Multi-Emmy-award-winning filmmaker John Pilger is among the most important political filmmakers and investigative reporters of the 20 and 21st century. From Vietnam to Palestine to atomic war, Pilgers work has been on the cutting edge, and his stinging critique of Western media has always been revelatory and spot on. Indeed, his biting analysis is more relevant and important now than ever. His film, The Coming War on China powerfully sets out the growing potential for war between the U.S. and China. And his film released last year, The Dirty War on the NHS of Great Britain couldnt be more timely, in the age of COVID-19.

I spoke with John Pilger in London on September 12, in response to the case of investigative reporter and Wikileaks publisher Julian Assange, a close friend of Pilgers, who was back in a British court last week. Assange is currently fighting extradition to the US, where he is facing a 175 year jail sentence for alleged espionage.

Dennis J Bernstein:It is good of you to join us John Pilger. American prosecutors have indicted Julian Assange on 18 counts of espionage. They want him to serve 175 years in a US prison. Hes 50 years old, so that means they want him to die in jail. What is so dangerous to the Americans about Julian Assange?

John Pilger:Well, hes very dangerous. He exposes what governments the crimes of governments, the crimes that we the people know very little about. And in this case, he has revealed the unerring, relentless war crimes of the U.S. government, especially in the post-9/11 period. Thats his crime. There are so many ironies to this, Dennis. Assange is more than a whistleblower. Hes a truth teller and as the so-called corporate media is now committed almost entirely to propaganda, the truth that he tells is simply intolerable, unforgivable. He for example, he Wikileaks exposed something those of us who have reported Americas wars already know about, and that is the homicidal nature of these wars, the way the United States has exported the homicide that so consumes much of U.S. society, the way that its exported it to other countries, the relentless killing of civilians.

The video, Collateral Murder, in which an Apache helicopter crew guns down civilians, including journalists, in Baghdad, with the crew laughing and mocking the suffering and death beneath them was not something that will be unique. All of us who have reported lets say Americas colonial wars had stories of that kind of thing happening. But Assange had evidence, and thats and that was his other crime. His evidence is authentic. All the disclosures of Wikileaks are authentic. That makes it very different from other kinds of journalism, which some are authentic, but some are not. Thats just the way it goes. But all of Wikileaks disclosures are authentic. They are coming from within a system and all of that has really shaken, I think, the inner core of the national security establishment in the United States. And nothing is being spared, to get hold of Assange and put him away.

Bernstein:And that is very troubling to those of us who really consider ourselves journalists. We know thatU.S.authorities allege that Assange conspired with U.S. Army Intelligence Analyst Chelsea Manning.Manning spent a lot of time in jail, in solitary and she is back in jail again. Theyre going after her and him.Really, the point that you make about collateral murder, some would say he released important secrets ofthe United States. Others would say he told the truth about a country called the United States, engaged inmass murder.

Pilger:Well, these revelations give us more than a glimpse of the sociopathic nature of the way the United Statesconducts itself around the world. You know, many people are shocked by the behavior of Donald Trump,but they really wouldnt shouldnt be shocked. Well, yes, they should be shocked. They but theyshouldnt be surprised, because Trumps behavior has been the behavior of his predecessors overmany years. The difference is that Trump is a caricature of the system. And so, hes much easier toidentify, much easier to loathe, I suppose [laughs], certainly much easier to understand. It makes it all verysimple and simplistic, but its rather more complicated than that.

The evidence that Wikileaks produced was long before Trump, and its we now know, of course, thatAfghanistan has been a killing field for the United States and its so-called allies since 2001. I mean, therewas a report you may have seen, just recently, by Brown University, Professor David Vine, at theWatson Institute at Brown, I know David, where this study estimates that some 37 million people thatsequivalent to the entire population of Canada have been forced to flee their home country by the actionsof the United States. He says this is a very conservative figure, that the numbers of these displacedpeopleis probably in the region of between 48 and 59 people [sic]. They estimate that 9.2 million peopleand 7.1 million people in Syria have been displaced.

Now, the numbers of deaths and again, they emphasize how conservative this finding is, is something like12 million. This carnage has been going on for a very long time, but Professor Vine and his researchersare only referring to the period since 9/11, the so-called war on terror, which, of course, has been a war ofterror all that time, as his findings demonstrate. And Wikileaks findings really complement these facts, andwere talking of facts here. This isnt an opinion. These things have happened. These people have beenforced out of their homes. Their societies have been destroyed. Untold numbers have been probably sentout of their mind, and many, many people are grieving the loss of loved ones because of these actions.

So, Wikileaks has given us that truth, and really, Julian Assange has performed a quite remarkable publicservice in letting us know hes let hes letting us know how governments lie to us, how our governmentslie to us, not the official enemies, although Wikileaks, of course, has released hundreds of thousands ofdocuments, secret documents from Russia and China and other countries. But its really those countries inthe West that we regard as our countries that matter most. Hes forced us what he hes forced us tolook in the mirror. That has been his extraordinary contribution and to true enlightenment of Westernsocieties. And for that, hes paying a very high price

Hes told us the truth, in other words. He is shining the light on all corruption in the worldWikileaks has given us insights. Wikileaks has allowed us to see how governments operate in secret,behind their backs. I mean, that is such an essential part of any true democracy that really theres nodiscussion about. It should be just part of it. But weve reached a stage in the 21st century where theformal democracies have changed character to such a degree.

I dont know, really, what theyve become, but theyre certainly not democracies, where almost every daythey invent a new law that is designed to suppress truth or make what they do even more secretive. Andthats thats earned him the curiously, but I suppose understandably, if youre a psychiatrist, thatsearned him the animosity of many journalists, because he shamed journalism for not doing the job, for nottelling us.

Bernstein:Whats your best understanding of how Julian is doing, and please talk a little bit about why he is in courtnow, and about the process?

Pilger:Well, this is the continuation of the extradition hearing, which is going at an agonizingly slow pace. And itbegan in February, and it picked up again on MondaySeveral of the defense witnesses have been have been very impressive. Clive StaffordSmith, the who has is an American lawyer but also a British lawyer. He practice can practice in bothcountries. And he founded the organization, Reprieve, and he has had a lot to do with helping people inGuantanamo.

And he was describing to the court the importance of Wikileaks revelations about Guantanamo, howWikileaks had shone a light on the whole dark corner that was Guantanamo. And he was describing thepositive impact of that. Theres been argument about what has come through, what is clear, is that manysenior Department of Justice officials did not want to carry through this prosecution. Assange was neverprosecuted during Obamas time, because Obama understood very clearly that if Assange was prosecuted,then the knock-on effect would be that those media institutions, such as the New York Times, which hadcarried Wikileaks revelations, would have to be prosecuted as well. And Im sure not for any principalreason, but for his own political reasons, he decided the administration decided not to go that far.

It is the Trump administration that has decided to go that far, because Trump is clearly well, hes declaredthat hes at war with the American media. He called them enemies of the people, and for his ownreasons. I mean, there are no argued principal reasons. There are plenty [laughs] plenty of reasons tobe critical of the media. But Trumps quite different from that. And undoubtedly Wikileaks has been sweptup in this personal war that Trump is conducting Trump and his cronies are conducting against the media.People like Pompeo, I mean, Pompeo has really swore publicly that he would be going after JulianAssange, in so many words.He was rather angry when he was Director of the CIA that Wikileaks leaked files known as Vault 7, andVault 7 was the CIA files that really told us how the CIA spy on us and can spy on us through our televisionsets. And so, theres no question Julian Assange has made real enemies among these people, and theyrevery extreme people. And their though their indictment reflects their almost their desperation, becausemost of the so-called charges are to do with espionage. So, journalism is reclassified by the Trumpadministration as espionage, and theyre using a 1917 Espionage Act that was brought in during the FirstWorld War to silence peace activists, who didnt want the United States to join Europe in the First WorldWar.

