Elder Patriot – WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange was removed from the Ecuadorian embassy in London. Moments before his arrest, Ecuador announced that it had withdrawn Assange’s asylum for “repeatedly violating international conventions and protocol.”
Ecuadorian President Lenin Moreno posted a video statement on Twitter:
“Today I announce that the discourteous and aggressive behavior of Mr. Julian Assange, the hostile and threatening declarations of its allied organization, against Ecuador, and especially the transgression of international treaties, have led the situation to a point where the asylum of Mr. Assange is unsustainable and no longer viable.”
British police immediately arrested Assange as he was ushered out of the Ecuadorian embassy, earlier this morning.
The U.S. has moved to extradite Assange charging him with one count of conspiracy to hack a Defense Department computer. The U.S. did not, however, charge Assange with espionage.
What does this mean?
Taken together with the seditious reporting against President Trump and his associates, that has finally been exposed, Assange’s arrest raises questions about how the American intelligence community views the role of journalists.
We always found it odd that Robert Mueller made a big show of indicting Russian troll farms that would never see the inside of a courtroom.
At the same time though, Mueller never sought to interview Julian Assange who Mueller claimed received the hacked emails Wikileaks released from Russia. Odd.
For a man who spent 22 months overturning every rock looking for a trace of evidence implicating Russia’s role in allegedly efforting to help Donald Trump’s election efforts, Mueller’s decision not to extradite Assange smacks of coverup.
Why was Mueller so obviously avoiding interviewing a witness who could corroborate the important assumptions that served as the foundation on which Mueller was basing his investigation?
What was Mueller afraid of?
Along with many other investigators who relied on open source material, we began uncovering evidence in early August 2016 that potentially undermined the FBI’s predicate of coordinated Russian interference for kicking off Operation Crossfire Hurricane.
We filed at least 11 columns that contained evidence that Seth Rich was murdered as part of a larger plot to protect Hillary Clinton and that could have exonerated Donald Trump for having conspired with Russia.
Even Sy Hersh, former NY Times columnist, and Five-time Polk Award winner for excellence in journalism, Pulitzer Prize winner and George Orwell Award winner, felt he possessed enough evidence to claim Seth Rich was WikiLeaks’ source.
We can already see the makings of the #resistance narrative that will be used to turn public opinion against Assange. From Fox News:
Former Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson said Thursday that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is not a “hero” and that it was a “complex” question as to whether Assange’s role publishing classified documents on the Iraq War counted as legitimate journalistic activity.
“He apparently aided and assisted in the leak of classified information,” Johnson, who served in the Obama administration, said on “Fox & Friends”. “At some point, there may be a debate whether he was a journalist and that was legitimate journalist activity but I do not regard him as a hero.”
It’s hard to know where citizens of a free society should allow their government to draw the line on publishing the truth in consideration of protecting national security interests.
It’s probably fair to draw some equivalencies while trying to make that determination, though.
First, if we take former FBI Director James Comey at his word, it’s probably fair to assume that WikiLeaks could have successfully hacked the Clinton and DNC servers:
We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial e-mail accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal email domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent. She also used her personal email extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related emails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal email account.
Given the nature of the manner in which Comey was parsing his words to protect Clinton, and the fact that Clinton was the U.S. Secretary of State, Comey could have more appropriately replaced “possible” with “likely.”
As in, “we assess it is likely that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal email account.”
Second, WikiLeaks printed factually correct, unfiltered evidence.
Assange’s attorney Barry Pollack noted that:
“Once his health care needs have been addressed, the UK courts will need to resolve what appears to be an unprecedented effort by the United States seeking to extradite a foreign journalist to face criminal charges for publishing truthful information.”
Now consider the words of U.K. Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt, who tweeted Thursday morning: “Julian Assange is no hero and no one is above the law.”
“He has hidden from the truth for years.”
If Assange is punished for publishing factually correct evidence that makes the entrenched corrupt interests exercising massive influence over our lives uncomfortable, or that exposes their criminality, that would be turning the protections deliberately granted by the First Amendment on its head.
Especially in light of the unconscionable manner in which the mainstream media willingly participated in disseminating lies solely intended to protect the criminal elements conspiring to destroy our duly elected president. Treason be damned!
Let’s hope the timing of our extradition request indicates the Trump administration’s intention to help expose the reasons for the Deep State’s efforts to silence Assange, and not to lock him in a cage where he can’t be heard.
After all, he’s only been known to speak the truth.