Wednesday, July 01, 2020

Happy Canada Day 2020 #CANADADAY

Stop the Corporocrats from buying our governments whether they're Cons, Libs, NDP, etc.

Call it what it is: Treason because it undermines our democratic processes.

Yes this my 2013 Canada Day post recycled because nothing has changed.

#ReElectNobody #VotePirateParty #VoteIndependents

Monday, November 11, 2019

Remember Our Vets #Remembrance Day #Nov11

Atheists in foxholes, some say they are myths,
Creations of the mind who just don't exist.

Yet, they answered the call to defend, with great pride.
With reason their watchword, they bled and they died.

They took Saratoga from the British crown,
Secured America's freedom at the Battle of Yorktown.

From Sumter to Appomattox, fields flowed with their blood.
When the cannons grew silent, the flag proudly stood.

From the Marne to the Argonne, in trenches and tanks,
They defeated the Germans -- the whole world gave thanks.

They were bombed at Pearl Harbor, fought on to Berlin.
Many freethinking women served along with the men.

Still war keeps erupting -- Iraq, Bosnia, and Kosovo.
Where is the peace that eludes people so?

It is broken by tyrants who bear crosses and creeds,
That overshadow reason with hate and cruel deeds.

So atheists prevail until your work is complete.
Mothers mourn, children cry, and bigots plan your defeat.

By air, land, and sea, you answer freedom's call.
Without god or faith, you seek liberty for all.

Monday, May 20, 2019

Critique of the Class Conscious article on #Unity4J

A call-to-action video by ▂▃▅▇█▓▒░Anon(Ḧḭṽḕ)░▒▓█▇▅▃▂
Originally Uploaded at:

Originally published August 29, 2018. Republished May 20, 2019.

Now that the August 26 events are over, I'm going to address the recent Class Conscious critique of the #Unity4J movement. 

My critique of the Class Conscious article (like my Twitter feed) reflects my personal opinions and is neither an official or unofficial position of Unity4J nor any other organization or persons I'm affiliated with. These opinions are my own and I stand by them on my own.

I'm a Freethinker and don't follow any ideology, so I don't have a horse running in the ideological rat race. Most of my positions, when summarized on Political Compass put me in the center of the Left Libertarian spectrum.

This following critique is not a personal or any other kind of attack on Davey Heller or Class Conscious but rather an attempt to engage with them on this very important issue and perhaps come to a common understanding. Even if we are unable to do that, it will be a good exercise in understanding each others positions and hopefully remaining on good terms despite any unresolvable differences.

Note that Davey Heller has been claiming, behind the scenes, that I have not responded to his critique despite the fact that he was tagged when this post was originally published. Nor has he made any effort to engage in any rational discussion on this serious topic.

In a world of divide and conquer, unity is the ultimate act of resistance

My main criticism of the position presented in the article can be summarized as follows:
The analysis over-generalizes and doesn't differentiate between the right which are Empire Loyalists and the right which aren't Empire Loyalists and openly criticize the Empire. Nor does it differentiate between open neo-nazis/white supremacists, the goon squads of the Empire, and right wing ignorance and bigotry. All of these are conflated together into a huge mash of alleged fascist evil without any understanding of their role in class and social relationships.

It's ironic as well as a significant oversight for any organization that claims to be socialist, publishing on a site which calls itself Class Conscious, that their article doesn't recognize or address the role of class relations in their analysis and critique of Unity4J's position, that we can and should unite to defend Julian, irrespective of ideology.

Major errors in reasoning will always occur when an analysis of a concept or cause is based on the people involved rather than the objective conditions that gave rise to the necessity for the cause. Then, within that context evaluate the role people are playing within it. 

It's the very definition of the Argumentum Ad Hominem logical fallacy to center an argument on persons rather than positions.

A socialist, who doesn't also include a class analysis within that perspective is, by definition, not providing a socialist analysis, since class is the key factor to any socialist perspective. 

These are precisely the errors that the article makes and why, in my opinion, the reasoning is so flawed and the conclusion so wrong, even from a socialist perspective. 

The real issue, the reality that we are facing today is the global elite, the Empire, is creating a world-wide architecture for global fascism. They have been financing all sides of the major political parties (left, center and right) to ensure that their Loyalists are elected and their policies implemented, irrespective of which party ideology has power at any given time. Goldman Sachs gave large contributions to both the Democrats and the Republicans during the 2016 US  election. Onex Corporation did the same in Canada.

Goldman Sachs contributions surge despite attacks
Following the money: Is Bay Street backing Thomas Mulcair?

This is why we are seeing very similar policies being implemented around the world in the form of anti-terrorist legislation, loosened controls on Intelligence Agencies, and the manufactured consent for the acceptability of the concept of "domestic terrorism". It's why legitimate dissent is now treated as a crime. In recent news, protesters engaged in legitimate dissent have been charged as terrorists. This is a first but expect this to become the norm. It's the direction the Empire is taking us.

Activists are being charged under terrorism laws for the first time in Britain – this sets a dangerous precedent

We can also see this occurring as a conflict in the UK where Jeremy Corbyn is under serious attack by the Israel Lobby because he won't fall into line with the agenda of the Empire which includes propping up Israeli hegemony in the Middle East. Will MI5 and MI6 act on this obvious interference in the internal political affairs of the UK, by a foreign power and it's agents of influence? No, because they are part of the state machine which is currently under the control of the Empire. Their real job is to support it's agenda and not to defend National Security as they claim. If they were defending National Security, there would be Espionage charges laid.

The Empire is doing all of this because it has a very deep understanding of how unity, irrespective of ideology, works and has focused on that approach quite successfully. The only basis of unity the Empire requires is that you be a good Loyalist by implementing/supporting/amplifying the Empire's policies, keep their secrets, and don't question, expose or otherwise interfere with their agenda to implement global fascism. It doesn't care whether you're pro-choice or anti-abortion, love or hate LGBTQs, etc. etc. Just don't mess with their key agenda and it's all good.

Trump's basic problem is that he's a crony capitalist and while he's loyal to the Empire, he also has his own agenda of crony capitalism which he wants to implement. This has the potential of creating problems for the Empire at this particular moment in history. As a result, the Empire has mobilized the Deep State to get him under control. Failing that, they'll come up with a way to get rid of him. This state machine acts for whoever controls it. Today it is controlled by the Empire, the global elite and implements it's policies.

RussiaGate allows the Deep State, acting on behalf of the Empire, to kill two birds with one stone. Discredit Trump and back Hillary's rather pathetic and lame excuses for losing the 2016 election. 

I've never disputed the allegations regarding Russia hacking the US, the DNC and anyone else they could hack and I don't doubt there is reams of evidence to support that. Nor do I doubt that there is reams of evidence to support allegations that Trump colluded with Russia. There may well be. There's certainly evidence to show that Hillary colluded with Russia and even more to show that Feinstein and others colluded with China. 