Thats how desperate they are. Theyve had to reach back more than a century and defy the Constitution,which, of course, allows the publication the free publication of leaks and documents. But they are defyingthat and ignoring it. And so far, theyre getting away with it. The truth is, Dennis, that this ordeal that JulianAssange is going through day after day in a court where the whole atmosphere is not of due process butof due revenge and bias, hes hes going through this because those who have political power regarda political enemy. Its a completely lawless approach. It has nothing to do with the law.

And the truth is that these so-called these espionage charges and all the rest of these frankly ridiculousindictments wouldve been thrown out on the first day of any legitimate court hearing or would never havegot to court, in the first place. Ive sat in a number of courts over the years. Ive never heard anything likethese. Theres a kind of its like Alices tea party, you know, theyre mad. But theyre very serious.

Bernstein:I think where US journalists fail most is their ignorance around foreign policy, context, and history. Youknow, the genius in American foreign policy is Thomas Friedman of the New York Times, who knows verylittle about a lot. But I want to I mean, for instance, this fantasy story that came up about the Russianspaying the Taliban to kill Americans.

Pilger:Yeah, Dennis, and the the Russians stole the election from Hilary Clinton and Saddam Hussein reallydid have weapons of mass destruction, and so on and so on.Its just fantasy. Theres nothing I find thereis absolutely nothing to be believed now. Fantasy: A Russian politician, a very unsavory character he is,too; hes not an opposition leader, is miraculously poisoned with Novichok, made in the former Soviet Unionand miraculously spirited into Berlin, where the German doctors contradict the Russian doctors and saythat he was poisoned. I mean, [laughs] you know, anything can be made up now. I mean, it always madeup, in one sense. You know, I I think I was self-taught that you never believed anything that well, younever believe anything, until it was officially denied. That was the famous maxim of great Irish muckrakerClaude Cockburn. But you never believed anything that had intelligent sources as its legitimacy. Youdismissed it. A real journalist dismissed it.

Now, all this nonsense is is all over front pages and spoken with such hysterical certainty on the TV news.

This is government propaganda on steroids, at the moment. I mean, they laugh at Trump, but I mean, in away, quite separately, the media is a propaganda vehicle is well and truly past Trump, in its in the power ofits fantasies.

Bernstein:Finally, John, you know, in the current context of politics and the presidential election, youve got both sidessmashing China, blaming China, sort of setting us up for that 21st-century war that you warned us about inThe Coming War on China. Your thoughts on whats coming up here.

Pilger:Well, Im sorry that film of four years ago seems to have been prescient. The Trump administration is soobsessed with China. And so, when I spoke of fantasies before, we now have China fantasies, day afterday. Now, but what this is doing is creating a state of almost not quite yet, but its getting there, a state ofsiege in China. And they are very hurriedly putting up the ramparts, their defenses. Theyre developingsome extremely effective maritime missiles, and theyre changed their as I understand it, theyvechanged their nuclear posture from low alert to high alert. Theyre doing all sorts of things they hadno intention of doing, when I was there four years ago. Then, they were bemused [laughs].

Now, I think theyre genuinely worried, and theyre moving quickly to prepare to in preparing to defendthemselves. Thats a situation when mistakes and accidents can happen, and these are nuclear powers.

People have to understand that propaganda has is lethal. Its lethal in many ways, but it can be literallylethal. It can create the conditions that lead to war. And I think thats a possibility, at the moment. It hasnt it hasnt happened yet, but the risks are now far more numerous, and they come day after day.

Bernstein:Finally, do whats your sense of how Julian is doing, personally? Is he hanging on? Whats the situation? What do we know about the physical stuff?

Pilger:Well, hes certainly hanging on. He looks like hes put on a little more weight, which is good news. But hehas still has an untreated lung condition. Hes managing to survive in a prison where there have beenCOVID cases and at least one COVID death. But the thing about Julian is his resilience, for me. I mean,there are lots of interesting sides to the man, but his resilience is probably [laughs] the most extraordinary,how he keeps going. But he is. And but he is still only one human being, and the pressures of this showtrial, this squalid show trial and all the sordid events that led up to it, he is an innocent man. His only crimeis journalism.

Bernstein:His only crime is journalism. And whats at stake, if he loses? If Julia Assange is sent to jail for the rest ofhis life for committing the act of journalism. Do we lose, here in the United States, the First Amendment?Whats at stake?

Pilger:Whats at stake? Well, whats at stake, first of all, is justice for this for this person, this one heroicindividual. But on a wider sense, what is at stake is is freedom. And I dont really say immediately. Itsquite even among those who support Julian and campaign for him, but freedom of the press is at stake.

Well, I dont think there is any free press. So, Im not sure that thats at stake, because it doesnt exist,certainly not in the mainstream. But I think the freedom of those exceptional journalists, and thats theyrepresent the free press, those principled mavericks who have nothing to do with the Guardian or the NewYork Times or any of these institutions.

I think theyre the whole principle of their right to be free journalists is at stake. Certainly, above all that, isthe right of all of us to live in free societies and to know to call to account great power, to know what itdoes. Theyre very basic freedoms at stake, here.

Follow this link:

The Extradition Trial of Julian Assange: an Interview With John Pilger - CounterPunch.org - CounterPunch

LONDON (AP) A lawyer for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has told a London court that her client was indirectly offered a win-win deal by President Donald Trump that would see him avoid extradition to the U.S. if he revealed the source of a leak of documents from the Democratic Party before the 2016 election.

Assange, who didnt reveal the source of the leak of the Democratic National Committee emails, is fighting efforts by the U.S. to extradite him to face an array of charges related to his work at WikiLeaks.

Jennifer Robinson, who has represented WikiLeaks for a decade, relayed to the court Friday via a written statement that her client had been made an offer at a meeting on Aug. 15, 2017, with former Republican congressman Dana Rohrabacher and Trump associate Charles Johnson.

In her statement that was read out at Londons Criminal Court, Robinson said the pair wanted us to believe they were acting on behalf of the president and that they had stated that Trump was aware of and had approved of them coming to meet with Assange to discuss the proposal. She also said the pair said they would have an audience with the president to discuss the matter on their return to Washington.

Robinson said that Rohrabacher had said he had come to London to talk to Assange at his then-refuge at the Ecuadorian Embassy about what might be necessary to get him out, presenting him with a win-win situation that would allow him to leave the embassy and get on with his life without fear of being extradited to the U.S.

The proposal put forward by Congressman Rohrabacher was that Assange identify the source for the 2016 election publications in return for some kind of pardon, assurance or agreement which would both benefit President Trump politically and prevent U.S. indictment and extradition, Robinson said. Any information on the source of the link would be of interest, value and assistance to Trump, the pair said, according to Robinson.

Robinson said that Rohrabacher explained at the meeting that he wanted to resolve the ongoing speculation about Russian involvement in the leaks. Russia has been widely blamed to have been behind the email theft. At the time of the meeting, special counsel Robert Mueller was investigating alleged ties between Russia and Trumps 2016 election campaign.

Assange didnt reveal the source of the leak of the Democratic National Committee emails, which were published by WikiLeaks, among others, in 2016 in the run-up to the election. They are considered to have damaged Hillary Clintons presidential campaign against Trump.

Rohrabacher, who lost his seat in the 2018 midterm elections, has previously said he never spoke with Trump about Assange and wasnt directed by the president or anyone else connected with him to meet with Assange.

James Lewis, a lawyer acting on behalf of the U.S. government, said it wasnt contesting that these things were said.

We obviously do not accept the truth of what was said by others, he said.

U.S. prosecutors have indicted the 49-year-old Assange on 17 espionage charges, and one of computer misuse, over WikiLeaks publication of secret U.S. military documents a decade ago, largely around the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq a decade ago. The charges carry a maximum sentence of 175 years in prison.

Assanges lawyers say the prosecution is politically motivated and that he wont receive a fair trial in the United States. They also argue that Assange was acting as a journalist entitled to First Amendment protection.

