Posted December 13, 2019 06:21:56

The father of imprisoned Wikileaks founder Julian Assange says the fight to free his son will fail unless the Australian Government applies greater diplomatic pressure on Britain ahead of his US extradition hearing next year.

The US Justice Department requested Britain extradite Assange to face espionage charges, following his expulsion from the Ecuadorian embassy in London in April.

But Assange's father, John Shipton, has revealed he has been working with Member for Dawson George Christensen to bring Assange home for more than a year, even drafting a letter "concerning Julian's circumstances" to Foreign Affairs Minister Marise Payne last November.

The support of Mr Christensen, who this year formed a cross-party Parliamentary Working Group questioning whether Assange should face espionage charges in the US, is "absolutely vital", Mr Shipton said.

"Julian's diplomatic matter will only be solved with Australia's involvement," the 75-year-old said.

"Carrying the force of the Australian public to the court cases will cause the English judiciary to be very careful of their excesses.

"In the case of Julian, he hasn't been treated fairly. There's no due process and no music to face.

"It's an attempt at judicial abduction of an Australian citizen to face espionage charges amounting to death."

Mr Christensen said he and independent MP Andrew Wilkie would travel to London to meet Assange at Belmarsh Prison in February.

"We're paying our own way to go and see him," the Mackay-based MP said.

"As I understand it, his legal team is currently going through formal processes to get us access to him."

"There have been a lot of reports about the state of his health, mental health and the conditions he's suffering at the prison.

"All these things are quite concerning."

Mr Christensen said the charges against Assange relating to the leaking of classified government documents, including footage of a US helicopter attack on unarmed civilians in Baghdad in 2007 are unfair.

"He was a journalist, or publisher, who received information and for receiving that information he has been hauled through the courts to face a potential life sentence and I think that's not on," Mr Christensen said.

Mr Shipton said his son had done nothing wrong.

"It's no different to what The Guardian, The Telegraph, Der Spiegel, Le Monde, El Pais, The Herald Sun, The Age and the ABC, for that matter, [have published]," Mr Shipton said.

"Julian published exactly the same things. We can't understand why the focus is on Julian. It's incomprehensible to us.

"There's no such thing as extraterritorial application of your own laws. In the second place, the [US] First Amendment covers their publication.

"If Julian is to be charged with espionage, so should other publishers."

While celebrities and high-profile activists have championed his son's cause, Mr Shipton urged Townsville Mayor Jenny Hill to throw her support behind Assange, who grew up in north Queensland.

"The fate of Julian Assange rests in our hands and the hands of local councils, the State Government, parliamentary groups and political parties," he said.

"The Geneva Council passed a resolution that Julian ought to be offered asylum in Switzerland.

"If it's good enough for Geneva, it's certainly good enough for the town where Julian grew up."

But Ms Hill said the controversial publisher's fate was "part of a bigger debate".

"I don't think us sending a letter will make one iota of difference to the Federal Government," she said.

"But what will make a difference is the media talking about why he should come home.

"If there is a belief that what is happening is unjust then the evidence should be raised by media outlets. It's the responsibility of the whole community, not just one little old council."

Mr Shipton echoed the concerns of more than 60 doctors who wrote an open letter to British Home Secretary Priti Patel, fearing Assange could die in jail.

"Julian is in a dire circumstance," Mr Shipton said.

"He's very thin now. There's the same brilliance but it only lasts a second.

"It is distressing when you see how he's aged, his hair's falling out, he can't concentrate for very long.

"But if I did stop and hid my head under the doona I would feel very ashamed."

Assange's next case-management hearing will be later this month.

Topics:international-law,law-crime-and-justice,crime,world-politics,journalism,cairns-4870,mackay-4740,afghanistan,united-states,united-kingdom

More here:
Julian Assange's father calls on Government to help lobby for Wikileaks founder's release - ABC News

The United States government would like a staunch opponent of WikiLeaks to testify against former CIA employee Josh Schulte, who is accused of leaking the Vault 7 files to WikiLeaks. But Schultes defense attorney contends such testimony would be irrelevant, prejudicial, and confusing. Paul Rosenzweig is the founder of a homeland security consulting company called Red Branch Consulting. He is a senior advisor to the Chertoff Group, founded by former Homeland Security director Michael Chertoff and is a former Homeland Security official. He is a professional lecturer in law at George Washington University and a contributor to the popular Beltway blog, Lawfare.In December 2010, after WikiLeaks published U.S. military incident reports, several thousand State Department cables, and the Collateral Murder video, he contended WikiLeaks has a malevolent intent. He urged Congress to update espionage laws so prosecuting those involved in the media organization would be easier and more efficient. Schulte allegedly released files that brought scrutiny to the CIAs hacking arsenal, which targeted smartphones and computers. A program called Weeping Angel, that allowed the CIA to attack Samsung F8000 TVs and convert them into spying devices was exposed. They also showed how the CIA targeted Microsoft Windows, as well as Signal and WhatsApp users, with malware.

