breaking news: Assange fights back

Submitted by wendy davis on Fri, 10/19/2018 - 12:28pm

finally!

WikiLeaks' lawyer Judge Baltasar Garzón arrives in Ecuador to file case today over @JulianAssange's isolation and gagging. Hearing next week. Background: https://t.co/2jOgvSu5bG pic.twitter.com/k4FSayQuev

— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) October 19, 2018

Statement on TwitLonger: Julian Assange launches case over his continued gagging, threat:

Fri Oct 19 14:55:41 UTC 2018

"Julian Assange today launched a case accusing the government of Ecuador of violating his fundamental rights and freedoms. WikiLeaks general counsel Baltasar Garzon arrived in Ecuador yesterday to launch the case against the government. The move comes almost seven months after Ecuador threatened to remove his protection and summarily cut off his access to the outside world, including by refusing to allow journalists and human rights organisations to see him, and installing three signal jammers in the embassy to prevent his phone calls and internet access.

Ecuador refused to let Human Rights Watch General Counsel Dinah PoKempner, who likened Ecuador's isolation to "solitary confinement" [https://twitter.com/RockinTrump/status/981286495934803968] see him as well several meetings with his lawyers. Ecuador's measures against Julian Assange have been widely condemned by the human rights community.

Assange's lawyers are also challenging the legality of the government's "Special Protocol" reported in the news this week. The protocol makes Assange's political asylum contingent on censoring his freedom of opinion, speech and association. The protocol also requires journalists, his lawyers and anyone else seeking to see Julian Assange to disclose private or political details such as their social media usernames, the serial numbers and IMEI codes of their phones and tablets with Ecuador--which the Protocol says the government may "share with other agencies". The Protocol claims the Embassy may seize the property of Mr. Assange or his visitors, and, without a warrant, hand it over to UK authorities.

The United States says that under President Moreno, Ecuador has become a "strategic ally" and the country has re-established security and intelligence cooperation. Earlier this week, US congressmen wrote an open letter to President Moreno stated that in order to advance "crucial matters ... from economic cooperation to counternarcotics assistance to the possible return of a USAID mission to Ecuador, we must first resolve a significant challenge created by your predecessor, Rafael Correa – the status of Julian Assange”. [https://democrats-foreignaffairs.house.gov/_cache/files/a/8/a8a63343-fba...

Pressure has mounted on Ecuador to hand Assange over to the UK, especially since Mike Pence's visit in June in which Moreno and Pence "agreed to remain in close coordination" in relation to Mr. Assange, according to the White House [https://twitter.com/TimJohnson4/status/1012405586254852096]. The US case against Julian Assange dates back to the Obama administration 2010, but has been expanded under Trump to include the biggest leak in CIA history, Vault 7.

In July 2018, the Inter-American Court on Human Rights issued a ruling imposing obligations on Ecuador to protect Julian Assange from US extradition. The UN in 2016 found Assange was arbitrarily detained at the embassy by the UK, describing his situation as "inhuman and degrading treatment". Assange's legal action comes one week after the UN chiefs for Freedom of Expression and Refugees met with President Lenin Moreno in Ecuador.

Last week, Ecuador's former President Rafael Correa, under whose administration Assange obtained political asylum, said that the current administration is "trying to break him psychologically" and that a deal had been struck during Pence's visit to Ecuador earlier this year."

https://ecupunto.com/2018/10/03/rafael-correa-a-julian-assange-estan-tra...

Last week: 'LEAKED: Here Are the Demands Ecuador Has Given Julian Assange in Order to End His Isolation', via the gateway pundit

a staggering psyop, especially the MEDICAL section...

Bonus: 'Assange: Clinton is a cog for Goldman Sachs & the Saudis', Nov. 5, 2016

[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=132&v=_sbT3_9dJY4]

Tags:

Julian Assange fights back

Vote

Comments

Submitted by Anja Geitz on Fri, 10/19/2018 - 1:59pm

Appreciate you keeping us updated

On the Assange story. This has been one political story I am following. Assange, along with Snowden, are what I would describe as a modern day embodiment of revolutionaries. And I suspect Assange in particular knew there would be consequences for the CIA leak. I mean, you don't set off a cluster bomb inside the belly of the Beast and not expect retaliation.

—

There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier

Submitted by wendy davis on Fri, 10/19/2018 - 5:23pm

hmmmm...well...

@Anja Geitz

snowden actually did call assange a revolutionary, as in: "he wants to burn it all down" I suspect he does want to burn down government lies for war, imperialism, etc. otoh, snowden just wanted a conversation about the NSA so people could vote on it, while claiming that the organizations has the duty to spy on al qaeda and others who wish to harm amerika. but i dunnno how far down that road to go, unless you'd like documentation. but to greenwald, klein, and snowden, assnge has long been 'the bad whistleblower'.

yes, the CIA and other intel agencies upped the ante when WL published vault 7 and 8 (including israel), but all of this first began with publishing the leaked DNC and podesta emails, the basis of russia-gate and the mueller investigations.

on edit: zoebear served john gotti his pastry and espresso w/ lemon? that's a hard image to shake. ; )

Submitted by HenryAWallace on Fri, 10/19/2018 - 5:21pm

How did Snowden think people would be able to vote

@wendy davis

on the NSA? The federal government doesn't do ballot questions. Or, am I being too literal?