Assange has been in a British prison since his ejection from the Ecuadorian Embassy in London in April 2019. He had been granted asylum by Ecuador in 2012 over fears he would face possible extradition to the U.S. related to his work with WikiLeaks.

The extradition hearing is due to last until early October.

View original post here:
Assange lawyer says Trump associates offered deal if WikiLeaks founder divulged hacked DNC emails didnt come via Russia - MarketWatch

US extradition charges filed against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange are politically motivated, a court heard yesterday.

Mark Feldstein, a journalism historian expert and professor of broadcasting at the university of Maryland in the US, told the Old Bailey the case was the first use of the US Espionage Act for journalistic activities.

The political motive of the prosecution was shown by the unprecedented nature of the charges against him, the fact that Assanges prosecution was rejected by former president Barack Obama, the framing of the indictment, and current president Donald Trumps known vitriol for the press, he said.

He was speaking on the second day of an extradition hearing against the founder of WikiLeaks, who faces 18 charges in total, 17 of which are under the US Espionage Act.

Assange was re-arrested before the hearing, when he was served with a superseding indictment which added new allegations that he conspired with computer hackers to obtain information for WikiLeaks.

During the hearing, Feldsteins evidence came under attack from James Lewis QC, representing the US, who accused Feldstein of omitting from his witness statement evidence that would harm Assanges defence.

Under cross-examination from Assanges defence counsel, Mark Summers QC said there had been a long history in the US of whistleblowers leaking classified information to the media.

In written evidence, he said the Senate Intelligence Committee had counted 147 classified leaks to eight top US newspapers in just six months, and a study by a law professor found there had been thousands upon thousands of national security-related leaks to the media.

He told the court that although the US government had charged whistleblowers, it had never charged publishers because it feared running foul of the US constitution, which protects freedom of speech.

The government intentionally paints Julian Assanges activity in a very nefarious light. Soliciting information, gathering information is a standard thing that all journalists do. It is standard operating procedure. We teach it at conferences and journalism school, he said.

Feldstein said he was sceptical of the US governments claims that documents published by WikiLeaks disclosed the names of people and put them at risk.

He said over-classification of documents by the US government was rampant and that its principle concern was not national security, but embarrassment.

It is easy to assert that there will be harm from national security stories that will be published. It is often impossible to refute. If you look at this at face value, you have to be sceptical, he said.

When the New York Times began publishing excerpts of the Pentagon Papers, a top secret study of the Vietnam war, the solicitor general claimed it would cause irreparable harm to the security of the US.

He later admitted that he had never seen any trace of a threat to the national security from the publication.

Questioned by Edward Fitzgerald QC, representing Assange, Feldstein said that according to publicly available accounts, the Obama Administration was eager to file charges against Assange.

The justice department decided in 2013 that it could not prosecute Assange because it would set a precedent for the prosecution of journalists, and it was not clear that charging Assange with publishing classified information would succeed.

That changed under the Trump regime, when the administration wanted to put a head on a pike to send a message to journalists. Trump talked about putting reporters in jail and the CIA director Mike Pompeo attacked WikiLeaks as a hostile intelligence service.

James Lewis QC, acting for the US, challenged Feldsteins account, arguing that it was clear that a US grand jury continued its investigation into Assange through the Obama presidency and into the Trump presidency.

Feldstein said he knew from his experience as a reporter that grand juries continue investigating, but that the proof is in the pudding the Obama regime did not charge Assange.

Lewis questioned why Feldstein, as an impartial witness, had left out a full copy of an article from the Washington Post he referred to his report in a footnote.

The paper reported that officials had said a formal decision had not been made on charging Assange and that there was little possibility of bringing a case against him unless he had been implicated in criminal activity, other than releasing top secret documents.It also quoted a WikiLeaks spokesman who said he was sceptical that the US government was not going to prosecute WikiLeaks.

The reason you might not have included it was it has an important section you might not want anyone else to read, said Lewis.

Feldstein said he had made editorial decisions on what to include in his report. He said he had reported that the Obama administration had decided not to bring charges not that the grand jury investigation was closed.

Professor, as an unbiased expert, would it not have been fair to put in your report that there was an ongoing investigation? said Lewis.

The court heard that Assanges US lawyer, Barry Pollack, had said the US had not informed him that they had closed the investigation and that WikiLeaks had tweeted that if Obama granted clemency to Assange, he would agree to go to a US prison.

Lewis repeatedly asked Feldstein why he had left that and other similar information out of his report.

I do not see how these tweets about what Assange or WikiLeaks did really shed much light on it. What matters, and is more credible, are the people who are engaged on it, he said.

Lewis pressed Feldstein whether, if Assange had conspired with Chelsea Manning to leak classified documents, putting her in breach of US law, Assange would also commit a crime.

It would depend on the details, said Feldstein.

The journalism historian said he did not agree that WikiLeaks should have published unredacted documents that could have potentially exposed individuals.

Lewis argued that a grand jury had found probable cause to bring charges against Assange, and that the charges were brought by independent prosecutors following a legal code.

Are you saying that President Trump or the Attorney General directed them to bring charges irrespective of the evidence against Assange? he asked.

We wont know until history renders the motive, replied Feldstein.

Under re-examination byMark Summers QC, also representing Assange, Feldstein said journalists solicit information from sources as an essential part of their work.

The New York Times worked closely with Daniel Ellsberg, the Pentagon Papers whistleblower, to publish secret government documents on the Vietnam war. At one point, a reporter had a key to the room where the documents were kept.

Journalists conspire with their sources every day. They cajole them to get what they need. They send them back to get more information. If that becomes conspiring, that is most of what journalism does, he said.

Feldstein said it was telling that the US government had brought conspiracy charges against Assange, rather than prosecuting him under the US Intelligence Identities Protection Act for leaking government cables that disclosed names.

The fact that Assange was indicted on 17 charges of espionage, he said, suggested the US was trying to set a wider precedent for the press.

The case continues.

Originally posted here:

US conspiracy charges against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange politically motivated - ComputerWeekly.com

There will be no judicial cooperation forthcoming from the United States unless a Spanish judge reveals his information sources in an investigation into alleged espionage against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange while he was living in the Ecuadorean embassy in London.

Judge Jos de la Mata of Spains High Court (Audiencia Nacional) has sent a request for judicial cooperation to US authorities as part of his probe into a Spanish private security company named UC Global S.L. and its owner David Morales, on allegations that this firm secretly recorded Assanges private meetings with lawyers, politicians, relatives and journalists at the embassy, where he took refuge in 2012 to avoid separate legal proceedings against him in Sweden.

Judge De la Mata has asked US prosecutors for the IP addresses of the computers or other networked devices that allegedly connected from American soil to a server in southern Spain

Morales was arrested a year ago and released pending trial. According to testimony from several protected witnesses and former UC Global workers who gave evidence in connection with the case, Morales provided the CIA with recordings, video material and reports detailing the activities of the 49-year-old Australian cyber-activist inside the diplomatic mission, where he lived until his eviction in April 2019.

Judge De la Mata, who is heading the probe into UC Global, has asked US prosecutors for the IP (Internet Protocol) addresses of the computers or other networked devices that allegedly connected from American soil to a server held by the private security firm at its headquarters in the southern Spanish city of Jerez de la Frontera.

That server stored all the recordings made by cameras at the embassy, where UC Global was in charge of security, as well as reports drafted by company employees detailing each visit that Assange received, images of the visitors' passports, and photographs of their cellphones and electronic devices.

According to testimony by several ex-workers as well as e-mails used as evidence in the investigation, US intelligence services allegedly had access to this central server.

US prosecutors have now sent a letter to Mara de las Heras, a liaison judge for Spain in the US, asking her to convey their demands to De la Mata. These include showing proof that the requested IP addresses are relevant and substantial to the investigation. The document requests further details about the Spanish probe, including the sources of information for most of the assertions made in the request for judicial cooperation.

