truthout--2020-09-08--More Than 550,000 Mail Ballots Have Already Been Rejected in 2020

Election officials are working to make sure voters are not disenfranchised in November after an unprecedented number of mail-in ballots have been rejected in primary elections so far this year .
A Washington Post analysis found that more than 534,000 mail ballots were rejected in primaries in 23 states this year and a separate NPR analysis found more than 558,000 ballots rejected in 30 states .
By comparison , less than 318,000 ballots were rejected in the 2016 general election , raising concerns that ballot issues could tip the election .
After all , the 2016 presidential race was decided @ @ @ @ @ @ @ across in three states .
“ We ’ ve been worried about this problem , ” said Ellen Kurz , a veteran of several presidential campaigns who co-founded iVoteFacts , a nonprofit that seeks to educate voters about new voting options amid the pandemic .
“ New York ’ s [ 21 % ] rate was crazy and New Jersey was 10 % .
And one of the big problems is the fact that voting by mail is going to be new in a lot of these states.
” “ You can ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because of a technicality , ” she told Salon in an interview .
“ That ’ s nuts.
” Twenty states have expanded mail voting amid the pandemic this year , resulting in many voters casting mail ballots for the very first time .
A recent study found that first-time mail voters in Florida were twice as likely to have their ballots rejected than voters who had previously voted by mail .
The issue is particularly concerning in key battleground states like Michigan , Wisconsin and Pennsylvania , the three states that tipped @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Election officials in those states alone “ tossed out more than 60,480 ballots ” during the primaries , according to the Washington Post .
More than 60,000 more votes were rejected in swing states such as Florida , Ohio , North Carolina , Nevada and Maine .
“ If the election is close , it doesn ’ t matter how well it was run — it will be a mess , ” Charles Stewart III , an election data expert at MIT , told the Post .
“ The two campaigns will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is going to run up against voters ’ beliefs in fair play.
” Some states expect to see a tenfold increase in the number of mail ballots cast this year .
While some states have long held elections by mail , in some cases exclusively , others are unprepared to handle the influx .
“ In states like Colorado or Washington , where they ’ ve been implementing vote by mail for a long time , or at least over several cycles , you don ’ t see that signature spoilage rate .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the process , ” Kurz told Salon .
“ When you first implement vote-by-mail , a lot of things can go wrong.
” Washington state , which has held all-mail elections for years , has a rejection rate of between 1 % and 2 % , Kylee Zabel , a spokeswoman for Washington Secretary of State Kim Wyman , told Salon .
“ Ballots are most commonly rejected for late postmarks , or missing or mismatched signatures , ” Zabel explained .
Voters in at least 20 states , including Washington , can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ though although the processes for doing so vary by state .
“ In order for their completed ballot to be processed , voters must sign and date the exterior of their ( postage prepaid ! )
return envelope , ” Zabel said .
“ Those signatures are checked against the signatures on file in their voter registration records .
If a signature does not match , the county elections office reaches out to the voter with a form they can sign and return to attest to the validity of their signature .
This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their signature on file and , if the voter did not return a ballot , notify election officials that a ballot may have been returned fraudulently on their behalf.
” Kurz ’ s organization aims to educate voters , with the goal of avoiding having their ballot ensnared in the system .
“ Depending on the state , we have legal redress for ballots… but who wants to go through that ?
” she said .
“ It would be so much better if people just were informed and educated and reminded about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out , the proper time to return it and the place to put your signature.
” In some states , stray marks on a ballot can lead to disqualification .
In others , slight tears in the envelope can invalidate a ballot .
Kurz is planning to launch an advertising campaign to educate voters about how to properly fill out their ballot and iVoteFacts will soon launch an app that will help voters in a half-dozen states that are adopting expanded mail voting systems get all the information they need .
“ Sometimes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reminding voters to sign their ballot , ” she said .
“ It ’ s literally that people fill the ballots out wrong.
