WikiLeaks – Government

2. Act normal

If you are a high-risk source, avoid saying anything or doing anything after submitting which might promote suspicion. In particular, you should try to stick to your normal routine and behaviour.

If you are a high-risk source and the computer you prepared your submission on, or uploaded it from, could subsequently be audited in an investigation, we recommend that you format and dispose of the computer hard drive and any other storage media you used.

In particular, hard drives retain data after formatting which may be visible to a digital forensics team and flash media (USB sticks, memory cards and SSD drives) retain data even after a secure erasure. If you used flash media to store sensitive data, it is important to destroy the media.

If you do this and are a high-risk source you should make sure there are no traces of the clean-up, since such traces themselves may draw suspicion.

If a legal action is brought against you as a result of your submission, there are organisations that may help you. The Courage Foundation is an international organisation dedicated to the protection of journalistic sources. You can find more details at https://www.couragefound.org.

Go here to read the rest:

WikiLeaks - Government

WikiLeaks – Statement from Edward Snowden in Moscow

One week ago I left Hong Kong after it became clear that my freedom and safety were under threat for revealing the truth. My continued liberty has been owed to the efforts of friends new and old, family, and others who I have never met and probably never will. I trusted them with my life and they returned that trust with a faith in me for which I will always be thankful.

On Thursday, President Obama declared before the world that he would not permit any diplomatic "wheeling and dealing" over my case. Yet now it is being reported that after promising not to do so, the President ordered his Vice President to pressure the leaders of nations from which I have requested protection to deny my asylum petitions.

This kind of deception from a world leader is not justice, and neither is the extralegal penalty of exile. These are the old, bad tools of political aggression. Their purpose is to frighten, not me, but those who would come after me.

For decades the United States of America has been one of the strongest defenders of the human right to seek asylum. Sadly, this right, laid out and voted for by the U.S. in Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, is now being rejected by the current government of my country. The Obama administration has now adopted the strategy of using citizenship as a weapon. Although I am convicted of nothing, it has unilaterally revoked my passport, leaving me a stateless person. Without any judicial order, the administration now seeks to stop me exercising a basic right. A right that belongs to everybody. The right to seek asylum.

In the end the Obama administration is not afraid of whistleblowers like me, Bradley Manning or Thomas Drake. We are stateless, imprisoned, or powerless. No, the Obama administration is afraid of you. It is afraid of an informed, angry public demanding the constitutional government it was promised -- and it should be.

I am unbowed in my convictions and impressed at the efforts taken by so many.

Edward Joseph Snowden

Monday 1st July 2013

Read the original here:

WikiLeaks - Statement from Edward Snowden in Moscow

WikiLeaks – Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership

On 9 May 2016, WikiLeaks releases a searchable and highlightable text of a draft version (April 2016) of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) Agreement.

The text of the Agreement was published by Greenpeace (Netherlands) on 2 May 2016 and can be accessed by chapter below. The text will continue to undergo negotiations and legal review prior to signature.

The TTIP is a multi-trillion dollar international treaty that is being negotiated in secret between the United States and the European Union. It remains secret almost in its entirety, closely guarded by the negotiators, and only big corporations are given special access to its terms. The TTIP countries cover half of global GDP and is one of the largest agreements of its kind in history. The TTIP aims to create a global economic bloc outside of the WTO framework, as part of a geopolitical economic strategy against the BRICS countries of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa.

The Former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has dubbed the TTIP an "economic NATO," comparing it to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization military alliance. Over the last two years WikiLeaks has published chapters from two other secret global trade deals, including the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) and the Trade in Services Agreement (TISA), despite unprecedented efforts by negotiating governments to keep them under wraps.

Together with the TTIP, these treaties represent the "Three Big T's", affecting 53 countries, 1.6 billion people and covering two thirds of the global economy. They aim to create a new international legal regime allowing transnational corporations to bypass domestic courts, evade environmental protections, police the internet on behalf of the content industry, limit the availability of affordable generic medicines, and drastically curtail each country's legislative sovereignty. Of the "Three Big T's", the TTIP remains the least exposed to public scrutiny, and the most significant to the interests of the European public.

