Bespoke Conspiracy Theory Emerges To Benefit Assange

EVERYONE can agree that Julian Assange only has himself to blame. Whether he’s a hero or a villain to you is an increasingly subjective question. But he is still the hacker prodigy who chose to enable the theft of classified material on an unprecedented scale before disseminating it with an arsonist’s indifference to damage. Nobody forced him to do so and he knew all along it was highly illegal. At the time, it was hard to discern in the man any obvious philosophical passion for causes; it was as if he discovered the technical formula for something – let’s call it embarrassing governments – that gave him fame, importance, praise and respect. He created a mission for himself and was suddenly a globally important person. His complete unwillingness to face his accusers and stand tall in a US court to make a case for the licitness of what he did, however, proves he is no martyr to a great cause. The rape charges brought against him in Sweden may or may not have been fair (opinions vary) but he wouldn’t face those either. Assange has lived above the law for years. He makes outwardly moral statements of justification – about transparency and the deadly lies of war – but not legal ones.

Until now. A very strange and suspicious series of events in the lead-up to Assange’s first extradition hearing (beginning Monday, today, UK time) to answer a US indictment in the Chelsea Manning matter makes an already byzantine case even murkier. From evidence presented in court during the investigation in Spain of UC Global – a Spanish company contracted to install security features in Ecuador’s London embassy – it emerged in October last year that Assange’s meetings with his lawyers (including left-wing celebrity, Geoffrey Robertson) were filmed and bugged. After falling out with his Ecuadorian friends in April 2019, Assange was sent packing from the embassy and arrested. UC Global’s director, David Morales, is accused (inter alia) of overseeing the alleged spying for the CIA – which is now presumed to be privy to the content of the conversations. Instructive dates are vague, if not absent, in some news reports but the surveillance likely started in earnest in mid-2017 – just as WikiLeaks began to publish the ultra sensitive Vault 7 documents.

The case against Morales was initially made by the reporters of Madrid’s left-leaning El Pais newspaper whose theories about his movements and motivations are, at best, tenuous. Their own summary of the purported ties between Morales and the Agency in the latter days of the Obama administration in 2016 and the first days of the newly elected Trump administration is embarrassingly circumstantial. This background was left out of the ABC’s Sunday report on the Assange-Robertson video. Yesterday, the ABC reported that human rights lawyer Robertson believes revelations of the secret recording of the meetings are a “lifeline.”

His reasoning is that a violation of Assange’s privacy during such discussions could sink the US government’s prosecution at any future trial. The QC cites the Pentagon Papers and the 1971 burglary at the office of Daniel Ellsberg’s psychiatrist. The weakness of that as precedent is obvious: the Ecuadorian embassy is not the United States of America. Hence the attempt to exploit (or co-concoct) a legally exploitable connection to the CIA via Ecuador … via UC Global. The best even three ABC reporters could do for this evidence-free tale was to claim Assange and Robertson “were allegedly being targeted in a remarkable and deeply illegal surveillance operation possibly run at the request of the US Government.” Allegedly deeply possibly. Assange appeared in Woolwich crown court in London today. If extradited, he faces 175 years in prison for espionage.

This entry was posted in International, Tough on Crime, tough on criminals. Bookmark the permalink.

27 Responses to Bespoke Conspiracy Theory Emerges To Benefit Assange

  1. nb

    ‘EVERYONE can agree that Julian Assange only has himself to blame.’
    EVERYONE can agree that journalists have only themselves to blame when sent to the gulag. They know the rules, and they choose to break them.

  2. Sean

    I was surprised to read his lawyer claiming it was a ‘Trump’ mission to get Assange. That’s not true at all, it’s 100% bipartisan. Clinton was no fan of him at all and the DNC would be pissed off by the leaked e-mails. No matter who is in charge they will want to bring him to the US.

  3. Tim Neilson

    ‘EVERYONE can agree that Julian Assange only has himself to blame.’
    EVERYONE can agree that journalists have only themselves to blame when sent to the gulag. They know the rules, and they choose to break them.

    Assange isn’t being accused of “journalism”. He wasn’t trying to publicise any specific story in the public interest. He was just receiving and indiscriminately publishing illegally obtained material with no thought as to the consequences.

    Giving highly damaging national secrets to a foreign country is a crime. It doesn’t cease to be a crime just because they’re also made available to the general public.

  4. a happy little debunker

    Manning chose to steal confidential and classified information & sent it to WikiLeaks.
    WikiLeaks partnered with Der Spiegel, The Guardian and the New York Times to publish that information.
    Nobody from Der Spiegel, The Guardian and the New York Times have been charged with any crime.

    And that is partially why I am somewhat sympathetic to Assange – who broke no US laws on US soil & at best can be accused of failing to hack US E-Systems.

    Team America – World Police!

  5. Tim Neilson

    Nobody from Der Spiegel, The Guardian and the New York Times have been charged with any crime.

    That’s regrettable.

    Especially the NYT.

  6. Mother Lode

    Assange seems to be back in favour with the free thinking (yet strangely uniform) toddlers at the creche known as the University of Sydney – with a banner on the footbridge over Parramatta Rd crying out support for him.

