threat. At the CIA, Fowler worked on developing global cyber operations and technical strategies and conducted nearly weekly briefings for senior US officials, he says.

It is unclear what relationship, if any, the NSA and CIA still has with its ex-employees at Darktrace.

The CIA has made clear that it is working to take down the WikiLeaks organisation. It was recently revealed that the CIA was given audio and video of Julian Assanges private meetings in the Ecuadorian embassy by a Spanish security company. These included privileged discussions with Assanges lawyers who are now representing him in the extradition case overseen by Alexander Arbuthnots mother, Lady Arbuthnot.

Alexander Arbuthnot and Lady Arbuthnot did not respond to requests for comment. DM

The Daily Maverick will launch Declassified UK a new investigations and analysis organisation run by the authors of this article at the end of this month.

Please note you must be a Maverick Insider to comment. Sign up here or if you are already an Insider.

Originally posted here:
The son of Julian Assanges judge is linked to an anti-data leak company created by the UK intelligence establishment - Daily Maverick

At 80, John Shipton thought he would be enjoying his retirement, he tells Michael Clifford. Instead, he is touring European capitals campaigning for his son, Wikileaks founder Julian Assange.

A parents work is never done. John Shipton entering his ninth decade. Hed like to kick back, maybe learn a few recipes, stroll at a leisurely pace towards the declining years.

But his son needs him. His sons health is in serious danger and his future looks dark, with the prospect of spending decades, if not the remainder of his life, in prison.

His son is Julian Assange. Its a name that is familiar to most people, although many would, at this remove, find it difficult to couple his celebrity standing with his talent or achievement.

Assange is an Australian who has been a serious thorn in the side of the powerful. His Wikileaks organisation was responsible for disseminating information that showed what exactly the US and its allies were getting up to in foreign wars.

Wikileaks exposed war crimes. It was the receptor for whistleblower Chelsea Mannings treasure trove of documents that painted a picture of torture and maltreatment by US forces in Iraq, among other crimes.

Vanity Fair described the resultant stories as one of the greatest journalistic scoops of the last 30 years they have changed the way people think about how the world is run.

In 2011, Assange sought refuge in the Ecuadorian embassy in London at a time when he was due to be extradited to Sweden on what he claims were trumped-up allegations of sexual assault.

His belief was that Swedish law would make it more easier to pack him off to the US, where he could be tried and imprisoned as an enemy of the state. At the time, the Americans were not actively seeking to extradite him.

So he moved into the Ecuadorian embassy in Knightsbridge and stayed there until declining relations with his host ended with expulsion last April. Following that, he was sentenced to 50 weeks in prison for skipping bail, a term that concluded on September 23.

He is now back on remand awaiting an extradition hearing in response to a request from the US, where he faces charges that carry a penalty of up to 175 years in prison.

He is being detained in Britains high-security Belmarsh Prison, which houses some of the worst of the worst of criminals. Assange is a category B prisoner, which means hes not considered an immediate danger to fellow human beings or society in general, but his conditions of detention are still onerous.

Hes locked up 22 or 23 hours a day, his father says. Its a grade A maximum security prison. Because those in it are treated like terrorists, thats what Julian is being subjected to.

Shipton was in Dublin recently on a flying visit that now forms part of his current job. That entails lobbying, meeting, and publicising on behalf of his son. Shipton is on a tour of European capitals trying to round up support.

Im at this full time, he says.

This is my job now. I came over from Melbourne this year and spent a month in the UK and saw how they kept mucking around with Julian, even with visiting him. Theyd mess up an appointment and then you couldnt go again for another two weeks.

When I met him I got a bit overwrought and he said to me: Will you come and help, will you move to the UK? What am I going to say? No, Im going to surfers paradise for a holiday.?

Assange is in a bad way, there is no doubt about that. Both physically and psychologically, his condition is deteriorating. The prison conditions are onerous but they come following eight years cooked up in the embassy, at times under serious stress. The day before arriving in Dublin Shipton had been in to see his son.

As you would expect after nine years of persecution, hes a bit down in the dumps, he says.

The report of the UN rapporteur on torture says it all really, pointing out that he has every sign of having suffered torture with both physical and mental results.

The last year and a half in the embassy was pretty rough. He was under constant surveillance, there were microphones everywhere. The place he used to have any meetings in there was the ladies loo because it was the only place that there were no mikes.

There was a problem even getting food during that time. Some weekends he didnt have any food because they didnt allow visitors some of the time.

The UN rapporteur on torture, Nils Melzer, did visit Assange with two doctors in June in Belmarch and were highly condemnatory of the conditions in which he was being kept.

Last week, Melzer issued a further statement, saying Assanges life was at risk and that he must not be extradited to the US as a consequence of exposing serious governmental misconduct.

In a cursory response sent nearly five months after my visit, the UK government flatly rejected my findings, without indication any willingness to consider my recommendations, let alone to implement them, or even provide the additional information requested, Milzer said.

He continues to be detained under oppressive conditions of isolation and surveillance not justified by his detention status.

Melzer goes further and offers an opinion on what is driving the harsh treatment.