The Spanish judge has been asked to answer a long list of questions regarding every aspect of his investigation, including who he believes that Morales was providing information to, or whether the judge thinks Morales was working for a foreign information service or as an agent for a foreign power or whether it was simply a case of bribery.

US prosecutors have asked for all this information to be relayed before October 16, otherwise we will assume that Spanish authorities are not interested and the request will be shelved.

The Spanish judge has been asked to answer a long list of questions regarding every aspect of his investigation, including who he believes that Morales was providing information to

The alleged espionage on Assange by UC Global was revealed in 2019 by an EL PAS investigation that uncovered numerous illegal recordings made while the WikiLeaks founder was living at the Ecuadorean embassy.

Assanges defense later took legal action against Morales, who is a former member of the military, and against his company. Morales is currently being investigated for alleged violations of privacy and client-attorney privilege, as well as for bribery and money laundering.

The cyber-activist was evicted from the embassy after Ecuador withdrew his asylum status, and since then Assange has been held at Londons high-security Belmarsh Prison. He is fighting extradition to the US, where he is wanted on 18 charges of espionage and computer misuse that carry a maximum penalty of 175 years.

WikiLeakss publication of secret US military documents shed light on war crimes by US troops in Afghanistan and Iraq; the organization also revealed thousands of diplomatic cables and released an operations manual for the US prison at Guantanamo, among other disclosures.

Judge De la Mata has just summoned Michelle Wallemak, the former head of operations at UC Global, to provide testimony in court as one of the suspects under investigation in his probe. Wallemak allegedly ordered the companys security personnel to carry out some of the espionage activities against Assange.

English version by Susana Urra.

More:

US demands hinder Spanish probe into alleged CIA ties to security firm that spied on Assange - EL PAS in English

Image Courtesy of CNN

By: Jeremy Perillo

A new bipartisan report released by the Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee affirms that Russia did indeed interfere with the 2016 election to help President Donald Trump win the White House. The report comes as Trumps allies continue to protest any accusations against Trump, his allies, or his campaign when it comes to Russian interference.

The nearly one thousand-page report signals the end of the committees three-year probe into election meddling by the Russians. One of the concerns made by senators was that especially given the 2020 election is less than eighty days away, interference, particularly from the Russians, is nearly a guarantee for the upcoming election.

The committee investigation was able to go beyond what Robert Muellers report outlined since Mueller and his team was limited to calls of criminality outlined in the special counsel probe. Mueller concluded that Russian interference was sweeping and apparent, but found no criminal conspiracy between the Russians and the Trump campaign.

The key findings from this new report offer more details and a better perspective on Russian interference during the last election. One of those findings delves further into former Trump campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, and his connections with a Russian intelligence officer. The committee speculates that that Russian intelligence officer may have been connected to the 2016 Russian hacking operation. Overall, the committee held Manaforts role in the campaign represented a grave counterintelligence threat.

The report also discussed how Trump and senior campaign officials sought information on Wikileaks email dumps through Roger Stone, and that Trump had indeed discussed Wikileaks with Stone, despite telling the special counsel otherwise.

The committee found that the information gained from the 2016 Trump Tower meeting with Russian nationals was part of a broader influence operation by the Kremlin, and made clear to note that there was no evidence that the Trump campaign knew of that. The Russian nationals had significant connections and ties to the Russian government and Russian intelligence.

Given the drama surrounding these various high-profile events with the Trump campaign, another aspect the report touches on how various Russian-government actors continued to spread misinformation on Russian election interference, into 2020. The report specifically names Manafort and his Russian connection as individuals who promoted the narrative that Ukraine interfered with the election, rather than Russia.

While the committees report, and various other government investigations, have cleared Trump or his campaign from colluding with the Russians, the report shows the exhaustive extent Russia took to influence the results of the 2016 election.

We can say, without any hesitation, that the Committee found absolutely no evidence that then-candidate Donald Trump or his campaign colluded with the Russian government to meddle in the 2016 election, said Senator Marco Rubio, the committees acting chairman. What the Committee did find, however, is very troubling. We found irrefutable evidence of Russian meddling.

I encourage all Americans to carefully review the documented evidence of the unprecedented and massive intervention campaign waged on behalf of then-candidate Donald Trump by Russians and their operatives and to reach their own independent conclusions, said Senator Mark Warner, the committees Ranking Member.

The responses show a divide in how both sides are positioning this report. Republicans find this report as another exoneration of the Trump campaign, as there was no evidence of collusion. Democrats seem to disregard that fact, and would rather focus on the appalling efforts by the Russians to influence the Trump campaign.

There is little doubt that government investigations will quickly reveal unprecedented foreign interference in the election, unfortunately confirming the fears of many American voters throughout this election cycle. This report will be one of many reviewed as the government acts on the inevitable perversion of American democracy.

Here is the original post:

Republican-led Senate Panel Reinforces Russian Interference - Catholic University of America The Tower

Julian Assange is somewhat notorious in the United States for his work on the famed website WikiLeaks. The site would publish documents leaked by whistleblowers from any powerful place the entertainment industry or even a government. Whether you agree with their actions or not, their work was a search for truth with the hope of justice.

However, Assange & WikiLeaks crossed a line in 2010 after four years of running the site. The United States government was furious and Assange has been on the run ever since. If you dont recall what happened with Julian Assange, WikiLeaks, and the U.S. government, lets recap it. Then well look at why hes making headlines for possible extradition again.

WikiLeaks wasnt Assanges first transgression. The Australian-born man was convicted of hacking all the way back in 1995. He got off with a fine and a promise not to do it again.

In 2006 Assange decided to co-found the website WikiLeaks where people could send information & documents in order to expose the nasty & illegal secrets of the world. There was contention about the site for years. Questions of legality in many instances arose, and some wondered whether this was truly the best outlet for whistleblowers.

In 2010 WikiLeaks posted a video from a U.S. military helicopter that bore proof of eighteen civilians being killed in Baghdad, Iraq. Following this, the website also posted hundreds of thousands of documents from U.S. Army intelligence. The whistleblowers name is Chelsea Manning.

The U.S. government was exposed for having killed 66,000 civilians deaths that went unreported. The documents also contained information regarding the torture of prisoners. It wasnt long before the U.S. government made it clear they had every intention of prosecuting Julian Assange for his part in the major military leak. He was forced to flee to anywhere he could find asylum after exposing the war crimes.

Julian Assanges life has been tumultuous ever since his decision to post the 2010 documents, but as of today, hes in a British prison. Specifically, hes being held at the Belmarsh Prison in London. He was originally arrested under the pretense of a Swedish extradition request due to a completely different circumstance in Sweden, but it has now become clear the arrest was for the United States desire of extradition.

The United States has eighteen charges against Julian Assange (meanwhile, Chelsea Manning, the woman who gave the documents to Assange, was given a presidential pardon by Barack Obama). Assanges charges include one count of conspiracy to receive national defense information, seven counts of obtaining national defense information, nine counts of disclosure of national defense information, and one count of conspiracy to commit computer intrusion.

Each individual charge could net Assange a potential maximum sentence of ten years in prison, save for the final charge, which only carries a maximum sentence of five years provided, of course, hes found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Right now, Assange has three countries pursuing him the United Kingdom, Sweden, and the United States. He was found guilty of breaching bail in the UK which could force him to spend up to 12 months in prison.

For the U.S., theyll have to wait for a decision from a British court as to whether Julian Assange will be extradited for his WikiLeaks involvement. However, the U.S. may also have to contend with a possible request from Sweden. The country once was pursuing sexual assault claims pointed at Assange, but they were later dropped. Sweden has now said theyre considering reopening the case.

Now that Julian Assange is no longer safe in asylum it appears he will, after all these years, have to go to court.

