How the DP's lawsuit against Wikileaks may help Assange

Submitted by snoopydawg on Sat, 08/03/2019 - 8:00pm

Judge’s ruling throws huge spanner into US extradition proceedings against Assange

A US judge has ruled that WikiLeaks was fully entitled to publish the Democratic National Congress (DNC) emails, which means no law was broken. The ruling is highly significant as it could impact upon the US extradition proceedings against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, as well as the ongoing imprisonment of whistleblower Chelsea Manning.

The ruling

On 30 July, federal judge John G. Koeltl ruled on a case brought against WikiLeaks and other parties in regard to the alleged hacking of DNC emails and concluded that:

If WikiLeaks could be held liable for publishing documents concerning the DNC’s political financial and voter-engagement strategies simply because the DNC labels them ‘secret’ and trade secrets, then so could any newspaper or other media outlet.

In other words, if WikiLeaks is subject to prosecution, then every media outlet in the world would be. The judge argued that:

[T]he First Amendment prevents such liability in the same way it would preclude liability for press outlets that publish materials of public interest despite defects in the way the materials were obtained so long as the disseminator did not participate in any wrongdoing in obtaining the materials in the first place.

Significantly, the judge added that it’s not criminal to solicit or “welcome” stolen documents, and how:

A person is entitled to publish stolen documents that the publisher requested from a source so long as the publisher did not participate in the theft.

The briefing also referenced:

revelations of the CIA’s Bush-era torture program were based in part on leaks by whistleblowers throughout government. So, too, were stories exposing sweeping NSA surveillance programs — stories for which several newspapers won Pulitzer Prizes in 2005 and in 2014.

Legal implications

The judge’s ruling could therefore have huge implications for US extradition proceedings against Assange.

Greg Barns, a barrister and longtime adviser to the Assange campaign, told The Canary:

The Court, in dismissing the case, found that the First Amendment protected WikiLeaks’ right to publish illegally secured private or classified documents of public interest, applying the same First Amendment standard as was used in justifying the The New York Times publication of the Pentagon Papers. That right exists, so long as a publisher does not join in any illegal acts that the source may have committed to obtain that information. But that doesn’t include common journalistic practices, such as requesting or soliciting documents or actively collaborating with a source. So this case is important in restating what is and is not protected under the First Amendment. But does it have implications for the extradition hearing? Well it certainly helps to remind the courts in the UK that the First Amendment protection is very broad.

Tags:

Wikileaks Assange Chelsea

Vote

Comments

Submitted by on the cusp on Sat, 08/03/2019 - 8:25pm

I am amazed at the intregity of that judge.

It remains to be seen if the ruling is appealed up to the Supremes. I am crossing fingers and toes that this ended it.
It is just criminal what is happening to Assange and Manning.

—

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981

Submitted by Centaurea on Sat, 08/03/2019 - 11:26pm

It could be appealed,

@on the cusp
but any such appeal would be asking SCOTUS to overturn its own decision in the New York Times "Pentagon Papers" case (New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713, 1971).

What the District Court did this week is not new law. They just applied the existing law and reminded us of what that law is.

In fact, as far as I know, the US DOJ is not actually charging Assange with publishing leaked or hacked documents. I think they know that would not be a valid charge, because under NY Times v. US, doing that is not a crime. (Obama's DOJ certainly knew that fact. They stated it publicly.)

What the US is doing is trying to create a different charge against Assange. They're accusing him of conspiring with Chelsea Manning to illegally obtain government passwords in order to hack into government servers.

The US does not have evidence to back up that accusation. That's why they have re-imprisoned Chelsea Manning and are fining her $1,000 per day until she talks. They are trying to torture her into giving them what they want so they can go after Assange.

In the meantime, the US government is trying to manufacture consent for what they're doing. They are confusing and emotionally manipulating the American public, trying to make us believe that publishing government documents is a crime, and that Assange is an enemy of the American people.

