What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Assange Extradition- Britain Agrees to Extradite Publisher to Country that Plotted to Assassinate Him (2 Viewers)

No- they will bury him with an effective death sentence.  I wouldn’t be surprised if they seek the death penalty if he ends up in US custody.   
I don’t think you’re keeping up with Assange’s arguments in court. Assange - his lawyer - said yesterday that Trump had arranged a deal with Ecuador partly by ensuring that any possible charge carrying a death penalty had been dropped. It’s pretty complicated aside from that but it is a core point Assange is arguing right now.

 
I don’t think you’re keeping up with Assange’s arguments in court. Assange - his lawyer - said yesterday that Trump had arranged a deal with Ecuador partly by ensuring that any possible charge carrying a death penalty had been dropped. It’s pretty complicated aside from that but it is a core point Assange is arguing right now.
I’m keeping up with it.  They could charge him with the death penalty when he ends up over here.  Bill Barr has brought it back.  One of the few figleafs ensuring that Ecuador would have an out to betray their asylum agreement was that Assange wouldn’t be punished with death.  Why do you trust their intentions when they’ve proved themselves to be pathological liars in virtually any other context.  

That’s the only reason I can figure they wanted the prospect of 175 years hanging over Assange’s head.  As numerous physicians and international experts have attested, to psychologically torture him.  Their charges looked much more reasonable when they were just left to the CAA charges (even though those were ridiculous as well).  The NYT wrote that the Trump admin had “done well” to pursue him on those.  

When you actually look at it, the only apparent guiding philosophy has been to subject Assange to the most nightmarish legal proceedings possible.  The CIA contracted with a Spanish intelligence firm to spy on his privileged communications with lawyers.  Apparently they even mused about the idea of poisoning him.  Wild to see liberals humoring this bs.  

 
Kid Dotcom helped launch the buzz about stolen Hillary data claims back in early 2015, now he is making claims that he helped broker a pardon deal directly with Trump via a Trump friend named “Sean”.

- So - Rohrabacher, Grenell and now presumably Hannity. And it’s all coming from Assange. I really don’t know what to say about all this.
For what it’s worth, I don’t consider Kim Dotcom a reliable figure.  Worth vetting for sure but his Seth Rich attentionwhoring was a disgrace.  

 
Courage Foundation and Kevin Gosztola have been good accts to follow.  Here’s day 4 reporting by them.  

https://twitter.com/couragefound/status/1232974142804307968?s=21

https://twitter.com/kgosztola/status/1232973789325090822?s=21

Assange has been stripsearched and handcuffed multiple times, had his case files taken away from him, judge has thrown her hands up in the air as if there’s nothing she can do about it, he can barely hear or participate in the hearings from the bulletproof glass box he is confined to during the trial, and he can’t appear to communicate privately with his own lawyers.  The whole process has been as dehumanizing as possible.  

 
  • Sad
Reactions: JAA
Courage Foundation and Kevin Gosztola have been good accts to follow.  Here’s day 4 reporting by them.  

https://twitter.com/couragefound/status/1232974142804307968?s=21

https://twitter.com/kgosztola/status/1232973789325090822?s=21

Assange has been stripsearched and handcuffed multiple times, had his case files taken away from him, judge has thrown her hands up in the air as if there’s nothing she can do about it, he can barely hear or participate in the hearings from the bulletproof glass box he is confined to during the trial, and he can’t appear to communicate privately with his own lawyers.  The whole process has been as dehumanizing as possible.  
Just to clarify, you mean he's in the dock like every other criminal defendant in England would be?

 
Just to clarify, you mean he's in the dock like every other criminal defendant in England would be?
It is normal in England for defendants to be unable to hear their own trial, or communicate privately with their defense?    And have their case files taken away?

 
It is normal in England for defendants to be unable to hear their own trial, or communicate privately with their defense?    And have their case files taken away?
Assange has declined to tell the court a single instance that he could not hear what was happening.  And the court - even per the feeds you just posted - has offered a number of possible fixes to his concerns about private communication.

As for the files being taken away, that was alleged to have happened while he was in prison for the night and the judge encouraged the defense team to bring it up with the prison.

 
Assange has declined to tell the court a single instance that he could not hear what was happening.  And the court - even per the feeds you just posted - has offered a number of possible fixes to his concerns about private communication.