You can search throughout all of the documents via WikiLeaks Advanced Search

You can also select text in the HTML document and use the e-Highlighter in the lower right of the screen to generate a URL to share your highlights with others.

See the article here:
WikiLeaks - Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership

WikiLeaks – International Politics

2. Act normal

If you are a high-risk source, avoid saying anything or doing anything after submitting which might promote suspicion. In particular, you should try to stick to your normal routine and behaviour.

If you are a high-risk source and the computer you prepared your submission on, or uploaded it from, could subsequently be audited in an investigation, we recommend that you format and dispose of the computer hard drive and any other storage media you used.

In particular, hard drives retain data after formatting which may be visible to a digital forensics team and flash media (USB sticks, memory cards and SSD drives) retain data even after a secure erasure. If you used flash media to store sensitive data, it is important to destroy the media.

If you do this and are a high-risk source you should make sure there are no traces of the clean-up, since such traces themselves may draw suspicion.

If a legal action is brought against you as a result of your submission, there are organisations that may help you. The Courage Foundation is an international organisation dedicated to the protection of journalistic sources. You can find more details at https://www.couragefound.org.

Here is the original post:
WikiLeaks - International Politics

‘End the War on Journalism and Free Assange’: Thousands Demand Release of WikiLeaks Founder – Common Dreams

Supporters of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange held a massive transatlantic protest on Saturday to demand freedom for the incarcerated journalist.

"If they can silence Assange, they can silence anyone."

In London, thousands of people formed a giant human chain around Britain's parliament and called for Assange's immediate release from the nearby maximum-security Belmarsh prison, where he has suffered for years under conditions that experts have condemned as torture.

Meanwhile, in Washington D.C., people gathered outside the Department of Justice (DOJ) and implored Attorney General Merrick Garland to end the United States government's attempt to extradite Assange, who faces up to 175 years behind bars on espionage charges stemming from his publication of information that exposed war crimes committed by U.S. forces in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere.

"We did it!" tweeted Stella Assange, wife of the jailed Australian publisher. "Julian will be so energized and thankful for the support that you have shown for him," she said in a recording thanking those who surrounded the Palace of Westminsterhome to the United Kingdom's House of Commons and House of Lordson both sides of the River Thames.

Among those who joined London's human chain to oppose the extradition of Assange was Jeremy Corbyn, a member of the U.K.'s opposition Labour Party. Characterizing the protest as an attempt to "stand up for press freedom everywhere," Corbyn warned: "If they can silence Assange, they can silence anyone."

"Julian is a journalist," Corbyn said in an interview. "Journalism is not a crime. If he is extradited to the U.S.A., any other investigative journalist is at risk."

That message was echoed by WikiLeaks editor-in-chief Kristinn Hrafnsson. Describing Assange as "an intellectual, a journalist who committed no crime but the crime of telling the truth," Hrafnsson warned: "Today it's Julian, tomorrow it's you."

In a message to Assange, Corbyn said: "Julian, you've made your life's work that of exposing truths. You've taken enormous risks and made enormous sacrifices to do that. And you've faced horrible personal abuse and attacks upon your life and your character as a result... But there are millions of people that support you all around the world."

"We're just some of those, and we've completely surrounded parliament to show our support for you," Corbyn added. "Our demand [for] the British government: Do not deport you; instead, free you so you can return to your passion, your skill, your genius of being a journalist."

In a last-ditch effort to avoid extradition to the U.S., Assange's legal team has filed an appeal at the U.K.'s High Court to block the transfer, which was formally approved by U.K. Home Secretary Priti Patel in June. The High Court is expected to announce whether it will hear the appeal in the coming weeks.

Stella Assange told Reuters on Saturday that British government officials should try to convince their counterparts in the U.S. to withdraw the extradition bid launched in 2019 by then-President Donald Trump's administration and pursued relentlessly by President Joe Biden's administration.

"It's already gone on for three-and-a-half years," she said. "It is a stain on the United Kingdom and is a stain on the Biden administration."