See the original post here:

Will Julian Assange finally be extradited for his WikiLeaks work? - Film Daily

Recently, the Senate Intelligence Committee issued a fifth report on Russian interference in the 2016 election. Senate insiders obviously coordinated with allies in the media to spin the 1,000-page report in a desperate effort to revive the Russian collusion hoax.

Robert Mueller deputy Andrew Weissmann, who is promoting a new book, helped pump up the new revelations, citing information about Paul Manafort and Konstantin Kilimniks relationship and Roger Stones alleged foreknowledge of the public release of WikiLeaks emails. Neither story is new and both have been thoroughly debunked by the free, non-legacy press, such as The Federalist. Below is a brief, partial list of debunked conspiracy theories the report attempted to resurrect with the help of hoaxers in the media.

The report found that Manaforts presence on the Campaign and proximity to Trump created opportunities for Russian intelligence services to exert influence over, and acquire confidential information on, the Trump Campaign. Taken as a whole, Manaforts high-level access and willingness to share information with individuals closely affiliated with the Russian intelligence services, particularly Kilimnik and associates of Oleg Deripaska, represented a grave counterintelligence threat.

This is false. Manafort shared internal Trump campaign polling data with Kilimnik, a longtime employee. Neither the Mueller report nor the Senate report produced evidence, beyond innuendo, the Kilimnik was an active intelligence officer acting on orders from the Kremlin.

In the immediate aftermath of the May 2019 special counsel report, reporter Paul Sperry debunked the reports innuendo against Kilimnik. He wrote,

The special prosecutors report indicated that one of Manaforts Kremlin handlers was Konstantin Kilimnik. Manafort briefed Kilimnik on the state of the Trump Campaign and Manaforts plan to win the election, it said. That briefing encompassed the Campaigns messaging and its internal polling data. It also included discussion of battleground states, which Manafort identified as Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Minnesota.

Except that this wouldnt have been an unusual conversation: Kilimnik was a longtime Manafort employee who ran the Ukraine office of his lobbying firm. Footnotes in Muellers report show that Manafort shared campaign information to impress a former business partner, Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska, who was suing him over financial losses. Mueller failed to tie the information exchange to Russian espionage. He also failed to mention that Deripaska is an FBI informant.

The New York Times broke that Deripaska was a U.S. informant the FBI tried to use to entrap the Trump campaign. The Times then reported that the FBI pressed Mr. Deripaska about whether his former business partner, Mr. Manafort, had served as a link to the Kremlin during his time as Mr. Trumps campaign chairman.Mr. Deripaska, though, told the F.B.I. agents that while he had no love for Mr. Manafort, with whom he was in a bitter business dispute, he found their theories about his role on the campaign preposterous. Yet in its dishonest reporting on the latest Senate report, the Times failed to cite its own scoop from September 2018.

The Senate report claims, The information that Natalia Veselnitskaya, the Russian lawyer, offered during the June 9, 2016 meeting and planned to offer again at the follow-up meeting requested by Aras. Agalarov was part of a broader influence operation targeting the United States that was coordinated, at least in part, with elements of the Russian government.

If thats true, then Hillary Clinton and Democrat PR firm Fusion GPS were the ones working with the Russians to interfere with the election. In June 2016, members of the Trump campaign including Donald Trump Jr. briefly met with an oddball delegation that included two Russians, one of whom claimed to have dirt on Hillary Clinton.

The firm Clinton hired to frame Trump for colluding with the Russians, Fusion GPS, had longstanding ties with both of those Russians, Natalia Veselnitskaya and Rinat Akhmetshin. The Senate report discloses that Veselnitskaya used research from Fusion GPS as bait.

Obviously, its not a coincidence that the two Russians the Trump campaign met also happened to be working with the firm hired to frame Trump for colluding with the Russians. Indeed, as noted by the Senate report, Veselnitskaya had dinner with Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson the night before and after the Trump Tower meeting.

As noted in 2018 by Lee Smith, A growing body of evidence, however, indicates that the meeting may have been a setup part of a broad effort to tarnish the Trump campaign involving Hillary Clinton operatives employed by Kremlin-linked figures and Department of Justice officials. This view, that the real collusion may have taken place among those who arranged the meeting rather than the Trump officials who agreed to attend it.

Its totally dishonest to include this meeting in a 2020 Senate report again, implying it shows the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians. The Trump campaign ended the meeting after a few minutes and rebuffed efforts for a follow-up.

And if the Russians did steal the Democratic National Committee emails and colluded with the Trump campaign, why didnt Russia use this meeting to give those emails to the Trump campaign instead of a Clinton file prepared by Clintons subcontractor? The obvious answer is that the Clinton dirt was just a prop for a Fusion GPS setup meant to put Donald Trump Jr. in a room with a Russian.

The New York Times wrote of this theory advanced in the report:

The Intelligence Committee sought to track calls between Mr. Trump and Roger J. Stone Jr. an adviser to the Trump campaign who was in contact with Guccifer 2.0, the online pseudonym for Russian intelligence operatives dumping the Democratic emails in an effort to discover what Mr. Stone might have told Mr. Trump about the hacked emails.

In written answers to Mr. Mueller, Mr. Trump said he could not recall discussing WikiLeaks with Mr. Stone, a response challenged in the Senate report. The committee assesses that Trump did, in fact, speak with Stone about WikiLeaks and with members of his Campaign about Stones access to WikiLeaks on multiple occasions, the report said.

But when one drills into the documents, Stones contacts with Guccifer 2.0 dont appear to exceed a single exchange, which was about publicly available information. As I wrote here, Stone is just a fool who lies about gossiping. He dressed up (incorrect) speculation about the WikiLeaks dumps as though he had inside knowledge. He didnt.

Trump denies any recollection of speaking with Stone about the WikiLeaks document dumps. If he did, all Stone had to offer was the same idle speculation anyone reading public accounts might engage in.

Stone also had virtually nothing to do with WikiLeaks in spite of his braggadocio to the contrary. According to a recent Business Insider article, Stone sent WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange a Twitter message in spring 2016. That has since been characterized as a source of inside knowledge by Stone about the Clinton emails. But theres no evidence that WikiLeaks told him anything that wasnt already public knowledge.

To understand the absurdity of the Senate committee pushing the Roger Stone-Russia connection, one must first understand that Stone is a wannabe insider. In a way, Stones arrest was the fulfillment of his dream to be relevant to the grand drama of the Russia controversy.

Although the report mentions Stone a whopping 113 times, its forced to admit that Stone really didnt know anything that wasnt already public. One bullet reads, The Committee could not reliably determine the extent of authentic, non-public knowledge about WikiLeaks that Stone obtained and shared with the Campaign. Its telling that the Senate Intelligence Committee would dignify the sordid and irrelevant Roger Stone story with any attention at all.

Dont forget a question Sperry posed: Did Robert Mueller Tap Fusion GPS and Christopher Steele to Assist His Anti-Trump Investigation? Recall that after the election, the get-Trump movement raised millions of dollars to continue funding Fusion GPS.

Then, in a particularly tell-tale sign of Fusions involvement in the Mueller report, their company name does not appear a single time in that report. Only a party interested in protecting Fusion GPS could produce an extensive report on the Russian collusion hoax without mentioning the firm that was behind it all.

The Senate report mentions Fusion GPS a mere two times in spite of reporting extensively on Fusion GPS-connected events. That leads one to again wonder whether Fusion GPS might have had editorial input in the Senate report.

Adam Mill is a pen name. He works in Kansas City, Missouri as an attorney specializing in labor and employment and public administration law. Adam has contributed to The Federalist, American Greatness, and The Daily Caller.

See the article here:

3 Pieces Of Recycled Collusion Garbage In The Senate Intelligence Report - The Federalist

When Donald Trump traveled to Moscow in November 1996, looking for real estate development opportunities, he didnt get a hotel deal in Moscow, but he may have found a new woman, and the Russian government probably knew about it, according to the Senate Intelligence Committees remarkable new report on the committees three and a half year investigation into Trump and Russia.