In June 2018, Schulte was charged with 13 offenses, including four counts of violating the Espionage Act.The government would like a federal court [PDF] to certify Rosenzweig as an expert on WikiLeaks. In particular, prosecutors believe Rosenzweig can explain WikiLeaks typical practices with regard to receiving leaked classified information and its practices or lack thereof regarding the review and redaction of sensitive information contained in classified leaks and certain well-publicized harms to the United States that have occurred as a result of disclosures by WikiLeaks. But Schultes defense argues [PDF] Rosenzweigs purpose will be to suggest to the jury that WikiLeaks is an inherently criminal or evil organization that harms the United States. His attorneys say prosecutors may want to use the former Homeland Security officials testimony to convince the jury that Schultes decision to pass the information to WikiLeaks is proof that he intended to harm the United States. Several questions about the nature of Rosenzweigs proposed testimony are raised.About what prior leaks does he plan to testify? What damage to the United States will he assert occurred as a result of these leaks? Has he done an analysis to determine that the well-publicized harms of prior leaks were in fact accurate? Does he have any personal experience with the WikiLeaks organization? Has he done any specialized research about the organization? they ask.

Schultes defense moved to prevent testimony from Rosenzweig.According to the government, which replied [PDF], they maintain Rosenzweig will testify about Schultes knowledge of prior WikiLeaks disclosures, Schultes heightened interest in WikiLeaks after he illegally transmitted classified information to the organization, Schultes alleged involvement with online hackers organizing under the banner of Anonymous, who previously worked with WikiLeaks, and Schultes avowed intention to destroy the United States diplomatic relationships (relationships that were publicly affected by prior WikiLeaks disclosures).It is unclear how Rosenzweig can possibly know what Schulte knew when he allegedly disclosed the Vault 7 materials. It is also unclear how Rosenzweig can possibly know what Schultes heightened interest was at the time of his alleged leaks. If the government intends to prosecute Schulte like it has in most recent Espionage Act cases, what Schulte did or did not know about WikiLeaks is irrelevant. All the government has to prove is that Schulte made the disclosures, and they violated the law. Schultes defense asserts, This type of testimony would create confusion and force a trial within a trial on the morality of WikiLeaks and the extent of damage caused by prior leaks.

If the government is allowed to introduce this evidence, the defense will necessarily have to respond with testimony about how WikiLeaks is a nonprofit news organization, that it has previously released information from government whistleblowers that was vital to the public understanding of government malfeasance, and that any assertion of damages in the press is not reliable evidence. Yet, his attorneys add, That would create a sideshow irrelevant to any of the elements that the government must prove at trial. A federal judge may find value in allowing the jury to hear testimony from an expert. In 2013, during the court-martial against Pfc. Chelsea Manning, the defense convinced a military judge that Professor Yochai Benkler of Harvard University was an expert on the networked Fourth Estate and could discuss his research on WikiLeaks and how it fit into this new information economy. David Coombs, a defense attorney for Manning, asked Benkler about a 2008 Army Counterintelligence Center (ACIC) report that explored whether WikiLeaks posed a threat to the United States Army and if it undercut the determination that WikiLeaks is an investigative journalistic organization. Benkler did not think it did. Theres a point at which, for example, the report describes WikiLeaks reaching out to national ground intelligence of staff to verify a particular report regarding the battle of Fallujah and actually says, they had high journalistic professionalism in reaching out to try to assure fair use.

Manning was charged with releasing this report, which acknowledged WikiLeaks attempts to verify the information were prudent and show journalist responsibility to the newsworthiness or fair use of the classified document if they are investigated or challenged in court.