As for the files being taken away, that was alleged to have happened while he was in prison for the night and the judge encouraged the defense team to bring it up with the prison.
“It’s absurd to think the judge would rather the courthouse take double the time and expend double the resources all so it can keep Assange in a glass box. Undermining his due process rights makes proceedings even more cumbersome than already are

I’ll emphasize: US government is neutral and was willing to let Assange sit with attorneys. Whole world recognizes this standard as way to ensure rights of defendants are protected. Judge Baraitser rejected for no other reason than she’s not going to change procedure for Assange”

Nothing about these conditions is normal.  It’s not normal for defendants to sit away from their attorneys in a glass box. The judge could easily let him sit with his attorneys, she just chooses not to.  

 
“It’s absurd to think the judge would rather the courthouse take double the time and expend double the resources all so it can keep Assange in a glass box. Undermining his due process rights makes proceedings even more cumbersome than already are

I’ll emphasize: US government is neutral and was willing to let Assange sit with attorneys. Whole world recognizes this standard as way to ensure rights of defendants are protected. Judge Baraitser rejected for no other reason than she’s not going to change procedure for Assange”

Nothing about these conditions is normal.  It’s not normal for defendants to sit away from their attorneys in a glass box. The judge could easily let him sit with his attorneys, she just chooses not to.  
It is in England. Not a fan personally, but...

 
It’d be one thing if Assange were a violent criminal.  But he’s not.  It’s really a joke that the judge insists on treating him this way.  
Perhaps they consider him a flight risk. Which may be natural since he skipped bail that time...

 
DiEM25 @DiEM_25

"The only reason that Julian #Assange is in prison right now is because the United States wants him dead. None of the criticisms people can level at Assange justify the horrid, human-rights abusing, treatment that he continues to receive." @jeremyscahill

#FreeAssange

 
DiEM25 @DiEM_25

"The only reason that Julian #Assange is in prison right now is because the United States wants him dead. None of the criticisms people can level at Assange justify the horrid, human-rights abusing, treatment that he continues to receive." @jeremyscahill

#FreeAssange
Sorry, does this specifically include Donald Trump?

 
In the past couple weeks:

-the 10-year anniversary of Collateral Murder: https://youtu.be/YcX4bH3LHi0

-judge refused to let Assange out on house arrest despite chronic lung condition; prisons being overcome with covid-19.  

-1 year since Assange's arrest: https://i.imgur.com/4JAPdv6.png

-judge threatened to release the names of Assange's partner; they published this video on 1-year anniversary of his imprisonment: https://youtu.be/LgK5ZqjvC5s

It's become clear that the whole point of all this was for Assange to die in prison for publishing about US war crimes.  Sad to see the world turn its back on him.  

 
It's become clear that the whole point of all this was for Assange to die in prison for publishing about US war crimes.  Sad to see the world turn its back on him.  
I'll say this, and it's true with Firtash as well, the length of time it takes to extradite someone is ridiculous. Either extradite them quickly or let them go. Due process should be paramount here. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'll say this, and it's true with Firtash as well, the length of time it takes to extradite someone is ridiculous. Either extradite them quickly or let them go. Due process should be paramount here
As an American citizen, this scares the bejesus out of me.  Not just this example but others like Quantomeno Bay

 
So in the inhumane conditions in exile in the Ecuadorean embassy in London Assange managed to start a new family, fathering two children 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
@jlpassarelli

The @CIA has been at war with Journalism for over a decade. Their main targuet: Julian #Assange and @WikiLeaks staff. Through the security contractor @UCGlobal_ they spied on Julian's every visitor. Me, my brother @JosePassa and a few others were on a special surveillance list.

 
@MartySilk @MartySilkHack

@wikileaks founder Julian Assange's hearing is due to begin in the Westminister Magistrates Court in about 45 mins or so. I'll be Tweeting proceedings #Assange #WikiLeaks

Parties will try to set a new date for Assange's postponed May 18 extradition trial. Prosecution can't do July, which judge suggests. Defence lawyers want September, which no one else can do. The next suggested date for a three-week hearing is November, which is four months away.

It's understood there could be discussions about moving Assange's hearing to another court from Woolwich Crown Court at Belmarsh, which has a backlog of cases, to expedite proceedings.