On the other side of the Atlantic, Ben Cohen, co-founder of Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream, was among those who demonstrated outside the DOJ. "It's time to end the war on journalism and free Assange," the activist tweeted.

"There's no democracy without freedom of the press," Cohen said at the rally. "Because it's only a press that can hold government accountable. And there's no free press without a free Assange."

Given that he is being persecuted for the common journalistic practice of publishing classified information to expose wrongdoing in service of the public good, press freedom and human rights advocates have denounced the indictment of Assange as a landmark attack on and threat to First Amendment protections.

"Julian Assange exposed the crimes of the most powerful governments and corporations in the world today," Misty Winston, a leading organizer of the D.C. rally, said this week in a statement. "He should be praised, not prosecuted."

"There's no democracy without freedom of the press... And there's no free press without a free Assange."

When Secretary of State Antony Blinken said last July that the U.S. "will always support the indispensable work of independent journalists around the world," critics were quick to point out that Washington's purported commitment to press freedom has never applied to Assange.

Two years before Assange's 2019 arrest, for example, the CIA under then-Director Mike Pompeo reportedly plotted to kidnapand discussed plans to assassinatethe WikiLeaks founder.

In a message to Biden, Corbyn said Saturday: "You won a presidential election against an extremely intolerant right-wing president. You won that with the support of millions of Americans who want to live in a free, open, democratic society."

"Are you really wanting your administration to be the one that imprisons a journalist for telling the truth about wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, and the environmental destruction by big business and arms companies in so many parts of the world?" he asked. "Think of your place in history. Are you to go down in history as the president who put a journalist in prison on a triple life sentence? Or, will you get your place in history as the man who stood up for free speech?"

Nathan Fuller, director of the Assange Defense Committee, said this week in a statement that "the Biden DOJ could end this travesty at once."

"Administration officials have given speech after speech touting the principles of a free press abroad and the importance of journalism to a healthy democracy," said Fuller. "It's time they practice what they preach and drop these charges immediately."

Solidarity events were held Saturday in cities across the U.S., including San Francisco, Denver, Tulsa, Seattle, and Minneapolis.

There was also a march in Melbourne, where Assange's brother, Gabriel Shipton, urged Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese to "call Joe Biden and say, 'Hasn't Julian suffered enough? Drop the charges and extradition.'"

"Julian would walk free," he said.

See the article here:
'End the War on Journalism and Free Assange': Thousands Demand Release of WikiLeaks Founder - Common Dreams

WikiLeaks Damage Lives On: The Case of Marafa Hamidou Yaya – The Foreign Service Journal

Speaking Out

BY NIELS MARQUARDT

The U.K. government decision in June to extradite WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange to the United States to face prosecution for crimes related to the release in 2010 of hundreds of thousands of stolen confidential U.S. government documents brings him one step closer to justice. No doubt he will appeal that decision, but I deeply hope that he will lose again and soon find himself facing justice before an American court.

Only then will the world see and, perhaps, fully understand the enormous damage his crimes inflicted on innocent friends and allies around the globe. This may also give the lie to the remarkably widely held fiction that Assanges crimes had no victims and that his actions were somehow brave, harmless, or even worthy of admiration.

It is high time to start pushing back forcefully on the deeply mistaken notion that actions by Assange, perceived by many to be a sort of modern-day Robin Hood, advanced press freedom or brought welcome transparency to the workings of government. They did not. Instead, they illegally undermined the necessarily confidential basis of information sharing that makes diplomacy possible and advances Americas global interests in the process.

I write this column as a retired American diplomat whose normal embassy reporting, like that of many colleagues, was compromised by Assanges indiscriminate release of that infamous cache of stolen documents more than a decade ago. No one seems able to say how many people, including many of Americas close friends, were damaged worldwide by the WikiLeaks release.

But I know well of at least one case, where a good man has now spent more than a decade in prison for alleged crimes never proven in court. This happened in Cameroon, where I served as U.S. ambassador from 2004 to 2007.

There, shortly after the WikiLeaks release, Kansas University graduate Marafa Hamidou Yaya was jailed and subjected to a short kangaroo court proceeding that resulted in a 25-year prison sentence on entirely unproven corruption charges.