    Great thing for universities is that after four years, just about the entire student body has been replaced with graduates leaving and newly HSC endorsed neonates.

  7. C.L.

    WikiLeaks partnered with Der Spiegel, The Guardian and the New York Times to publish that information.
    Nobody from Der Spiegel, The Guardian and the New York Times have been charged with any crime.

    That’s like a comparison of breaking into somebody’s home and stealing their jewellery (WikiLeaks) on one hand and being one of several dodgy pawn-brokers willing to sell them on the other. The latter should also be punished, unquestionably, but is not the foundational violation.

    There is now a lot more sympathy for Assange on the right than there was 10-12 years ago. That’s down to the Wussia Hoax which has turned the right 180 degrees against the “intelligence community.” I’m in that camp myself to a very large extent but nothing alters the fact that what Assange was doing was simply strip-mining data and dumping it online in the hope that a factoid or video or transcript would morally redeem what he’d done by ‘exposing’ the misdeed of a government – always the US or a Five Eyes government. I don’t believe Assange is a traitor – he’s too autistic to meaningfully prefer any side. He’s just a semi-sociopathic vandal.

  8. Mother Lode

    That’s regrettable.

    Especially the NYT.

    The NYT would screw up any information they got. They can’t help themselves. If they heard that Trump was traveling somewhere they would be wanting their ace reporters to investigate and to report the whole story:

    – How many humans will be sacrificed on a Satanic altar?
    – On which countries will they drop bombs on the way there?
    – What is the racist angle?
    – How is this like Hitler?
    – How will he insult his host country?
    – What budding socialist nirvana (or peaceful diverse idyllic I-slamic domain) will he embroil the US in a war?
    – Is he snubbing Obama?
    – Who is he going to meet to get bots to tilt the election in his favour in November?

    Yep. Anyone who reads the NYT will know everything except the facts.

  9. Assange became dangerous to the left in the US when he intimated that it wasn’t the Russians who hacked the DNC.
    Not wanting their dirty laundry aired, the various alphabet agencies bribed/extorted the Ecuadorians to give him up.
    I’m surprised he hasn’t been Arkancided yet.

  10. C.L.

    Not wanting their dirty laundry aired, the various alphabet agencies bribed/extorted the Ecuadorians to give him up.

    I can’t see the logic of that, really.
    A US trial would be – will be – a circus and he would have some measure of discovery rights.
    All sorts of people could be called to give evidence – under oath. It will of course go all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary.

    Why would the US want that instead of Assange languishing under a form of house arrest in London?

  11. Archivist

    Why would the US want that instead of Assange languishing under a form of house arrest in London?

    Yes, exactly. They had him right where they wanted him. And when he was ejected from the embassy, the extradition kept the game alive by throwing him into a new prison. The process is the punishment, as they say.

    On the other hand, I’m not convinced the Americans would shy away from a US trial. They applied for extradition, which surely suggests they are indeed prepared to try him. And even if such a trial is a circus with a string of appeals, the whole thing would take years. That’s still a win. The longer they keep Assange off the streets, the more his power diminishes.

  12. C.L.

    Is there any remote chance of bail during that drawn-out process?
    If not, he will be in the clink for a long time to come.

  13. Arnost

    Why would the US want that instead of Assange languishing under a form of house arrest in London?

    That is a very good question.

    I can think of two reasons:
    They want to interrogate him abt other stuff that he knows (say who really did the Russia Russia Russia hack – but other stuff … what if he has Epstein files?)
    They want him in the US to more easily surveil and hack him and get his dead-man switch… so the above can’t come out when he’s arkancided.

  14. Arnost

    If not, he will be in the clink for a long time to come

    Manning has now been gaoled for a year on the basis that he/she won’t testify against Assange. And it very much looks like an indefinite sentence. If they can do that – they prob don’t even need to charge Assange with anything [just ask him to testify against / reveal Wikileaks whistleblowers… and he in the same boat as Manning].

  15. Kneel

    “That’s like a comparison of breaking into somebody’s home and stealing their jewellery (WikiLeaks) on one hand and being one of several dodgy pawn-brokers willing to sell them on the other.”

    More like, somebody stealing your jewellery (US Govt employees), selling to a dodgy pawn broker (WikiLeaks) and them on-selling to another dodgy pawn broker (NYT et al).

    I would have more sympathy for the US (and others “done in” by Assange) if they cold show that something he has published is false.
    I would have more sympathy for the US if those responsible for the crimes he documented had to at least face charges for what they did.
    I find it hard to understand how he doesn’t have the protections of a journalist when they say he “published” the information.
    I find it hard to understand why the Aus government won’t stand up for him exposing corruption, malfeasance etc in the US government – when he is doing it outside the USA and is not directly participating.
    I would be more likely to support the ABC’s action against the AFP if they had covered JA’s back from the start.
    So many double standards, it’s hard to keep up…

  16. jupes

    And even if such a trial is a circus with a string of appeals, the whole thing would take years.

    Indeed. Khalid Sheikh M*h*mm*ed was arrested in 2003 and is still sitting in Gitmo awaiting trail.