Trump met the Russian woman through his business connections at a party at a luxury hotel in Moscow, and the two apparently had a brief affair, at a time when Trump was married to his second wife, Marla Maples. The Senate report has redacted the womans name and blacked out her face in photos taken of her with Trump at the time and provided to the committee. But the report explains in detail how Russian intelligence operatives keep track of the sexual activities of visiting foreign business executives, and notes that the Moscow-based U.S. businessman who introduced Trump to the woman probably told Russian government officials about it.

The report reveals the true nature of the counterintelligence threat posed by a president willing and eager to accept the help of a foreign adversary to win American elections.

The story of Trumps alleged Moscow affair is in keeping with the bipartisan and comprehensive nature of the Senate report, which is at turns both reassuring and alarming. While it debunks the so-called Steele Dossier, which was highlighted by a wild accusation that Trump had two women urinate on his bed in his Moscow hotel room in 2013, the Senate report examines in detail the less tawdry, but far more plausible, story that Trump had a brief affair on his earlier trip to Moscow and the Russians knew about it.

In fact, the Senate report dismisses many of the most outrageous accusations involving Trump and Russia even as it provides overwhelming and damning evidence of Russias efforts to intervene in the 2016 presidential election to help Trump win and the Trump campaigns eagerness to embrace the Russian intervention.

But the Senate report goes much further than election interference and provides the first detailed examination of the broader and complex network of relationships between Trump, his ever-shifting circle of personal and business associates, and a series of Russian oligarchs and other Russian and Ukrainian figures with ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin. In the process, the report provides badly needed context for the events of 2016 and beyond. Above all, it reveals the true nature of the counterintelligence threat posed by a president willing and eager to accept the help of a foreign adversary to win American elections.

Since its August 18 release, the Senate report actually the fifth and final volume of the committees massive opus on Trump and Russia has been overshadowed by both the Democratic and Republican national conventions, and as a result, it has received far less attention from the press and the public than it deserves.

But the Senate report is particularly significant now, as the 2020 general election campaign intensifies and Trump and his supporters continue to deny that Russia tried to help him win in 2016 and that Moscow is trying to do so again this year. In recent days, John Ratcliffe, the director of national intelligence, has said that the DNI will stop in-person briefings for Congress about election interference, angering congressional Democratic leaders who charge that Ratcliffe and the Trump administration are trying to keep the public in the dark.

But the Senate report cuts through the political noise with clear and unequivocal language to explain what happened in 2016.

At nearly 1,000 pages, the Senate report is by far the best and most thorough examination of the Trump-Russia story to date, and puts the narrower and more legalistic Mueller Report to shame. Robert Mueller, the former FBI director appointed in 2017 to be special counsel to investigate the Trump-Russia case, kept his focus on gathering evidence for specific criminal prosecutions; the Senate report shows that he missed the forest for the trees.

The Senate report itself is critical of Muellers narrow approach and chides him and his team for having failed to grasp the true nature of the national security threat posed by Russias intervention in 2016. The report complains that Mueller failed to continue the FBIs original counterintelligence investigation once the FBI handed off the broader Trump-Russia case. Instead, the special counsel abandoned the counterintelligence portions of the case and focused instead only on elements of the case that could result in criminal prosecutions.

Over the course of its investigation, the [special counsel] successfully secured numerous criminal indictments and convictions, the Senate report states. While criminal prosecutions are a vital tool in upholding our nations laws, protecting our democratic system from foreign interference is a broader national security mission that must be appropriately balanced with the pursuit of criminal prosecutions. It is the committees view that this balance was not achieved. Russian interference with the U.S. electoral process was inherently a counterintelligence matter and one not well-suited to criminal prosecutions.

The Senate report is most remarkable for its bipartisan nature. It was produced by a Republican-controlled committee, but the report almost never seems to pull its punches aimed at any of its targets. It is unsparing in its description of Trump and his campaign aides as eager to reach out for Russian help in 2016, but is equally tough in its criticism of the FBI for its missteps in its subsequent investigation of Trump and Russias intervention in the election. Along the way, each episode is recounted in exhaustive detail, and the result is that the reader is left with a clear understanding of the relative significance of the different chapters of the Trump-Russia case. That is a relief after years of partisanship and polarization have skewed the publics understanding of the case.

In fact, the Senate Intelligence Committees report is a throwback to an earlier era of congressional investigations in which bipartisanship was the rule, not the exception. The report is so thick with research and evidence that the letters from Republican and Democratic senators on the committee, attached at the end of the report and arguing over the reports meaning, seem trivial by contrast.

Perhaps the only significance of the attached letter from the Republican senators is the name of one senator who didnt sign it: Richard Burr of North Carolina, who until recently was the committees chair. Burr was forced to step aside in May, after the disclosure that he was under investigation for stock sales he made before the American public knew the extent of the likely economic threat posed by the Covid-19 pandemic. But by that time, the committees work on the Trump-Russia case was virtually complete. In hindsight, Burr appears to have played a key role in protecting the committees investigation from excessive partisan influence.

The independence of the committees investigation is evident in its clear and concise conclusions.

The committee found that Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered the Russian effort to hack computer networks and accounts affiliated with the Democratic Party and leak information damaging to Hillary Clinton and her campaign for president, the report states. Moscows intent was to harm the Clinton campaign, tarnish an expected Clinton presidential administration, help the Trump campaign after Trump became the presumptive Republican nominee, and undermine the U.S. democratic process.

The committee found that Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered the Russian effort to hack computer networks and accounts affiliated with the Democratic Party and leak information damaging to Hillary Clinton and her campaign for president.

The GRU, a Russian intelligence service, conducted the hacks and then used a false cyber front to transfer data to WikiLeaks, which then published the Clinton-related documents at key moments in the 2016 campaign, according to the report. The U.S. media obligingly wrote stories based on the documents, without aggressively pursuing evidence that the leaks were the product of a Russian cyberattack.

The report states that while the GRU and WikiLeaks were releasing hacked documents, the Trump campaign sought to maximize the impact of those materials to aid Trumps electoral prospects. To do so, the Trump Campaign took actions to obtain advance notice about WikiLeaks releases of Clinton emails; took steps to obtain inside information about the content of releases once WikiLeaks began to publish stolen information; created messaging strategies to promote and share the materials in anticipation of and following their release; and encouraged further theft of information and continued leaks.

One of the most intriguing sections in the report deals with the relationship between Paul Manafort, the onetime Trump campaign chair, and a Russian intelligence officer. Indeed, the Manafort section of the report is a prime example of how the Senate investigators brought fresh eyes to a well-known episode in the Trump-Russia case and, unlike Mueller, found new information by examining it as a counterintelligence matter.

In March 2016, longtime international lobbyist Paul Manafort joined the Trump campaign and by May was named the campaigns chair. Manafort offered to work for Trump for free.

Russias President Vladimir Putin (L) talks to Rusal President and Management Board Member Oleg Deripaska at the 2017 Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit at Da Nang, Vietnam on Nov. 10, 2017.

Photo: Mikhail Klimentyev/TASS via Getty Images

But Manafort came to the Trump campaign with a lot of baggage and was facing a desperate financial squeeze. He had spent years working for Oleg Deripaska, a Russian oligarch with close ties to Putin, who had tasked him to conduct influence operations in countries where Deripaska had major business interests. Deripaska also introduced Manafort to Ukrainian oligarchs and eventually Manafort went to work for Ukraines pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych until he was ousted from power in 2014 in the wake of Ukraines Maidan revolution.

By 2016, Manafort was caught up in a fight with Deripaska over an investment that had gone sour, and he saw his new position with the Trump campaign as a lifeline to help him resolve the situation. Once on the campaign, Manafort quickly sought to leverage his position to resolve his multi-million dollar foreign disputes and obtain new work in Ukraine and elsewhere, the Senate report concluded.