There is no evidence that I'm aware of that supports the allegation that WikiLeaks' email release was the result of such a hack or that there was collusion between WikiLeaks, Trump and Russia.

The allegations that the Don Jr. / WikiLeaks chats were "evidence" of collusion is rebutted quite well in this article: No, Julian Assange is NOT a Fascist. The author demonstrates quite clearly that WikiLeaks was simply doing their job as journalists. There was no indication of collusion of any kind.

Hillary alleges that Russia sabotaged her in collusion with WikiLeaks, rather than face the harsh reality that she lost because she's corrupt, abused her power, and got exposed by her own words. Her interference in the election, the sabotage of Bernie's campaign and the amplification of Trumps in the hope that Trump would be considered too crazy to vote for, backfired on her. The attempts to entrap Assange into appearing to be a Russian agent failed and were also exposed.

Hillary was the Empire's preferred candidate and they did everything possible to try to get her elected. Unfortunately for them, Hillary's corruption and abuses of power were so thoroughly exposed in her own words, in thousands of emails, released by WikiLeaks, that people voted against her. She wasn't the preferred candidate of the Empire because she was a DEM. She was the preferred candidate because she understood, complied with, and was committed to supporting the agenda of the global elite, the Empire. 

Trump, on the other hand, is a loose cannon and wants to fulfill his own agenda of crony capitalism as well. An agenda which is creating certain problems with the implementation of the agenda of the Empire. It's partially aligned with benefitting him directly and his personal friends. So, it's in his interests to maintain the peace with Russia whereas the Empire has openly sided with the fascist elements in the Ukraine and wants to bring down Russia to loosen it's control in key areas like oil. 

This doesn't make Trump disloyal to the Empire. He is, in fact, a component part of the Empire. It's simply an internal difference of opinion on certain specific issues within the Empire and the most influential will win this internal battle.

It's apparent to me:
1. The agenda of the Empire is to further develop their architecture of fascism globally. 
2. The goal of this fascist agenda is to suppress any resistance to their main agenda of feeding the war machine to continue making trillions for the military industrial complex, coming up with new and creative ways to rob the taxpayer, etc. 
3. The Empire has no regard for the destruction of the economy and the extreme hardship imposed on the people.
4. The Empire Loyalists will remain loyal and committed to this agenda because they benefit socially and financially if they do.

Given that both the GOP and the DEMs as stated before are being financed by the same segments of the Empire and given that the same agendas were implemented by Bush, Obama and now Trump, it should be obvious that over-generalizations about Trump, the person, being a fascist, and his policies being fascist, while not entirely false, don't represent the full picture. 

In addition, all of the arguments used to say Trump is a fascist can also be applied to Obama and Bush. The reason for that isn't that they are all "Hitlers" as individuals. The reason for that is that they all follow(ed) the agenda of the global elite which includes building the architecture of fascism and imposing it on the people. So, Trump, in reality, is no more or less fascistic in terms of the policies he's implementing than Bush and Obama were. In fact, Obama was the one who laid the foundation for much of what Trump is now doing. 

The full picture is that it wouldn't have mattered who got elected, the key agenda would have been implemented. Even Bernie would have had to tow the line because the DEMs had already been bought and paid for by the Empire.

It's the Empire that is imposing fascism on all of us, and it's Loyalists and goon squads are required to tow it's line. While they do so they will both benefit and be protected from the consequences of their actions. The most obvious expression of this protection is the police protection provided to the neo-nazis and white supremacists and the police reliance on their snitching on Antifa. 

One of the arguments that I've come across has been that the rise of these neo-nazi and white supremacist groups occurred with Trump and that he was facilitating them. This is only the case in the US. Globally these groups have been establishing their presence for at least 5 years now and they won't be going away if Trump is ousted nor will the police stop protecting them. Their presence is part of the agenda of the global elite.

So the real battle isn't between DEMS vs GOP, progressives vs reactionaries, left vs right, etc.

The real battle is between the Empire and it's Loyalists (which include it's goon squads of neo-nazis and white supremacists) versus those who resist the Empire.

There are people in both the left and the right spectrums who resist the Empire, criticize it's agenda and refuse to be it's loyal servants. And while there might be elements on the left, right and center, who will show support to some parts of the agenda, usually out of ignorance or being self-serving, they strongly resist other parts, like the incursions on our civil rights, and on those grounds show their disloyalty.

Martin Luther King emphasized this point repeatedly during the Civil Rights Movement and while he was a Christian, he was also a socialist and spoke up on behalf of the white oppressed and white poor of America (where racism ran rampant). The Black Panthers did the same. They actively opposed the ideologies of Identity politics and Victimization which tried to create divisions under the banners of Black Nationalism, third wave style Feminism (which existed but was rejected at the time by second wave feminist activists) et al.

Chicago 1969: When Black Panthers aligned with Confederate-flag-wielding, working-class whites

Rejecting the divide and rule politics was what led to the successes of the Civil Rights Movement.

Yes we're fighting the same battles today that we fought in the 1960s (with variations on the theme and in a much more dangerous, turbulent and complicated environment). We aren't doing this because we failed in the 1960s. 

We are doing this because we became apathetic after our victories and allowed the elites to encroach further and further into the state, taking over control, and chipping away at our civil rights, our salaries, our tax purse, buying our unions, etc. 

We believed the lies. We fell for the con.

So, now, today, we have to fight the same battle, and we have to do it by uniting everyone who is not an Empire Loyalist against the Empire whether it's to free Julian Assange, protect our press freedoms, protect our civil rights, or anything else that is being threatened and impacts all of us. 

We don't have to agree on anything else. In fact, it wouldn't be a mass movement if it consisted only of people who agreed on ideology, or had particular orientations in common.

That doesn't mean everyone has to go to the same protests or be involved in the same activities. It doesn't pre-empt the left or the right from holding their own rallies where they invite their own supporters, etc. It simply means we show solidarity for the same cause. 

In this case, it means that we show solidarity with anyone who agrees with Freeing Julian Assange, whose rights, which are being violated, are directly connected to protecting Press Freedoms and Free Speech. Two concepts that are critical to a functioning democracy and today are under threat.

Let's not forget that Free Speech and Freedom of the Press were the first rights to be suppressed when Hitler attained absolute power in Nazi Germany.