In contrast, Rosenzweigs grasp of WikiLeaks seems spiteful and unsophisticated.Rosenzweig declared in July 2018, WikiLeaks is at best a pawn of Russia intelligence and at worst a part of the coordinated Russia operation. They took information from Guccifer 2.0. They solicited it, and anybody who seriously treats them as a journalism outlet after this is just beyond credulousness. The report from Special Counsel Robert Muellers investigation failed to confirm, without a doubt, that WikiLeaks publications were part of a Russian intelligence operation.In 2015, Rosenzweig spoke out against WikiLeaks when they compiled a database so the public could search all of the files hacked from Sony Pictures. He said, When this kind of behavior is considered acceptable, when news organizations profit off of this kind of behavior, it provides encouragement it seems to me to other cyber-extortionists to do the same thing. He unquestionably bought into the allegation that North Korea was responsible for the hack and said WikiLeaks assisted North Koreas efforts in trying to threaten Sony. (One hypothesis for why the hack occurred was that the North Korea government was upset about the portrayal of their leader in The Interview.)The certainty with which Rosenzweig expressed his opinion undermines his credibility. Five years after the hack, there are still many questions as to who was responsible. When Rosenzweig was a visiting fellow at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, he argued the lesson of WikiLeaks was that the U.S. needed to develop a cyber-insurgency doctrine, much like the military developed a counter-insurgency doctrine for waging war in Iraq. WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is charged with 18 charges, including 17 counts of violating the Espionage Act. He is in prison and faces potential extradition.In 2013, Rosenzweig declared, I think Assanges assertion[s] of a good government/transparency motive are patently self-serving flummery, but a jury might buy it. I have no doubt that a colorable [seemingly valid] case can be made against Assangebut conviction is much less certain.My opinion is that Assange is not a journalist and WikiLeaks is not a news organization, Rosenzweig added. News organizations pride themselves on adding value to newsthey analyze and provide context. WikiLeaks does none of that. Its more like a telephone directoryjust a compiler of information, not a discriminating purveyor and it demeans real news organizations to make the comparison.

Prosecutors would like nothing more than to convince a judge that an expert like Rosenzweig is not prejudicial and possesses facts or data relevant to their prosecution just so they can have him express these opinions in a courtroom. In fact, if Rosenzweig testifies, he may be auditioning for the role of expert witness in the United States trial against Julian Assange.

See the original post:
Government Wants WikiLeaks Opponent To Testify At 'Vault 7' Leak Trial - Shadowproof

Summary: As 2019 ends, lets look at the condition of the Republic. Lets cry for its decrepit condition. Then we can dedicate 2020 to reforming it.

It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt. John Philpot Currans Speech On the Right of Election (1790).

Its the holiday season! Americans gather in their homes, whining about irresponsible and incompetent government while watching TV and consuming their favorite drugs. Citizens on the political extremes wander lost in their minds, amidst delusions. Those on the Right fondle their guns, dream of insurrection, and vote straight-line GOP. Those on the Left read esoteric theological and philosophical tracts; they dream of Gaia oppressing the proles so they can rebuild Eden.

But a few citizens act against the regime daring odds no sane man would attempt. Revolutions, even non-violent ones, are not begun by cool considerate men, but by those who live outside the envelope of rationally ordered lives.Revolutions take root when they later attract people of property and calculation.

I remember Glenn Greenwalds analysis of these events in 2012.

Whatever one thinks of WikiLeaks, it is an indisputable fact that the group has never been charged by any government with any crime, let alone convicted of one. Despite that crucial fact, WikiLeaks has been crippled by a staggering array of extra-judicial punishment imposed either directly by the US and allied governments or with their clear acquiescence.

In December 2010, after WikiLeaks began publishing US diplomatic cables, it was hit with cyber-attacks so massivethatthe group was forced to change its web address after the company providing its domain name cut off service. After public demandsandprivate pressurefrom US Senate Homeland Security Chairman Joe Lieberman, Amazon thencut off all hosting services to WikiLeaks. Sophisticated cyber-attacks shortly thereafterforced the group entirely off all US website serviceswhen its California-basedinternet hosting provider, Everydns, terminated service, saying it did so to prevent its other 500,000 customers of being affected by the intense cyber-attacks targeted at WikiLeaks.Meanwhile, Chairman Liebermans public pressure, by design, also led to the destruction of WikiLeaks ability to collect funds from supporters.

Over the past 2 years, then, this group convicted of no crime but engaged in pathbreaking journalism that produced more scoopsthan all other media outlets combined andreceived numerous journalism awards has been effectively prevented from functioning, receiving funds, or even maintaining a presence on US internet servers.

The ominous implications of all this have been never been fully appreciated. Recall that all the way back in 2008, the Pentagon prepared a secret report(ultimately leaked to WikiLeaks) thatdecreed WikiLeaks to be a threat to the US Army and an enemy of the US. That reportplotted tactics that would damage and potentially destroy its ability to function. That is exactly what came to pass. {T}he US government through affirmative steps and/or approving acquiescence to criminal, sophisticated cyber-attacks all but destroyed the ability of an adversarial group, convicted of no crime, to function on the internet.

But what makes all of this even more significant is the vastly disparate treatment of those who launched far less sophisticated and damaging attacks at those corporations which complied with US demands and cut off all funding and other services to WikiLeaks. Acting in the name of Anonymous, a handful of activists targeted those companies with simple denial of service attacks, ones that impeded the operations of those corporate websites for a few hours.