Submitted by wendy davis on Fri, 10/19/2018 - 5:27pm

i can't say for certain

@HenryAWallace

what he'd meant, but i'd thought "sure, ed, a majority of amerikans can vote to take away our constitutional rights to privacy". but i guess in a way, that bulk collection is still in effect, some say even more draconian (i haven't kept up past the Freedumb Act), i guess 'our representatives' did vote.

Submitted by wendy davis on Sat, 10/20/2018 - 10:57am

snowden had also said that he just wanted

@HenryAWallace

to 'reform' the NSA cuz they had a right and a duty to protect amerikans from al qaeda and others intent on harming amerika...or close to that. he was on NPR at the time, iirc, but i did check a general search thinking the first one may have been at wired. remember the cover where he's hugging a flag?

Submitted by Cant Stop the M... on Sun, 10/21/2018 - 5:06am

@HenryAWallace What he said, more or

@HenryAWallace What he said, more or less, was that his job was to reveal the information, and after that, what to do with it was up to the people.

Yes, I have a problem with that, but at the same time, he risked his life and sacrificed the life he had been living and went into exile in order to reveal the information, which has limited my criticism of him.

—

"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha

"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver

Submitted by Anja Geitz on Fri, 10/19/2018 - 7:49pm

I hear what you're saying

@wendy davis

But I still think it is revolutionary when ordinary citizens eschew the comfort of their own lives for the purpose of whistleblowing on our government's treachery against us. He may have been wrongheaded subsequently, especially in his characterization of Assange, but his act of whistleblowing changed the way many of us looked at our surveillance state.

—

There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier

Submitted by wendy davis on Fri, 10/19/2018 - 9:45pm

i completely respect your belief, amiga.

@Anja Geitz

on slow-brain edit: i've stipulated often on these snowden docs that i'd covered them when i was writing at the readers diaries at firedoglake. some there called them 'a limited hangout' of which term i never understood the meaning. russell tice had reported the same far earlier, but even the heavily redacted docs proved it all.

once i realized how many domestic nat sec fusion centers were engaged in similar, if not the same, bugging bulk collection...i finally got religion. and whitney webb and many of us are asking 'what has the intercept NOT reported on in the 90% of snoweden docs given their recent revelations on saudi arabia that certainly could have made a difference far earlier?

"Furthermore, MintPress noted last year that The Intercept had withheld a key document from the Edward Snowden cache proving the Syrian opposition was taking marching orders from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The Intercept published that document only after the U.S. State Department itself began to report more honestly on the nature of these so-called “rebels,” even though The Intercept had had that document in its possession since 2013.”
[one holy crow portion from her MintPress link above:]

“However, the Intercept article regarding the document is unusual for several reasons. First, the report inaccurately claims that the attack launched at the Saudis’ behest did not result in any confirmed casualties. Second, it states that the 2011 uprising in Syria was an organic, “peaceful” movement that led the Syrian government to wage “an open war against their own people” — a narrative that has since been debunked.

Yet, the largest oversight of all is the article’s failure to mention the U.S.’s role in funding the Free Syrian Army, as well as the CIA’s well-documented role in training the FSA and pumping tons of weapons into Syria in order to foment and exacerbate the conflict in its early days. In light of the NSA document’s revelation that the U.S. had been given advance notice of the planned FSA attack – on a civilian target, no less – Washington’s decision to let it proceed clearly suggests that the U.S. was involved in and well aware of the Saudi directives to the FSA. However, the Intercept piece chooses not to mention this crucial context.”, etc.

ach, it was in my whitney webb expose on the intercept meeting bellingcat investigators for the empite diary; too tired to fetch it. anyhoo, that.

peace and solidarity,
wd

Submitted by Anja Geitz on Sat, 10/20/2018 - 12:40am

Ugh

@wendy davis

My brain hurts from thinking about them evil greedy people. Nice bit of reporting though. Yours, not the intercept, obviously.