"There is unity in the oppression. There must be absolute unity and determination in the response." ~Julian Assange


“Power is mostly the illusion of power. The Pentagon demanded we destroy our publications. We kept publishing. Clinton denounced us and said we were an attack on the entire “international community”. We kept publishing. I was put in prison and under house arrest. We kept publishing. We went head to head with the NSA getting Edward Snowden out of Hong Kong, we won and got him asylum. Clinton tried to destroy us and was herself destroyed. Elephants, it seems, can be brought down with string. Perhaps there are no elephants.” ~Julian Assange

Now, for a socialist to comprehend this in terms they understand and using their rhetoric, just change the following terms:  
Empire = global bourgeoisie, 
Loyalists = global petit bourgeoisie and fascist goon squads of neo-nazis and white supremacists
Deep State = state machine of each country

Julian's Freedom
Performed by Antibody 11-11
Music, Lyrics and Vocals by Stu Linnell

Follow @unity4J on Twitter
Donate to Courage Foundation's WikiLeaks Legal Defense Fund
Get the facts on the Assange and WikiLeaks case

Wednesday, May 15, 2019

And Justice For All?

Originally published January 21, 2013

Just to be perfectly clear, I’m not a lawyer. My approach is to examine what I personally consider to be misconduct based on a layman’s interpretation of the existing legal standards and nothing more. Only a legal expert (lawyer, judge, etc.) would be qualified to determine whether an illegal act or one which constitutes misconduct has actually occurred.

That said, there have been several high profile cases in the news recently which are closely connected to demands for transparency and freedom of access to information and where corruption of our judicial system appears to be in the works.
  1. Julian Assange of WikiLeaks, the site which leaks information provided by whistleblowers and/or hackers from around the world. Mr. Assange has not been charged with any crime;
  2. Bradley Manning, charged with providing secret information to WikiLeaks;
  3. Jeremy Hammond, charges related to the Stratfor hack; and
  4. Aaron Swartz, charges related to the MIT/JSTOR hack; Mr. Swartz allegedly committed suicide and the charges against him have since been withdrawn.
 The specific charges don’t really matter in this context. What matters is how each of these cases are being/were handled by the Prosecution and/or Judge involved.

Julian Assange
In between WikiLeaks first major public release of data and their second major public release of data, Mr. Assange was investigated for alleged and very minor sex “crimes”. Acts so minor that they would not be considered crimes in most other countries and which rest almost entirely on personal testimony rather than objective, verifiable evidence. Mr. Assange was interviewed while in Sweden regarding those claims, no charges were laid and Mr. Assange’s freedom to leave Sweden was not restricted.

I could get into the sheer stupidity of these particular laws which allowed this situation to occur but I’m going to leave that alone for now. Anyone who knows the specifics knows how completely idiotic this entire thing is from start to finish. All I can say is that I strongly suggest that any male visiting Sweden not make the mistake of having sex there. Seriously.

Around the time of the second major leak, while Mr. Assange was in London, UK, the Prosecutor claimed that a second interview was required. Mr. Assange agreed to the interview but wanted to remain in the UK and either conduct it through a video feed or have the Prosecutor come to the UK to conduct it.

Mr. Assange was well within his rights to make such a request and the acceptance or denial of the request was a matter of Prosecutorial discretion. That is the prosecutor could have acceded to the request but wasn’t required to by law.

The Prosecutor exercised their discretion by insisting that the interview had to be conducted in Sweden but provided no explanation as to why this was necessary.

Meanwhile, it was discovered through the Stratfor hack that a Grand Jury had met in the US and had secretly indicted Mr. Assange.

The only reasonable conclusion one can come to which might explain the Prosecutor’s refusal to accede to the reasonable accommodations requested by Julian Assange, is that Sweden has agreed to extradite him to the US to face the charges laid against him there.

Is this Prosecutorial misconduct? And on what grounds?
“Prosecutorial misconduct is conduct which violates court rules or ethical standards of law practice.” (See detailed definitions at the end of the post).
In my opinion, if Sweden is using Prosecutorial discretion as their means of trying to get Julian Assange back to Sweden on false grounds (the allegations made against him for which he hasn’t been charged) and in order to act against him by extraditing him to the US it certainly would “violate …  the ethical standards of law practice”.

In order to restore the confidence in and perception of justice of the Swedish legal system all the Swedish Prosecutor has to do is interview Assange by video from the Ecuadorian Embassy and then either charge him or close the investigation.

The misconduct here and potential for further misconduct is patently obvious if they continue to refuse this reasonable and simple solution.

Bradley Manning
(Note: At the time I wrote this, Chelsea Manning was using her birth name, Bradley and birth gender. It wasn't until much later that she requested her gender transition be recognized).

Bradley Manning, a member of the US military, was arrested and charged with allegedly leaking secret information to WikiLeaks.

He was held in what can only be described as tortuous conditions for nine months between, July 2010 and April 2011. He continues to be held without bail and awaiting trial. He was arrested in May, 2010 and his trial will begin in June, 2013 after pre-trial hearings in February, 2013 are complete. (Trial Date Correction. 2013.01.23)

In this case Prosecutorial discretion was invoked in determining the charges which, according to the defense amounted to an attempt to intimidate Mr. Manning into testifying against Julian Assange by overcharging him based on overstating the alleged harm that occurred.

According to the Prosecution it’s perfectly acceptable to exaggerate charges and keep someone in prison without bail for approximately 2 years and 7 months. It will be over 3 years by the time the case is finally heard. A final ruling on whether the case will be dismissed on the grounds that it violates Manning's right to a speedy trial will be made at the end of February. (Correction based on new information)

Are these the “ethical standards of law practice” that the US commonly adheres to or are they simply acceptable depending on who the defendant is?

Jeremy Hammond
Jeremy Hammond’s case is perhaps the clearest of all.

Mr. Hammond was charged for the Stratfor hack.

Ironically, the Trial Judge was the spouse of a Stratfor client who has apparently and to date refused to recuse herself from the case. She insists it be dealt with in court.

If this Trial Judge does not recuse herself, in my opinion, it will be a clear and obvious case of Judicial Misconduct for which she should be removed from the bench.
“The recusal of a judge may be requested:
Where he himself or his spouse has a personal interest in the dispute;”
(See detailed definitions at the end of the post).
 Aaron Swartz
Aaron Swartz is the saddest of all.

Mr. Swartz was charged with the JSTOR/MIT hack.

According to his family, Mr. Swartz was pursued by the Prosecution to such a degree that he committed suicide. Apparently this is the second Hacker this particular Prosecutor has driven to suicide.

The fact that two of this Prosecutor’s defendants met the same fate says a lot about how he handles his cases and defendants in general. And while it’s possible that this isn’t technically considered misconduct one has to wonder why it's not acceptable to do the following to witnesses and is considered misconduct:
“Threatening, badgering or tampering with witnesses;”
But it’s apparently okay to do that to the defendant? How is one an “ethical standard of law practice.” and the other not?

One of the most basic premises in law is supposed to be “presumed innocent until proven guilty” so how do we rationalize treating defendants like criminals before they’ve been convicted, or in the case of Julian Assange before he’s even been charged with anything?
“Any person charged with an offence has the right ... to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal.” --Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

Definitions ------------------------------------------------------------------------
A legal presumption that benefits a defendant in a criminal case and which results in acquittal in the event that the prosecutor does not prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Any person charged with an offence has the right ... to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal.

