Home | About | Donate

Unequal Justice: Julian Assange Is an Enemy in Trump’s War on the First Amendment

Unequal Justice: Julian Assange Is an Enemy in Trump’s War on the First Amendment

Fascism starts with the persecution of truth tellers who threaten the Fascists.

3 Likes

From Caitlin Johnstone:

Peace
Po

8 Likes

It is far too convenient to the “let’s drone-bomb him” set that Assange should die without independent medical review or even news of specific symptoms.

Many parallels to the gubmit’s oppression of Aaron Swartz.

2 Likes

I sent many links out with this information today (this article was included Kurt Nimmo’s send) – including to news orgs and the British Embassies along with phone calls. I hope it’s not true, but the information and sources lead the other way … How many times are they going to repeat the Muller conference details, and no one mentions a word about this – even as a concern? Call, write – demand that nothing happen to Assange – protest, threaten to boycott Britain and Australia if anything happens to him. Tell the Royals and legislators to get on it and find out, and stop anything like this h_ll. Send me your protest pics and I’ll post, or join me in Miami. We are so far beyond unconstitutional, see horrid stuff on my Home and Medical-Military page under that. ourconstitution.info. We must heed Eisenhower’s and Truman’s warning’s now!!

2 Likes

Hi Uncle Po:
. Thank you for this information. I supposed that the deep state and friends were hoping that the world would be upset with Assange, but really, Sweden, UK and America, you have all been lying so long about this that you don’r seem to understand that millions of people in many nations can see how ridiculous your actions are. I suppose that if he dies, you will say he killed himself----but what the world will know is that Sweden, the UK and America killed him. I hope you don’t , but his work will not disappear from the world, but any semblance of future believability in you 3 nations will !

1 Like

Give me a break. Assange is Trump’s ally. Lock his sorry @ss up. Put Trump in the same cell. Let them share their sob stories for the rest of their lives together.

1 Like

Lies of omission: Trump’s “War on the 1st Amendment” has a bevy on supporters in the Liberal Media. Some of the most vicious attacks on Assange have come from Liberals.

What flavor was your Kool Aid?

2 Likes

Clinton-flavored. Sort of a cross between asphalt and lint balls.

3 Likes

There is a major problem with Blum’s take on this.

It’s all Trump-centric. As if the problem is just that Trump is in the White House and hates the press.

The reality is that the nearly ten year long attack on Assange has been a bipartisan reality and the forces within the Trump Administration doing this are doing it from beneath the president who is letting it happen rather than a president ordering those beneath to do it against their will.

But now it’s okay to defend Assange as long as it’s couched in terms of attacking Trump.

4 Likes

Such is the way of the current politically fractured world…

1 Like

I don’t consider Assange a news reporter. My understanding of reporting the news is that the reporter remain relatively unbiased and report both sides of the issue. Assange was so blatantly skewed for Trump, there was no way he could be considered reporting news because his reporting was twisted. He worked with criminal individuals to obtain information to influence the election and also was wanted for a crime against an underage girl. Sorry, I have no mercy here.

1- The first amendment doesn’t care if your biased. It doesn’t read “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press as long as the press is unbiased” It just says of the press. That meant back then anyone who could own a printing press or rent time on one, could print whatever the hell they wanted and the U.S. government was supposed to not be able to abridge them of it.

It didn’t matter if someone thought they weren’t ‘real journalists.’ It didn’t matter if they made a career of reporting news. They could be a dumb, biased, stupid, farmer, who saved up his dollars and went and paid a printer to print up a pamphlet saying George Washington was a buffoon oppressive dictator for using the army to quell the Whiskey Rebellion and went around Boston passing those pamphlets out to whoever he could and the U.S. Government wasn’t supposed to do anything to impact his freedom to do this.

Since then the concept of the press has going on to also include film, radio broadcasting, television broadcasting, cablecasting, and putting things on the internet (per SCOTUS).

2- You make a big deal about the DNC leaks and Trump and that proves Assange is skewed because he is biased. Guess what? That’s totally irrelevant even if it’s true.

Why?

Because this isn’t about 2016. It’s about 2010. It’s about Wikileaks releasing the information that Chelsea Manning leaked to Wikileaks, information about the Bush Administration’s crimes in the Iraq War.

What Assange did or didn’t do in 2016 is beside the point. Wanting someone punished for what they did in 2010 in publishing leaks because you don’t like what they revealed in 2016 is not only petty it is out right infantile.