—

"Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep."
~Rumi

"If you want revolution, be it."
~Caitlin Johnstone

Submitted by on the cusp on Sat, 08/03/2019 - 11:43pm

Fingers and toes crossed.

@Centaurea We do not have the most ...how do I say this..."informed"
Supremes.

—

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981

Submitted by Centaurea on Sat, 08/03/2019 - 11:53pm

Unfortunately

@on the cusp

that's true.

And the DNC's lawyers (Perkins, Coie) are up to their eyeballs in slime.

—

"Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep."
~Rumi

"If you want revolution, be it."
~Caitlin Johnstone

Submitted by snoopydawg on Sat, 08/03/2019 - 11:46pm

Exactly right

@Centaurea

The years long smear campaign against Assange and Wikileaks and putting the blame on for Hillary's loss and connection to Russia them was to manufacture consent for when he was extradited here. One look at ToP and you can see how well it worked. Even though he isn't being charged for screwing Hillary. I'm appalled by how people I once thought highly of could think as they do.
Suzie Dawson has written about how people who go against the government get smeared by charges of rape which is why Assange was accused of it. Sweden doesn't name the accused or the people who do the accusing in sexual cases. Except for the one against Assange. Why? Because it was a smear campaign to get people to hate him. And it worked. The UN Special Rapporteur on Torture Nils Melzer believed what he had read and heard about Assange until he talked to him after he had been renditioned from the Ecuadorian embassy.

https://contraspin.co.nz/freeing-julian-assange-part-one/

All 3 parts of her work on him are out and you can find them by going to the homepage.

Suzie was attacked by rape survivors after the UN report came out which she writes about here. Damn this country for what it has done to Assange. As Suzie writes, if it can happen to Assange, it can happen to any of us. Hope people will take the time to read the articles. Lots of people have put lots of work into defending Assange.

—

Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.

Submitted by Alligator Ed on Sun, 08/04/2019 - 9:53pm

Who are these alleged progressive organizations against Assange

@snoopydawg

We cannot allow those who, be it purposefully or inadvertently, contributed to the torture of a publisher, become the public prosecutors of the Special Rapporteur who exposed the torture.

It would seem that for 70+ organizations to simultaneously condemn the Wikileaks leadership must involve m.o.n.e.y. Money can't buy two things--personal poverty or happiness. But money can and does buy opinion and people.

Suzie Dawson is an eloquent writer possessing great detail of this painful Assange travesty. To overly broaden the definition of rape, as she describes, belittles the experience of violent depersonalization that occurs during and after a rape. I have both personal and professional experience with rape victims, all of whom have been profoundly affected by the experience. Such brutal experience is not to be belittled by such neologistic expansion of what is a life-altering experience.

Submitted by snoopydawg on Sun, 08/04/2019 - 11:07pm

Thanks for reading about Suzie

@Alligator Ed

That those women who are rape survivers could take part in what they did against both Suzie and Nils should haunt them for the rest of their lives. What Suzie went through during her ordeal was just abhorrent and for women to say that she was only trying to score points for it...ugh!

Nils went through the process of seeing through the propaganda against Assange and put it out there for the world to see only to be humiliated for it. Not one of the big media outlets would publish his report on how Assange has been tortured by the world's governments for almost a decade. And what Sweden took part in, shame on everyone involved! Including the two women who lied about him.

—

Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.

Submitted by snoopydawg on Sat, 08/03/2019 - 8:54pm

Chelsea's letter

Chelsea's letter is a must read. What is being done to her should upset more people than it is.

May 28, 2019

Dear Judge Trenga,

During the contempt hearing on May 16, 2019, this Honorable Court directed me to take the opportunity during my confinement to reflect on my principles with respect to the institution of grand juries in the United States. This letter responds to that directive.