That individuals, persons and government shall submit to, obey and be regulated by law, and not arbitrary action by an individual or a group of individuals.

Fundamental procedural legal safeguards of which every citizen has an absolute right when a state or court purports to take a decision that could affect any right of that citizen.

Discretionary powers exercised by the government's prosecution service such as whether to prosecute charge recommended by police, to stay an ongoing proceeding, plea bargaining, or the taking over of a private prosecution.

Prosecutorial misconduct is conduct which violates court rules or ethical standards of law practice. Examples, among others, may include:
Courtroom misconduct (making improper remarks or improperly introducing evidence designed to prejudice the jury: violating rules regarding selection of the jury; or making improper closing arguments);
Hiding, destroying or tampering with evidence, case files or court records;
Failing to disclose evidence that might tend to exonerate the defendant
Threatening, badgering or tampering with witnesses;
Presenting false or misleading evidence;
Selective or vindictive prosecution
Denial of a speedy trial rights
Use of unreliable and untruthful witnesses and snitches

Conduct on the part of a judge that is prohibited and which could lead to a form of discipline.
.... conduct prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts, or (an inability) to discharge all the duties of office by reason of mental or physical disability.
(A) judge's conduct must be free from impropriety and the appearance of impropriety and that both his official and personal behavior be in accordance with the highest standard society can expect. The standard of conduct is higher than expected of lay people and also higher than that expected of attorneys. The ultimate standard must be conduct which constantly reaffirms fitness for the high responsibilities of judicial office, and judges must so comport themselves as to dignify the administration of justice and deserve the confidence and respect of the public.


The use of a harsh and angry tone and demeanor,
Excessive arrogance,
Lack of impartiality,
Improper political or even charitable or fund-raising activities,
Sexually harassing conduct,
Off-the-record, private communication with a litigant about a pending case,
Criminal conduct,
Conflict of interest,
An ethnic or racial slur,
Physical or mental disability,
Bankruptcy or insolvency,
Misuse of prestige of office,
Allowing cameras in the courtroom,
Receiving a bribe or gift from a litigant,
Making it public comment on a pending case or which shows prejudgment
Failure to recuse oneself in an appropriate case, and
Administrative mismanagement such as a failure to render a judgment in a reasonable amount of time.

The recusal of a judge may be requested:
    Where he himself or his spouse has a personal interest in the dispute;
    Where he himself or his spouse is the creditor, debtor, presumed heir or donee of one of the parties;
    Where he himself or his spouse is related by blood or marriage with one of the parties or his or her spouse up to the fourth degree of kinship inclusive;
    Where there have been or have proceedings between himself or his spouse and with one of the parties or his or her spouse;
    Where he has, previously, had knowledge of the matter in the capacity of a judge or arbitrator or where the has counseled one of the parties;
    Where the judge or his spouse is entrusted of the administration of the property of one of the parties;
    Where there exists a link of subordination between the judge or his spouse and one of the parties or his or her spouse;
    Where there has been a notorious friendship or enmity between the judge and one of the parties....
"The party who wishes to recuse a judge shall have, on pain of inadmissibility, to do so as soon as he has knowledge of a ground of recusal.
"In no case may the request for recusal be made after the end of the oral arguments."

All of the above definitions are American. However, since American and Canadian law is somewhat based on British law I don’t expect the definitions to differ too greatly between countries nor have I bothered to check.

These definitions are intended to be nothing more than a general guide to this discussion.

Wednesday, October 17, 2018

The Recent Defamation of #WikiLeaks and #JulianAssange, Part 2

The Recent Defamation of #WikiLeaks and #JulianAssange, Part 1 introduced the topic of the recently published AP leaks related to WikiLeaks and built a case around the first document being fraudulent or at the very least unauthenticated.

This case was built around the document properties provided by AP in their attempt to authenticate the document, the context in which the document appeared on the scene as well as the person WikiLeaks believes created the document, Sigurdur Thordarson.

In Part 1, I concluded that WikiLeaks assessment was the one most likely to be correct given all of the facts that are publicly available to us. That is, the document was most likely a forgery created by Sigurdur Thordarson and the allegation that it "proved" Julian Assange was trying to flee to Russia was just a baseless confabulation.

Note that the Russian Embassy released a statement on September 26, 2018 (two days before Part 1 was published) confirming WikiLeaks denial. So this entire issue is now done.
The embassy has never engaged with Ecuadorean colleagues, or with anyone else, in discussions on any kind of Russian participation in ending Mr Assange’s stay within the diplomatic mission of Ecuador.- Julian Assange and Russia’s UK embassy. The Guardian, September 24, 2018
Ivan Volodin, at the Russian embassy in London, responds to a Guardian article reporting that Russian diplomats held secret talks about helping Julian Assange flee the UK

Israel Shamir has been directly associated with the document as allegedly having been the recipient who was responsible for obtaining a Russian visa for Julian Assange. There is no evidence to support this, given that the document itself isn't authenticated properly, is a forgery, according to WikiLeaks, and the Russians state unequivocally that there has never been any discussion with anyone regarding "ending Mr. Assange's stay within the diplomatic mission of Ecuador".

The AP (Associated Press) article also claims that Shamir has stated the following in a telephone interview:

Shamir told the AP he was plagued by memory problems and couldn’t remember delivering Assange’s letter or say whether he eventually got the visa on Assange’s behalf.

“I can’t possibly exclude that it happened,” Shamir said in a telephone interview. “I have a very vague memory of those things.”  
Shamir’s memory appeared sharper during a January 20, 2011, interview with Russian News Service radio — a Moscow-based station now known as Life Zvuk, or Life Sound. Shamir said he’d personally brokered a Russian visa for Assange, but that it had come too late to rescue him from the sex crimes investigation.
However, they don't provide a reference link to the interview so that statement can be verified, nor has Shamir confirmed the statement they attribute to him in the telephone interview anywhere that I could find.

What Israel Shamir said or didn't say is now irrelevant anyway given the tweet from the Russian Embassy and the statement by the Russian Embassy in the Guardian, quoted above.

His last blog post related to Assange is this one: The Long Captivity of Julian Assange by Israel Shamir • June 21, 2018 

Given that the conspiracy theories surrounding his part of the story are fascinating (actually laughable), I feel obligated to rehash this part of the story for the sole purpose of demonstrating how disinformation campaigns like this work.

Part 1 has provided you with some insight on how "evidence" is concocted and misrepresented deceptively as the foundation of a disinformation campaign.

While I didn't present it in that context, it is actually how it works.

So, now, in the case of Shamir's part of the story:

Shamir was one of many journalists with access to portions of the WikiLeaks database for journalistic research purposes. He had no formal relationship with WikiLeaks other than that, nor was there any long term relationship between him and Julian Assange, according to WikiLeaks.