#1.1.2 on slow-brain edit: i've stipulated often on these snowden docs that i'd covered them when i was writing at the readers diaries at firedoglake. some there called them 'a limited hangout' of which term i never understood the meaning. russell tice had reported the same far earlier, but even the heavily redacted docs proved it all. once i realized how many domestic nat sec fusion centers were engaged in similar, if not the same, bugging bulk collection...i finally got religion. and whitney webb and many of us are asking 'what has the intercept NOT reported on in the 90% of snoweden docs given their recent revelations on saudi arabia that certainly could have made a difference far earlier? "Furthermore, MintPress noted last year that The Intercept had withheld a key document from the Edward Snowden cache proving the Syrian opposition was taking marching orders from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The Intercept published that document only after the U.S. State Department itself began to report more honestly on the nature of these so-called “rebels,” even though The Intercept had had that document in its possession since 2013.” [one holy crow portion from her MintPress link above:] “However, the Intercept article regarding the document is unusual for several reasons. First, the report inaccurately claims that the attack launched at the Saudis’ behest did not result in any confirmed casualties. Second, it states that the 2011 uprising in Syria was an organic, “peaceful” movement that led the Syrian government to wage “an open war against their own people” — a narrative that has since been debunked. Yet, the largest oversight of all is the article’s failure to mention the U.S.’s role in funding the Free Syrian Army, as well as the CIA’s well-documented role in training the FSA and pumping tons of weapons into Syria in order to foment and exacerbate the conflict in its early days. In light of the NSA document’s revelation that the U.S. had been given advance notice of the planned FSA attack – on a civilian target, no less – Washington’s decision to let it proceed clearly suggests that the U.S. was involved in and well aware of the Saudi directives to the FSA. However, the Intercept piece chooses not to mention this crucial context.”, etc. ach, it was in my whitney webb expose on the intercept meeting bellingcat investigators for the empite diary; too tired to fetch it. anyhoo, that. peace and solidarity, wd

—

There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier

Submitted by wendy davis on Sat, 10/20/2018 - 7:06am

really, it was whitney webb's

@Anja Geitz

journalism. i wish i'd known her years ago, could have saved myself some reporting pain. ; )
but here's the link, and aside from the preface, it's all webb, bless her heart.

i know i'm bitter about snowden, but the hell and smears that he, greenwald, the intercept 'fearless journalists', and naomi klein have put assange thru is epic. how he ever kept tweeting in solidarity w/ them is beyond me. snowden may already have been consigned to the dustbin of history given no new documents, save for attending some odd-bodkins conference in israel on nov. 6.

Submitted by dervish on Sat, 10/20/2018 - 11:01am

It's vital to mention Israel as well

@wendy davis its objectives frame the actions of the other two.

People don't like to mention Israel in print though, most are too scared.

#1.1.2 on slow-brain edit: i've stipulated often on these snowden docs that i'd covered them when i was writing at the readers diaries at firedoglake. some there called them 'a limited hangout' of which term i never understood the meaning. russell tice had reported the same far earlier, but even the heavily redacted docs proved it all. once i realized how many domestic nat sec fusion centers were engaged in similar, if not the same, bugging bulk collection...i finally got religion. and whitney webb and many of us are asking 'what has the intercept NOT reported on in the 90% of snoweden docs given their recent revelations on saudi arabia that certainly could have made a difference far earlier? "Furthermore, MintPress noted last year that The Intercept had withheld a key document from the Edward Snowden cache proving the Syrian opposition was taking marching orders from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The Intercept published that document only after the U.S. State Department itself began to report more honestly on the nature of these so-called “rebels,” even though The Intercept had had that document in its possession since 2013.” [one holy crow portion from her MintPress link above:] “However, the Intercept article regarding the document is unusual for several reasons. First, the report inaccurately claims that the attack launched at the Saudis’ behest did not result in any confirmed casualties. Second, it states that the 2011 uprising in Syria was an organic, “peaceful” movement that led the Syrian government to wage “an open war against their own people” — a narrative that has since been debunked. Yet, the largest oversight of all is the article’s failure to mention the U.S.’s role in funding the Free Syrian Army, as well as the CIA’s well-documented role in training the FSA and pumping tons of weapons into Syria in order to foment and exacerbate the conflict in its early days. In light of the NSA document’s revelation that the U.S. had been given advance notice of the planned FSA attack – on a civilian target, no less – Washington’s decision to let it proceed clearly suggests that the U.S. was involved in and well aware of the Saudi directives to the FSA. However, the Intercept piece chooses not to mention this crucial context.”, etc. ach, it was in my whitney webb expose on the intercept meeting bellingcat investigators for the empite diary; too tired to fetch it. anyhoo, that. peace and solidarity, wd

—

"Obama promised transparency, but Assange is the one who brought it."

Submitted by wendy davis on Sat, 10/20/2018 - 12:08pm

without knowing who you mean by

@dervish

'the other two', i'd brought whitney webb's exposé ‘Edward Snowden to Address Select Audience in Israel: Will He Take On Israel’s Surveillance State?’ on oct. 17.

and given how many NSA docs/pages on israel GG claimed they have, again one wonders: where are they? and what's in it for snowden at the closed conference? not altruistic, as it's by invitation only, no media...etc.

does that help answer your question? if anyone had leaked docs on israel to wikileaks, if they had deemed them authentic, they would have published them, as did they these related ones at wikileaks.org. 50 pages, the page lists. have fun w/ that, arrggh. dunno how folks make sense of that form of communication, myownself. i've tried, gone googly-eyed, and back out any number of times.

on edit: as far as this: "People don't like to mention Israel in print though, most are too scared"...i've written up parts of the Right of Return protests here and really only a few nay-sayers had weighed in, as i recall. and they were answered rather roundly by other commenters, so..there's that.