 
Andrew Wilkie MP @WilkieMP

When the world is fuller than normal with corrupt, dishonest & incompetent politicians, a truth-teller rots in HMP Belmarsh awaiting transport to a US gulag. UK/US/Oz govts must end this madness. What are they hiding? #auspol #FreeAssange #amnestyinternational #Whistleblower

 
Matt Kennard @DCKennard

These 2 little boys have been deprived of their dad because the Trump admin wants him in a supermax for 175 years for revealing US war cimes.

This should outrage every citizen of the world. It is a moral and political imperative that Assange goes free.

 
I kind of lost track of everything that happened to Assange and what he was being charged with.  I'm not sure I understand why the trump admin wants him locked up for 175 years.  Assange seems more like a trump ally.  All the war crimes stuff happened under Bush and Obama, and trump has been against these wars from the beginning.  It was a major campaign platform for trump.  The Russian hacking during the 2016 election the trump admin calls a hoax, and all the Cambridge Analytica stuff was against the DNC/Hillary anyway.  

 
I kind of lost track of everything that happened to Assange and what he was being charged with.  I'm not sure I understand why the trump admin wants him locked up for 175 years.  Assange seems more like a trump ally.  All the war crimes stuff happened under Bush and Obama, and trump has been against these wars from the beginning.  It was a major campaign platform for trump.  The Russian hacking during the 2016 election the trump admin calls a hoax, and all the Cambridge Analytica stuff was against the DNC/Hillary anyway.  
I believe it would be more accurate to say the military/intelligence bureaucracy wanted him locked up ever since he exposed war crimes committed by the United States.  That was when they started conspiring against Wikileaks.  I think this escalated after the vault7 publications. 

A lot of people think this has to do with Russia case, but the 2+ years Mueller spent teeing up Assange for the world to turn its back on him have literally nothing to do with the new charges.  It's about punishing whistleblowers, but especially whistleblowers that expose the US military as a criminal organization.  Joe Biden called him a 'high-tech terrorist,' he wants him locked up for doing journalism too.  

Trump is no friend to whistleblowers either, but I doubt he cares that much either way.  He had no problem acting like he loved Wikileaks when it was politically convenient.  It's a lot bigger than Trump.

 
DOJ's New WikiLeaks Indictment Has Significant, Convenient Plot Holes


In its push to extradite WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange from the U.K., the U.S. Justice Department on Wednesday published a superseding indictment aimed at broadening “the scope of the conspiracy surrounding alleged computer intrusions with which Assange was previously charged.” The names of certain organizations and individuals are masked, including that of a paid FBI informant who stole money from WikiLeaks and later confessed to having sex with nine underage boys in exchange for money and other valuables.

A decent chunk of the filing relates to Chelsea Manning, her interactions with Assange and other possible ties to known WikiLeaks associates, which serve as the foundation for the bulk of the charges against Assange, including multiple counts of espionage. 

But in hopes of linking Assange to other “unlawful overt acts” as part of a broader conspiracy—one goal of which is connecting Assange to crimes against a NATO ally of the country considering his extradition—DOJ describes several alleged interactions between Assange and Anonymous hackers involved in major criminal operations. Considerable context is omitted from the descriptions of these events, however, including the FBI’s own role in furthering attacks by Anonymous against American businesses and foreign governments in South America and the Middle East, based on a review of sealed evidence by Gizmodo.

A section of the indictment titled “Sabu, Hammond, and ASSANGE” begins on the date December 25, 2011, and refers to an attack on servers belonging to a private firm identified only as “Intelligence Consulting Company.” This is obviously Stratfor, the Austin-based private intelligence company whose millions of pilfered emails comprise the WikiLeaks drop known as the Global Intelligence Files. 

DOJ omits several crucial details about the Stratfor hack in its attempts to name Assange as a conspirator in a breach that happened without his knowledge. Most notably, prosecutors exclude that the actual breach of Stratfor’s security, in late 2011, occurred 83 days prior to the events they describe, unknownst by anyone DOJ identifies as part of the conspiracy, including Assange. 

This has gone mostly unreported due to the fact that all of the evidence related to the hack was sealed by a federal judge in Manhattan. Attempts by the New York Times and other outlets to acquire the evidence in court all failed. Nevertheless, nearly all of it was leaked to a handful of reporters in 2013 and today form the basis of multiple detailed accounts of the hack and surrounding events. (A portion of the material has been publicly accessible for years.)