WikiLeaks statement that was given to, but not used by, the UK satirical current-affairs magazine, Private Eye: 
Israel Shamir has never worked or volunteered for WikiLeaks, in any manner, whatsoever. He has never written for WikiLeaks or any associated organization, under any name and we have no plan that he do so. He is not an 'agent' of WikiLeaks. He has never been an employee of WikiLeaks and has never received monies from WikiLeaks or given monies to WikiLeaks or any related organization or individual. However, he has worked for the BBC, Haaretz, and many other reputable organizations. 
It is false that Shamir is 'an Assange intimate'. He interviewed Assange (on behalf of Russian media), as have many journalists. He took a photo at that time and has only met with WikiLeaks staff (including Assange) twice. It is false that 'he was trusted with selecting the 250,000 US State Department cables for the Russian media' or that he has had access to such at any time. 
Shamir was able to search through a limited portion of the cables with a view to writing articles for a range of Russian media. The media that subsequently employed him did so of their own accord and with no intervention or instruction by WikiLeaks. 
We do not have editorial control over the of hundreds of journalists and publications based on our materials and it would be wrong for us to seek to do so. We do not approve or endorse the writings of the world's media. We disagree with many of the approaches taken in analyzing our material. 

Index did contact WikiLeaks as have many people and organisations do for a variety of reasons. The quote used here is not complete. WikiLeaks also asked Index for further information on this subject. Most of these rumors had not, and have not, been properly corroborated. WikiLeaks therefore asked Index to let us know if they had received any further information on the subject. This would have helped WikiLeaks conduct further inquiries. We did not at the time, and never have, received any response.

One photograph was taken with Shamir and Assange together, a common practice when people meet well-known people.

"Shamir has a years-long friendship with Assange, and was privy to the contents of tens of thousands of US diplomatic cables months before WikiLeaks made public the full cache. Such was Shamir's controversial nature that Assange introduced him to WikiLeaks staffers under a false name. Known for views held by many to be antisemitic, Shamir aroused the suspicion of several WikiLeaks staffers – myself included – when he asked for access to all cable material concerning "the Jews", a request which was refused." - Israel Shamir and Julian Assange's cult of machismo by James Ball 

The claim that Shamir was a close associate of Assange is denied by WikiLeaks. The only "evidence" provided to support it is this single image of them sitting together. By that absurd standard, Tommy Douglas, father of Canada's Health Care system was my bestie because there's one picture of me with him when I met him as a teenager and was a member of the New Democratic Youth.

Absurd as it is, this deception has become the foundation for numerous confabulations to discredit Assange using the Guilt by Association fallacy as an Argumentum Ad Hominem attack. This demagogic style of argumentation is a key component of any Propaganda arsenal.

One example of this is the false allegation that, Assange is allegedly antisemitic and right-wing because he allegedly has a close, long term relationship with Shamir who is allegedly an antisemite and holocaust denier.

" I wrote hundreds of pages on the Jewish topic, but for the benefit of the reader I’ll sum it up. Naturally, as a son of Jewish parents and a man living in the Jewish state and deeply and intimately involved with Jewish culture, I harbour no hate to a Jew because he is a Jew. I doubt many people do. However I did and do criticise various aspects of Jewish Weltanschauung like so many Jewish and Christian thinkers before me, or even more so for I witnessed crimes of the Jewish state that originated in this worldview. 
As for the accusation of “Holocaust denial”, my family lost too many of its sons and daughters for me to deny the facts of Jewish tragedy, but I do deny its religious salvific significance implied in the very term ‘Holocaust’; I do deny its metaphysical uniqueness, I do deny the morbid cult of Holocaust and I think every God-fearing man, a Jew, a Christian or a Muslim should reject it as Abraham rejected and smashed idols. I deny that it is good to remember or immortalise such traumatic events, and I wrote many articles against modern obsession with massacres, be it Jewish holocaust of 1940s, Armenian massacre of 1915, Ukrainian “holodomor”, Polish Katyn, Khmer Rouge etc. Poles, Armenians, Ukrainians understood me, so did Jews – otherwise I would be charged with the crime of factual denial which is known to the Israeli law." - Israel Shamir 
It's the right wing extremist element in Israel and their supporters in the Israel Lobby, that is pushing this propaganda that any criticism of Israel constitutes "antisemitism". Jeremy Corbyn, a man who has a long history of fighting against fascism and antisemitism is also being falsely accused of being an "antisemite" by that same element.

To understand this issue in depth, I recommend the recent Al Jazeera film, The Lobby which exposes the dark underbelly of the Lobby in the UK.

Segments of the US version, which has been banned, have also been leaked to various sites.

So, back to the main topic, and to summarize this section:
  1. the disinformation is spread about Shamir that he is an alleged antisemite, holocaust denier which implies he's right wing
  2. a foundation is built by spreading that falsehood everywhere
  3. that becomes the foundation for disinformation attacks on Assange by association, that is, since Assange has "friends" who are allegedly right wing,antisemite, holocaust deniers then he must be as well.
The claim that Shamir had access to thousands of US diplomatic cables is based on the above allegations by James Ball, a WikiLeaks intern from November 23, 2010 to December 15, 2010. In February, 2011 he became a full-time journalist for the Guardian. The job with the Guardian gave him an unprecedented platform from which he could establish his false narrative as an alleged witness to Shamir's activities in relation to WikiLeaks and Assange. That narrative consisted of exaggerations, spins, and, according to Shamir, outright lies, intended to give the false impression that Shamir had more access to the cables than other journalists.

WikiLeaks, in their statement quoted above, has stated clearly that his access was the same as that of other journalists.

If Shamir had unrestricted access to the cables (implied by Ball), why would he have to ask Ball for cables about "the Jews", as Ball also claims? He wouldn't have to.

The "interest" in those cables appears to have been a fabrication by James Ball, as a set-up, so that a foundation could be created for later allegations. Ball, and the other media writing these stories, simply ignore the inherent contradictions in Ball's story when they use it as a foundation for later false allegations. 

Shamir states that he received cables related to Minsk and Moscow from James Ball and that Ball offered them to him on his own initiative, not at Shamir's request.
You [James Ball] did it even twice: just before my departure you came to me on your own initiative and kindly handed me "a better file on Jews", twice as big as the previous one. Apparently lying and cheating is your second nature by now.

Ball continues to build on this smear:

Still later, when damning evidence emerged that Shamir had handed cables material to the dictator of Belarus – a man he holds in high esteem – to assist his persecution of opposition activists, Assange shamefully refused to investigate. Israel Shamir and Julian Assange's cult of machismo by James Ball 
This part of the story was built on the foundational false narrative established by Ball re: the " access to all cable material concerning "the Jews"" and the "was privy to the contents of tens of thousands of US diplomatic cables" plus the following image was "evidence" that Shamir had been in Minsk. 