In stark contrast to the far more significant attacks aimed at WikiLeaks, these attacks, designed to protest the treatment of WikiLeaks, spawned a global manhunt by western nations and, ultimately, the arrest of dozens of mostly young alleged hackers, four of whom arenow on trial in London

Every nation has the government it deserves. Dark words said byJoseph de Maistre(lawyer, diplomat, philosopher) in a letter dated 13 August 1811, published inLettres et Opuscules.

Conditions in America have grown much worse since Greenwald wrote that in 2012. See where we are today.

People sneer and laugh at Wikileaks and Anonymous as quixotic, at their foolish and vain efforts. But the government knows better, and devotes great effort to stamp out these sparks. Without wider support for them, our ruling elites will successfully suppress these movements. With our support, these can mature into powerful engines of reform.

The government crushed these rebels. I hope that more rebels will appear. With them lies our only remaining hope for reform. The Republics fate is their fate. What we do now, and during the next few years, will decide its future. Thats the meaning of Democracy. Its survival lies in our hands, as it should be.

Reclaiming the reins of America will require a small revolution. The longer we wait, the larger the revolution needed.

{A} revolution is not a dinner party, or writing an essay, or painting a picture, or doing embroidery; it cannot be so refined, so leisurely and gentle, so temperate, kind, courteous, restrained and magnanimous. Mao tse-tung in Report on an Investigation of the Peasant Movement in Hunan, March 1927.

This post changed everything: A new, dark picture of Americas future.

Ideas!For some shopping ideas, see my recommended books and filmsat Amazon. Also, see Chapter One of a story about our future: Ultra Violence: Tales from Venus.

If you liked this post,like us on Facebookandfollow us on Twitter. See all posts aboutthe constitution, aboutreforming America: steps to politicalchange, and especially these

The Most Dangerous Branch: Inside the Supreme Courts Assault on the Constitution

The Executive Unbound: After the Madisonian Republic

Like Loading...

More here:
Cry as the Republic dies - Fabius Maximus website

One of the key lines in the House Democrats impeachment report distills the Trump-Ukraine scandal to a simple idea: [T]he impeachment inquiry has found that President Trump, personally and acting through agents within and outside of the U.S. government, solicited the interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, to benefit his reelection.

And in the reports preface, the Democrats place Trumps Ukrainian caper within the larger context of foreign intervention in US elections, namely Russias covert attack on the 2016 contest, which was mounted in part to help Trump win the White House: we were struck by the fact that the Presidents misconduct was not an isolated occurrence, nor was it the product of a nave president. Instead, the efforts to involve Ukraine in our 2020 presidential election were undertaken by a President who himself was elected in 2016 with the benefit of an unprecedented and sweeping campaign of election interference undertaken by Russia in his favor, and which the President welcomed and utilized.

The point was clear. Trump muscling Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky to produce political dirt that could influence the 2020 election for Trumps personal advantage was a continuation of Trumps behavior in 2016. This contextualization brings back into the spotlight Vladimir Putins clandestine assault on American democracyand how Trump encouraged and exploited that attack. So now, as Trump is under scrutiny for pressing Ukraine to influence the 2020 race, its a good time to review all the ways that Trump aided and abetted a foreign adversarys scheme to subvert a US election the last time the nation was choosing a president.

Signaled to Moscow that its intervention in the election was desirable: On June 9, three top Trump advisersDonald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner, and Paul Manafortheld a secret meeting at Trump Tower with a Russian emissary whom they were informed would provide them dirt on Hillary Clinton. Trump Jr., who arranged this get-together, much later claimed that this Russian lawyer, who had ties to the Kremlin and a Russian security service, provided them no useful information. But this meeting had more significance than what was actually discussed. During the preparation for this event, Trump Jr. had received an email from the middle-man who set it up saying the meeting came out of an offer from Russias top prosecutor and was part of Russia and its government support for Mr. Trump. This means Trumps son was informed that Russia was angling to secretly help Trumpand that Trump Jr., Kushner, and Manafort were fine with that. And by taking the meeting, Trump Jr. and the others were conveying a message to Russia that the Trump campaign didnt mindand would welcomecovert assistance from the Russian government. (Trump has claimed that he was unaware of this meeting. But Michael Cohen testified to Congress that he believed Trump was aware of the meeting before it occurred.)

Denied Russia hacked the Democratic National Committee: On June 14, 2016, the Washington Post reported that the DNC had been attacked and penetrated by Russian government hackers who gained access to all email and chat traffic. The Kremlin, naturally, denied this. Dmitry Peskov, Vladimir Putins top spokesman said, I completely rule out a possibility that the [Russian] government or the government bodies have been involved in this. The next day, Trumps campaign echoed Moscows line. It put out a statement declaring, We believe is was the DNC that did the hacking as a way to distract from the many issues acing their deeply flawed candidate and failed party leader. That is, there had been no hack; this was all a hoax. The Trump statement accepted and boosted Moscows disinformation and its cover-up. Putin and his covert operators must have been pleased.