Before his arrest, Mr. Marafa had served in various high-level ministerial positions in Cameroon, including as secretary-general of the presidency, arguably the nations second-most powerful post. Our embassy, then led by Ambassador Robert Jackson, witnessed his trial and denounced it as the farce it was; no evidence was presented, yet he was found guilty on all charges.

Since then, the State Departments annual Human Rights Report to Congress has listed Mr. Marafa as a political prisoner in Cameroon. He is jailed in a military prison in a damp cell with no daylight. After his arrest, his loyal secretary of 20 years was savagely assassinated in her home, and his wife died without having a chance to visit her husband even once.

The United Nations has formally declared Mr. Marafas detention arbitrary and demanded his immediate release and compensation for the damages he has suffered. He has petitioned repeatedly for his own release on health-related grounds, and many outsiders have also weighed in on his behalf.

I and seven other former U.S. ambassadors to Cameroon have written to successive U.S. administrations for assistance in seeking Mr. Marafas release, so far without effect. Ambassadors (ret.) Frances Cook, Harriet Isom, Charles Twining, John Yates, George Staples, Janet Garvey, and Robert Jackson all know and respect him and have joined me in formally demanding his release. The Biden administration is fully aware of this situation but, to my knowledge, has not taken any strong action to secure Mr. Marafas release.

Because Mr. Marafas health has deteriorated significantly during his decade-plus in prison, the case for his release is ever more urgent. Now in old age, he survived COVID-19 (unvaccinated) while in detention last year. He has gone almost completely blind, suffers from a serious heart condition, and desperately needs medical treatment unavailable in Cameroon.

The United Nations Human Rights Committee has written many times lately, requesting the government of Cameroon to provide Mr. Marafa with immediate access to the adequate and specialised medical care that may be required to preserve his sight. So far, this call has not been heeded. Mr. Marafa has repeatedly said that he would be willing to go into exile abroad to obtain that treatment, implicitly abandoning any future political role at home.

While Mr. Marafa was accused of corruption, his only real crime was having told me, in confidence in 2006, that he might be interested in seeking Cameroons presidency one day, if ever the incumbent president, Paul Biya, were to leave office. My political section, then ably headed by current Ottawa Deputy Chief of Mission Katherine Brucker, naturally reported his comment in a periodic piece speculating on succession scenarios in a post-Biya era.

Once that cable to Washington was released by WikiLeaks in 2010, Mr. Marafas revelation immediately became frontpage news in Cameroon. This led directly to his arrest, and then to a classic show trial the following year. In Cameroon, where the near-nonagenarian Biya just marked 40 years in power, the whole succession question is sensitive enough that Mr. Marafas otherwise unremarkable comment about possible higher political ambition deeply rattled the countrys delicate tribal and political balance.

Evidently, Biyas coterie of mostly southern, Christian supporters from the Beti tribe felt sufficiently threatened by the prospect of Mr. Marafa becoming president that they decided to sideline him permanently, and manipulated the countrys judicial system to do just that.

Mr. Marafa is a northern Muslim, like the countrys only other president since independence, Ahmadou Ahidjo. After 40 years of political advantage under Biya, little bothers privileged southerners more than the thought of a northerner regaining power.

WikiLeaks happened on the Obama-Biden administrations watch. Many officials in the current administration were serving in senior government positions at the time and remain well aware of Mr. Marafas unjust incarceration. Thus, they should not need reminding of our governments enduring responsibility to protect those harmed by this massive failure to protect confidences shared with us in good faith.

Nonetheless, they have not taken action; nor have they even shown the intellectual curiosity to seek to find out how many other Marafas are out there, across the globe. Indeed, when I invited the Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) to help gather the facts around this issue, they declined on the basis that WikiLeaks was not an intel issue.

Speaking Out is the Journals opinion forum, a place for lively discussion of issues affecting the U.S. Foreign Service and American diplomacy. The views expressed are those of the author; their publication here does not imply endorsement by the American Foreign Service Association. Responses are welcome; send them to journal@afsa.org.