During the hearing, you stated that there exists “no dishonor” in providing evidence to a grand jury. You suggested that codification of grand juries in the text of the U.S. Constitution provided ample justification for this institution. In response to my suggestion of “preliminary” or “committal” hearings, you expressed skepticism over whether such publicly held hearings served the same purpose without damaging innocent people accused of crimes.

These arguments are raised frequently in discussions about the problems with grand juries. They are certainly not novel to me. Over the last decade, I frequently considered these and many other arguments while forming my opinions about the grand jury process. After spending the last two weeks reflecting on my decision not to testify before this grand jury, I wish to present my position in a more careful and complete manner than an impromptu colloquy can provide. After working with lawyers and researchers, I can also now cite specific sources that support my position.

First, I shall compare grand juries in their earliest form, including the ideals and practical problems they sought to address, to grand juries as they currently operate. Second I want to clarify that while my objection to grand juries emphasizes their historical use against activists, I also view grand juries as an institution that now undermines due process even when used as intended.

The drafters of the U.S. Constitution, despite their many flaws, possessed a sophisticated understanding of modern political theory. The framers did not set out to short-circuit due process protections. Obviously, to a contemporary reader, we now understand the many flaws and compromises in the Constitution, and see some as inherently cruel and indefensible: legal human slavery; the legalizing of subordinate civil status for women; segregation; and the disenfranchisement of those who did not own land come to mind.

Some such practices might have struck contemporaries of the Constitution as “normal” or “necessary,” but with the passage of time, and through the tireless work of millions of people taking bold and dangerous action, they are now obsolete. I am certainly not alone in thinking that the grand jury process, which at one time acted as an independent body of citizens along the lines 2 of a civilian police review board, slowly transitioned into the unbridled arm of the police and prosecution in ways that run contrary to the grand jury’s originally intended purposes.

The 5th Amendment provides many of our most cherished procedural safeguards, concepts foundational to our criminal legal system, including ‘due process,’ a prohibition on double jeopardy, and the right against compelled self-incrimination. The grand jury is also enshrined in the fifth amendment, however, prior to the recent publicity surrounding the Mueller investigation, most Americans only knew two things about the grand jury.

First, people hear that a grand jury could indict a ham sandwich. Early grand juries acted independently, as investigations by citizens. Now, the grand jury process means the prosecutor decides what the grand jurors see – and what they don’t see. The grand jury imagined by the drafters of the fifth amendment – which did not involve a prosecutor – bears no resemblance to what we see today, where more than 99.9% of indictments sought are granted.......

Please read it and share it. I'm not seeing much outrage over what she is going through just because this country is pissed that she exposed its war crimes.

Shadowproof has a great essay on Chelsea being in prison.

—

Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.

Submitted by Cant Stop the M... on Sun, 08/04/2019 - 12:42pm

Wow. Thank you for this.