In my view, this case has never been about Mr Assanges guilt or innocence, but about making him pay the price for exposing serious governmental misconduct, including alleged war crimes and corruption, he says. Unless the UK urgently changes course and alleviates his inhumane situation, Mr Assanges continued exposure to arbitrariness and abuse may soon end up costing his life.

There is, in the narrative of Assanges plight, one bitter irony to his current predicament.

In 2011, when he sought refuge in the Ecuadorian embassy, the US was not actively pursuing him. Barack Obamas administration decided to leave him be, most likely weighing up that pursuit of this thorn would be interpreted as a vicious attack on the free press.

Then during the 2016 presidential campaign, Assanges Wikileaks made an intervention, releasing hundreds of emails originating with Hillary Clinton. The news hit her at the polls, although its difficult to assess how damaging they were.

In any event, her rival, Donald Trump, was thrilled with this development. I love Wikileaks, he said at the time.

The love wasnt everlasting. Since coming to power, Trump has railed against many forms of the free press. And his government has requested Assanges extradition to stand trial for spying.

If he is extradited, his father doesnt have much confidence in the prospects of a fair trial.

The espionage law courts are held in Elizabeth, Virginia, says Shipton. Its a town where all the constituents are from the intelligence community. Every judgement in the espionage courts they say just go to jail. Its not theoretical. If hes tried he will go to jail.

The next hearing on extradition isnt scheduled until February and on the basis that he previously did skip bail while awaiting an extradition hearing he is unlikely to get bail. For his family and close friends, the most immediate issue is his health rather than the political and legal vortex into which he has been drawn.

At a recent court appearance on October 21, he was described by eyewitnesses as appearing distressed and disorientated.

He is subject to a legal process, but few could argue that it is anything more than political. Assange published leaked material. In that he was performing an act of journalism.

Manning, for instance, was prosecuted and served seven years of what was originally a 35-year sentence. But Assanges role was that of publisher.

Much of Wikileaks most serious material was presented in collaboration with leading global newspapers, including the New York Times and The Guardian.

His father believes that the attack on the press through Assange is not fully appreciated.

Its in the self interests of all journalists and news corporations to ensure that this is fought, he says.

Whats also at issue is the benefit to all of us because this kind of journalism is aimed at ensuring that countries obey international law. Without that, what do we have?

The point is well made but is thrown into stark relief by the lukewarm response that Assanges plight has elicited in much of the media.

Alan Rusbridger, editor of The Guardian at the time of the Manning story, wrote earlier this year that he was opposed to the pursuit of Assange by the US, even though his own relationship with Assange had been fraught.

We fell out, as most people eventually do with Assange, says Rusbridger. I found him mercurial,

untrustworthy and dislikable; he wasnt keen on me either. All the collaborating editors disapproved of him releasing unredacted material from the Manning trove in September 2011.

That charge is one that is repeatedly laid at Assanges door. His father rejects it, saying that, on the eve of publication in 2011, Assange stayed up long into the night redacting the names of up to 10,000 individuals whose lives or livelihoods could be placed in danger.

Yet he has acquired a reputation for being difficult, untrustworthy, and susceptible to sometimes pursuing agendas rather than letting the material speak for itself.

His father has a different take.

The quality of being innocent of charges does not take into account the characteristics of the person involved, he says. Shiptons response to a question about the suggestion by some that his son is his own worst enemy draws a blunt Aussie response.

Thats horseshit, he says. What youre dealing with reminds me of the line in [TS] Eliot about the King and Thomas Beckett. Will anybody rid me of this turbulent priest? A lot of that stuff is designed to just get at Julian with no basis for it.

Julian is a joy of a man, hes very positive, sweet natured. Hes determined but he always could get his own way by being charming. He didnt have to bully anyone.

Assange was born in Townsville, Australia, in 1971, but his parents split soon after his birth. His mother married an actor, Brett Assange, from whom Julian takes his name.

He had an itinerant childhood, moving over two dozen times with his mother. She didnt believe informal education, and he had spells being home-schooled, took correspondence courses, and studied informally with college academics.

He developed an interest in and aptitude for computers and began hacking at the age of 16. Later on, he got into programming and worked with different companies and agencies, including a spell assisting the police in tackling child exploitation online.

In 2006, he and others formed Wikileaks which over the following four years published a steady stream of material sourced from secret government files across the world. Then, in 2011, the organisation published the Chelsea Manning material and Wikileaks became a source of both huge admiration among elements of the public, and contempt in the corridors of power.

The allegations of sexual assault in Sweden, which prompted the first attempt to extradite Assange from the UK in 2011, are a particular sore point with his father.

Assange and his supporters were convinced that the whole case was merely a ruse to get him to Sweden from where it would be considered a lot easier to have the US extradite him. That theory was ultimately never put to the test. While he was holed up in the embassy, Sweden dropped the case. Earlier this year, after the exit from the embassy, it was reopened.

They had this thing for nine years, Shipton says.

They abandoned it twice and resurrected it twice. They had four prosecutors. Three of the allegations expired on time and the fourth expires next year. Theyre claiming its taken all this time to assemble the case against him. Nine years. It took eight years to get a man on the moon.

"A lot of itis prominent people in their legal system wanting their names in the media on the back of Julian. Its disgusting really.