I continue to believe that basic American decency and a sense of loyalty and fair play compel us to pursue his case, and all others like it, until justice is truly served. Not only is it the right thing to do; it also would demonstrate to our friends and collaborators around the worldincluding many who were sufficiently shaken by WikiLeaks that they pointedly ceased even speaking to American diplomatsthat, even after something as stupidly tragic as WikiLeaks is allowed to occur, America will live up to our responsibilities to friends affected by our mistakes.

Additionally, I fear that the United States is losing the global public opinion battle around WikiLeaks. With Assanges impending extradition and prosecution, now is the time to launch a far stronger effort to explain why this case matters, and why we are taking it so seriously. Specious arguments positing that he is a legitimate journalist standing up for press freedom and transparency sadly resonate with far too many global citizens, few of whom have an inkling of the harm done to Marafa and others like him.

No doubt other friends who confided in the U.S. have met similar or worse fates; who is telling their stories? Absent an enhanced effort to explain why WikiLeaks matters, the U.S. will again appear in global public opinion to be nothing more than an overreaching bully.

But let me also ask: If the WikiLeaks theft and release of government secrets is worth extraditing Assange and pursuing in court over a decade later, shouldnt we demonstrate some real concern for the actual victims of that crime, by taking action to address circumstances like Mr. Marafas?

Meanwhile, Paul Biya rules a wobbly Cameroon in senescence, incompetently repressing a bloody Anglophone secession campaign, watching Boko Haram stream largely unchecked across its borders, and continuing to preside over a well-endowed country that has performed far short of its extraordinary potential under his rule. No one knows what will happen when he finally leaves the scene, but widespread violence is considered by many of us to be a likely element of the coming transition.

What a missed opportunity that the competent, U.S.-educated Mr. Marafa is no longer among the possible solutions to Cameroons coming political drama. However, there is still the possibility of his being released for medical treatment in exile, and thus for him to live out his remaining days in dignity and freedom. We must press for this outcome, making clear that the American government stands by him and recognizes our direct responsibility for his current circumstances.

Here are two things FSJ readers can do to help.

First, please write to your congressional representatives, especially if they sit on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee or House Foreign Affairs Committee, to demand action by the State Department and White House to secure Mr. Marafas release. A strong expression of congressional interest may help the State Department find the missing courage to take this on. (And please free to email me at nielsm@lclark.edu for a template message that can easily be pasted into an email to your senator.)

Second, if any reader has knowledge of other friends of the United States who were negatively affected by WikiLeaks and need our governments attention, please email me that information. I will then share it with States Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR), which I believe is the appropriate place in our government to compile comprehensive information on the full impact of WikiLeaks. I would hope that this information may then be used by others to strengthen a public affairs strategy to explain why prosecuting Assange is so important.

In my opinion, our governments approach to WikiLeaks over successive administrations has been myopic and inadequate, and our failure to vigorously stand up for its victims for the past decade has bordered on shameful.

It is not too late, however, for us to do far better. For that to happen, more of us need to speak up and demand better. Please help do so.

Niels Marquardt was a Foreign Service officer from 1980 to 2013. He led Secretary of State Colin Powells Diplomatic Readiness Initiative from 2001 to 2004, then served as ambassador to Cameroon, Equatorial Guinea, Madagascar, and the Comoros. His final assignment was as consul general in Sydney, where he stayed until 2017 as CEO of the American Chamber of Commerce in Australia. Ambassador (ret.) Marquardt currently volunteers as diplomat in residence at Lewis & Clark College in Portland, Oregon.

Read the original:
WikiLeaks Damage Lives On: The Case of Marafa Hamidou Yaya - The Foreign Service Journal

Wikileaks Asks Donald Trump Jr. to Have Australia Make Julian Assange …

Wikileaks asked Donald Trump Jr. to get his father, then-President-elect Donald Trump, to suggest that Australia nominate Julian Assange as its US ambassador, The Atlantic reported Monday as a part of an expose on the Twitter direct messages sent between Wikileaks and Trump Jr.

On December 16, Wikileaks wrote to Trump Jr. that encouraging his father to do so would "be real easy and helpful." Assange, the Wikileaks founder, has spent years inside the Ecuadorian embassy in London to avoid extradition on various charges. Those charges included sexual assault until earlier this year, when a Swedish investigation was dropped.