@snoopydawg

Chelsea's letter is a must read. What is being done to her should upset more people than it is. May 28, 2019 Dear Judge Trenga, During the contempt hearing on May 16, 2019, this Honorable Court directed me to take the opportunity during my confinement to reflect on my principles with respect to the institution of grand juries in the United States. This letter responds to that directive. During the hearing, you stated that there exists “no dishonor” in providing evidence to a grand jury. You suggested that codification of grand juries in the text of the U.S. Constitution provided ample justification for this institution. In response to my suggestion of “preliminary” or “committal” hearings, you expressed skepticism over whether such publicly held hearings served the same purpose without damaging innocent people accused of crimes. These arguments are raised frequently in discussions about the problems with grand juries. They are certainly not novel to me. Over the last decade, I frequently considered these and many other arguments while forming my opinions about the grand jury process. After spending the last two weeks reflecting on my decision not to testify before this grand jury, I wish to present my position in a more careful and complete manner than an impromptu colloquy can provide. After working with lawyers and researchers, I can also now cite specific sources that support my position. First, I shall compare grand juries in their earliest form, including the ideals and practical problems they sought to address, to grand juries as they currently operate. Second I want to clarify that while my objection to grand juries emphasizes their historical use against activists, I also view grand juries as an institution that now undermines due process even when used as intended. The drafters of the U.S. Constitution, despite their many flaws, possessed a sophisticated understanding of modern political theory. The framers did not set out to short-circuit due process protections. Obviously, to a contemporary reader, we now understand the many flaws and compromises in the Constitution, and see some as inherently cruel and indefensible: legal human slavery; the legalizing of subordinate civil status for women; segregation; and the disenfranchisement of those who did not own land come to mind. Some such practices might have struck contemporaries of the Constitution as “normal” or “necessary,” but with the passage of time, and through the tireless work of millions of people taking bold and dangerous action, they are now obsolete. I am certainly not alone in thinking that the grand jury process, which at one time acted as an independent body of citizens along the lines 2 of a civilian police review board, slowly transitioned into the unbridled arm of the police and prosecution in ways that run contrary to the grand jury’s originally intended purposes. The 5th Amendment provides many of our most cherished procedural safeguards, concepts foundational to our criminal legal system, including ‘due process,’ a prohibition on double jeopardy, and the right against compelled self-incrimination. The grand jury is also enshrined in the fifth amendment, however, prior to the recent publicity surrounding the Mueller investigation, most Americans only knew two things about the grand jury. First, people hear that a grand jury could indict a ham sandwich. Early grand juries acted independently, as investigations by citizens. Now, the grand jury process means the prosecutor decides what the grand jurors see – and what they don’t see. The grand jury imagined by the drafters of the fifth amendment – which did not involve a prosecutor – bears no resemblance to what we see today, where more than 99.9% of indictments sought are granted....... Please read it and share it. I'm not seeing much outrage over what she is going through just because this country is pissed that she exposed its war crimes. Shadowproof has a great essay on Chelsea being in prison.

—

"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 on the cusp on Sat, 08/03/2019 - 9:17pm

Thanks for that link to Chelsea's letter to the judge.

Grand juries need to go.
Prosecutors control what is presented.
And let's flip it to the rich man accused of theft, or the cop who choked an arrestee...if the prosecutor presents a little evidence and informs the grand jury the state recommends "no bill", well, that ends it. All in secret.
It is not fair.
I have had a couple of accused defendants desire to speak to the gj. I am not allowed in the room. They would be asked a question, would come outside, and we would carefully formulate the answer. Total cluster you know what.

—

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981

Submitted by Deja on Sun, 08/04/2019 - 11:03am

Prosecutors run the Grand Jury show

@on the cusp
I learned that after downloading and getting to day 2 of the redacted Michael Brown/Ferguson, Mo. transcript. And right there in front of the gj, not even outside the room or privately -- which I'm sure happened too.

The prosecution had begun day 2 with the basic intros for the record, then questions about the day of the shooting, times, locations, normal stuff you'd expect. Other, more specific questions regarding what the cop saw and did after arriving at the scene followed.

Then the cop apparently either said something he wasn't supposed to (I re-read questions/answers leading up to that point to try and infer what he might have said as being off limits, to no avail), or the DA thought he was about to is my best guess. It went something like this, between prosecutor and a cop:

PROSECUTOR: [Redacted]
COP: Ok

Wtf? The cop was directed by the prosecution. It was redacted, and the cop affirmed that directive. Either that, or the DA decided to ask the guy how he was doing, randomly, in the middle of questioning, but thought the public should not see that question, only his answer.

Submitted by snoopydawg on Sun, 08/04/2019 - 11:01pm

Grand juries are used to get the results the PTB want

@Deja
As you stated the grand jury in the Michael Brown case was served a ham sandwich. This is what Chelsea is saying about them because the prosecutors get to mislead them to get the verdict he wants.

Chelsea has been in prison since April now and that alone should tell the judge that she has no intention to play any part in taking down Assange. What is happening to her is just punitive because someone has more power than she does. I hope once she is released from jail she does a go fund me and raises the amount owed in one afternoon. F'ck the judge that is 'just following orders' sideways!