After Julian went into the embassy, his father was an annual visitor from Down Under.

Id come over from Melbourne for two weeks every Christmas and visit him, Shipton says.

And over the years you could easily see how it was getting harder, how his health was deteriorating. He had a particular problem with an abscess in his tooth which left him in terrible pain. At one point, we applied for permission to allow him cross into the UK to access some proper dental treatment but the British authorities wouldnt allow it.

And what about the battle ahead, does he think that his sons extradition can be stopped.

Naturally I think we will win. But we are going to need help.

For now, Shipton is focused on getting that help, on doing what he considers to be his job. Over the coming weeks and months he is scheduled to visit Denmark, Switzerland, Sweden, and Germany, and intends an extended stay in Italy, where there is particularly strong support for Assange.

At the end of the interview in a Dublin hotel, a barman appears and asks: Are you the Julian Assange people?

The reporter points him to the mans father in the corner finishing off a sandwich. The barman, who says he is Bulgarian, is over like a shot, eager to shake the hand of the man who sired Julian Assange.

A great man, the barman says of Assange. What is being done to him is all wrong. They are trying to silence him.

Shipton appears chuffed at the approach, reassured that support for his son is out there in all manner of nooks and crannies of society.

Assanges extradition hearing is scheduled to begin in February, but the process could drag on for a year after that. If his circumstances dont change in the interim, fears for his physical and psychological health will inevitably heighten.

Read the original post:
'Will you come and help?' Father of Julian Assange on campaign to free his son - Irish Examiner

Washington In closing arguments Wednesday, the prosecution portrayed former Trump campaign adviser Roger Stone as a liar trying to protect himself and help then-candidate Donald Trump win the 2016 presidential race at any cost.

"Roger Stone does not get to pick and choose which facts he thinks are important and lie about the rest of them," said prosecutor Jonathan Kravis in the closing arguments of a trial that ended a week earlier than expected. "Roger Stone sees a chance to help the Trump campaign, and he jumps at it."

Stone wasindictedon seven charges of lying to Congress, witness tampering and obstruction. He is accused of collaborating withWikiLeaksto release Democrats' emails that were hacked by Russia in order to damage Hillary Clinton, Mr. Trump's 2016 opponent and he is accused of lying about it. He is also charged with tampering with a witness, radio personality Randy Credico, pressing him not to cooperate with a congressional investigation that involved Stone.

When you have "a witness who goes before a congressional committee and tell them to lie, that is witness tampering," said Kravis.

Prosecutors presented evidence throughout the trial that Stone tried to get information from WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, specifically asking for details about the hacked emails that WikiLeaks published in order to influence the 2016 election.

But the defense team claimed Stone lacked corrupt intent in his words and actions and never actually had access to WikiLeaks.

"I guess you can say Stone played the campaign, letting them believe that he had some connection" to WikiLeaks, said defense attorney Bruce Rogow in his closing arguments.

Several high-profile witnesses were called to testify, including former deputy Trump campaign manager Rick Gates andSteve Bannon, a former Trump campaign chief executive and White House senior counselor.

Roger Stone himself, however, chose not to take the stand.

Gates, who testified on Tuesday as part of a cooperation agreement with the government,pleaded guilty last year to charges stemming from theMueller investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election and the Trump campaign's role in it. His testimony in a separate case helped to convict Paul Manafort, a former Trump campaign chairman, of conspiracy against the United States.

On the stand for the prosecution, Bannon pointed to Stone as the apparent point of access between the Trump campaign and WikiLeaks.

According to Bannon, Stone is the only person affiliated with the Trump campaign who claimed to be in contact with WikiLeaks. In August 2016, Stone emailed Bannon to say that it was possible for Trump to win the election, and said, "I know how to win, but ain't pretty." Under oath, Bannon said he interpreted this to mean that Stone was talking about campaign "dirty tricks" and "opposition research."

In his earlier grand jury testimony, Bannon had said, "I think it was generally believed that the [Trump campaign's] access point [to Assange] would be Roger Stone."

Stone's social media appears to foster that impression.

On Sunday, October 2, 2016, Stone tweeted, "Wednesday @Hillary Clinton is done. #Wikileaks." Two days later, on Tuesday, October 4, Assange said documents would subsequently be released every week and that some of the documents would be related to the presidential election. Three days after Stone's tweet, on October 7, WikiLeaks released the emails of John Podesta, Hillary Clinton's campaign chairman. (This happened soon after the "Access Hollywood" tape of Mr. Trump's vulgar language about grabbing women was published.)

When asked why he emailed Stone on October 4, 2016, Bannon replied, "Because Roger was the guy who knew about WikiLeaks and knew Julian Assange."

After WikiLeaks released Podesta's hacked emails in October, a Trump official messaged Stone to say, "Well done."

Stone's defense, however, points out that it's unknown what that was in reference to.

"Could have been that he went to a steakhouse and wanted a steak 'well-done,'" said Rogow.

The prosecution outlined lies that Roger Stone allegedly told about his written communications, his conversations with Mr. Trump and his involvement with WikiLeaks.