Shamir was photographed by an Interfax photographer on the steps of the Belarus Presidential Administation Building in Minsk earlier today.

In this CounterPunch article, Shamir explains what he was doing in Minsk (International Observer to the Elections) and his position on Belarus. His mother is from Minsk which explains his interest in the region: The Minsk Election in a Wikileaks Mirror by Israel Shamir

This particular story is quite complex but has been examined in depth in this article: The Guardian and WikiLeaks, Hazel Press, January 19, 2013. To understand this issue I recommend you read the article.

The author, after an in-depth analysis concludes that the allegation that Shamir handed cables over to Lukashenko to damage the Belarus opposition is baseless. There isn't a shred of hard evidence to support it. This image combined with articles which appear to be based on nothing more than unsupported assertions, assumptions, exaggerations and spin, are the combined total of the evidence.

The article is a recommended read to get a solid grasp of what happened, when and why.

One of the very interesting points made in the article is to demonstrate how one false allegation gets built by using other false allegations as their foundation. You can see this by clicking through the links the articles reference to try to locate the original source. When you find the original source you can see that the entire narrative is built on sand since the original sources don't offer any evidence of their claims.

Guilt by association is used to smear Assange here as well. Once the narrative was established by Ball, that Shamir had allegedly handed cables over to the Belarus government, led by Lukashenko, Assange and WikiLeaks were then falsely accused of putting dissidents at risk.

The facts, according to the Hazel Press article above, and which are substantiated, are that Charter 97, a human rights group in Belarus, had received the cables and had published articles criticizing the Lukashenko regime. The web site was DDOSd and the Belarus police raided their offices and arrested them. According to the article, this is likely how the regime got access to the cables. Andrei Sannikov, the leader of the Opposition was imprisoned by Lukashenko.

In addition, Andrei Sannikov's  sister, Irina, main spokesperson of the Free Belarus campaign, invited Julian Assange to the screening of their film, Europe's Last Dictator. Assange had been helping Belarussian dissidents in the background.

"Europe's Last Dictator" in Belarus Q&A session with Julian Assange,  part 1 of 2

If one wanted to nitpick this tempest in a teapot, one certainly could, but in the end it would be a pointless exercise. As I said in Part 1, even if it were all true and the motivation was to escape any US extradition attempt by going to Russia (and there is no foundation here to indicate that it is) ... so what?

After Ecuador granted Assange Ecuadorian citizenship & made him a diplomatic staffer to the embassy in London, Ecuadorian officials may well have discussed amongst themselves what diplomatic posting to give him, on the assumption that the UK response would be to declare him "persona non-grata" (and thus trigger Vienna Convention rules about allowing sufficient time for diplomats rejected in this same way to leave the country safely).

However, as eye-witness Craig Murray has already told us in his recent blog post on this topic "it is a fact that Julian  directly ruled out the possibility of going to Russia as undesirable".

The fact that this document referred to in this article and the others which appeared on Twitter today do indicate that Ecuadorian officials wanted to send Assange to Russia, are quite meaningless, since Assange rejected the suggestion.
"There is a ministerial agreement [at the Foreign Ministry of Ecuador], according to which Julian Assange was appointed Ecuador's diplomatic representative in Moscow," Vintimilla said.

And last but not least, you know the propagandists are desperate when they've sunk so low that all they have left is to try to divert the discussion of serious political and civil rights issues into personal attacks about Julian Assange's personal hygiene and threaten Embassy Cat.

The inevitable outcome of all of this confabulation is to support the RussiaGate confabulation that WikiLeaks and Julian Assange are allegedly in cahoots with the Russians to undermine the US. There is no evidence that demonstrates any connection between Assange and the Russians or WikiLeaks and the Russians, that would support this narrative, despite repeated attempts to create the false impression that there is.

In my humble opinion, the US is doing an excellent job of undermining themselves, as is Russia and numerous other countries around the world. None of those countries actually need any help from anyone when it comes to undermining their own democracies, economic and social systems, even if they're getting that "help" from each other. Which they probably are.

All WikiLeaks and Julian Assange have done is expose these governments own words and deeds to the people. For the first time in history, we can see globally and first hand, the destruction that is being wreaked on our societies by the global elite working in collusion with lawless governments that have gone rogue.

In order to clearly understand the problem, you have to ignore the MSM Propaganda narratives and look at the actual facts. Thanks to Julian Assange and WikiLeaks, people are starting to understand this and have actually been enabled to do this.

This is what many of the Independent and Alternative media sites have been doing and it's why they have much larger followings on Social Media than MSM sites. It's also why they're being mass-censored by Google, Facebook and now Twitter is following suit. It's a last ditch desperate attempt to save the dying MSM and maintain control over the propaganda narratives.

When you understand the problem, you can work on the solution.

Friday, September 28, 2018

The Recent Defamation of #WikiLeaks and #JulianAssange, Part 1

I’ve entitled this article “The Recent Defamation of WikiLeaks and Julian Assange” because in reality the defamation campaign against both has been going on for years. In order to write this article I had to do a deep dive into the details of what can only be described as the darkest and most deceptive rabbit hole in existence in recent years.

Given this history, the deceptions in dark places and webs of intrigues that are now occurring are beyond the pale and would rival any great spy novel. 

Anyone calling themselves a journalist, who is accepting the narrative spin being provided by the mainstream media, at face value, is proving that they don’t have the foggiest clue what real journalism is or simply don’t care. 

Let’s start by examining the AP release of ten documents from their much larger WikiLeaks leak, announced on September 17, 2018.

The first ten documents are located here on the AP Document Cloud

In their first article, AP Exclusive: WikiLeaks files expose group’s inner workings, written by Raphael Satter and published by AP on September 17, 2018, they introduced their first document. It was a letter, allegedly written by Julian Assange, giving a journalist, Israel Shamir, authority to act on Assange’s behalf to obtain a Russian visa. 

This article and the letter led to headlines in mainstream media globally about an alleged attempted escape plan by Julian Assange, to slip away to Russia.

AP and Raphael Satter, the author of the article, received a quick response from WikiLeaks refuting the authenticity of the document and identifying its source:

While I’m not a professional journalist, just a lowly blogger journalist who writes opinion pieces occasionally, it seems to me that the first rational step here, given WikiLeaks refutation, would be to find out more about Sigurdur Thordarson and Israel Shamir and their relationships with WikiLeaks. 

Make sense? Apparently not, at least not to numerous “professional” journalists writing hit pieces all over the globe which leap to unwarranted conclusions, based on assumptions regarding this one letter.

Ok, that’s not entirely true. Many did do a little “research” into Siggi (Sigurdur’s nickname) and “Israel” (not his real name). Their “research” consisted of using old hit pieces as references for their new hit pieces. 

Go “Investigative Journalism”!  

Edward R. Murrow is rolling in his grave.