—

Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.

Submitted by ChezJfrey on Sat, 08/03/2019 - 10:41pm

Just F'ing great...

Now the Russians have gotten to U.S. Federal Judges!

All r base belong to Russia.

ETA: Oh, sorry, I thought I was posting at MSNBC or CNN, or TOP forums

Submitted by k9disc on Sun, 08/04/2019 - 12:59am

"I'm Sorry, I Just Can't Move Forward Without Some Hard

evidence.

If you want me to go to press with your assertion, I need the documents to back me up."

That is Journalism 101, which of course is trumped by Econ 101 in modern parlance. (see what I did there... heh)

Seriously, though, happy to see a sensible reading of the 1st from a real judge. I'm getting tired of asserting Constitutional Law via personal fiat (I'm a dog trainer...) because federal justices are piratizing the Constitution.

—

“Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” ~ Sun Tzu

Submitted by Lookout on Sun, 08/04/2019 - 6:08am

Thanks for the good news

Now the question is, will we respect the rule of law? Past activities suggest not.

I really hope this helps both Julian and Chelsea.

—

“Until justice rolls down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream.”

Submitted by Fishtroller 02 on Sun, 08/04/2019 - 9:10am

The bottom line here is that the DNC

is for suppression of speech, journalism and opinion.

Need we know anything more about them?

—

"Without the right to offend, freedom of speech does not exist." Taslima Nasrin

Submitted by Cant Stop the M... on Sun, 08/04/2019 - 12:43pm

Apart from the fact that they also

@Fishtroller 02

commit election fraud when necessary to further their political ends, no.

—

"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 Fishtroller 02 on Sun, 08/04/2019 - 3:41pm

Yes!

@Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal

—

"Without the right to offend, freedom of speech does not exist." Taslima Nasrin

Submitted by wendy davis on Sun, 08/04/2019 - 12:42pm

thank you for bringing so many opinions,

letters, documents and links. (chelsea's was a bit long for me just now). i'll join in hoping the judge's decision might help julian.

these seem to be judge koeltl's key point (obviously):

"[T]he First Amendment prevents such liability in the same way it would preclude liability for press outlets that publish materials of public interest despite defects in the way the materials were obtained so long as the disseminator did not participate in any wrongdoing in obtaining the materials in the first place.

Significantly, the judge added that it’s not criminal to solicit or “welcome” stolen documents, and how:

A person is entitled to publish stolen documents that the publisher requested from a source so long as the publisher did not participate in the theft.

but i have a few questions: given that julian's being charged with helping chelsea crack a password to down load the files: how does one prove a negative?

given it was the same Tory judge 'Lady' emma arbuthnot who's scheduled his extradition hearing for feb. 28, 2020 (reckoned to take 5 days), will she be presiding? boy, howdy, does she loathe him and lie abut him!

and of course, UK home secretary dark-heart sajid javid had already signed his extradition papers on june 13, will bori hohnson's new foreign secretary have any further part to play?

he moved mega-bucks man javid to chancellor of the exchequer, and his new home secretary is priti patel, a right darlin' of a woman.

this is priti:

I spent 20 years of my life fighting against the death penalty in other countries.

I never thought that in the 21st century I would see a Home Secretary of the United Kingdom who believes in capital punishment. pic.twitter.com/P4wsChXmLI

— Keir Starmer (@Keir_Starmer) July 25, 2019

who was it who had offered a select few witnesses immunity from criminal prosecution testily against julian, whether to add more charges or prove them, i've forgotten. but i'm close to positive that the alleged CIA vault 7 (and a portion of 8) joshua schulte was one of them. given that assange has always said that those leaks are why this administration (pompeo) is really after him... who can say? the only person who's written about him is marcy wheeler, afaik, but as she's been russia-gate/mueller-gate central, i kinda breezed thru her recent 'report' on schulte.

but i will say that it sure made me chuckle that one of her commenters was high as a kite that 'we' (as he'd said) 'are the true investigating team!'

oh, and not knowing, i'd checked, and the next regularly scheduled election for PM is may 5, 2022 (unless no confidence votes, etc.).