One key document is a confidential computer forensics report, completed in February 2012, describing the Stratfor breach. The report was completed by investigators working for Verizon, which Stratfor contracted about five days after the public became aware of the breach. It lays out several important facts: The first is that attempts to breach Stratfor’s email server began on September 29, 2011, and that four days later, a brute force attack against a specific user account was successful.

This break-in detailed in the confidential report occurred two months before anyone prosecutors have blamed for the attack even knew of the company’s existence. 

On November 16, the data dump containing the credit card information of Stratfor customers was created. Notably, this predates the DOJ’s own timeline of Anonymous’ involvement by 19 days. That this is the actual credit card file ultimately leaked by Anonymous is indisputable: The dataset contains 79,062 credit cards, the exact number of cards held by Stratfor on November 16, according to the forensics report. By the time Anonymous published its list, Stratfor’s database contained an additional 1,860 cards, none of which were included in the leak. 

The first Anonymous figure identified by DOJ as part of the Stratfor hack doesn’t become aware of the breach until early December, according to DOJ’s own timeline of events. In 2012, the FBI fed news reporters, including those at the New York Times, false information about how this all transpired. The FBI claimed that an Anonymous hacker found a way into Stratfor’s network on December 6 and then notified a member of his team—who happened to be an FBI informant. 

In reality, the exact opposite happened. 

Prosecutors have never mentioned, nor has the FBI ever acknowledged the capture of, the hacker actually responsible for breaching Stratfor and creating the stolen credit card file. The narrative has always been that Jeremy Hammond, a hacker affiliated with the Anonymous-offshoot Antisec, was chiefly responsible for the breach. (Hammond is currently serving the final year of his 10-year sentence for hacking Stratfor.)

For certain, Hammond gleefully ransacked Stratfor, defaced its website, encouraged others to commit fraud using its stolen credit cards, and on December 24, 2011, inputted the commands that disabled its web server and deleted its file systems. But prior to December 4, the date an FBI informant (“Sabu”) offered him the means to access those systems, Hammond had no apparent knowledge of the company’s existence. 

Evidence collected by the FBI, which DOJ has fought to keep concealed, shows the hacker responsible for breaching Stratfor (known only as “Hyrriiya”) was closely tied with a group of hackers whose central focus was infiltrating the Syrian government—the same group behind the leak of the Syria Files, more than 2 million emails from Syrian government officials published by WikiLeaks in July 2012. 

Moreover, the evidence appears to show a clear violation of DOJ’s guidelines for the use of confidential informants, which expressly forbid informants from initiating or instigating“a plan or strategy to commit a federal, state, or local offense.” Despite claiming in court that its informant was under constant surveillance and worked side-by-side with agents throughout his cooperation, an FBI official later said of any alleged unlawful conduct: “It’s not like we watched him every time he got up to get a coke.” (This also appears untrue as prosecutors claimed in 2014 there was a webcam in his apartment.) 

In one of the most egregious examples of this violation, records show the informant providing Hammond complete credit card data belonging to a member of the International Association of Chiefs of Police and an employee of Raytheon as evidence the breach is authentic. Hammond responds that he’s interested and wants to “sink [his] teeth” into the target. 

At the time Stratfor was hacked, companies rarely faced any scrutiny for suffering data breaches. Were the same hack to occur today, coverage of the event would likely be different. After Equifax announced its breach in 2017, the company was investigated federally and excoriated publicly, its reputation essentially torched. Stratfor, meanwhile, quietly paid out a meager $1.7 million settlement and was largely portrayed as a victim in the press. 

In truth, Stratfor set the stage for its own devastating breach through its own sheer negligence. Its security, or lack thereof, was appalling, according to its own forensic report. The company had virtually no controls over remote access to its network, which was not protected by a firewall and lacked proper file integrity-monitoring. It had no password management policy. According to the report, staff “commonly use the same password to access email as the password to remotely access a system containing sensitive information.” 