Stone told a House Intelligence Committee that Credico was his only backchannel to Assange. Credico, however, testified that Stone bragged to him about having his own backchannel to Assange. Prosecutors believe it was another Stone associate, Jerome Corsi.

Stone claimed he hadn't asked anyone to do anything for him regarding WikiLeaks. But emails showed Stone asked Corsi and Credico to pass along his request for more updates to Assange.

Stone's defense team argued that his actions lacked corrupt intent because Stone voluntarily testified before the House Intelligence Committee and urged jurors to consider his "state of mind" given that the scope of the congressional hearing was Russia not Assange.

Furthermore, said Rogow, "There could be no sensible motive in trying to protect the campaign when it was long since over, and Mr. Trump was the president of the United States."

Stone allegedly threatened to harm both Credico whom he was accused of using to communicate with Assange and his dog if he didn't plead the fifth and refuse to testify in a congressional investigation.

The jurors were shown texts from Stone telling Credico to "Do your Frank Pentangeli" in front of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. In the movie "The Godfather Part II," Frank Pentangeli lies to Congress, pretending not to know anything incriminating about the Corleone family.

Stone also texted Credico, "I guarantee you are the only one who gets indicted for perjury if you're stupid enough to testify."

The prosecution said this was evidence that Stone was trying to shield information from Congress.

"Roger Stone is a political strategist," Kavis said to the jury. "He knows how this is going to look [when] the committee was looking into the Russian interference" in the 2016 election.

But the defense framed the story differently.

In his closing arguments, Rogow said, "Stone and Credico for years have joked about the Godfather" and "this is nothing malignant."

Throughout his trial, several controversial people came to support Stone, including alt-right commentatorMilo YiannopoulosandGavin McInnes, founder of Proud Boys, an extremist group with ties to white nationalism.

On the first day of his trial before he left early because he said he had food poisoning a person outside of the courtroom yelled, "You'll get to see Manafort soon," referring to the former Trump campaign chairman who wassentenced by the judge in this trialto more than six years in prison.

Stone, who has filed to have his charges acquitted, faces up to 20 years in prison. A verdict could come as soon as Thursday.

The conclusion of Stone's trial coincided with a new and more public phase of the impeachment inquiry of President Trump, who is accused of seeking a politically charged quid pro quo with the president of Ukraine and pressuring him to launch investigations that could benefit his reelection campaign.

Clare Hymes contributed reporting.

Follow this link:
Roger Stone trial: Roger Stone could be the next ex-Trump campaign official to end up in prison - CBS News

By our reporters 13 November 2019

Over the past several weeks, Socialist Equality Party (SEP) members and supporters have campaigned widely in working-class areas of Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and Newcastle to promote public meetings this month in defence of imprisoned WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange and the courageous whistleblower Chelsea Manning.

On Saturday, the SEP held a speak-out in the main pedestrian mall of Parramatta, a working-class hub of western Sydney. Dozens of workers, students and youth expressed their support for Assange, and anger over the refusal of the Australian government to defend him as a citizen and journalist.

Nick Beams, a writer for the WSWS and longstanding SEP leader, relayed warnings from Assanges friends and family that his medical situation has declined so dramatically that they fear he may die in Britains Belmarsh Prison. Beams stated that the US attempt to extradite and prosecute Assange was aimed at setting a precedent for the victimisation of anyone who exposed war crimes and government wrongdoing.

He stressed that it was the sharpest expression of a turn by governments internationally towards authoritarianism, amid an upsurge of class struggle and an explosion of militarism. He called for the development of a political movement of the working class to fight for the freedom of Assange, Manning and all class war prisoners.

WSWS reporters spoke to a number of those who stopped to listen.

Ethan, a local high school student, had heard about the abuses perpetrated against Assange in his legal studies class. Even though Assange is a citizen, Australian governments have done nothing to defend him, Ethan said. I think governments are more concerned with maintaining their alliances with western powers than protecting their own citizens.

WikiLeaks exposed the crimes committed by America, I think that the Australian government fears being exposed for similar things. The wars now are about securing power, resources and preventing people or powers who are not with the imperialist powers from getting into power. Governments will continue to say that they are for democracy and human rights, but they are really abusing other peoples human rights.

Asked about the broader assault on press freedom, Ethan stated: When the government does something illegal, the easiest thing for them is to cover it up. Thats the worst thing you could do in my view. The right move would be to admit it, prosecute those responsible and make a transparent change. I think if enough people get up then we can make a change, but its not possible without the majority speaking up. Its the working class who are the majority.

Others gave short video statements in support of Assange, including Nivi, a young worker:

Nivi

And Mohammed, a student:

Mohammed

WSWS correspondents also spoke to participants at a Sydney rally in support of the mass demonstrations in Lebanon.

Jodie, a teacher, said: I believe Assange is wrongly jailed, Im with you 100 percent. If he had the intelligence to release important information to the public, as he did, then in my opinion he is a genius and somebody who should be celebrated.

The politicians are attacking him to defend themselves and defend secrecy. Thats what were asking for in Lebanon, transparency, and Julian Assange is a symbol of transparency. They jailed him for standing up for what the human race wants and for the future of our children.