Submitted by snoopydawg on Sun, 08/04/2019 - 4:09pm

"how does one prove a negative?"

@wendy davis

The burden of proof is supposedly to be on the prosecution. They have to show evidence of Assange trying to hack their password and the only way they can do that is to make it up which I wouldn't put past them. This is one of the reasons Assange wasn't charged for assisting Russia for the DNC leaks. The NSA would have to make up evidence that it happened. In any decent trial Wikileaks' lawyers could have VIPS talk about how the files weren't hacked, but leaked.

And in any normal trial ole lady Arbuthnot would have to recuse herself because of her conflict of interest related to her husband. Both cases depend on whether Assange is going to get a fair trial. Chances are slim on both sides of the pond. And if Assange hadn't been smeared for so many years more people would be protesting the treatment he has gotten. Dumb f'cks believe it though.

letters, documents and links. (chelsea's was a bit long for me just now). i'll join in hoping the judge's decision might help julian. these seem to be judge koeltl's key point (obviously): "[T]he First Amendment prevents such liability in the same way it would preclude liability for press outlets that publish materials of public interest despite defects in the way the materials were obtained so long as the disseminator did not participate in any wrongdoing in obtaining the materials in the first place. Significantly, the judge added that it’s not criminal to solicit or “welcome” stolen documents, and how: A person is entitled to publish stolen documents that the publisher requested from a source so long as the publisher did not participate in the theft. but i have a few questions: given that julian's being charged with helping chelsea crack a password to down load the files: how does one prove a negative? given it was the same Tory judge 'Lady' emma arbuthnot who's scheduled his extradition hearing for feb. 28, 2020 (reckoned to take 5 days), will she be presiding? boy, howdy, does she loathe him and lie abut him! and of course, UK home secretary dark-heart sajid javid had already signed his extradition papers on june 13, will bori hohnson's new foreign secretary have any further part to play? he moved mega-bucks man javid to chancellor of the exchequer, and his new home secretary is priti patel, a right darlin' of a woman. this is priti: I spent 20 years of my life fighting against the death penalty in other countries. I never thought that in the 21st century I would see a Home Secretary of the United Kingdom who believes in capital punishment. pic.twitter.com/P4wsChXmLI — Keir Starmer (@Keir_Starmer) July 25, 2019 who was it who had offered a select few witnesses immunity from criminal prosecution testily against julian, whether to add more charges or prove them, i've forgotten. but i'm close to positive that the alleged CIA vault 7 (and a portion of 8) joshua schulte was one of them. given that assange has always said that those leaks are why this administration (pompeo) is really after him... who can say? the only person who's written about him is marcy wheeler, afaik, but as she's been russia-gate/mueller-gate central, i kinda breezed thru her recent 'report' on schulte. but i will say that it sure made me chuckle that one of her commenters was high as a kite that 'we' (as he'd said) 'are the true investigating team!' oh, and not knowing, i'd checked, and the next regularly scheduled election for PM is may 5, 2022 (unless no confidence votes, etc.).

—

Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.

Submitted by wendy davis on Mon, 08/05/2019 - 8:22am

excellent reasoning

@snoopydawg

on this anything-but-ordinary case in which no nation's Rule of Law has been followed, nor international UN law. i was hoping that you or others with live memories might have been able to answer my other questions as well.

my fear, of course, is that this ruling won't make so much as a ripple against the vast tide of calumny against julian. they've got him right where they want him.

oscar grenfell is reporting:

"Despite the significance of the ruling, and its clear newsworthiness, it has been subjected to an almost complete blackout by the entire media in the US and internationally.