Denied Russia was attacking Clintons campaign: In July, three days before the start of the Democrats presidential convention, WikiLeaks dumped tens of thousands of emails and documents the Russian hackers had stolen from the DNC. This was an attempt to disrupt the Democrats gathering. Senior Clinton campaign officials publicly contended that their camp was being targeted by Moscow. Team Trump contended that was hogwash. On CNN, Trump Jr. blasted the Democrats for suggesting Russian involvement: It just goes to show you their exact moral compass. I mean theyll say anything to be able to win this. This is time and time again, lie after lie. Its disgusting. Its so phony. And on the same network Manafort dismissed the Democrats claim, saying, Its just absurdit is crazy, Yet the previous month, they and Kushner had met with the Russian emissary whom they were told was part of a secret Kremlin effort to assist the Trump campaign. Once again, the Trump campaign was reinforcing Putins we-didnt-do-it stancewhich, no doubt, was heartening for Moscow.

Encouraged Russia to hack Clinton: The denials of Russias involvement from Trumps top advisers could well have been read by Moscows operators as a green light from the Trump campaign. But Trump made it explicit at a press conference on July 27, while the Democratic convention was still underway in Philadelphia. He repeated his campaigns denialNobody knows who it isand then went further: I will tell you thisRussia, if youre listening, I hope youre able to find the thirty thousand [Clinton] emails that are missing. I think youll probably be rewarded mightily by our press. Trump was essentially encouraging another government to hack his political rival. He was openly requesting foreign intervention in the US election. And within five hours of Trumps statement, according to Special Counsel Robert Muellers final report, Russian government hackers did try to break into email accounts associated with Clinton and her personal office. This shows the Russians were paying attention to what Trump was saying.

See the original post here:
Trump's Sordid History of Accepting, Requesting, and Encouraging Foreign Interference in US Elections - Mother Jones

WikiLeaks gained worldwide attention in 2010, when it published a vast cache of classified material taken from American military computer systems, most of it about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

That year, Swedish prosecutors sought to arrest and question Mr. Assange on sexual assault accusations, which he said were fabricated as a pretext for handing him to the United States. Mr. Assange, who was in Britain at the time, surrendered to the British police, posted bail and fought extradition to Sweden.

But in 2012, fearing that he would lose that case, he sought asylum in the Ecuadorean Embassy in London, and Mr. Correas government granted it. Mr. Assange stayed there for nearly seven years, skipping court appearances, forfeiting his bail and continuing to run WikiLeaks.

Recently, the Swedes dropped their investigation, saying that the evidence was too weak for a prosecution.

In 2016, WikiLeaks published stolen Democratic Party emails that damaged the presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton. Russian spies had hacked the partys computers, according to Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel, but Mr. Assange denies any link to Russian intelligence.

As Mr. Assanges relations with his Ecuadorean hosts deteriorated, President Lenn Moreno, who succeeded Mr. Correa in 2017, pressured him to leave. In April this year, Ecuador revoked Mr. Assanges asylum, and the British police arrested him. He was convicted of bail-jumping and sentenced to 50 weeks in prison.

Mr. Assange contends he is a journalist, publishing what he receives from his sources, and not responsible if they have obtained it illegally. The Obama administration reluctantly accepted that argument. The Trump administration rejects it, and charges that in addition, he aided the illegal 2010 hacking.

David D. Kirkpatrick contributed reporting from London, and Charlie Savage and Julian E. Barnes from Washington.

More here:
Assange to Testify on Being Recorded in Embassy in London - The New York Times

Permanent Record, by Edward Snowden (Metropolitan Books, 352 pp., $30)

Edward Snowden, the world famous former civilian contractor at the National Security Agency, was widely celebrated as a whistleblower because, before defecting to Russia, he shared with journalists highly classified documents exposing the NSAs sources and methods of monitoring online communications. Now, more than six years later, he has released a memoir, Permanent Record, the publication of which he described in a tweet from Moscow as an international conspiracy across 20 countries.

Snowden assertswith some justificationthat his leaks made cyberspace safer than in the past from the U.S. intelligence communitys spying and other intrusions. Certainly, by exposing how the NSA and its allies monitored telecommunications, he made it easier to keep messages and other activities secretnot only from his employer but also from law enforcement agenciesby measures such as end-to-end encryption. Of course, America wasnt the only state actor operating in cyberspace, and some hostile actors, like Russia, could slip through the hole that Snowden opened.