Submitted by dervish on Sat, 10/20/2018 - 9:28pm

The other two

@wendy davis are KSA and the USA, the triumverate of ME chaos.

—

"Obama promised transparency, but Assange is the one who brought it."

Submitted by wendy davis on Sun, 10/21/2018 - 8:57am

i appreciate the explanation,

@dervish

amigo. did you used to sufi dance? i'd only ever watched some whirling once, but the dervish's centeredness was breath-taking. maybe twenty minutes in one direction, the after stopping on a dime, twenty minutes in the opposite direction. no faltering, nary a sign of disorientation. my stars.

Submitted by Anja Geitz on Fri, 10/19/2018 - 7:59pm

I imagine it would've been an even harder image to shake

@wendy davis

If I were to have accepted his offer to sit on his lap.

As to the practice of dangling eyeballs and the likes of Signore Gotti, the closest I personally came to anything that eye popping was when John Gotti asked me if I wanted to sit on his lap.

Yowza!

—

There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier

Submitted by wendy davis on Sat, 10/20/2018 - 10:58am

zo...zoebear was not a

@Anja Geitz

lap dancer? ha; good on ya, gurl zoebear.

Submitted by divineorder on Fri, 10/19/2018 - 2:05pm

Good news indeed.

Mr. Baltazar #Garzón, the lawyer of Mr. Julian #Assange, says that having made the asylee's personal documents in London public is an illegal act.
Further Mr Garzon denies that it was intended to remove Mr. Assange to #Russia pic.twitter.com/sAQ0uy7Tyq

— Anonymous Scandinavia#SafePassage#NoExpulsion (@AnonScan) October 19, 2018

—

A truth of the nuclear age/climate change: we can no longer have endless war and survive on this planet. Oh sh*t.

Submitted by wendy davis on Fri, 10/19/2018 - 4:48pm

even clicking the anonymous

@divineorder

tweet to stand alone, i'm not quite sure what he/she meant, to say the truth. but the guardian's luke harding (who self-identified as a storyteller on TRNN and can tell russian emails by their frequent use of emoticons) did claim that 'documents show' that assange had applied for a russian passport and had asked for asylum in russia. there was a secret escape plan, with Maps and Floor Plans and Elevations and everything!!! seriously, it''s really a fun read....

ambassador craig murray called rubbish on it, saying he's close to assange, and discussions never ever ever included russia as any haven. that said, i'm still unclear about the internal tweets, or subtweets, whatever. but that may be my failure to read correctly, of course. ; )

Submitted by divineorder on Fri, 10/19/2018 - 11:26pm

Something lost in the translation maybe. At any rate

@wendy davis

popping up tonight are interesting coverage differences:

WikiLeaks' Assange sues in Ecuador for better asylum terms: lawyer https://t.co/doqsq269s6 pic.twitter.com/UZI4LQWh4l

— Reuters World (@ReutersWorld) October 20, 2018

Julian Assange is fighting the Ecuadorian government over a cat

Worst. Houseguest. Ever.

By Alex Ward@AlexWardVoxalex.ward@vox.com Oct 19, 2018, 12:30pm EDT

—

A truth of the nuclear age/climate change: we can no longer have endless war and survive on this planet. Oh sh*t.

Submitted by wendy davis on Sat, 10/20/2018 - 7:19am

lol!

@divineorder

gawd's blood, the vox one's ack-worthy, but when i'd seen 'worst houseguest ever', i'd thought of the luke harding and friends' piece at the guardian saying that the embassy staff wanted him gone cuz he wipes his greasy hands on his pants, doesn't shower, and tra la la. prolly had stuff about the cat too.

and duh, mr. wd had to tell me that valencia was mentioned right at the top of the guardians of the realm piece as...the foreign minister. i keep tellin' folks really will learn to read one day; they ask: 'when'?.

Submitted by dkmich on Fri, 10/19/2018 - 2:08pm

It woud be nice if he could be spirited off to

Russia or some other country that has no political use for us.

—

"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon

Submitted by wendy davis on Fri, 10/19/2018 - 4:56pm

heh, it may have been

@dkmich

after the fairytale told by luke harding above that some began asking (srsly) if rossia would be looking to swap assange for snowden. it may have been at the same time snowden (bravely!) was at the guardian calling out russia as a corrupt regime. russophiles like prof. stephen cohen (putin apologist, yanno) seem to believe that putin's been attempting to stop the corruption, but of course i admit that my confirmation bias tells me that it's likely so.

cohen has another essay up at rt today, but i hadn't take the time to click in.

Submitted by EdMass on Fri, 10/19/2018 - 2:57pm

His crime?

Not wanting to be extradited to the US. UK could've eliminated the bullshit bail charge after he was no longer a potential criminal in Sweden and it would have been over months ago. But no. No criminal charges yet we're embarassed and we can't have that. The UK has spent millions of dollars over the years "guarding" the Ecuadorian embassy? Really.

Well here was a deal:

Genesis 39:20-23
So Joseph's master took him and put him into the jail, the place where the king's prisoners were confined; and he was there in the jail. But the LORD was with Joseph and extended kindness to him, and gave him favor in the sight of the chief jailer. The chief jailer committed to Joseph's charge all the prisoners who were in the jail; so that whatever was done there, he was responsible for it.