The universal silence on the court decision—extending from the New York Times (which buried a six-paragraph report on the ruling on page 25) and the Washington Post, to “alternative” outlets such as the Intercept, the television evening news programs and the publications of the pseudo-left—can be described only as a coordinated political conspiracy."

fuck the intercept, including editor glenn greenwald, the five smears that TI did on assange, plus the new one by james risen based on that 'CNN exclusive' pile of merde you'd brought here.

also oscar grenfell is reporting that the wsws had an interview w/ daddy john shipton in sydney yesterday while the mafia don pompeo was there drumming up military support for the 'great power competition' in every imaginable direction. gawd, i ♥ daddy shipton!

Submitted by Alligator Ed on Sun, 08/04/2019 - 10:23pm

@wendy davisFollowing the success of

@wendy davis

Following the success of the "Leave" vote in the EU referendum, Cameron resigned, resulting in a leadership contest within the party. Patel openly supported Theresa May as his successor, claiming that she had the "strength and experience" for the job, while arguing that May's main challenger Andrea Leadsom would prove too divisive to win a general election.[51] In November 2017, Patel was critical of the UK government Brexit negotiations and stated: "I would have told the EU in particular to sod off with their excessive financial demands".[52]

On 3 November 2017, the BBC's Diplomatic correspondent James Landale broke the news that Patel had held meetings in Israel in August 2017 without telling the Foreign Office. She was accompanied by Lord Polak, honorary president of Conservative Friends of Israel (CFI). The meetings, up to a dozen in number, took place while Patel was on a "private holiday". Patel met Yair Lapid, the leader of Israel's centrist Yesh Atid party, and reportedly made visits to several organisations where official departmental business was discussed. The BBC reported that "According to one source, at least one of the meetings was held at the suggestion of the Israeli ambassador to London. In contrast, British diplomats in Israel were not informed about Ms Patel's plans."[62]

It was also reported that, following the meetings, Patel had recommended that the Department for International Development give international aid money to field hospitals run by the Israeli army in the Golan Heights. Although these hospitals have been described by the British Prime Minister's official spokesman as "provid[ing] medical support for Syrian refugees",[63] Israeli officials have refused to identify who they treat in them, and whether they are regime forces, rebels or civilians.[64] Western media reports suggest that Israel is aiding and funding Syrian opposition organisations in the Syrian civil war.[65][66]

Wikipedia goes on to report that calls for her resignation were made due to unauthorized visits to Israel, perhaps a British version of the Hatch Act. So, she is revealed (surprise) to be a lying politician--like all the rest. Giving Palestinians aid by building military hospitals for the Israelis in the Golan.

letters, documents and links. (chelsea's was a bit long for me just now). i'll join in hoping the judge's decision might help julian. these seem to be judge koeltl's key point (obviously): "[T]he First Amendment prevents such liability in the same way it would preclude liability for press outlets that publish materials of public interest despite defects in the way the materials were obtained so long as the disseminator did not participate in any wrongdoing in obtaining the materials in the first place. Significantly, the judge added that it’s not criminal to solicit or “welcome” stolen documents, and how: A person is entitled to publish stolen documents that the publisher requested from a source so long as the publisher did not participate in the theft. but i have a few questions: given that julian's being charged with helping chelsea crack a password to down load the files: how does one prove a negative? given it was the same Tory judge 'Lady' emma arbuthnot who's scheduled his extradition hearing for feb. 28, 2020 (reckoned to take 5 days), will she be presiding? boy, howdy, does she loathe him and lie abut him! and of course, UK home secretary dark-heart sajid javid had already signed his extradition papers on june 13, will bori hohnson's new foreign secretary have any further part to play? he moved mega-bucks man javid to chancellor of the exchequer, and his new home secretary is priti patel, a right darlin' of a woman. this is priti: I spent 20 years of my life fighting against the death penalty in other countries. I never thought that in the 21st century I would see a Home Secretary of the United Kingdom who believes in capital punishment. pic.twitter.com/P4wsChXmLI — Keir Starmer (@Keir_Starmer) July 25, 2019 who was it who had offered a select few witnesses immunity from criminal prosecution testily against julian, whether to add more charges or prove them, i've forgotten. but i'm close to positive that the alleged CIA vault 7 (and a portion of 8) joshua schulte was one of them. given that assange has always said that those leaks are why this administration (pompeo) is really after him... who can say? the only person who's written about him is marcy wheeler, afaik, but as she's been russia-gate/mueller-gate central, i kinda breezed thru her recent 'report' on schulte. but i will say that it sure made me chuckle that one of her commenters was high as a kite that 'we' (as he'd said) 'are the true investigating team!' oh, and not knowing, i'd checked, and the next regularly scheduled election for PM is may 5, 2022 (unless no confidence votes, etc.).

