...toward the end of the comments #EvilBastards

Spanish newswire EFE quotes Ecuador's Attorney General on a plan to go with UK to binding international arbitration, then to "lose" in order to be "forced" to hand over Julian Assange--in order to avoid being prosecuted for an illegal extradition https://t.co/tUPMFeHcHo

— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) November 4, 2018

a subtweeter offered this from teh Google Translator:

"The government this week scored an important legal victory over the case of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, whose future is still uncertain, although analysts believe that the country's recent position could mark the beginning of a solution.

Last Monday, the Justice of Ecuador rejected the constitutional protection action requested by Assange so that a protocol with a series of hygiene conditions (including that of his cat), visits and communications would not be applied.

A "momentary" victory, says Efe Carlos Poveda, defender of Assange in Ecuador, as he still awaits a response to his request for an appeal and does not rule out international instances if his request does not prosper in Ecuador.

But before talking about winners or losers, international analyst and lawyer Esteban Santos López argues that the underlying issue is that the solution is now "in the hands of the asylee" once Quito has given two options: abide by the protocol or surrender to the British justice with certain guarantees.

Guarantees that are mentioned in a letter delivered by the Ecuadorian State in August to the founder of WikiLeaks and its international defender, Baltasar Garzón and read this week in Quito by the Attorney General of Ecuador, Iñigo Salvador.

"On March 7, 2018, Secretary of State Boris Johnson declares that Britain will not extradite Mr. Assange to a third country where he can be sentenced with the death penalty," Salvador read in a meeting with foreign correspondents.

Poveda does not conform to that version and asks that "the United Kingdom document be displayed."

But, according to the reading of Salvador, Santos - a master in dispute resolution at the University of Geneva - believes that "the important thing is that these ghosts of extradition to the United States, which was what started all this, has already dissipated.", as well as the possibility of facing the Swedish justice.
Assange was required since 2010 by the Swedish authorities due to the accusations of two women for rape, which he denies, but Sweden closed the case by failing to advance the investigation.

"At this moment the only thing that remains is to face the British justice for not having followed the court order to appear before the competent authority," says Efe Santos, for whom Ecuador has "finished putting the points on the I's" Australian with his warning that he "will not allow" him to be untruthful.

This after Assange considered in a videoconference at the hearing last Monday that the United States and Britain allegedly press Ecuador to end his asylum at the Embassy in London, where he has been since 2012.

In the search for an exit to the Assange case, the eventuality of an international arbitration has been mentioned.

"The advantage of submitting the matter to an international tribunal is that the parties are obliged to comply with it, and if the Ecuadorian State loses that case and the international arbitrators come to impose the obligation to deliver Mr. Assange, that obligation it would not be a violation of international law as it would be now, "said Salvador.

An exit that for Santos is "very interesting", and that without being clear yet its concretion, "denotes a maturity in the change of the spokesmen that represent Ecuador" in a theme, which for him has entered the "moment to start" to trace the field for completion. "

Poveda believes that international arbitrations are more common in commercial matters, but believes that if this possibility is to materialize, it should occur between the States.
He defends therefore the need for talks between the Ecuadorian State and the legal team of Assange so he urges to "resume the dialogues" because "it is not possible that since June there is no fluid dialogue," he says.

Meanwhile, the lawyer sees the possibility of a solution to the case of Assange, who remains under asylum for fear of being arrested by the British authorities and deported to the US, where he presumes that he could be tried for the publication of documents. military and diplomats of a confidential nature."

Some of the translated language is awkward at the very least. Given that I've heard that the Bing Translator is preferable to teh Google, I'd tried to copy/paste the Spanish into it. As the fields are very narrow and short, I got utterly confused as the what I had, which parts I hadn't copy/pasted into my Word document. Anyhoo.

When I went back this morning, I found this as well:

Please note that the automatic translation can be deceiving (not as much as @Lenin’s goverment, agreed).

Ecuador’s AG doesn’t say anything about “losing” on purpose. It confirms, though, that if not for international law, #Ecuador would’ve turned Assange in months ago. pic.twitter.com/hMVbr0i2ZF

— The Wolf Report (@thewolfreports) November 4, 2018

If you click the top Tweet to make it stand alone, you'll see that Christine Assange seemed appalled by the misinformation/disinformation in the piece, WikiLeaks explained how arbitration courts work even with Assange having been given Ecuadorian citizenship, the letter from US politicians to Moreno asking for Julian's extradition, etc.

From wsws.org this morning: ‘New York Times ramps up smear campaign against Julian Assange’, Tom Hall, 6 November 2018

A pair of blaring headlines appearing in Friday’s edition of the New York Times purported to show that the newspaper had obtained damning new evidence of collusion between WikiLeaks, the Trump campaign and the Russian government to damage the campaign of Hillary Clinton in 2016.

The latest round of smears appearing in the Times, the journalistic mouthpiece of the Democratic Party and sections of the military-intelligence apparatus opposed to Trump, is aimed at preparing public opinion for an eventual indictment on espionage charges of WikiLeaks founder and publisher Julian Assange, preparations for which are already in full swing. The Times articles appeared amid widespread media speculation that special counsel Robert Mueller could begin handing down indictments soon.

Consortium News reported on Saturday that Assange was the target of a failed break-in two weeks ago, according to Assange’s legal team. While the details of the incident are still unclear, it demonstrates the severity of his situation as well as total abdication by the government of Ecuador of responsibility for Assange’s security, which appears to now be virtually nonexistent. Assange apparently was able to foil the intruder only because he had set a booby-trap in his room.

The incident has been totally unreported in the American press more than two days after the story broke.

The Times articles center on e-mail correspondence obtained by the newspaper between Stone and Stephen Bannon, who had left his post as editor of the right-wing Breitbart News website to head Trump's election campaign, weeks before the official release of the Clinton e-mails by WikiLeaks. The emails, the newspaper alleges, “show how the political operative Roger J. Stone Jr. sold himself to Trump campaign advisers as a potential conduit to WikiLeaks.”

The carefully hedged language used by the authors, to the effect that Stone “sold himself” as a WikiLeaks confidante rather than actually being one, is an implicit admission that the Times ’s supposedly bombshell revelations amount to nothing. All of the information that Stone passed on to Bannon about WikiLeaks was already publicly available at the time, a fact the authors are compelled to admit parenthetically halfway through their commentary providing “context” for the e-mails.

Stone also related vague, secondhand observations about Assange’s security concerns in the Ecuadorian embassy, which are alleged to have come from comedian and WikiLeaks supporter Randy Credico (allegations that Credico has also denied). However, there is no evidence at all that Stone had backchannel access to WikiLeaks representatives, let alone that he was reaching out to Bannon with the authorization of WikiLeaks.

Taken in context, the Times’s articles point to the immediate danger that Julian Assange finds himself in. The working class in the United States and internationally must be mobilized to defend the WikiLeaks founder from the attacks of the American state.

for posterity, i accidentally ran into the aforementioned screed by marcy wheeler: ‘Putting a Face (Mine) to the Risks Posed by GOP Games on Mueller Investigation’ July 3, 2018, emptywheel (196 comments)