3- Even though what he did in 2016 is irrelevant, I will respond to your idea that publishing material given to one by a criminal makes one commit a crime too. That is bogus. The SCOTUS has protected the press (anyone who uses a press in the broad sense) in publishing what they are given, if the source commits a crime in getting that material, it is irrelevant on the right of the press to print it.

Now, here’s the rub, if Assage is a criminal for publishing what was given to him by ‘criminals’ (and I guess you could assert Chelsea Manning is a criminal since she was convicted in a court marshall [unfairly IMO]), then the NYT is also a criminal for publishing what they got by reading Wikileaks.

But I would say whistle blowers like Chelsea Manning and the DNC leaker are heroes, not criminals, for whistle blowing.

4- You are wrong about the supposed sexual assault. Where did you get this idea the woman was underage? She wasn’t. Also do you have any idea what the assault is? It’s unbelievable.

Assange and a woman of age had consensual sex. According to the woman he used a condom. After the sex was done, according to her she found the condom had gotten torn. The next day she met another woman who’d had sex with Assange recently. The fact he was having multiple consensual sexual partners freaked both of them out.

So guess what? I guess in Sweden the authorities in this situation can force someone to have an HIV test. So they went and requested the authorities do that.

But this was just the time that the U.S. had sat a Grand Jury to come up with charges on Assange (after Hillary Goddamn Clinton had been told that droning killing Assange was not on the table.) So a gung ho prosecutor started an investigation on Sexual Assault by Assange instead of requiring him to get a test. (No charges, just an investigation.) The motivation was to keep him in Sweden under Swedish control so they could extradite him if that was asked for.

But the prosecutor interviewed Assange, who cooperated fully, and decided there wasn’t a case. Assange was free to leave and go to the U.K. He did.

But then a second prosecutor re-opened the case, not charging again, but only investigating. A request for an interview with Assange was made. Assange’s lawyer said he’d go to Sweden and cooperate again if the Swedish Government promised that they wouldn’t extradite him to the U.S. They refused.

But by then the U.K. had decided he needed to be extradited to Sweden based on a phony extradition request signed only by a prosecutor when a legal one needs to be signed by a judge. They charged him and he was released on bail.

Assange at this point asserted this was all for getting him to Sweden so he could be extradited to the U.S. and he sought assylum with Ecuador. They granted it. But the U.K. refused to let him go there, so he was trapped in the London Embassy.

Assange then tried to solve the problem by agreeing he’d do an interview with Swedish authorities in the U.K. if they’d send someone there to do it in the Embassy. They did. They dropped the charges.

But the U.K. didn’t drop their bail charges. So Assange still couldn’t leave the embassy, fearing arrest and extradition to the U.S. This was at the time that Chelsea Manning was being tortured in prison. The U.N. said that Assange was a political prisoner and in danger of being tortured too.

Finally the U.K. got him because the Ecuadorian government changed from a Socialist leaning one to a Fascist leaning one that was cooperating with the U.S. and got an enormous loan from the IMF. A week later they revoked his citizenship (which he’d been granted when he got assylum) and his assylum, inviting the U.K. into the Embassy to arrest him.

The U.K. then was convicted by a U.K. court of skipping bail and instead of getting fined and set free (there were no charges against him no) they did the strange thing of sentencing him to a year! This was out of the ordinary since a few weeks or a fine is the normal thing. But not only did they do that- they sent him to a high security prison and put him in solitary confinement.

Meanwhile the U.S. then charged him and sought extradition from the U.K., then added the new Espionage charges. An uproar in Britain over this- that extradiction on such charges for publishing was against British law- made it likely that the U.K. courts might say no to the U.S. on extradition.

It was then that a third Swedish prosecutor re-opend the sexual assault investigation and this time Sweden requested extradition properly.

Again, it is obvious this is a back up plan. If the U.K. doesn’t extradite him to the U.S., they can to Sweden based on the sexual assault investigation, which isn’t against British law to do. Then Sweden can extradite him to the U.S. while he is in custody there, and then drop the bogus investigation after they do so.

There was no rape. The two women involved have made that clear. There never were rape charges- just investigations of sexual assault. The women were not under age.

This is all part of the smear campaign to make us all despise him in order to create just what truthfinder’s attitude is: he doesn’t deserve any support. “Sorry, no mercy here.” Another succesful smear campaign did its job.

1 Like