In 2011, Stratfor was, the report found, ignoring all routine data security standards established by the payment card industry: no firewall, no encryption, no regularly updated anti-virus software, no need-to-know restricted access, no network monitoring, no regular audits of its systems, and no existing policy to address information security. The server that held Stratfor’s unsecured credit card data wasn’t even segregating from its email server, which was the hackers’ point of entry and the only reason any financial information was stolen in the first place. 

If the same hack were to have happened this year, the company would wind up eating the lion’s share of the blame. 

Perhaps the most absurd twist is that Dallas-based journalist Barrett Brown ended up getting slapped with nearly $900,000 in restitution to Stratfor, even though Brown had no advanced knowledge of the attack and, to be blunt, couldn’t hack his way out of a paper bag.

As with Hammond, Brown took a deal in an effort to avoid potentially decades in prison. But in trying to ensure Brown got the harshest sentence possible, federal prosecutors repeatedly painted him as being closely allied with the hackers behind the Stratfor breach. This despite the fact that DOJ quietly withheld evidence obtained by an informant obliterating that theory. This evidence showed that the hackers secretly loathed Brown and had even discussed implicating him in the crime—textbook Brady material, which would have all but upended the government’s account of Brown being integral to the breach.
 
This is from February, but it seemed interesting - wild stuff:

Assange fight draws in Trump's new intel chief

Lawyers for the WikiLeaks founder plan to use newly obtained recordings and screenshots to argue that Assange's prosecution is political in nature.

****

Attorneys for Julian Assange, who is fighting a U.S. extradition request on espionage and computer hacking charges, plan to introduce evidence in the WikiLeaks founder’s extradition hearing involving President Donald Trump’s new intel chief Richard Grenell.

Gareth Peirce, a lawyer representing Assange in his extradition proceedings in London, plans to argue this week that the process to try to extradite her client was abused from early on. Representatives for Assange’s defense team say they expect to introduce recordings and screenshots of communications of a close Grenell associate, including a secondhand claim that Grenell was acting on the president’s orders.

Grenell’s sudden embroilment in Assange’s extradition fight comes at an inconvenient time, as Democrats and national security veterans criticize him as ill-suited and unqualified to be the acting director of national intelligence. And it threatens to spotlight his close relationship with President Trump, feeding the widespread perception that the president is politicizing intelligence work for partisan ends.

At the heart of the Assange team’s argument is an ABC News report from last April alleging that, while serving as Trump’s ambassador to Germany, Grenell told Assange’s Ecuadorean hosts that the U.S. government would not pursue the death penalty for Assange if Ecuador allowed British officials to enter its embassy in London and arrest him.

Assange’s legal team will claim that Grenell’s role was more extensive than previously known, and that it corrupted the extradition process early on. The suggestion will be that the U.S. was so desperate to get Assange in its custody that American officials, via Grenell, agreed in advance to take a particular sentence off the table before even allowing a trial and sentencing to play out.

The WikiLeaks founder’s attorneys are also expected to present evidence that they believe shows Trump explicitly tasked Grenell with making the offer, thereby politicizing the process. One of Assange’s lawyers, Edward Fitzgerald, hinted at this argument in his opening statement on Monday, when he said that Assange’s prosecution was “not motivated by genuine concerns for criminal justice but politics.”

The evidence submitted this week will include new materials submitted to Assange’s legal team by political activist and journalist Cassandra Fairbanks, a staunch defender of Assange who has worked for the Russian state-run news site Sputnik and the far-right outlet Gateway Pundit. She is expected to be listed as a formal witness in the case.

Fairbanks recorded two phone calls she had with one of Grenell’s close associates, Arthur Schwartz, and took screenshots of their conversations about Assange and Grenell. She also gave the materials to the nonprofit transparency group Property of the People, which provided them to Politico.

The screenshots and phone calls span from October 2018 to September 2019. In them, Schwartz tells Fairbanks that Grenell was “taking orders from the president” when he got involved in facilitating Assange’s arrest and urges her not to disclose what she’s been told about Grenell’s role in the process.

But Schwartz appeared to grow frustrated and fearful after Fairbanks tweeted, on Sept. 10, 2019, that Grenell “was the one who worked out the deal for Julian Assange’s arrest.”

“I don’t want to go to jail,” Schwartz told Fairbanks in a September 2019 phone call, accusing her of posting “classified information” in the tweet. Fairbanks posted the tweet around the time Grenell’s name was being floated to replace John Bolton as Trump’s national security adviser.