"Hi Don. Hope you're doing well!" Wikileaks wrote to Trump Jr. "In relation to Mr. Assange: Obama/Clinton placed pressure on Sweden, UK and Australia (his home country) to illicitly go after Mr. Assange. It would be real easy and helpful for your dad to suggest that Australia appoint Assange ambassador to [Washington,] DC."

Wikileaks even crafted a Trump-esque message for the soon-to-be president to read.

"'Thats a real smart tough guy and the most famous australian [sic] you have!' or something similar," Wikileaks wrote. "They wont do it but it will send the right signals to Australia, UK + Sweden to start following the law and stop bending it to ingratiate themselves with the Clintons."

Trump Jr. did not answer the messages, according to the report.

That request from Wikileaks was one of a few that the organization sent Trump Jr.'s way. While he did not respond to the above request, Trump Jr. did respond to a couple of messages and appeared to act on others that he did not respond to.

Wikileaks released thousands of hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee and 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton's campaign chairman John Podesta. US intelligence agencies concluded that Russian hackers were responsible for the theft of both the DNC's and Podesta's emails.

Read the original post:
Wikileaks Asks Donald Trump Jr. to Have Australia Make Julian Assange ...

Trump Could Face The Same Charges As Assange, Snowden – UPROXX

Hyperbole and Donald Trump go together as perfectly as McDonalds burgers and Donald Trump. But in the case of a recent Twitter post about just how damning the potential charges the former president could be facing should he be prosecuted, Newsweek reports that you can believe the hype.

On Thursday, former Homeland Security chief of staff Miles Taylor tweeted about the monumental irony that if legal action is taken against Trump for his hoarding of classified documents, he would essentially be facing the same charges as both WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange and NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden two men who Trump has had lots to say about in the past, including that they both deserved to be executed.

But just how true is Taylors statement? According to Newsweek, its pretty damn accurate especially as it relates to Assange and WikiLeaks, who Trump has both praised (I love WIKILEAKS!!) and deemed disgraceful and deserving of the death penalty. (Though its worth noting that several Trump insiders, including Don Jr., had ongoing correspondences with WikiLeaks leading up to the 2016 election.)

As we learned from the affidavit authorizing the raid on Mar-a-Lago as well as accidentally, and hilariously, from Breitbart Trump is under investigation for violating the Espionage Act, or U.S. Code 793, which is where both Assange and Snowdens alleged crimes also fall, albeit with slight differences. As Tom Norton writes for Newsweek:

Julian Assange has been indicted on 17 charges under the Espionage Act and one charge of computer misuse for WikiLeaks publication of secret American military documents 10 years ago. He faces a potential 175-year prison sentence.

Assanges indictment sheet states a potential violation of section 793(e) of the Espionage Act, the same section of the act, which the DOJ also mentions in its affidavit to search Mar-a-Lago.

In other words: If prosecuted, Trump could be looking at violating both the same act as Assange as well as the same section of the act so, pretty much the same crime.

Snowdens case, however, is slightly different. While he, too, is wanted in the U.S. for violating the Espionage Act, the section of the act is different. Broadly speaking, however, it is true that Trump could face charges under the same U.S. act as Snowden and Assange, if not for the exact number or type of indictments, Norton writes.

Where the real irony comes in is in how hard Trump has publicly come down on both Assange who some have claimed the Trump administration plotted to assassinate, which is a charge he denies and Snowden, whom the former president repeatedly called a traitor and advocated for his execution:

Of course, Trump has (so far) not been charged with any crimes, so all of this is just food for thought.

(Via Newsweek)

Continue reading here:

Trump Could Face The Same Charges As Assange, Snowden - UPROXX

Why Trump will soon be indicted | News, Sports, Jobs – The Sentinel – Lewistown Sentinel

It gives me no joy to write this piece.

Even a cursory review of the redacted version of the affidavit submitted in support of the governments application for a search warrant at the home of former President Donald Trump reveals that he will soon be indicted by a federal grand jury for three crimes: Removing and concealing national defense information (NDI), giving NDI to those not legally entitled to possess it, and obstruction of justice by failing to return NDI to those who are legally entitled to retrieve it.

