Elder Patriot – Evidence of the corrupt construct to destroy the Trump campaign and presidency is coming fast and furiously.
The arrest of Julian Assange on a single count of unauthorized computer access raised our suspicions yesterday.
Others have expressed similar concerns.
Noted constitutional attorney Jonathan Turley wrote an op-ed that appeared in USA Today, yesterday:
Assange committed the unpardonable sins of embarrassing the establishment — from members of Congress to intelligence officials to the news media. And he will now be punished for our sins. Despite having significant constitutional arguments to be made, it is likely that he will be stripped of those defenses and even barred from raising the overall context of his actions in federal court. What could be the most important free speech and free press case in our history could well be reduced to the scope and substance of an unauthorized computer access case.
For years, the public has debated what Assange is: journalist, whistleblower, foreign agent, dupe. The problem is that Assange is first and foremost a publisher.
Moreover, he was doing something that is usually heralded in the news media. WikiLeaks disclosed a massive and arguably unconstitutional surveillance program by the United States impacting virtually every citizen. It later published emails that showed that the Democratic National Committee and the campaign of Hillary Clinton lied in various statements to the public, including the rigging of the primary for her nomination. No one has argued that any of these emails were false. They were embarrassing. Of course, there is not [sic] crime of embarrassing the establishment, but that is merely a technicality.
The criminal charge against Assange filed in a federal court was crafted to circumvent the obvious constitutional problems in prosecuting him. The charge is revealing. He is charged with a single count for his alleged involvement in the hacking operation of Chelsea Manning in 2010.
By alleging that Assange actively played a role in the hacking operation, the government is seeking to portray him as part of the theft rather than the distribution of the information. The prosecutors say Assange helped Manning secure a password to gain access to additional information. If true, that would be a step that most news organizations would not take.
It’s likely there will be a superseding indictment once Assange is successfully extradited to the United States. Moreover, the Justice Department is likely to move aggressively to strip Assange of his core defenses. Through what is called a motion in limine, the government will ask the court to declare that the disclosure of the arguably unconstitutional surveillance program is immaterial.
This would leave Assange with only the ability to challenge whether he helped with passwords and little or no opportunity to present evidence of his motivations or the threat to privacy. For the jurors, they could simply be faced with some Australian guy who helped with passwords in hacking national security information. It would be like trying a man for breaking and entering while barring evidence that the house was on fire and he thought he was rescuing people instead.
Turley is right.
Prosecutors are attempting to avoid the much more important issues surrounding Assange. Was WikiLeaks the originating source for the hacked emails and disclosure of the illegal surveillance of Donald Trump, or did it act solely as the conduit by which Russia released them?
The key to prosecuting Assange has always been to punish him without again embarrassing the powerful figures made mockeries by his disclosures. That means to keep him from discussing how the U.S. government launched an unprecedented surveillance program that scooped up the emails and communications of citizens without a warrant or probable cause. He cannot discuss how Democratic and Republican members either were complicit or incompetent in their oversight. He cannot discuss how the public was lied to about the program.
Simply embarrassing? Turley is being delicate. The entire 2016 Russian interference ruse served as the predicate for spying on Donald Trump. Without it, the narrative collapses.
There’s evidence to support these claims, too. Here’s the indictment for your review:
Julian Assange Indictment by on Scribd
The indictment was written and sealed in March… of 2018. Significantly, the charge against Assange is not for any involvement in the alleged Russian hack of the DNC server. Nor is he in any way charged with interfering in any way with the 2016 election.
He not even charged in connection with hacking John Podesta’s emails even though they were hacked in March of 2016 and released beginning in early October 2016.
WTF? Special Counsel Robert Mueller was supposedly deep into his investigation at that time. He was indicting “Russians” and “Russian entities” at the time. Why didn’t he also charge Assange at that time? Why didn’t he at least question Assange back then?
Remember, only a few months ago he authorized a SWAT raid, before dawn, on Roger Stone’s home. We were told there was evidence of Stone coordinating with WikiLeaks on behalf of the Trump campaign.
It appears that Mueller was deliberately avoiding more broadly charging Assange to avoid opening the door for Assange for the court to hear evidence that could undermine the FBI’s predicate of coordinated Russian interference for kicking off Operation Crossfire Hurricane.
What was Mueller hiding? He was protecting the narrative that if disproven would completely deconstruct the official Trump-Russian collusion predicate for spying on his campaign.
The U.S. intelligence community, Democrat politicians, the special counsel, and their mainstream media propaganda machine had drummed into the public consciousness that Russian actors were behind the DNC hack for the sole purpose of helping Trump’s election prospects.
Those same sources told us that Wikileaks’ role was to only to distribute the hacked emails.
There could be no going back on that narrative now.
If Assange is allowed the opportunity to prove the existing narrative to be false, the fallout would be felt not just inside the U.S. intelligence community, but beyond our borders.
Illegal coordination between the CIA (John Brennan) and at least one of our Five Eyes partners in this case was likely. This would be consistent with what Devin Nunes told Sean Hannity last night:
“Well Sean, let’s just, let me make it as clear as I possibly can. Okay, and now, thank God, we have an attorney general who calls spying for what it is.”
“In late 2015, early 2016, spying began on the Trump campaign.”
As we said yesterday, let’s hope Attorney General William Barr gives Assange the opportunity to provide a full public hearing of his involvement in the email scandal.
After all, WikiLeaks has a stellar record for telling the truth. If only we could say the same thing about Obama’s intelligence apparatus.