“Please. I’m begging you,” Schwartz says in the recording. “They look at you, they see that we speak, that’s bad.”

Grenell’s entry into the legal fight over Assange highlights the fact that, in since-deleted tweets from 2016, he promoted the WikiLeaks disclosures targeting Democrats; later, in April 2017, then-CIA Director Mike Pompeo labeled the group a "hostile intelligence service" aided by Russia.

And the suggestion that one of Grenell’s close associates who was not in government may have been privy to conversations surrounding a sensitive law enforcement operation will likely raise more questions about his fitness to lead the entire U.S. intelligence community. A spokesperson for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence did not return a request for comment.

It’s not clear whether Schwartz was actually privy to anything classified, or whether Grenell told Schwartz anything about his involvement in Assange’s arrest. “I highly doubt I would tell her anything real, accurate or of any importance,” Schwartz told Politico, adding that Fairbanks is “not someone that I trust.”

“I barely remember that conversation,” Schwartz said. “I remember that she was slinging mud at a friend of mine on social media and I wanted her to stop. Knowing that she’s not too bright and easily manipulated, I threw a bunch of nonsense at her that I thought would get her to stop. And she did stop.” Schwartz also said he did not recall chatting with Fairbanks over Signal, a secure messaging app.

In a written timeline Fairbanks provided to Assange’s legal team that was also obtained by Politico, Fairbanks said Schwartz told her on October 30, 2018—two weeks before prosecutors accidentally revealed in a court filing that DOJ had secretly filed criminal charges against Assange, and nearly six months before Assange was arrested—that the U.S. government would be going into the embassy to arrest him, and implied that Ecuador would allow it to happen.

That same month, Grenell had secured Ecuador’s cooperation with the arrest, via the pledge for no death penalty—but his role was not revealed publicly until ABC News did so in April 2019.

“I need to let Julian’s lawyers and family know that the president personally ordered an anti WikiLeaks ambassador from a country uninvolved in the case to secure Julian’s arrest,” Fairbanks told Schwartz on October 30, 2018, via the encrypted messaging app Signal, according to screenshots provided to Politico. “It’s clear he’s a political prisoner and his health is deteriorating rapidly. I don’t know if it will matter to them, but it seems important, and they should know.”

Schwartz was not sympathetic, but didn’t dispute her claims as he sought to persuade her not to reveal the impending operation to Assange.

“I wouldn’t get so emotional until you see exactly what that worthless piece of garbage did,” he replied, referring to Assange. “There’s a good reason the death penalty was on the table.”

Fairbanks was incredulous: “Are you sure it’s not just Clinton friends taking some random photos and pinning it on him for revenge or something?”

“Forget about pictures,” Schwartz replied, possibly suggesting that he had access to non-public information. “There were other things that happened because he did what he did that led to horrible suffering and death. I have zero sympathy for him. Doubt you will either when/if it comes out publicly.”

Fairbanks visited Assange on March 27, 2019, roughly 2 weeks before his arrest, and relayed what she’d heard from Schwartz in October, she told Pierce.

On March 29, Schwartz told Fairbanks in another call obtained by Politico that “there’s an investigation now, into people at State” into who leaked Fairbanks the information about the operation. “I’m sorry,” she replied.

Schwartz is well known in Washington as a Trumpworld fixer who often criticizes journalists and other perceived enemies on his Twitter account. According to the New York Times, Schwartz is a “central player” in an effort to “discredit news organizations deemed hostile to President Trump by publicizing damaging information about journalists.”

But last September, he appeared worried about being exposed himself.

“I don’t want to go to jail,” Schwartz told Fairbanks in the September call. Fairbanks denied posting anything classified, telling Schwartz that she had just been referring to the ABC News report, from months earlier, about Grenell’s role in the Assange operation.

Schwartz was not convinced. “Ric’s role is classified,” he said. “You can’t do that … you are posting things that are classified, that no one knows, that has not been reported...I know what’s been reported, I see what you’re tweeting, what you’re tweeting is not what was reported. Someone’s going to go to jail. You need to stop this.”

“Yeah, Julian’s in jail right now, because of this,” replied Fairbanks.

“I don’t want to go to jail,” Schwartz retorted.