People will eventually speak out to defend Assange. The world is in an ugly place right now. What Assange stands for, thats what all these revolutions around the world stand for. But people have to be educated. Some people see him as a criminal because they saw him jailed and they dont know the story behind the man. They need to know the real story.

In Toronto, SEP campaigners won widespread support for a public meeting that is being held this Saturday in the regional working-class centre of Newcastle.

Jennifer, a retired worker, stated: Assange is not a criminal. Some journalists would have it that he is not a journalist, but he is. He is reporting to the public, he is getting the message out, he is making a stand as a journalist. I think anyone being persecuted for something that they see as good for the people and the public is wrong.

The Australian government is responsible for his imprisonment because he is an Australian citizen. Australia is dictated to by America. He was just projecting his voice in a strong way.

After purchasing a ticket to the meeting, Jennifer said: I think workers and young people should come to the meeting and fight for the freedom of Assange, because he represents freedom of speech that we all have the right to in a democracy. I mean, arent we a democracy or are we becoming more fascist, more controlled?

Jennifer drew a link between the recent climate change protests and the fight for Assanges freedom. She commented: Only people coming togetherpeople powerwill change this situation. Climate change and Assange go hand-in-hand. We are out here saying this cannot happen. Just as with climate change, we have protests saying you cant do this, this is a serious matter and we need people voicing their opinions and demonstrating. The writing is on the wall, with what happened in the 1930s. Closing down the papers, closing down freedom of speech, we cant allow that to happen again. We live in serious times.

In Brisbane, Sue, a worker, spoke out during a SEP campaign at the West End markets. Assange should be freed! she declared. All journalists should be freed, to give us non-Murdoch news.

Supported by several of her friends, Sue said: The whole thing is political. Its not just Assange. He is at forefront of defending democracy. Journalists should be free to report. And in Australia, criticism of the government should not be squashed. Criticism of the government and any politician should be encouraged, for democracys sake.

At the Inala Plaza shopping centre, Ferraz, a university student from Mozambique, said journalists like Julian Assange needed to be able to tell the truth, especially about capitalism. Julian Assange has revealed some of the secrets of this governmental system, he said. We must have journalists to tell us the truth. No one is better placed to do that.

This is about capitalism. Money is the problem. For example, most of the countries in Africa are in debt because they have received money from Western countries. Investors come and give governments money for their programs, but in the end the government realise the price they must pay and that means cutting the services of the people. Most people dont know the full story and the best ones to tell them are the journalists.

In Melbourne, Damian, an audio-visual worker, said: Whats happening to Assange is a travesty. Theyre keeping him in isolation with no change. The guy is obviously sick. He needs sunlight for a start. The fact is theyre not letting him outside so he can recover.

If the world didnt have whistleblowers, publishers and people who stand up to corporations and governments that are doing the wrong thing, wed all be living under some kind of totalitarian government. The world needs people like Julian Assange.

An SEP forum in Melbourne on Sunday unanimously passed a motion resolving to continue to fight to build the international mass movement required to secure the liberation of Julian Assange and Chelsea Manning.

Afterwards, Raphael, a university student from Taiwan, explained: Before I spoke to the SEP, all I knew was that Assange is under political persecution by western countries because of WikiLeaks. Democracy is only working for the powerful. Governments are lying to ordinary people.

WikiLeaks revealed a lot of political scandals about governments from Britain, to France, to Russia and China. All these come to the same thing. People have the right to speak out. They also have the right to know how and what the government are doing.

The governments are trying to hide the truth and lie to the people. Thats why they are unfairly persecuting Assange and confining him to prison. We need to fight for our rights, fight for Assange, and fight for other human rights champions.

Gerry, who sells the Big Issue homeless magazine, said: I came here today because I thinks its really vital that everyone gets together and supports Julian and fights for his freedom. They are persecuting Julian and Chelsea Manning for shining a spotlight on the vast crimes of United States imperialism, so as to shut up any future whistleblowers. They are making an example of Julian and Chelsea to deter anyone else from opening their mouth.

This is just another step towards full-blown fascism, by shutting down the truth, shutting down dissident websites and shutting down independent media. I think people need to get out in the streets and support Julian. I also think they need to put as much pressure as possible on their local members of parliament, even though the MPs are all hopeless.

I commend the Socialist Equality Party for your integrity and for your ethical standing up for truth and justice and opposing whats being done to Julian Assange. I note that there are a lot of other alleged socialist groups who have been completely and totally silent, which I just find disgusting. I find it outrageous that they can completely turn their backs on whats happening with Julian.

Read more here:
Australian workers and youth speak-out in support of Julian Assange - World Socialist Web Site

Donald Trump and members of his campaign have said many times that they never colluded with Russia in 2016. But according to bombshell testimony in federal court Friday, the Trump team did believe that it was collaborating with WikiLeaks, the organization that publicly disseminated Democratic emails that had been stolen by Russian government hackers.

The revelations came during the trial of longtime Trump adviser Roger Stone, who is accused of lying to Congress about his contacts with the Trump campaign. Stone was originally a member of that campaign; he departed in 2015 but remained an informal adviser to Trump. Steve Bannon, who became CEO of the campaign in mid-August 2016, testified Friday that campaign officials saw Stone as their access point to WikiLeaks and its founder, Julian Assange.