To understand how he punched this hole, consider some actions he took that he omits from the book. For example, as the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence revealed in its December 2016 report, Snowden removed digital copies of 1.5 million classified files from the NSA. In this haul, according to the Pentagon, some 900,000 of the files had originated at the Department of Defense and contained, among other things, information from the Cyber Command, a joint effort between the NSA and military intelligence to confront adversary intrusions in cyberspace. Other removed files contained documents that originated with allies, including the British, Australian, and Israeli intelligence services. Richard Rick Ledgett, who headed the NSAs damage-assessment team, described one file containing a 32,000-page database that could provide adversaries with a roadmap to the gaps in our surveillance. The breach needed to be remedied.

Any secret data removed without authorization from the NSAs secure facilities is, by definition, compromised. Regardless of whether Snowden supplied these files to journalists, parked them in the cloud, gave them to foreign governments, or threw them in the Pacific Ocean, the Defense Department had no choice but to shut down all the sources divulged in them. It was a Herculean task that took 200 to 250 intelligence officers several months to accomplish, and the loss likely made it more difficult to protect American cyberspace from Russian intrusions.

Journalists were not the only people to whom Snowden reached out. After he took the files and went to Hong Kong, Snowden secretly contacted Russian government officials, whom we now know considered his information important enough to inform Vladimir Putin. As Putin himself revealed in a September 3, 2013 televised press conference: Snowden first went to Hong Kong and got in touch with our diplomatic representatives. He added, I was informed that there was such a man, agent of special services. We dont know what Snowden told these diplomatic representatives, or what they relayed to PutinSnowden does not reveal his interaction with thembut it was enough for Putin to authorize his trip to Moscow.

It was Wikileaks, which Secretary of State Mike Pompeo once called a hostile intelligence service, that helped Snowden get from Hong Kong to Moscow. Julian Assange, its cofounder, not only sent his associate Sarah Harrison to Hong Kong but also used Wikileaks funds to pay for Snowdens ticket on the Russian airline Aeroflot. Assange admitted this at his June 23, 2013 news conference, confirming that we paid for those arrangements. Assange also admitted that he and Harrison used Snowdens credit card to book decoy flights. Harrison then personally escorted Snowden to Moscow.

Finally, though Snowden doesnt identify his employer or source of income in Russia, U.S. intelligence found that he remained in contact with Russian intelligence until at least 2016. We know this because the House Intelligence Committee found, based on its access to U.S. intelligence, that Since Snowdens arrival in Moscow [on June 23, 2013], he has had, and continues to have, contact with Russian intelligence services. Representative Adam Schiff, the committees ranking Democrat, and Representative Mike Rogers, its ranking Republican, confirmed this bipartisan conclusion to me.

Snowden chose not to include any of these four points in his permanent record, instead advertising his status as a whistleblower superhero. He has remained unique among them. Other whistleblowers have gone to their respective services inspector general with their concerns; by contrast, Snowden got in touch with agents of the Russian government. Other whistleblowers merely reported putative malfeasance; Snowden removed 1.5 million classified files and fled the country. And other whistleblowers accepted the legal consequences of their actions; Snowden evaded them by defecting to Russia. Thats a permanent record of its own.

Edward Jay Epsteins most recent book was How America Lost Its Secrets: Edward Snowden, the Man and the Theft.

Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

Link:
Edward Snowden's New Book is a Self-Indulgent Omission of Facts. - City Journal

Bernhardt Esau. Photo/Namibian Ministry of Fisheries

The leaking of documents to Wikileaks by a former employee of Samherji, a leading company in the Icelandic fishing industry, continues to have consequences in Namibia, where the scandal is dubbed the Fishrot Case.

Namibian President Hage Geingob has announced that former Justice Minister Sacky Shanghala and former Fisheries Minister Bernardt Esau, both currently in prison, will be withdrawn from the National Assembly and removed from the SWAPO party list, mbl.is reports, quotingInformant.

Six Namibian officials arrested and charged for corruption and money laundering, following the release of the 30,000 documents by Wikileaks, will remain in police custody at least until February 20, while the case is being investigated, mbl.is reports. Their lawyers did not request their release on bail.

The men arrested last week are Bernhardt Esau, who recently resigned as minister of fisheries, former Minister of Justice Sacky Shanghala, James Hatuikulipi, who quit his position as chairman of the state-run Fishcor fishing company, Esaus son-in-law Tamson Fitty Hatuikulipi, his employee Ricardo Gustavo and Pius Taxa Mwatelulo.

According to The Namibian, the Namibian State alleges that the first five men listed above solicited, accepted or agreed to accept payments totaling at least 103 million Namibian dollars from the Icelandic-owned companies Mermaria Seafood Namibia and Esja Seafood from 2014 to 2019 to secure a continuous allocation of fishing quotas for the two companies.