“Alright, well, I’ll delete my tweet, only because you’re saying you’ll get in trouble,” Fairbanks replied.

“I don’t want to go to jail,” Schwartz repeated. “Please. I’m begging you … They look at you, they see that we speak, that’s bad. He’s [Grenell] is taking orders from the president. OK? So you’re going to punish me because he took orders from the president? I’m begging you, I’m begging you, please.”

Fairbanks agreed to delete the tweet, but retained a screenshot that was reviewed by POLITICO.

**********

 
Last edited by a moderator:
CIA ‘Obsessed’ With Former UK Envoy Who Will Testify in Spying on Assange Case

July 22, 2020

Craig Murray says he’s been asked to testify in the case of illegal spying against Julian Assange. 

By Joe Lauria
Special to Consortium News

The former British ambassador to Uzbekistan and a close associate of imprisoned WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange says he was the “top target” of the 24/7 surveillance of Assange at Ecuador’s embassy in London by the Spanish security company UC Global, which, according to press reports and court documents, shared the surveillance with the CIA.

Craig Murray said he has been contacted by an attorney in the spying case on Assange and that he will be going to Madrid to testify. The founder of UC Global, David Morales, was arrested over the surveillance (including privileged Assange-lawyer conversations) and is on trial. 

Murray told former CIA analyst Ray McGovern in an email, shared with Consortium News with Murray’s permission, that the CIA was “obsessed” with him.

Murray told McGovern that he had offered to give evidence to Special Counsel Robert Mueller, who spent $32 million and more than two years investigating an alleged conspiracy between the Russian government and the Trump campaign, including how WikiLeaks obtained emails from the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta.

Mueller concluded there was no evidence of a conspiracy between Moscow and Trump, but maintained Russian agents “hacked” the emails and delivered them to WikiLeaks for publication.

Murray has said that different persons with legal access to the DNC and Podesta emails were WikiLeaks’ sources.

“I wrote to Mueller offering to give evidence, never received any reply,” Murray wrote to McGovern on Wednesday. “Never had any request for an interview by any US authorities.”

Murray then wrote, “BUT I received a message from the lawyer in the case in Madrid about the spying on Assange in the Embassy, contracted by the CIA, which said that I was the ‘top target’ for the contractors and the evidence shows they were ‘obsessed with’ me. I shall be going to Madrid to give evidence.”

Murray added: “Just why the US security services declined my offer of free evidence yet were obsessed with spying on me is an interesting question…”   

 
https://justthenews.com/government/courts-law/judge-calls-testimony-julian-assange-civil-suit-against-fox-news-over-seth

A U.S. federal judge has asked the U.K. to assist in facilitating the testimony of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange in a civil suit against Fox News brought by the parents of slain Democratic National Committee staffer Seth Rich.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn said in a filing on Wednesday that Assange's evidence "cannot be secured except by the intervention of the English courts," and that such intervention "would serve to further the international interests of justice and judicial cooperation."

At issue is a civil lawsuit brought by the parents of Rich, who worked in the DNC's voter expansion division. Rich was shot and killed in July 2016 in Washington, D.C., in what police suspect was a botched robbery. 

Conspiracy theories following Rich's murder alleged that he had been involved in the hacking and subsequent leaking of DNC emails prior to death. The emails were published in part by WikiLeaks.

After Rich's death, Fox News reported that he had had contact with Assange prior to his death. The cable news network subsequently retracted the article, claiming it had not been properly vetteed prior to publication. 

The following year, Rich's parents brought suit against Fox over the article, claiming the network had perpetrated intentional infliction of emotional distress against them. Fox in turn has argued that, retraction notwithstanding, the article was not a "sham" as alleged by the plaintiffs.

In her request Wednesday, Netburn said that "evidence regarding the source of the leaked DNC emails and the communications (if any) between Seth Rich and WikiLeaks will be highly material to Fox’s contentions."

"Mr. Assange, as founder of WikiLeaks, is exceptionally suited to provide testimony that will be highly relevant to these issues," Netburn wrote. "Therefore, Fox News, by and through this letter of request issued by the District Court, is formally requesting the testimony of Mr. Assange for use at trial."

Assange is currently incarcerated in Belmarsh Prison in London for violating the U.K.'s Bail Act. He is reportedly in dire health. 

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top