Bannon testified that in the spring and summer of 2016, before he took over the Trump campaign, Stone had implied in conversations with Bannon that he was in contact with Assange. The campaign had no official access to WikiLeaks and Julian Assange, but Roger would be considered if we needed an access point, because he had implied or told me he had a relationship with WikiLeaks and Julian Assange, Bannon said.

It was generally believed that the access point to WikiLeaks or Julian Assange would be Roger Stone, Bannon said in prior grand jury testimony read in court on Friday. Bannon appeared under subpoena and said he would not have agreed to testify otherwise.

On October 3, 2016, when Assange held a strange press conference that failed to live up to expectations of dramatic revelations about Hillary Clinton, Bannon emailed Stone to ask: What was that?

Four days later, when WikiLeaks began publishing emails hacked from Clinton campaign chair John Podesta, Bannon, according to his testimony, heard that Roger Stone was somehow involved in the release of those emails. Bannon said he didnt recall where he heard that.

Shortly after WikiLeaks released the emails, Alexandra Preate, a Trump campaign aide who worked for Bannon, texted Stone a two-word message: well done, according to evidence presented earlier in the trial.

Bannons testimony is bad news for Stone, who faces charges that he lied about several topics in 2017 testimony before the House Intelligence Committee. One of those alleged lies was Stones claim that he did not communicate with the Trump campaign regarding information Stone claimed to have about WikiLeaks. Bannons testimony could bolster the governments case that Stone committed perjury.

But the testimony is also terrible news for Trump. Previously, prosecutors revealed that Stone and Trump spoke frequently during the 2016 campaign. Those include calls on June 14, 2016, the same day the Washington Postreported that the DNC had been hacked by Russia. On July 31, 2016not long after WikiLeaks released thousands of DNC emails and documents stolen by the Russians, Stone spoke for about 10 minutes with Trump. Prosecutors dont know what the men discussed in either call, but they implied that they believe the topic was the hacked emails.

In written answers to special counsel Robert Mueller, Trump stated, I do not recall discussing WikiLeaks with [Stone], nor do I recall being aware of Mr. Stone having discussed WikiLeaks with individuals associated with my campaign. Trump may have avoid perjury by claiming a memory lapse, but the Stone case is making it hard to avoid concluding that Trump probably told a whopper to Mueller.

Prosecutors have also detailed contacts related to WikiLeaks between Stone and former Trump campaign chair Paul Manafort and Blackwater founder Erik Prince, a Trump campaign adviser. Stone now denies that he really had any inside information on WikiLeaks, and theres no evidence he communicated directly with Assange. But multiple members of theTrump campaign apparently thought he was working with WikiLeaks to advance their cause. That sounds like attempted collusion.

Follow this link:
Steve Bannon says Trump team saw Roger Stone as "access point" to Assange - Mother Jones

Roger Stone, former advisor to President Donald Trump, arrives with his wife Nydia Stone (R) and his legal team for the second day of his trial at the E. Barrett Prettyman United States Courthouse on November 6, 2019 in Washington, DC.

Mark Wilson | Getty Images

A former top Trump campaign official on Tuesday testified that President Donald Trump talked to political trickster Roger Stone about WikiLeaks during the 2016 campaign.

That testimony by Rick Gates at Stone's trial contrasts with Trump's claim last November that he did not recall speaking to Stone about WikiLeaks, the document disclosure group that during the 2016 campaign released emails stolen from the Democratic Party and Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton's own campaign chief.

Gates testified in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., that less than a minute after finishing a July 2016 call from Stone, Trump indicated that "more information would be coming" from Wikileaks.

In a written response to special counsel Robert Mueller last November, Trump had said, "I do not recall discussing WikiLeaks with" Stone, "nor do I recall Mr. Stone having discussed WikiLeaks with my campaign."

But Trump also said, "I was aware that WikiLeaks was the subject of media reporting and campaign-related discussion at the time."

The president's written responses were requested by Mueller last year as part of his probe of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, and the question of whether Trump's campaign had coordinated with Russians.

Gates testified Tuesday that in addition to speaking to Trump about WikiLeaks, Stone was known in the campaign as a source for information expected to be released by the group.

And Gates also testified that another campaign official, Paul Manafort, told him that he would update Trump with any information that he could get from Stone.

Jurors on Tuesday saw an email between Gates and Stone after the Democratic National Committee revealed that its computers had been hacked in 2016. U.S. intelligence agencies later said that hackers were Russian agents.

In that email, Stone asked Gates for the contact information of Jared Kushner, Trump's son-in-law and a senior advisor to the president.

WikiLeaks later ended up releasing emails stolen from the DNC during the campaign in an apparent effort to boost Trump's candidacy.

Jay Sekulow, a lawyer for Trump, declined to comment about Gates' testimony when contacted by CNBC.

Stone, a longtime Republican operative and friend of Trump's, is charged with lying to Congress about his contacts with WikiLeaks during the 2016 election, as well as other crimes. He has pleaded not guilty in the case.