It's biblical! Heh.

—

Prof: Nancy! I’m going to Greece!
Nancy: And swim the English Channel?
Prof: No. No. To ancient Greece where burning Sapho stood beside the wine dark sea. Wa de do da! Nancy, I’ve invented a time machine!

Firesign Theater

Stop the War!

Submitted by HenryAWallace on Fri, 10/19/2018 - 4:10pm

i'm not seeing a connection between the biblical story of

@EdMass

Joseph and the real life story of Assange. (The particular passage you quoted says that God made the prison warden like Joseph so much that warden put Joseph in charge of the other prisoners.)

Submitted by wendy davis on Fri, 10/19/2018 - 5:05pm

good grief,

@EdMass

i've forgotten the name of that judge who'd ruled assange could not be forgiven that 'failure to appear' summons for jumping bail, barely a crime. but she was married to a tory MP, iirc.

i'm not seeing the bible quote as an appropriate allegory, either as per the "...so that whatever was done there, he was responsible for it" portion. but a vengeful god? maybe, lol.

Submitted by wendy davis on Sat, 10/20/2018 - 10:24am

i did find he name of the judge in my wikileaks files.

@wendy davis

not even an easy one to forget: "That judge was Emma Arbuthnot, who is married to a conservative UK politician, Lord James Arbuthnot, who chairs the Advisory Board of Thales (UK), was chair of the Defense Select Committee from 2005 to 2014 and presently serves as minister of state for defense procurement. Arbuthnot’s name happens to appear in WikiLeaks’ archives 58 times. Thales is a prominent defense contractor and symbolizes one type of organization on which WikiLeaks tries to shine a light."

Submitted by Pluto's Republic on Fri, 10/19/2018 - 5:22pm

Vault 7 is key information that all Americans

...should be grateful to have.

Now they know the mechanism by which they are slated to be bamboozled into the next hundred years of impoverishment due to war profiteering. Vault 7 shows some of the ways evidence of cyber attacks can be falsified in order to implicate and designate the next set of enemies we will be attacking and destroying — with the People's delusional consent. The people will have their fake evidence to cling to. Vault 7 will be a message we send forward through time so that future generations of Americans will understand how they came to be enslaved by debt. They will be conscious that their lives are diminished by the thoroughly corrupt and depraved war spending the US is doing today. People need to be aware of the evil done to them, aware of the extinguishing of so much of their potential. It could show them a way to reverse their fortunes. Julian Assange built that. I'm glad I was alive to see it.

Submitted by wendy davis on Fri, 10/19/2018 - 5:35pm

zounds, amigo.

@Pluto's Republic

what a (brief) jewel of a narrative of vault 7 your comment is, including your appreciation for assange having built that. but you've caused me to remember his mix tape on youtube featuring the many who wanted to drone kill him and murder him in other ways.

by the by, if any of you haven't watched the video of assange and john pilger from 2016, i hope you will when you have time. it's sincerely whooosh-worthy.

Submitted by wendy davis on Fri, 10/19/2018 - 5:50pm

thought i'd check in with the guardian, and yeppers,

it's more yellow journalism in any number of directions, esp. concerning their white-washing (sorry to mix colors) of the new rules from lenin moreno. they focus on The Cat, by and large.

‘Julian Assange launches legal action against Ecuador; WikiLeaks founder accuses government of violating his ‘rights and freedoms’, from The Guardians of The Truth. a few snippets with internal lnks to luke harding and homies, but where 'valencia' comes in, i have no idea:

"Valencia said the country would respond to the lawsuit and that it had the “absolute prerogative and right” to protect its offices, workers and Assange himself inside its embassy.

“Protocol has to be respected, whether they like it or not. It’s a norm to regulate Mr Assange’s stay in our embassy,” he told journalists, adding that the rules met with international standards and Ecuadorean laws.

Garzón said the new rules had been imposed “unilaterally” and WikiLeaks had not been properly consulted about its contents.

Newly-released Ecuadorian government documents this week laid bare an unorthodox attempt to extricate the WikiLeaks founder from his embassy hideaway in London by naming him as a political counsellor to the country’s embassy in Moscow."

Earlier this week, US congressmen wrote an open letter to Ecuador’s president, Lenín Moreno, which stated that to advance “crucial matters ... from economic co-operation to counter-narcotics assistance to the possible return of a USAID mission to Ecuador, we must first resolve a significant challenge created by your predecessor, Rafael Correa – the status of Julian Assange”.

The Ecuadorian government partially lifted restrictions on Assange’s internet access last weekend, but stipulated he would only be allowed to use the embassy wifi for his personal computer and phone." [they actually hadn't, according to WikiLeaks, apparently via new editor Kristinn Hrafnsson.]

"The WikiLeaks Twitter account stated on Thursday that, “after US pressure”, moves had accelerated to strip Assange of Ecuadorian citizenship. “His citizenship status is a barrier to rendering him to another state as article 79 of Ecuador’s constitution forbids extradition of citizens,” it added.", yada, yada.