As I enter the dank, dark rabbit hole, brush off the numerous spider webs, and turn on my flashlight I discover the infamous young Siggi was convicted for two years for committing embezzlement and financial fraud against WikiLeaks which included the forgery of information relating to impersonating Julian Assange. 

That’s aside from his obsession with grooming and bribing under-age minors into having sex with him. He was convicted for another 2 years for that and another two years for embezzlement and fraud against another company. 

The Judge sentenced him to prison for a total of 6 years, running concurrently and he was required to pay a total of over $200,000 USD in damages to all of the affected parties. He served 3 years and, according to the WikiLeaks Twitter account, was released recently.

Previous to his arrests and convictions, in 2011, Siggi had offered his services to the FBI to act as a paid informant within WikiLeaks.
It was then that, at about 3:30am on August 23, 2011, Thordarson sat down at his computer at home in Kópavogur and typed out a message to the US Embassy in Reykjavik. He decided he wanted to become an informant – Sigurdur Thordarson: WikiLeaks's baby-faced traitor. Sydney Morning Herald. August 16, 2013
This was what triggered the rather infamous illegal operation by the FBI in Iceland. They had attempted to sneak into Iceland under false pretenses by telling the Icelandic authorities that they were investigating breaches in the Icelandic Parliamentary computer system. They were actually there to interview Siggi and set him up formally as a paid informant in WikiLeaks. When their deception was discovered they were unceremoniously kicked out of Iceland and arranged to meet Siggi in Denmark instead.

This action is detailed in Julian Assange’s affidavit and confirmed by Iceland’s Interior Minister at the time: Jónasson: The Icelandic Minister who refused cooperation with the FBI., December 7, 2016.

Siggi has publicly admitted he turned a lot of material over to the FBI and received $5,000 USD in payment on March 18, 2012. 
According to a Justice Department receipt Thordarson says was provided by the FBI, he turned over eight hard drives in total containing of about 1 terabyte of data, which is the equivalent of about 1000 copies of the Encyclopedia Britannica. – Sigurdur Thordarson: WikiLeaks's baby-faced traitor. Sydney Morning Herald. August 16, 2013
On September, 17, 2018, after Siggi’s release from prison, AP received what appears to be the same material. Was the source Siggi? Siggi and the FBI were the ones who had the material. That fact combined with Siggi’s recent release makes a strong case that he was the one who released them to AP, possibly in collusion with the FBI, unless he retained his own copies.  

After Siggi handed the material over to the FBI on March 18, 2012, Siggi’s relationship with the FBI began to fall apart according to emails between Siggi and the FBI, which Siggi provided to the Sydney Morning Herald.
Once the agents obtained the hard drives and received the passwords to access them, Thordarson's emails suggest, they stopped responding regularly to his messages and rebuffed his attempts to set up another meeting. – Sigurdur Thordarson: WikiLeaks's baby-faced traitor. Sydney Morning Herald. August 16, 2013
The FBI agent quoted in the Sydney Morning Herald stated there were "bureaucratic issues" but doesn’t specify what they were. 
In early 2012, after a period of not responding to Thordarson's emails, his alleged FBI handler wrote that there had been "bureaucratic issues beyond my control that prevented me from maintaining contact," adding that "our relationship has been problematic for some others. This is not an ordinary case. But those were not my issues and I have been diligently trying to work out those issues so we can continue our relationship." – Sigurdur Thordarson: WikiLeaks's baby-faced traitor. Sydney Morning Herald. August 16, 2013
In my opinion, and based on my knowledge of how the FBI works, SMH’s explanation is unlikely. 
There were also signs that internal conflict was developing within the FBI over the infiltration of WikiLeaks, a controversial tactic not least because WikiLeaks is a publisher and press freedom groups have condemned from the outset the government's investigation into Assange and his colleagues. – Sigurdur Thordarson: WikiLeaks's baby-faced traitor. Sydney Morning Herald. August 16, 2013
The FBIs history demonstrates that it doesn’t use civil rights violations like press freedoms as a measure for determining whether they are or are not going to infiltrate an organization, whether it’s a criminal enterprise or a social activist cause or something else.

It’s far more likely that they were concerned about the reliability of the information provided to them and therefore Siggi’s reliability. Especially in light of all the charges laid against him by the Icelandic Police during the same time period, some of which were directly related to his impersonation of Assange. 

There would also have been a huge risk that the FBI might have been perceived as colluding with Siggi's criminal activities where WikiLeaks and Assange were concerned. That is, the impersonations and fraud that Siggi was eventually convicted of.

If the FBI thought any of this information was actually credible or legally useful in building a case of Russian collusion or anything else against WikiLeaks or Julian Assange, they would have: 
  1. Continued to build their relationship with Siggi  
  2. Handed the information over to the Prosecutors for future use in a WikiLeaks / Julian Assange prosecution. 
  3. A leak would have been highly unlikely because BOTH would have had more to gain by NOT leaking it. 
If the information was tainted and not useful in building the legal case against WikiLeaks, both the FBI and Siggi would have something to gain with it's release. The FBI could use their media connections to instigate a disinformation campaign and Siggi would have more notoriety and possibly some more cash in his pocket.

According to WikiLeaks (in the above screenshot) Scandinavian outlets also received the documents “years ago” and refused to publish them because they considered them untrustworthy. Therefore they would have no reason to release them now to other media.

All of that said, let's get back to the letter.

The AP article claims the following as evidence of it's “authentication”:
Metadata suggests that it was on Nov. 29, the day after the release of the first batch of U.S. State Department files, that the letter to the Russian Consulate was drafted on the Jessica Longley computer.
One of the former associates, an ex-employee, identified two of the names that frequently appeared in the documents’ metadata, “Jessica Longley” and “Jim Evans Mowing,” as pseudonyms assigned to two WikiLeaks laptops.

However, they neglect to mention that Siggi was working as a low level volunteer for WikiLeaks at the time and had access to their computers. That’s how he was able to get the data in the first place. Fabricating documents on WikiLeaks laptops would have been easy for him to do and he’s already been convicted of fraud for fabricating information in relation to Julian Assange. 

Another problem with the AP authentication procedure is that we are expected to believe anonymous sources on the assumption they are telling the truth. They don’t appear to have provided any supporting evidence to back their claim that WikiLeaks laptops exist with those names. 

As a result, we simply don’t know if they are being truthful, acting as disgruntled ex-employees on a vendetta, or acting as paid informants pushing a disinformation campaign. This makes their verification meaningless because there is no way for us to vet it independently. 

The only real benefit to legitimate anonymous sources is they can point journalists and investigators in the right direction to getting the hard evidence they need to make a case. Their information also provides journalists with the background to ask the right questions when they’re probing an issue. 

This was the contribution that anonymous source Deep Throat made in the 1960s which led to the Watergate scandal. In other words, Deep Throat was just the beginning of the process of collecting hard evidence to support his allegations independently and then to act on them. Nobody just took his word at face value.