Gates pleaded guilty in 2018 to lying to the FBI and to conspiracy. He testified later that same year against his former boss and onetime Trump campaign chief Manafort, who is now serving a 7-year prison term for multiple crimes. Gates has yet to be sentenced for his crimes.

Asked by a prosecutor Tuesday who on the Trump campaign had information about WikiLeaks, Gates said, "The only person that had information at that time, that I'm aware of, was Mr. Stone."

In early 2016, Gates testified, he and Stone had talked about WikiLeaks leader Julian Assange, who at the time was a fugitive holed up in Ecuador's embassy in London.

Stone "indicated that he would have information coming out," Gates said.

Gates said the phone call that occurred in July 2016 between Trump and Stone came as Trump and Gates were being driven to La Guardia Airport in New York City from Trump's Manhattan offices.

A prosecutor asked Gates, "Immediately after the phone call with Roger Stone, what did Mr. Trump say to you?"

Stone's lawyers objected to that question.

But after a bench conference with the judge, Gates was allowed to answer what Trump told him.

"He indicated that more information would be coming," Gates testified.

Gates said, "I did not" hear the content of the call.

Excerpt from:
Trump talked to Roger Stone about WikiLeaks, Rick Gates says in testimony contradicting the president - CNBC

Roger Stones trial was always going to be a show. The longtime political consultant and self-described agent provocateur has been known for years for his flamboyant tactics. Whats more, the Stone case was as close to a collusion trial as the Mueller investigation was going to get. Stone is charged with lying to Congress about the nature of his connections to WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange regarding hacked DNC emails, lying about his contacts and coordination with the Trump campaign about WikiLeaks, and pressuring a witness to his activities to lie. The trial should be a big deal. And in anticipation of the crowds of expected journalists, politicos, bystanders, gawkers and protestors, the court had set aside two overflow roomsone for the general public and one for the media.

But the show turned out to be something of a bustor, at least, the ticket sales were disappointing.

Ninety minutes before the trials opening on Tuesday, Nov. 5, fewer than 10 people waited awkwardly outside the courtroom of Judge Amy Berman Jackson. A few journalists and spectators eventually trickled in, along with members of the far-right media. These included the controversial Milo Yiannopouloswho is apparently writing a book about the trialand Gavin McInnes, founder of the far-right Proud Boys group. But it wasnt enough to fill the courtroom. The defendant himself stayed quiet, speaking only to waive his right to be present for jury selection, as he had apparently come down with a bout of food poisoning.

Opening arguments on Wednesday drew a slightly larger crowd. For a time, the court operated the overflow room and there was a separate media room to allow reporters to observe the trial with phones and computerselectronics being banned from the actual courtroom. But even then, the courtroom was at capacity only briefly in the late morning for the governments opening arguments. Stone had recovered but once again remained silent and stoic throughout the proceedings.

For a man who once called politics performance art, it was a rather muted show.

The proceedings grew more theatrical during radio personality Randy Credicos testimony on Thursday. This included Credicos impersonation of Bernie Sanders and an abundance of references to The Godfather, leading Jackson to instruct the jury in the evening not to watch the film on Netflix. Former White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon made some headlines when he appeared briefly on Fridayhere are some excellent blow-by-blow accounts of the proceedings. But its hard to escape the feeling that public attention to the Stone trial has been lackluster.

Admittedly, other big stories are leading the news these days: impeachment, off-year elections and the Democratic primary have all justifiably pulled focus away from Stone. But it feels like not so long ago the courtroom for a trial like this would have been jammed. Before the trial, a journalist noted that he arrived at Paul Manaforts August 2018 trial in the Eastern District of Virginia at 5:00 a.m., hours before the trial was supposed to begin, and there was already a line. And that trial was for financial crimes unrelated to Donald Trump. This one, by contrast, involves charges close to the heart of the presidents no collusion defense. So far, at least, it hasnt even merited a presidential tweet.

The Stone case will be the last of the Mueller trials, and its a weird kind of swan song. While the issues are serious, some of the characters seem like actors in the theater of the absurd. An investigation that dealt with a foreign effort to intervene in our electoral process is ending with The Godfather, a therapy dog and profanity-laced text messages. The trial also serves as an peculiar reunion for some of the more obscure characters who populated headlines and talking-head panels in the Mueller era. For instance, waiting outside the courtroom for the trial to resume after a break, a gray-haired man with a large silver skull ring on his middle finger snapped at an older gentleman in a sleek suit. The first turned out to be Michael Caputo, the former Trump campaign aide and Stone ally who made a cameo appearance in Muellers report. The second was Larry Klayman, the conservative activist and attorney who represents Stone acquaintance Jerome Corsi, who the government alleges was one of Stones intermediaries to WikiLeaks and who has sued both Stone and Mueller. Meanwhile, representatives from the One America News Network scoffed at some of the judges rulings, while some Mueller alumni spoke quietly to one another.

It is an odd throwback to the heyday of the Mueller investigation, when it felt impossible to keep track of the seemingly infinite characters, subplots and interpretations of fact.