Submitted by wendy davis on Sat, 10/20/2018 - 7:25am

i'd been trying to remember if the smears against julian at

the Intercept were after the Vault 7 releases; this from zerohedge (not my favorite site) is dated march 7, 2017. but, ach, i forget. likely not worth digging for, even at the Café, in any event. the WL category there is...extensive.

Submitted by Pluto's Republic on Sat, 10/20/2018 - 7:50am

Here's what I recall:

@wendy davis

Assange had been sitting on Vault 7 for some time. Those documents are unconnected to any of the other documents Wikileaks has been handling. They were leaked by a defense contractor whistle blower who was appalled by the technology to automatically deliver false flag attacks against innocent nations, fast and furiously, destabilizing the world.

I think I recall that Assange had sent copies of the documents to the DOD to be vetted and redacted, as necessary. Assange abruptly distributed some of them following a betrayal against him by Ron Rosenstein and John Warner. Assange had been set up with immunity to come to the US and testify before the House committee about where and when he got the DNC emails. The arrangement was sabotaged by those two. They did not want his testimony in the record.

That may or may not help you with the timeline

Submitted by wendy davis on Sat, 10/20/2018 - 9:54am

i'll trust what you think you recall

@Pluto's Republic

as closest to reality, as all you've said is a hazy memory to me now. i do live in a time-warp. i suppose going to the documents themselves at wikileaks might confirm your story. but gawd's blood, i did go hunting my files, and am a bit more confused than ever as to the timeline, as some hits on assange are kinda in two-and-three-fers. but the micah lee one i found at the Intercept again, feb.4 (vault 7 march 2017, 2018, and it's a rehash of the daily beast and atlantic smears contained in the 'leaked chats' (direct messages) which timelines were at the time julian was disconnected from the web.

now the freedom of the press foundation booted out wikileaks on dec. 21, 2017

but wasn't there an earlier cia publication w/ a name akin to 'year zero' or some such? bless your heart for tryin' so hard to help me zero in on it, amigo, which phrase my family teases me with alla time.

i will say that a lot of the 689 comments raged against micah's yellow journalism, though.

Submitted by wendy davis on Sat, 10/20/2018 - 10:48am

bingling for betrayals by rod and john brought me no closer,

@Pluto's Republic

but i did find 'year zero' wikileaks.org:

Today, Tuesday 7 March 2017, WikiLeaks begins its new series of leaks on the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency. Code-named "Vault 7" by WikiLeaks, it is the largest ever publication of confidential documents on the agency.
The first full part of the series, "Year Zero", comprises 8,761 documents and files from an isolated, high-security network situated inside the CIA's Center for Cyber Intelligence in Langley, Virgina. It follows an introductory disclosure last month of CIA targeting French political parties and candidates in the lead up to the 2012 presidential election.

“Wikileaks has also decided to redact and anonymise some identifying information in "Year Zero" for in depth analysis. These redactions include ten of thousands of CIA targets and attack machines throughout Latin America, Europe and the United States. While we are aware of the imperfect results of any approach chosen, we remain committed to our publishing model and note that the quantity of published pages in "Vault 7" part one (“Year Zero”) already eclipses the total number of pages published over the first three years of the Edward Snowden NSA leaks.”

(take that, ed and glenn!) now whether he'd sent the docs to the DoD or not isn't reflected above. but cripes, i done got to check some chores done. eyes burning already, anyway. thanks again for tryin' to help, and for your jewel of a first comment.

Submitted by dervish on Sat, 10/20/2018 - 11:12am

John Warner... or Mark? n/t

@Pluto's Republic

—

"Obama promised transparency, but Assange is the one who brought it."

Submitted by Pluto's Republic on Sat, 10/20/2018 - 6:37pm

Okay. I looked this up. I made mistakes

@dervish

It was Mark Warner and James Comey who subverted Assange's testimony regarding Russia's involvement in the leak of Hillary's emails to Wikileaks.

Here's what Ray McGovern said about it on June 27, 2018:

The U.S. was in talks for a deal with Julian Assange but then FBI Director James Comey ordered an end to negotiations after Assange offered to prove Russia was not involved in the DNC leak.

An explosive report by investigative journalist John Solomon on the opinion page of Monday’s edition of The Hill sheds a bright light on how Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA) and then-FBI Director James Comey collaborated to prevent WikiLeaks editor Julian Assange from discussing “technical evidence ruling out certain parties [read Russia]” in the controversial leak of Democratic Party emails to WikiLeaks during the 2016 election.

A deal that was being discussed last year between Assange and U.S. government officials would have given Assange “limited immunity” to allow him to leave the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, where he has been exiled for six years. In exchange, Assange would agree to limit through redactions “some classified CIA information he might release in the future....”

I took this to be a reference to the Vault 7 material, which is referenced below.

