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
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
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
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
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
- Continued to build their relationship with Siggi
- Handed the information over to the Prosecutors for future use in a WikiLeaks / Julian Assange prosecution.
- A leak would have been highly unlikely because BOTH would have had more to gain by NOT leaking it.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
- Can be so eager and willing to accept what can only be described as an Orwellian narrative without question?
- 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?
- Are so accepting of “facts” that can so easily be refuted?
Special thanks to Raymond Johanson and the others who assisted me by giving me feedback and constructive advice on this article.