Claiming one has authenticated a document based on “non-public details such as bank accounts, telephone numbers or airline tickets” is equally absurd because that information isn’t non-public in reality. Since Siggi was a low level volunteer for WikiLeaks, it’s precisely the type of information he could have had access to in order to fabricate the documents.

This kind of vetting is as absurd as the banks insisting that I provide my mother’s maiden name to identity myself as a “security” measure because it’s “non-public”. Everyone and their dog who knows me, knows my mother’s maiden name. I don’t use it. I give a fake maiden name for my mother.

In addition, where is the evidence that the laptops named “Jessica Longley” or “Jim Evans Mowing” have ever been used by Assange? Anything written by him would be on his own laptop and not on some random WikiLeaks laptop used by staff (that’s assuming the anonymous sources were being truthful and that WikiLeaks laptops with those names existed – we don’t actually know). 

As a friend of mine pointed out, he could write a letter today, put Julian Assange’s name on it, send it to the FBI and/or the media, and it would have as much credibility as this one. Well, maybe a little more since he hasn’t done time in prison for impersonating Assange like Siggi has.

The end result is that all the metadata actually proves is that someone had access to laptops with those names, which may or may not have been WikiLeaks laptops. The only someone with demonstrable access to those particular laptops is Siggi.

The additional photocopy of the passport published with the letter in the Document Cloud is irrelevant since the point of the passport would simply be to verify whether there was a Russian Visa stamp on it dated November or December, 2010 and that isn’t visible. 

AP’s note above the passport (scroll down to see it) states: 
The following is a notarized copy of Assange's passport. The document was obtained by the AP separately from the letter to the Russian Consulate in London, but it is consistent with the letter's content. 
If it was obtained separately, and all it is, is a notarized copy of the front page of Julian Assange’s passport, how is it consistent with the letters content? It wasn’t attached to the letter and by AP’s own admission, it was obtained separately from the letter. There is no information related to where it came from or what the evidentiary link to the letter might be. Again, we’re expected to just believe based on nothing but an assumption.

The fact that the date it was notarized is one month previous to the letter isn’t enough to confirm anything, especially given the facts that it did not come attached to the letter and the letter is not properly authenticated, signed or notarized. 

People have copies of their passport notarized for any number of reasons. 

All of that said, in the end and in my opinion, this entire drama is a smear campaign intended to lay the foundation for further false “Russian collusion” disinformation against WikiLeaks and Assange. When the Feds can’t make a legal case, jury by public opinion through mainstream media has become a last resort. 

It’s a tempest in a teapot since even if it were true, so what? Going to Russia doesn’t automatically indicate collusion of any kind. If it was true, it might (but not necessarily) indicate he was trying to escape extradition to the US. So what? That’s why he asked for asylum. 

You don’t need to be a rocket scientist to know what the implications would be to Assange if the US succeeded in extraditing him. Injustice, torture and abuse of due process are the name of the game in the US Injustice System as Chelsea Manning, Reality Winner, Jeremy Hammond, Matt DeHart and numerous others can attest to first hand. 

The implications to Press Freedoms would be even worse since WikiLeaks and Assange’s only “crime” was to publish leaked information, much of which exposed corruption and abuses of power at the highest levels. This was in the public interest and is a protected right under the US Constitution. SCOTUS legal precedent has established that protection extends to non-US citizens.

Jennifer Robinson, one of Julian Assange’s lawyer commented on the AP allegations and this particular document, pointing out that they could have easily been verified by contacting the UK authorities who still have Julian Assange’s passport or the Russian Embassy in the UK. His passport was confiscated by the UK on December 7, 2010. If it had a brand new Russian Visa attached to it, it’s unlikely they would have granted him bail and yet they did. 

Jennifer Robinson’s comments on this occur around the 10:20 mark in the video at the bottom of the following article:

Common sense would also dictate that if Julian Assange had decided to get a Russian Visa, he would have done it through his lawyers and not some journalist, irrespective of whether that journalist is a friend or not. According to WikiLeaks, Shamir wasn’t a close friend. He was simply one of many journalists that had some access to some material in the WikiLeaks databases and nothing more.
It is false that Shamir is 'an Assange intimate'. He interviewed Assange (on behalf of Russian media), as have many journalists. He took a photo at that time and has only met with WikiLeaks staff (including Asssange) twice. -WikiLeaks
The only discussions that did occur regarding Russia, occurred in December, 2017, were between the Ecuadorian Embassy and Assange and were related to his diplomatic status. Assange was given diplomatic status by Ecuador in December 2017 and the Ecuadorians were proposing he be sent to Russia to act as Ecuador’s diplomatic representative in Moscow. Since the UK refused to recognize his diplomatic status that proposal became moot and did not involve any discussions with the Russians.

Craig Murray, in his recent Blog post, Extraordinary and Deliberate Lies from the Guardian dated September 23, 2018 and updated on September 24, 2018 made the following comment: 
UPDATE One reason I was so stunned at the Guardian’s publication of these lies is that I had gone direct from the Ecuadorean Embassy to the Guardian building in Kings Cross to give an in-depth but off the record briefing to Euan MacAskill, perhaps their last journalist of real integrity, on the strategy for Julian. I told Euan that Russia was ruled out. I did not mention this yesterday as I greatly respect Euan and wanted to speak to him first. But on phoning the Guardian I find that Euan “retired” the day the lying article was published. That seems a very large coincidence.
Craig Murray, a former UK Diplomat, also states in the blog post that: “…Julian directly ruled out the possibility of going to Russia as undesirable…”.

In addition, the Russian Embassy released a statement on September 26, 2018 confirming WikiLeaks denial.
The embassy has never engaged with Ecuadorean colleagues, or with anyone else, in discussions on any kind of Russian participation in ending Mr Assange’s stay within the diplomatic mission of Ecuador.- Julian Assange and Russia’s UK embassy. The Guardian, September 24, 2018
Ivan Volodin, at the Russian embassy in London, responds to a Guardian article reporting that Russian diplomats held secret talks about helping Julian Assange flee the UK

Now, I’m just curious… How is it possible that numerous professional journalists writing for numerous platforms…

  1. Can be so eager and willing to accept what can only be described as an Orwellian narrative without question?
  2. Are so willing to accept the word of completely anonymous sources making statements that not only cannot be independently verified but are openly and publicly contradicted by people who are both identified and in a position to know the facts?
  3. Are so accepting of “facts” that can so easily be refuted?

I’ll leave it to those journalists writing the hit pieces to explore their own consciences and the reader to come to their own conclusions. 

It isn’t rocket science and doesn’t require a genius IQ to see what's going on here. 


Special thanks to Raymond Johanson and the others who assisted me by giving me feedback and constructive advice on this article.

Part 2. Israel Shamir and WikiLeaks coming next week.