Comey’s intervention to stop the negotiations with Assange ultimately ruined the deal, Solomon says, quoting “multiple sources.” With the prospective agreement thrown into serious doubt, Assange “unleashed a series of leaks that U.S. officials say damaged their cyber warfare capabilities for a long time to come.” These were the Vault 7 releases, which led then CIA Director Mike Pompeo to call WikiLeaks “a hostile intelligence service.”

Solomon’s report provides reasons why Official Washington has now put so much pressure on Ecuador to keep Assange incommunicado in its embassy in London.

The rest is speculation, mostly.

The report does not say what led Comey to intervene to ruin the talks with Assange. But it came after Assange had offered to “provide technical evidence and discussion regarding who did not engage in the DNC releases,” Solomon quotes WikiLeaks’ intermediary with the government as saying. It would be a safe assumption that Assange was offering to prove that Russia was not WikiLeaks’ source of the DNC emails.

McGovern speculates that Comey and Warner made a cynical decision to put U.S. intelligence agents and highly sophisticated cybertools at risk, rather than allow Assange to attempt to prove that Russia was not behind the DNC leak. Warner and Comey were more afraid of what would happen if Assange provided evidence that Russia played no role in the 2016 leaks of DNC documents.

THE TIMELINE:

In mid-February 2017, in a remarkable display of naiveté, Adam Waldman, Assange’s pro bono attorney asked Warner if the Senate Intelligence Committee staff would like any contact with Assange to ask about Russia or other issues. (Waldman was apparently oblivious to Sen. Warner’s stoking of Russia-gate.)

On March 28, 2017, Waldman gave the DOJ Assange’s offer to discuss “risk mitigation approaches relating to CIA documents in WikiLeaks’ possession or control, such as the redaction of Agency personnel in hostile jurisdictions,” in return for “an acceptable immunity and safe passage agreement.”

The next day, Warner contacted Waldman, and invoking Comey's name, Warner instructed Waldman to “stand down and end the discussions with Assange.” The stand-down order reached WikiLeaks. Trust evaporated. Two months of what Waldman called “constructive, principled discussions with the Department of Justice" ended abruptly.

On March 31, 2017, WikiLeaks released the most damaging disclosure up to that point from what it called “Vault 7” — a treasure trove of CIA cybertools leaked from CIA files.

This disclosure featured the tool “Marble Framework,” which enabled the CIA to hack into computers, disguise who hacked in, and falsely attribute the hack to someone else by leaving so-called tell-tale signs — like Cyrillic, for example. The CIA documents also showed that the “Marble” tool had been employed in 2016.

In July 2017, VIPS published its key findings with supporting data: the DNC emails were leaked — not “hacked” by Russia or anyone else. Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, which includes among our members two former Technical Directors of the National Security Agency, revealed their suspicion that someone may have been playing Marbles, so to speak.

In September 2017, VIPS published the results of their follow-up experiments conducted to test and confirm the conclusions they had reached in July.

At the same time, Sen. John McCain and others were calling the “Russian hack” no less than an “act of war.”

Submitted by wendy davis on Sun, 10/21/2018 - 8:46am

lord luv a duck;

@Pluto's Republic

as soon as i'd seen these words together i remembered: "comey, stand down" by ray mcgovern. bless your heart for your extreme diligence, and yours, dervish, for the prompt.

now i'd never clicked into solomon's exposé at the hill, but a few things were fascinating there.

"according to solomon: “Waldman contacted Ohr, a Justice official he’d met during the Russia election case. They talked by phone and encrypted text messages in early January, then met Feb. 3, 2017, in Washington, records show. In between, Waldman met three times with Assange in London.”

“Laufman described what the government might want to achieve, and Waldman laid the groundwork for a deal to give Assange limited immunity and a one-time “safe passage” to leave the London embassy and talk with U.S. officials. Laufman played to Assange’s belief that he was a publisher, the documents show; he put an offer on the table from the intelligence community to help Assange assess how some hostile foreign powers might be infiltrating or harming WikiLeaks staff.”

but it all reminded me of this, remember? from aug 8 of this year?

“Wikileaks says it is considering a request from the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence for an interview with Julian Assange, the group’s founder.
North Carolina Republican Sen. Richard Burr and Virginia Democratic Sen. Mark Warner, the chairman and vice chairman of the committee, respectively, asked Assange in an Aug. 1 letter to appear for a closed-door interview as part of the committee’s investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential campaign." (daily caller)

and we were begging him not to take the bait, but appear by skype? but we'd never heard another word about it, causing me to wonder what plans assange's legal team might be hatching? although...three months have passed since then, but i do rember an interview with jennifer robinson in which she'd calmly demurred to answer any questions as to 'what's next?' (the interviewer was a dolt, though.)

and following the link to the wapo, yes, he released year zero, but with redactions, he said. ha; boing-boing (whatever that is) had said that was due to earlier criticisms, which may well be.

i sure do wonder which judge in 'a domestic court' in quito (iirc) will hear the lawsuit 'early next week'.

thanks again.

#7.1.3

It was Mark Warner and James Comey who subverted Assange's testimony regarding Russia's involvement in the leak of Hillary's emails to Wikileaks.