    American lawyers are the best in the world at their primary function: Dragging shit out while they charge by the hour.

  17. BorisG

    I think if Boris Johnson has any balls he should flatly deny the extradition request, just like Pompeo flatly denied UK request to extradite a US woman who killed a British motorcyclist on a British road by driving on the wrong side of the road and then fled to the US (Trump saying it is an easy mistake to make).

  18. Archivist

    I would have more sympathy for the US (and others “done in” by Assange) if they cold show that something he has published is false.

    That’s not relevant. They were state secrets.

    I would have more sympathy for the US if those responsible for the crimes he documented had to at least face charges for what they did.

    To be ruthlessly objective about this, he didn’t ‘document crimes’. Rather, he has published data which some have interpreted as incriminating. But he’s published so much stuff, I’m not even sure which leaks are the ones that you were outraged about.

    I would be more likely to support the ABC’s action against the AFP if they had covered JA’s back from the start.

    The ABC may have been unsure of their stance on Assange while the Russia conspiracy and Mueller investigation were swirling around. It was unclear – and to an extent, still is – what his agenda was, and what role he played. But yes, what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. They were playing “Let’s be like Julian Assange” and they got busted.

  19. Tim Neilson

    I would have more sympathy for the US (and others “done in” by Assange) if they cold show that something he has published is false.

    There’s a bigger problem in some cases if what he published was true.

    For example, if his indiscriminate dump of anything that came into his hands disclosed covert anti-terrorist operations, or revealed information which would aid in the theft of armaments, or revealed the identity of whistleblowers against organised crime.

    I’ve got no idea whether it did. But neither did he, it seems, and it certainly looks like he didn’t care.

  20. BorisG

    Assange presents a huge dilemma for conspiraservatives (TM). Assange exposed the secret inner workings and dirty laundry of the so-called swamp, so they (and any other ant-establishment folks, such as left wing populists and anarchists, not to mention libertarians) should be his biggest supporters. I find it strange that they are not. Maybe at the end of the day they are supporters of the swamp?

  21. Lee

    Assange presents a huge dilemma for leftists.

    At least those with principles, although they are very thin on the ground these days.

  22. BorisG

    Assange presents a huge dilemma for leftists.

    Yes. But they are split. Establishment leftists loathe him. Radical ant-Establishment leftists support him.

  23. Tim Neilson

    BorisG
    #3334593, posted on February 25, 2020 at 4:53 pm

    Would you expect us to be in favour of murder of swamp denizens? Opposing the swamp doesn’t mean supporting trashing the rule of law and our institutions just to “get” them.

    Yes, the discomfiture of the swamp was a silver lining in the Wikileaks cloud, and there’s no point refusing to make use of the info once it’s out there, but we needn’t support how it was done, let alone favour any acts or omissions that would encourage a repeat.

    We’re always at a disadvantage against the filthscum because we want to uphold proper principles, and we either live with that disadvantage or join with them in wrecking what we claim to want to preserve.

  24. BorisG

    We’re always at a disadvantage against the filthscum because we want to uphold proper principles,

    Yes I see Trump doing that. LOL.

  25. Zatara

    Is there any remote chance of bail during that drawn-out process?
    If not, he will be in the clink for a long time to come.

    Assange peed on both sides of the political line. He therefore has no friends at court but plenty of enemies. He also has a proven record of running from courts and seeking sanctuary from them.

  26. Gwendolyn

    Lee:

    At least those with principles, although they are very thin on the ground these days.

    BorisG:

    Yes. But they are split. Establishment leftists loathe him. Radical ant-Establishment leftists support him.

    President Trump should pardon Assange to troll the Left.

  27. C.L.
    #3334311, posted on February 25, 2020 at 12:01 pm

    Not wanting their dirty laundry aired, the various alphabet agencies bribed/extorted the Ecuadorians to give him up.

    I can’t see the logic of that, really.
    A US trial would be – will be – a circus and he would have some measure of discovery rights.
    All sorts of people could be called to give evidence – under oath. It will of course go all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary.

    Why would the US want that instead of Assange languishing under a form of house arrest in London?

    Last question first.
    Assange may have been ‘languishig’ but the DNC hack/leak happened while he was ‘languishing’.
    He was also talking to people. People like Sean Hannity (Fox News) and a Republican congressman whos name escapes me for the moment (starts with B)

    As far as a court case circus is concerned, how’d that work out for Roger Stone or Paul Manafort or even General Mike Flynn?
    Stone is under a gag order while his judge shoots her mouth off, the jury foreperson shoots her mouth off and the people responsible for the 4am SWAT raid on his home are getting book deals and appearing as expert commentators on television.
    And what about Jefferey Epstein. That was going to be the biggest court circus of all, until………yeah, Assange would have had all sorts of ‘rights’ in the US justice system.

    The only reason Assange is still alive is because he claims to have a dead mans switch. I’m guessing the US alphabets are trying to get the switch before his extradition to the land of ‘rights’.

    p.s. The poms are not much better. See Tommy Robinson
    The Aussies? See Cardinal Pell.

Comments are closed.