Submitted by wendy davis on Mon, 08/05/2019 - 8:56am

loves her some maggie thatcher, too.

@Alligator Ed

sure, a lying politician, but with a few extra genuflections toward likkud israel. but as boris is quite trump-esque in so many ways, it's no surprise. i'm still wondering what part miz priti 'death penalty as a deterrent' can or will play in assange's extradition hearing and decision. but doesn't she look a lot like miz gabbard in that photo?

i'd love to know which judge will preside over the 5-day hearing, though. i will say that i hope he'll still be alive and compos mentis in belmarsh gitmo by then. as a side note, grenfell says that his 50-week sentence will be up in sept. and he'll be able to have a laptop, attorney visits, but i'd thought that his 50 weeks had begun on april 11, so...beats me. (i'm not good at arithmetic nor time any longer.)

#8 Following the success of the "Leave" vote in the EU referendum, Cameron resigned, resulting in a leadership contest within the party. Patel openly supported Theresa May as his successor, claiming that she had the "strength and experience" for the job, while arguing that May's main challenger Andrea Leadsom would prove too divisive to win a general election.[51] In November 2017, Patel was critical of the UK government Brexit negotiations and stated: "I would have told the EU in particular to sod off with their excessive financial demands".[52] On 3 November 2017, the BBC's Diplomatic correspondent James Landale broke the news that Patel had held meetings in Israel in August 2017 without telling the Foreign Office. She was accompanied by Lord Polak, honorary president of Conservative Friends of Israel (CFI). The meetings, up to a dozen in number, took place while Patel was on a "private holiday". Patel met Yair Lapid, the leader of Israel's centrist Yesh Atid party, and reportedly made visits to several organisations where official departmental business was discussed. The BBC reported that "According to one source, at least one of the meetings was held at the suggestion of the Israeli ambassador to London. In contrast, British diplomats in Israel were not informed about Ms Patel's plans."[62] It was also reported that, following the meetings, Patel had recommended that the Department for International Development give international aid money to field hospitals run by the Israeli army in the Golan Heights. Although these hospitals have been described by the British Prime Minister's official spokesman as "provid[ing] medical support for Syrian refugees",[63] Israeli officials have refused to identify who they treat in them, and whether they are regime forces, rebels or civilians.[64] Western media reports suggest that Israel is aiding and funding Syrian opposition organisations in the Syrian civil war.[65][66] Wikipedia goes on to report that calls for her resignation were made due to unauthorized visits to Israel, perhaps a British version of the Hatch Act. So, she is revealed (surprise) to be a lying politician--like all the rest. Giving Palestinians aid by building military hospitals for the Israelis in the Golan.

Submitted by Alligator Ed on Mon, 08/05/2019 - 5:43pm

Don't let the resemblance fool ya

@wendy davis Snark. I know it won't. Even the Camel looks human but she is an an android just as much as the Evil Queen, within whom a beating heart does not reside.

Submitted by lotlizard on Mon, 08/05/2019 - 1:53am

How about Israelgate? Going all the way back to the USS Liberty.

Congress, the media, and Marcy Wheeler really ought to look into Israelgate.

I should live so long.