One of Manaforts closest aides during his time in Ukraine was Konstantin Kilimnik, who the Senate report identifies as a Russian intelligence officer. Kilimnik also served as Manaforts liaison with Deripaska.

While he was working for Trump during the 2016 campaign, Manafort stayed in contact with Kilimnik and gave him the Trump campaigns internal polling data, which showed that the key to defeating Clinton was to drive up negative attitudes about her among voters.

The Mueller report found that Manafort had shared Trump polling data with Kilimnik, but didnt examine why he had done so. The Senate report says that the intelligence committee obtained some information suggesting Kilimnik may have been connected to the GRUs hack and leak operation targeting the 2016 election. The report adds that this information suggests that a channel for coordination on the GRU hack operation may have existed through Kilimnik. The report adds that in interviews with Muellers prosecution team, Manafort lied consistently about one issue in particular: his interactions with Kilimnik. Manafort decided to face more severe criminal penalties rather than provide complete answers about his interactions with Kilimnik. The Manafort-Kilimnik relationship, the Senate report concludes, represents the single most direct tie between senior Trump campaign officials and the Russian intelligence services.

The Senate report is filled with such rich details, shedding new light on the wide cast of characters surrounding both Trump and Putin, and the end result is an engrossing tale of modern intelligence and of lust, avarice, squalid opportunism, and incompetence worthy of John le Carr. With its depth of research, layered with an understanding of a complex series of personal networks in both the United States and Russia, the Senate report has done what none of the previous investigations have achieved. It has brought the Trump-Russia story to life.

The rest is here:

Senate Report Shows What Mueller Missed About Trump and Russia - The Intercept

"Over 800,000 kids go missing in the U.S. every year! Child sex trafficking is the REAL pandemic. #SaveTheChildren #SaveOurChildren #ChildLivesMatter #Pedogate #Pedowood"

If you've been on social media in the past month or two, you've likely seen memes or posts to this effect. And if you're a person with a conscience, it likely caught your eye. Children being trafficked for sexthat's horrible!

Yes, it is. It's absolutely horrible. Child sex trafficking is basically the worst thing human beings can do, no question. But what do those #Pedogate and #Pedowood hashtags mean?

Yes, those. Unfortunately, they point directly to a QAnon-perpetuated conspiracy theory in which the world is being controlled by an elite global cabal of pedophilic Hollywood celebrities and high-level politicians (including Tom Hanks, Oprah, Hillary Clinton, and more) who secretly traffick, abuse, and torture children so they can harvest a fear-induced hormone in their blood to make adrenocrhome, which they consume to keep them young and/or imbibe during their drug-crazed Satanic rituals.

What?! That's crazy.

Yes, it is. It's absolutely crazy. But there are a baffling number of people who believe it, including people who will likely soon be serving in Congress. Many of these people are sharing the #SaveOurChildren and #ChildLivesMatter hashtags right along with #Pedowood and #Pedogate. They conflate this huge number of missing kids with the issue of child sex trafficking, and then point to the celebrity/politician cabal conspiracy theory in the same breath, as if it's all the same thing.

It is not.

The reality is that child sex trafficking is a multi-billion dollar, heinous, disgusting, global industrybut it's not new. It's not a sudden and massive crisis that "the media" is ignoring or that governments and NGOs aren't addressing. Unfortunately, QAnon believers have pushed a lot of misinformation and misleading information into the awareness surrounding this issue that needs to be corrected.

To get to the heart of what child sex trafficking really looks likeand to be thorough in the debunking of QAnon's child trafficking theorieswe spoke with organizations whose work centers around stopping trafficking and protecting missing and exploited children.

A common question people who have been sucked in by the QAnon world ask is: How do you know it's not true if it's never been investigated?

Some things are simply too ridiculous to be entertained, which honestly should be the case with the QAnon cabal theory. But since it's somehow slipped into the mainstream, it has to be addressed head on.

So I swallowed my pride and directly asked anti-trafficking organizationsthe people who specialize in this subject and are intimately involved in investigationswhether or not there was any truth to the theory. It was humiliating, frankly, but I straight up asked them: "It's a known fact that child abusers often hide in plain sight and that high-profile people can be abusers. Based on your work, have you seen any evidence that there is a global cabal of pedophile elites who traffick children in a coordinated underground effort to harvest adrenochrome?"

Across the board, the answer was "No."

I also asked this question: "Pedophiles and traffickers sometimes use coded symbols and code words in their communications with one another. Is there any official documentation that the words 'pizza' or 'hot dog' or 'sauce' have been used for such a purpose? (Or more directly, are the Wikileaks emails evidence of child sex trafficking?)"

Again, the answer was no. Of course.

(For those new to Conspiracyland, the code words question came from the claim QAnon folks make that the FBI has a list of code words and symbols that support the Pizzagate theory, which posits that Hillary Clinton and associates were discussing their dastardly pedophile deeds in code wordspizza, sauce, etc.via emails released by Wikileaks. The FBI has documented known pedophile symbols, but none of the supposed code words in the Wikileaks emails are listed among them And the Washington D.C. police have called Pizzagate "a fictitious online conspiracy theory.")

Erin Williamson, VP of Global Programs for Love146an organization that has been working with sex trafficking prevention and survivor care for 17 yearssays that conspiracy theories like this just makes more work for the people trying to do the work of educating the public.

"If somebody comes to know trafficking and has no preconceived notions of what trafficking is, you're starting with a blank slate," she says. "You can build from zero. But if someone's coming to the trafficking movement or approaching this issue with preconceived incorrect information, then first you have to get them to the point where they realize all of the information that they've learned thus far is inaccurate before you can start building the accurate information. And it just is going to take so much longer to get people to a point where they actually understand what this accurately looks like."

A national organization that asked to remain anonymous (understandable, considering how my own inbox fills with people accusing me of being a pedophile each time I write about how QAnon is bunk) told Upworthy, "Questions like this distract from the realities of how sex trafficking actually occurs. Offenders do often communicate in code but we haven't seen any such official documentation and don't consider the Wikileaks emails credible. Unfounded conspiracy theories minimize, distract and draw valuable resources away from the tireless work being done by child protection advocates on the ground."

The Polaris Project, which runs the National Trafficking Hotline, offered an example of how resources get usurped by these theories. Last month, a rumor started circulating in the QAnon sphere that the Wayfair website was being used to traffick children because someone spotted an strangely expensive cabinet with a female name.

"The Wayfair theory resulted in online harassment and privacy intrusions of people mistakenly believed to be victims, as well as broad sharing of online sexual abuse material of actual victims who have not been connected in any way to Wayfair," Polaris told Upworthy. "This harm is real for survivors who want to maintain their privacy, victims who are being re-exploited by broader distribution of their abuse materials, or bystanders whose lives can be overwhelmed by the actions of potentially well-meaning online communities."

In addition, Polaris adds, "Conspiracies distract from the more disturbing but simple realities of how sex trafficking actually works, and how we can prevent it."

But isn't awareness about child sex trafficking a good thing, even if it's not all factual?

Love146's Erin Williamson says no.

"In the short term, it might make people aware that there is an issue of child trafficking that exists," she says."But if that doesn't lead to somebody actually engaging with the issue and taking effort to join the movement to actually effectively eradicate the issue, then no. It's harmful. It's just a bunch of white noise that's sucking up resources."

"The question really is how many of the people are going to, as a result of this, actually have enough concern about child trafficking that they do more research, effectively realize what the issue is about, and then consistently or actively engage in addressing it," she adds. "And I don't think we fully know the percentage. My concern is that that percentage will be pretty low."

Perpetuating these kooky cabal theories does more to hurt the child sex trafficking cause than to help it.

But what about all those missing children then?

Every organization I spoke to pointed out that there are no hard and fast numbers because there's no way to know exactly how many kids are being trafficked or exploited beyond what gets reported. We know that a lot of exploitation doesn't get reported, but most kids who go missing do get reported somewhere.