All of which raises the question of who still cares about Stoneand, by extension, the Mueller investigation. If the audience in the courtroom is any metric, the answer to that is a few journalists, former members of the Mueller team, and a large contingent of the far-right media, and thats about it. That might be disheartening, but it provides an interesting lens into current feelings about the Mueller probe. This was a massive investigation that, just seven months ago, released a shocking and damning report about the Trump campaigns and Trumps own conduct related to contacts with the Russian government during the 2016 election and efforts to cover upand obstruct investigations intothat conduct.

The broader public doesnt seem to care anymore. The country paid attention to the Mueller report for a while, but after Muellers testimony and an anticlimactic reaction from Congress, that interest, at least in the mainstream media, seems to have faded away. While Congress continues to litigate for the Mueller report materials and testimony from witnesses in that investigation, it hasnt been front-and-center in the impeachment inquiry, whose attention has migrated west, from LAffaire Russe to LAffaire Ukrainienne. The Democratic candidates arent really talking about it either.

Yet if popular interest has faded among those opposed to the president, theres still enough interest in the far-right media constituency for Yiannopoulos to write a book about the trial and for Tucker Carlson of Fox News to spend time on his Wednesday evening show smearing Judge Jackson. Conspiracy theorist and Stone ally Alex Jones went on a tirade against a potential juror who had worked for the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) during the Obama administration, calling her a minion of the left. He even flashed a picture of a former OMB employee on the screen, alleging it was the potential juror. (It turned out he had the wrong person.) The supporters of the president with the largest microphones are using them to discredit this trial, even as his opponents have largely moved on.

There is also the question of Stones underlying conduct regarding backchanneling between WikiLeaks and the Trump administration that is asserted in the indictment and supported by documentary evidence. To be clear, the underlying conduct with respect to WikiLeaks is not directly at issue in the criminal trial; rather, Stone faces charges for attempting to obscure that conduct from the House Intelligence Committees investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.

Stone faces one count of obstructing a proceeding, five counts of making false statements to Congress, and one count of witness tampering for allegedly threatening and seeking to influence Credico. These efforts included threatening Credicos dog, Bianca. It also included telling Credico to pull a Frank Pentangeli, a reference to a character in The Godfather: Part II, who, in the words of the indictment, testifies before a congressional committee and in that testimony claims not to know critical information that he does in fact know. Stone, according to the government, made false statements that he did not have documentation of conversations about Assange during the period in question, when he, in fact, did; that references he made during August 2016 to an intermediary with WikiLeaks referenced Credico, while the government alleges they reference Corsi; that he did not ask his intermediary, meaning Credico, to communicate anything to Assange on Stones behalf, when he had; that Credico did not communicate by text or email about WikiLeaks, when he and Stone in fact communicated by text and email about the organization; and that he never discussed the conversations with the intermediary with anyone involved with the Trump campaign, when the government alleges it has documentary evidence contradicting this claim.

Rehashing that information in a criminal trial may shed new light on the specifics of Stones interactions with the Trump campaign. The government has already made public an email sent to Manafort, then the campaign chairman, a day after Corsi informed Stone that their friend in the embassy, referring to Assange, was planning two more dumps of hacked emails. The emails subject was, I have an idea, with the text, To save Trumps ass.

Stone is alleged to have played a pivotal part in the Trump campaigns efforts to plan a press strategy around the release by WikiLeaks of hacked emailsas the link between the Trump campaign in August 2016 and Julian Assange, with whom he is accused of communicating. During opening arguments for the government, prosecutor Aaron Zelinsky stated repeatedly that the jury will see that Stone lied because the truth looked bad. The truth looked bad for him and bad for the president, who was at that point beating a steady drum of No collusion! Zelinsky supported his more-than-hour-long opening statement with texts and emails involving Stone, Corsi, Credico and Trump campaign officials.

Stones alleged efforts to cover it up aside, the truth did eventually come out regarding the Trump campaigns conduct and its interface with Russian efforts to interfere with the 2016 election. There are 448 pages of fact-finding and legal analysis from Mueller and his team and hundreds of pages of indictments and plea agreements telling a damning story of what went on during the election and ensuing investigations.

There are also the convictions. Michael Flynn, George Papadopoulos, Michael Cohen, Rick Gates and Alexander van der Zwaan all pleaded guilty to lying to federal officials about the facts surrounding this investigation. They were all willing to violate federal law to keep the truth from being exposed. Manafort was convicted at one trial and reached a plea deal to avoid another one. For one reason or another, to use Zelinskys phrase, all of these people pleaded guilty to lying because the truth looked bad. Stone, by contrast, is going to trial. But, in any event, his alleged attempts to contact Assange through Corsi and Credico and his efforts to share information with the Trump campaign were eventually exposed.

Which brings us back to the question of who cares about the Roger Stone trial and, by extension, the Mueller investigationand why the right-wing media still care so much about it. Is it just because some of those present are friends of the defendant? Thats part of it, but I suspect theres more to it than that, that they and their audience are still hungry for Mueller content. What are they seeing that the rest of the media, congressional Democrats and presidential candidates, and average voters arent seeing? And what does that mean for American voters as the United Statess adversaries prepare to interfere in the 2020 election?

Go here to read the rest:
The Roger Stone Trial: What's Left of the Mueller Investigation - Lawfare