Esau, Shanghala, James and Fitty Hatuikulipi and Gustavo are furthermore accused of having defrauded the Namibian government when making a cooperation agreement with the Angolan government in June 2014 - an agreement meant to benefit the citizens of Namibia and Angola, which instead benefitted the five accused.

Additional charges include fraud and tax evasion.

The men who were to lead the two legal teams representing the six, were arrested on Friday for working in Namibia without having employment permits.

Related news:

See the original post:
Charged with Receiving Payments for Fishing Quota - Iceland Monitor

The incarceration and extradition trial of Julian Assange is one of many examples of the US abusing the legal systems of other countries to target its political enemies, said John Shipton, the father of WikiLeaks founder.

Assange is currently held at a top security UK prison pending a hearing on extradition to the US. An American court wants him on espionage charges that may effectively result in imprisonment for life. Assanges case is one of many in which Washington puts pressure on other nations to abuse their legal systems to persecute people that the US government doesnt like, Assanges father believes.

The situation with Assange is similar to what happened to other people in Washingtons crosshairs, Shipton told an audience at the University of Cologne on Saturday.

One similar case he cited is that of Huawei Chief Financial officer Meng Wanzhou, who was arrested in Canada on a request from the US. Like Assange, she is fighting an extradition request by the US, which accuses her of financial fraud in relation to violations of anti-Iranian sanctions imposed by Washington.

Another example is Ola Bini, a digital rights activist and personal friend of Assange, who got arrested in Ecuador, in a move apparently coordinated with Assanges expulsion from the nations embassy in London. Bini spent 70 days in jail without formal charges being brought, even though Ecuadoran government officials immediately claimed he had been involved in computer intrusion. The Swedish citizen has been released but is forbidden to leave the country.

Shipton said it was obvious why his son is wanted by the US. After all, his creation, WikiLeaks, continues to expose the nefarious activities of the American government, even as Assange is kept under lock and key.

There [was] a coup in Bolivia two weeks ago. If you wish, you can look up [the WikiLeaks site for] the name[s] of those involved in the coup, and you will see reports describing those who are corrupted; those who betray their country for money; those who have constant contact with the United States embassy, he said.

If you like this story, share it with a friend!

Go here to read the rest:
US abuses justice systems to target its enemies, like it did with Huawei Assanges father - RT

Namibias state-owned fishing company has suspended its chief executive following media reports that government officials had taken bribes in exchange for the multimillion-dollar fishing rights to horse mackerel, Reuters reported.

Namibian officials had taken bribes in exchange for the fishing rights. (Credit: Philippe Gabriel[CC BY 2.0])Fishcor CEO Mike Nghipunya was reportedly sent home a week ago after reports detailed his involvement in a corrupt fishing rights scheme, Bennet Kangumu, Fishcors acting chairman, told Reuters. We placed him on leave to allow preliminary investigations, Kangumu said.

Officials close to President Hage Geingob also have been linked to the allegations. In a video posted by Al Jazeera on Sunday, undercover reporters posing as businessmen collected video of ministers and other public officials agreeing to trade Namibias coastal fish for cash.

OCCRP wrote last month about a cache of 30,000 WikiLeaks documents, dubbed the Fishrot archive, that disclose how Iclandic fishing company Samherji paid nearly US$10 million to high-ranking African officials and politicians. The payments were transferred via Norwegian DNB bank accounts to shell companies in tax havens.

Two high-ranking officials in the Namibian government, Fisheries Minister Bernhard Esau and Justice Minister Sacky Shanghala, have resigned since the documents were published. Both denied any wrongdoing.

Geingog, who was re-elected to another term last week after receiving 56 percent of the vote, has lost a considerable support since the 2014 election, when he received 87 percent of the vote. Public frustration over corruption scandals and unemployment contributed to the decline, according to The Associated Press.

See more here:
CEO of Namibia's State-Owned Fishing Company Suspended In Corruption Probe - OCCRP

Roger Stones conviction Friday on charges of lying to Congress, obstruction of justice, and witness tampering has drawn widespread speculation about whether President Donald Trump will pardon his longtime adviser. Trump, after all, publicly cheered Stones promise not to testify against the president in special counsel Robert Muellers Russia investigation. And Stone himself, just before his conviction, reportedly sought presidential intervention through a note read on the air by far-right commentator Alex Jones. I appeal to the president to pardon me because to do so would be an action that would show these corrupt courts that theyre not going to get away with persecuting people for their free speech or for the crime of getting the president elected, Stone said, according to Jones.