When he learned from a phone call that 30 FBI agents were at the front door of his Florida residence with a search warrant and he decided to reveal this publicly, Trump assumed that the agents were looking for classified top-secret materials that theyd allege he criminally possessed. His assumptions were apparently based on his gut instinct and not on a sophisticated analysis of the law. Hence, his public boast that he declassified all the formerly classified documents he took with him.

Unbeknownst to him, the feds had anticipated such a defense and are not preparing to indict him for possessing classified materials, even though he did possess hundreds of voluntarily surrendered materials marked top secret.

It is irrelevant if the documents were declassified, as the feds will charge crimes that do not require proof of classification. They told the federal judge who signed the search warrant that Trump still had NDI in his home. It appears they were correct.

Under the law, it doesnt matter if the documents on which NDI is contained are classified or not, as it is simply and always criminal to have NDI in a non-federal facility, to have those without security clearances move it from one place to another, and to keep it from the feds when they are seeking it. Stated differently, the absence of classification for whatever reason is not a defense to the charges that are likely to be filed against Trump.

Yet, misreading and underestimating the feds, Trump actually did them a favor. One of the elements that they must prove for any of the three crimes is that Trump knew that he had the documents. The favor he did was admitting to that when he boasted that they were no longer classified. He committed a mortal sin in the criminal defense world by denying something for which he had not been accused.

The second element that the feds must prove is that the documents actually do contain national defense information. And the third element they must prove is that Trump put these documents into the hands of those not authorized to hold them and stored them in a non-federally secured place. Intelligence community experts have already examined the documents taken from Trumps home and are prepared to tell a jury that they contain the names of foreign agents secretly working for the U.S. This is the crown jewel of government secrets. Moreover, Trumps Florida home is not a secure federal facility designated for the deposit of NDI.

The newest aspect of the case against Trump that we learned from the redacted affidavit is the obstruction allegation. This is not the obstruction that Robert Mueller claimed he found Trump committed during the Russia investigation. This is a newer obstruction statute, signed by President George W. Bush in 2002, that places far fewer burdens on the feds to prove. The older statute is the one Mueller alleged. It characterizes any material interference with a judicial function as criminal. Thus, one who lies to a grand jury or prevents a witness from testifying commits this variant of obstruction.

But the Bush-era statute, the one the feds contemplate charging Trump with having violated, makes it a crime of obstruction by failing to return government property or by sending the FBI on a wild goose chase looking for something that belongs to the government and that you know that you have. This statute does not require the preexistence of a judicial proceeding. It only requires that the defendant has the governments property, knows that he has it and baselessly resists efforts by the government to get it back.

Where does all this leave Trump? The short answer is: in hot water. The longer answer is: He is confronting yet again the federal law enforcement and intelligence communities for which he has rightly expressed such public disdain. He had valid points of expression during the Russia investigation. He has little ground upon which to stand today.

I have often argued that many of these statutes that the feds have enacted to protect themselves are morally unjust and not grounded in the Constitution. One of my intellectual heroes, the great Murray Rothbard, taught that the government protects itself far more aggressively than it protects our natural rights.

In a monumental irony, both Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks journalist who exposed American war crimes during the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, and Edward Snowden, the former National Security Agency employee who exposed criminal mass government surveillance upon the American public, stand charged with the very same crimes that are likely to be brought against Trump. On both Assange and Snowden, Trump argued that they should be executed. Fortunately for all three, these statutes do not provide for capital punishment.

Rothbard warned that the feds aggressively protect themselves. Yet, both Assange and Snowden are heroic defenders of liberty with valid moral and legal defenses. Assange is protected by the Pentagon Papers case, which insulates the media from criminal or civil liability for revealing stolen matters of interest to the public, so long as the revealer is not the thief. Snowden is protected by the Constitution, which expressly prohibits the warrantless surveillance he revealed, which was the most massive peacetime abuse of government power.

What will Trump say is his defense to taking national defense information? I cannot think of a legally viable one.