Here's what Ray McGovern said about it on June 27, 2018:

The U.S. was in talks for a deal with Julian Assange but then FBI Director James Comey ordered an end to negotiations after Assange offered to prove Russia was not involved in the DNC leak.

An explosive report by investigative journalist John Solomon on the opinion page of Monday’s edition of The Hill sheds a bright light on how Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA) and then-FBI Director James Comey collaborated to prevent WikiLeaks editor Julian Assange from discussing “technical evidence ruling out certain parties [read Russia]” in the controversial leak of Democratic Party emails to WikiLeaks during the 2016 election.

A deal that was being discussed last year between Assange and U.S. government officials would have given Assange “limited immunity” to allow him to leave the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, where he has been exiled for six years. In exchange, Assange would agree to limit through redactions “some classified CIA information he might release in the future....”

I took this to be a reference to the Vault 7 material, which is referenced below.

Comey’s intervention to stop the negotiations with Assange ultimately ruined the deal, Solomon says, quoting “multiple sources.” With the prospective agreement thrown into serious doubt, Assange “unleashed a series of leaks that U.S. officials say damaged their cyber warfare capabilities for a long time to come.” These were the Vault 7 releases, which led then CIA Director Mike Pompeo to call WikiLeaks “a hostile intelligence service.”

Solomon’s report provides reasons why Official Washington has now put so much pressure on Ecuador to keep Assange incommunicado in its embassy in London.

The rest is speculation, mostly.

The report does not say what led Comey to intervene to ruin the talks with Assange. But it came after Assange had offered to “provide technical evidence and discussion regarding who did not engage in the DNC releases,” Solomon quotes WikiLeaks’ intermediary with the government as saying. It would be a safe assumption that Assange was offering to prove that Russia was not WikiLeaks’ source of the DNC emails.

McGovern speculates that Comey and Warner made a cynical decision to put U.S. intelligence agents and highly sophisticated cybertools at risk, rather than allow Assange to attempt to prove that Russia was not behind the DNC leak. Warner and Comey were more afraid of what would happen if Assange provided evidence that Russia played no role in the 2016 leaks of DNC documents.

THE TIMELINE:

In mid-February 2017, in a remarkable display of naiveté, Adam Waldman, Assange’s pro bono attorney asked Warner if the Senate Intelligence Committee staff would like any contact with Assange to ask about Russia or other issues. (Waldman was apparently oblivious to Sen. Warner’s stoking of Russia-gate.)

On March 28, 2017, Waldman gave the DOJ Assange’s offer to discuss “risk mitigation approaches relating to CIA documents in WikiLeaks’ possession or control, such as the redaction of Agency personnel in hostile jurisdictions,” in return for “an acceptable immunity and safe passage agreement.”

The next day, Warner contacted Waldman, and invoking Comey's name, Warner instructed Waldman to “stand down and end the discussions with Assange.” The stand-down order reached WikiLeaks. Trust evaporated. Two months of what Waldman called “constructive, principled discussions with the Department of Justice" ended abruptly.

On March 31, 2017, WikiLeaks released the most damaging disclosure up to that point from what it called “Vault 7” — a treasure trove of CIA cybertools leaked from CIA files.

This disclosure featured the tool “Marble Framework,” which enabled the CIA to hack into computers, disguise who hacked in, and falsely attribute the hack to someone else by leaving so-called tell-tale signs — like Cyrillic, for example. The CIA documents also showed that the “Marble” tool had been employed in 2016.

In July 2017, VIPS published its key findings with supporting data: the DNC emails were leaked — not “hacked” by Russia or anyone else. Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, which includes among our members two former Technical Directors of the National Security Agency, revealed their suspicion that someone may have been playing Marbles, so to speak.

In September 2017, VIPS published the results of their follow-up experiments conducted to test and confirm the conclusions they had reached in July.

At the same time, Sen. John McCain and others were calling the “Russian hack” no less than an “act of war.”

Submitted by magiamma on Fri, 10/19/2018 - 10:13pm

thanks for keeping up on this

it's so important.

—

Stop Climate Change Silence - Start the Conversation

Hot Air Website, Twitter, Facebook

Submitted by wendy davis on Sat, 10/20/2018 - 7:24am

welcome, amiga.

@magiamma

the UK independent says the hearing will be in 'domestic court' whatever that signifies. they had a video w/ lenin moreno saying that assange is an inherited problem, but they're doing their best to keep him alive because...his life is at risk? at least that's what the subtitles claimed he'd said. but dagnabbit, rafael correa must be livid with his shape-shifting successor.

Submitted by wendy davis on Fri, 10/19/2018 - 10:13pm

given pluto's future narration of the epc importance of

CIA vault 7, my own ability to think in time units, tonight's closing song/lullaby is the last one the late, great truth-teller santee sioux john trudell, founder of AIM, ever recorded before his 'ride' as he'd said (to the great beyond) came for him.

good night, moon; goodnight hairbrush; good night julian assange; rest in power, john trudell.

[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRTMe_EPgSM]