This appeal is significant because Stone is asking the president to intervene in a case in which Trump is personally implicated. Stone was found guilty of lying to House investigators about contacts with Trump campaign officials in which he provided updates on WikiLeaks plans for releasing emails stolen from Democrats by Russian hackers. Stones trial included testimony suggesting that the self-described dirty trickster had personally briefed Trump on WikiLeaks plans. This means that Trump likely lied to Mueller when he claimed he did not recall discussing WikiLeaks with Stone.

Strikingly, this is apparently not the first time Stone has tried to convince Trump to use his pardon powers to intercede in the criminal probes surrounding WikiLeaks. After Trump was elected president in 2016, Stone told associates he was working to convince the president to pardon WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, who at the time faced potential prosecution by the Justice Department in connection with his organizations publication of classified US government documents in 2010. Randy Credicoa comedian and political activist formerly friendly with Stonetestified at Stones trial that in 2016, Stone contacted Margaret Ratner Kunstler, a lawyer who worked with WikiLeaks. According to Credico, Stone told Kunstler that he planned to urge Trump to preemptively pardon Assange.

Mother Jones first reported last year that Stone, in text messages to Credico, had claimed he was attempting to secure a pardon for Assange. I am working with others to get JA a blanket pardon, Stone wrote in one January 6, 2018, message. Its very real and very possible. Dont fuck it up. Stone sent that message, which was placed in evidence by prosecutors during his trial, after Credico mentioned plans to speak to a reporter about his contacts with Stone in 2016. Stone apparently wanted to dissuade Credico from doing that. Hope u dont fuck Up my efforts to get Assange a pardon Stone wrote in another text to Credico, minutes earlier on the same day.

In September 2018 email to Mother Jones, Stone, without offering specifics, confirmed: I most definitely advocated a pardon for Assange.

Under Trump, official US policy toward WikiLeaks has not seemed to soften. In April 2017, then-CIA Director Mike Pompeo called the organization a hostile intelligence service. Two years later, the Justice Department indicted Assange. But in late 2016, Stone likely had reason to believe that a pardon was at least possiblejust weeks earlier, as WikiLeaks released emails damaging to Hillary Clinton, Trump had declared on the campaign trail that I love WikiLeaks.

Credicos recent testimony adds to the pardon story. According to the comedian, Stone first broached the idea of Trump pardoning Assange in late 2016. Credico testified that after Trumps electoral victory, Stone asked for help reaching Kunstler,who is Credicos friend, regarding a pardon for Assange. Kunstler, a civil rights lawyer who represents WikiLeaks editor Sarah Harrison, testified at Stones trial that her work for Harrison left her functioning in effect as a WikiLeaks lawyer.

Stone later made public statements urging Trump to pardon Assange. But his outreach to Kunstler is one of several pieces of evidence presented during the trial indicating that the connections between Trumps circle and WikiLeaks were more robust than previously known. Rick Gates, a former top Trump campaign aide, testified that he witnessed Trump speaking on the phone with Stone on July 31, 2016, shortly after WikiLeaks released a trove of Democratic National Committee emails. Immediately after hanging up with Stone, Gates testified, Trump told told him that more information would be coming.

Former Trump campaign CEO Steve Bannon, who also testified against Stone, said the campaign considered Stone to be its access point to Assange and WikiLeaks. And Bannon suggested that Trump campaign officials believed Stone was working with WikiLeaks to influence the release of emails. Bannon said that in October 2016, he heard that Stone was somehow involved in WikiLeaks releasing emails stolen from Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta.

Stone told Mother Jones last year that he urged Andrew Napolitano, a Fox News personality, to support a pardon for Assange. According to Credico, Stone said he hoped Napolitano would float the idea on Fox or directly to Trump. Credico has also told Mother Jones that Stone claimed to have secured Bannons support for an Assange pardon push.

Still, its unclear how extensive Stones effort really was. Napolitano said in a statement last year that he categorically denies working with Stone to get Assange a pardon. There is no evidence Bannon took steps to help Assange. William Burck, a lawyer for Bannon, did not respond to questions about Stones alleged claims.

Trump hasso far not pardoned Assange, and in May, the WikiLeaks founder was hit with a federal indictment for his alleged role in obtaining and publishing secret military and diplomatic documents in 2010.

The charges against Stone had no direct tie to his efforts to help Assange. Prosecutors crafted a far more narrow case. Stone was convicted of making false statements to the House Intelligence Committee, obstruction of justice, and witness tamperingthe latter of which involved Stone pressuring Credico not to provide testimony contradicting Stones false claims to Congress.

Credico has said he believes Stones talk of securing an Assange pardon, including Stones contact with Kunstler in 2016, was part of an effort to dangle a carrot to stop the comedian, a vocal WikiLeaks backer, from disputing Stones congressional testimony. He was trying to get me not to talk, Credico said.

Original post:
Roger Stone Wants a Pardon. He Previously Tried to Get One for Assange. - Mother Jones