Today's breaking news and more in your inbox

Read more:

Why Trump will soon be indicted | News, Sports, Jobs - The Sentinel - Lewistown Sentinel

The WikiLeaks Party | Transparency Platform

TRANSPARENCY. ACCOUNTABILITY. JUSTICE

The WikiLeaks Party believes that truthful, accurate, factual information is the foundation of democracy and is essential to the protection of human rights and freedoms. Where the truth is suppressed or distorted, corruption and injustice flourish.

The WikiLeaks Party insists on transparency of government information and action, so that these may be evaluated using all the available facts. With transparency comes accountability, and it is only when those in positions of power are held accountable for their actions, that all Australians have the possibility of justice.

The WikiLeaks Party is fearless in its pursuit of truth and good governance, regardless of which party is in power. In each and every aspect of government we will strive to achieve transparency, accountability and justice. This is our core platform.

Exercising Oversight

In a parliamentary democracy, Parliament has three functions

1) To represent the people (the democratic function)

2) To design, guide and implement policy (the legislative function)

3) To scrutinise and oversee government practice, honesty and efficiency (the oversight function).

However what we have witnessed in Australia, despite exceptional work by individual politicians in all the major parties, is a failure of the oversight function. There has been a gradual acceptance that once a single party or a coalition has gained the majority required to form a government, Parliament then becomes little more than an extension of that governments executive machinery: the houses of Parliament effectively become rubber stamps for its policy agendas. This problem becomes particularly pressing when a single party gains a majority in both Houses, a spectre that remains a distinct possibility after each federal election.

The WikiLeaks Party aims to restore genuine independent scrutiny into our political process.

This is why we are campaigning only for the Upper House. We want to return the Senate to its core function as a genuine Upper House offering independent scrutiny of government, protecting the interests of the people, and ensuring that light is shone upon bad practices.

Calling Time on Corruption of Purpose

Parliament is also failing Australians in its democratic function.

In a true democracy, Parliament must facilitate not obstruct our democratic obligation to dissent.

Yet we are witness to a degeneration of democracy into political party oligarchy, in which dissent is stifled and the public bureaucracy is contained and docile.

Members of Parliament fail to represent the people who elect them partly because of the party system: they are constrained by an obligation to toe their party line. Instead of voting according to conscience or according to the values they have publicly espoused to their constituents, they vote as they are instructed by their Party leadership.

Far too often politicians conceive their public role not to be scrutineers of government, but to be partisan supporters of their own party. Their sense of duty to the party and to the networks of political patronage to which they owe their nomination and their career prospects, outweighs their sense of duty to the electorate.

How rare is it to see a Member of Parliament, whether in government or in opposition, stepping out of line, or raising difficult or controversial issues? To engage in backbench rebellion spells death for the career politician, putting an end to their prospects of career advancement or ministerial appointment.

The result is a system of party oligarchy in which conspiracy and corruption of purpose flourish.

Its time for a culture shift.

Its time to give dissidents a voice in our political system.

Its time to inject some genuine, independent scrutiny into our political process.

The WikiLeaks Party in the Senate

The WikiLeaks Party will run candidates in future Australian Senate elections.

Our Senators will be genuinely independent in their scrutiny of the government and demand thorough transparency its contractual arrangements with private companies.

We will bring our core principles of transparency, accountability and justice to bear on all the major issues currently facing Australia.

WikiLeaks Party candidates are ideally suited to the work of the Senate: they are skilled in understanding complexity and they are experienced in dealing with large amounts of documents produced by bureaucracies and spotting their hidden significance and tricks.

The WikiLeaks Party will be vigilant against corruption in all its forms.

The WikiLeaks organisation was pioneering in its use of scientific journalism, reporting information with reference to publicly available primary sources. The WikiLeaks Party will promote scientific policy; decision-making based on research, evidence and clear, transparent principles.

In particular we will be fearless in the pursuit of the 21st century freedoms which are essential to the creation of any meaningful democracy. These include:

Download the WikiLeaks Party Platform statements as a print ready .pdf

Read the original here:

The WikiLeaks Party | Transparency Platform