Two organizations pointed me to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) for missing children statistics. The NCMEC states, "According to the FBI, in 2019 there were 421,394 NCIC entries for missing children. In 2018, the total number of missing children entries into NCIC was 424,066." They clarify that this number represents individual reports of missing children, not the number of missing children themselves. If a child runs away multiple times in a year, each instance is counted separately and included in the yearly total, so the total number of missing children is likely less than those total numbers.

That's a lot of children; however, the vast majority of missing kids make it back home pretty quickly. Think of kids who run away to a friend's house and the parents can't find them, kids who get lost temporarily, or kids who get taken or not returned by a parent in a custody dispute.

The kids who don't return home and who are at risk of exploitation are where NCMEC comes in. In 2019, they assisted law enforcement and families with more than 29,000 cases. Less than one percent of those were non-family abductions, so the idea that loads of kids are just being snatched out of nowhere and sold for sex is totally inaccurate. In addition, NCMEC reports that 91 percent of those cases (around 26,300) were endangered runaways, and of those kids, 1 in 6 were likely victims of child sex trafficking. One is too many, of course, and these numbers are significant. But they're nowhere near 800,000.

Statistics come in various forms, of course. The Polaris Project, which runs the National Trafficking Hotline, tells Upworthy, " In 2019, the National Human Trafficking Hotline reported 2,582 underaged individuals involved in trafficking situations (all types)." However, they note, "It is incredibly important to note that these figures cannot be construed as prevalence."

Again, one child is too many, and these statistics only represent a fraction of the problem. Sharing these numbers is not meant to downplay the issue at all, but rather to explain that there's no real basis for the idea that 800,000 kids go missing and get sucked into child sex trafficking each year in the U.S.

So where did that number come from? There were some articles in the early 2000's that cited numbers close around 800,000. But the most recent statistics are shared above.

Numbers are always a bit fuzzy. What we do know is that children are being trafficked and exploited. Far too many, far too often.

Child sex trafficking is a complex industry. Sometimes it looks like children being physically transported place to place and being bought and sold for sex. Sometimes it's kids being used to create child pornography. Sometimes it's a drug-addicted parent renting out their children to get money for their addiction. Sometimes it's teens recruiting other teens to engage in sex or create sexual images for money.

Love146's Williamson explained that trafficking can look very different in different parts of the world.

"We run a program in the Philippines, and most of our children come into that program under 10," says Williamson.. "We've accepted kids under the age of one into that program. In those situations, it's really familial a lot of times, and a lot of what is happening is happening over webcams. You'll also see reports of labor trafficking happening in other countries at very young ages.

"What we see in the United States and what we're working with is different. We're not seeing as many under 10 year olds trafficked. I'm not saying it doesn't happenit does. But more of what we're seeing are adolescents. Preteen and teenagers who are being groomed and recruited, and while some is familial, a lot is not familial."

Williamson explains that the term "runaway" is a bit of a misnomer because some runaways are teens who get pulled away from home by traffickers in sneaky ways.

"Part of what traffickers do is they recruit and groom," she says. "They engage in a relationship for the purposes of exploiting this kid for trafficking. So it can appear that a kid is running away, or choosing to leave their house willingly, but it's actually an intentionality on the part of the traffickers to make it appear that way...to make it appear that way to law enforcement, to the parents, and to the child themselves. So the child says things like, 'I chose to go, I chose to meet up with so and so who I met online, or to meet up with so and so who I met in the park.' So again, even when we talk about the term runawaythey're really being groomed and recruited away from their home."

One common theme among the organizations I communicated with is that there are well-known conditions that greatly increase a child's chances of being trafficked.

Polaris Project says:

The anonymous organization also explained that certain conditions make kids more vulnerable. "Certain kids who are homeless or runaways, belong to certain minority groups, and who have contact with the child welfare system are particularly vulnerable to this type of exploitation."

Polaris also points out, "In the case of child sex trafficking in particular, the vast majority of victims know their traffickers and trust them. They may be professional traffickers who carefully groom young people on line and lure them into trafficking situations. They may well also be their parents, or other family members or trusted friends."

Learning about the realities of child sex trafficking is the first step. The issue is complex and multi-faceted, but just because it's not simple or easy to solve doesn't mean there's nothing we can do.

One active thing we can do is what trafficking looks like.

"Trafficking is rarely perpetrated by a total stranger who kidnaps children," says Polaris Project. "What we frequently see through the Trafficking Hotline are stories of people being trafficked by intimate partners, family members, and others that they know and may even love and trust."

We can also make sure kids we are in contact with know that we are safe people they can go to if they are in an unsafe situation.

"When we talk to kids, it is always the little things that made the difference," says Love 146's Williamson. "It is always the neighbor who asked how they were doing, who then they realized was a safe person, that they could eventually talk to about what was happening to them in their house. It is always the teacher who they would curse out who would say 'I'm still here for you whenever you need something.' It is the little things that make a difference in a child's life."

Williamson also points out that the systemic issues we debate over in our society also impact child sex trafficking, and addressing those issues will help reduce the vulnerabilities that lead to exploitation.

"For most of us who have been working in this field long enough, there's now a general recognition that we're not going to arrest and prosecute our way out of this issue," she says, "We've tried that. That isn't happening. We need to go upstream. We need to deal with all of the things that make people vulnerablethe inequalities, the racism, the sexism, the homophobia. We need to address all of these issues that have all sorts of consequences, of which trafficking is one of them. It takes a while to get somebody to understand how this is all interrelated.

So when I hear somebody say, 'Black Lives Matter? What about children's lives? There's been a couple of quotes like that. 'Why are we marching for Black Lives Matter? Where's the outcry for trafficked children?' and comparing those two. First of all, this is not a dichotomywe should be addressing all of this. And my thing is when you look at the statistics, especially here in the United States, trafficking is disproportionately affecting children of color. And so racism is at the heart of both of these issues, when you're talking about the disproportionality of violence against people of color. So it's not an either/or. It's actually a yes/and. Which is why we have to go upstream and start addressing some of these systemic issues."

To learn more about the real issue of child sex trafficking, check out these organizations' websites:

Polaris Project

Love146

The Exodus Road

ECPAT-USA

Child Rescue Coalition

Thorn

Operation Underground Railroad

International Justice Mission

From Your Site Articles

Related Articles Around the Web

See the article here:

Child sex trafficking organizations set the record straight on QAnon conspiracy theories - Upworthy

Ms Morris said her partner is still suffering from a frozen shoulder, and had recently sprained his ankle. "He is in a lot of pain," she added.

His supporters claim that he is confined to his cell for 23 hours a day and they are worried for his physical and mental health. He is said to suffer from a chronic lung condition which makes him particularly vulnerable to coronavirus.

The extradition hearing is due to start at the Old Bailey on September 7 and could last three or four weeks.

He is facing 17 charges under the Espionage Act and one of conspiracy to commit computer intrusion in the US.

The charges relate to 700,000 classified documents former US intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning handed to Wikileaks in 2010 which officials in Washington claim endangered the lives of American agents who were working in the field.

Ms Moris, a South African-born lawyer who was working on his case when the couple began their relationship, said that he is facing a prison sentence of 175 years if he is sent to the US and found guilty.

She has launched a crowdfunding appeal to try to raise 600,000 towards the cost of legal fight.

She has described it as a battle of David v Goliath with unthinkable ramifications. Around 47,000 has been raised so far.

Ms Moris expressed concern about Covid-related health measures as Assange is transported to and from the court every day.

She added that he has not had a face-to-face meeting with his legal team since lockdown began in March and only has limited access to the huge amount of paperwork generated by the case.

Assange has been held at Belmarsh since April last year after the Ecuadorians lost patience with their guest and invited officers from Scotland Yard into the embassy to arrest him.

Read more here:

Julian Assange in 'a lot of pain' and losing weight in Belmarsh, partner says - Telegraph.co.uk