” Democratic lawyers and election officials in more than 30 states are pushing to limit the number of reasons that ballots can be rejected .
Studies have found that these rejections disproportionately affect voters of color and young people .
A nationwide mail slowdown at the U.S .
Postal Service also threatens to delay the arrival of ballots .
The USPS recently warned 46 states that ballots may not arrive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state has a “ unique system , ” a spokesperson for the National Association of Secretaries of State told Salon , but “ overall , every state is encouraging their voters to mail back or deliver ballots as early as possible.
” Some states , like Michigan , are pushing for the legislature to extend deadlines and allow ballots that are postmarked by Election Day to be counted even if they arrive several days later .
“ If that doesn ’ t change and if there are no other changes , we ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have to reject a number of otherwise valid votes sent through the mail that are delayed through no fault of the voter , because of the Postal Service or some other snafu , ” Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson recently told voting rights activists .
“ So those voters could be disenfranchised , and that number could exceed the margin of victory for a number of races , statewide and local.
” Many states are also adding ballot drop boxes so that voters don ’ t have to rely on the USPS @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said that secretaries of state have led the charge on trying to educate voters on how to make sure their vote is counted .
“ I call them the first responders because nobody should lose their vote or their voice because they put their signature or marked the envelope in the wrong way , ” she said .
“ There ’ s a hundred reasons that are just ridiculous .
And then you add to that the post office troubles and Trump ’ s campaign , and you could see a disaster really @ @ @ @ @ @ @ avoid that .
I think the secretaries [ of state ] are really going to be really focused on this ballot spoilage issue.
” While secretaries of state and Democratic lawyers have sought to ease restrictions that can lead to a ballot being rejected , Trump and many Republican elected officials have launched a legal campaign of their own , arguing that strict signature-matching requirements and voter identification are necessary to prevent fraud .
Numerous studies have found that mail-ballot fraud is virtually nonexistent .
“ Overhauling the way Americans vote less than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and confusion , ” Mandi Merritt , a spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee , told the Post .
Kurz described the ballot rejection issue as a “ potential hanging chad on steroids , ” referring to an infamous issue that arose during the controversial Florida recount in the 2000 presidential race between George W. Bush and Al Gore .
“ Anything that is going to decrease people ’ s voices being heard is just terrible for the country , ” she said .
“ So in a pandemic , whether you ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you should be trying to solve these problems , not throw wrenches into the problem .
That ’ s absurd .
There ’ s a global pandemic and , more than ever , people need to vote on who their leaders should be to see us out of this .
So we should not be doing things to stop people from voting .
It ’ s un-American .
Any issue where you ’ re trying to stop eligible citizens from voting , you ’ re just wrong .
”

Ballot issues could tip the election, as the 2016 race was decided by about 77,000 combined votes over three states.
Election officials are working to make sure voters are not disenfranchised in November after an unprecedented number of mail-in ballots have been rejected in primary elections so far this year.
A Washington Post analysis found that more than 534,000 mail ballots were rejected in primaries in 23 states this year and a separate NPR analysis found more than 558,000 ballots rejected in 30 states. By comparison, less than 318,000 ballots were rejected in the 2016 general election, raising concerns that ballot issues could tip the election. After all, the 2016 presidential race was decided by about 77,000 combined votes, spread across in three states.
“We’ve been worried about this problem,” said Ellen Kurz, a veteran of several presidential campaigns who co-founded iVoteFacts, a nonprofit that seeks to educate voters about new voting options amid the pandemic. “New York’s [21%] rate was crazy and New Jersey was 10%. And one of the big problems is the fact that voting by mail is going to be new in a lot of these states.”
“You can’t have 10% of voters disqualified because of a technicality,” she told Salon in an interview. “That’s nuts.”
Twenty states have expanded mail voting amid the pandemic this year, resulting in many voters casting mail ballots for the very first time. A recent study found that first-time mail voters in Florida were twice as likely to have their ballots rejected than voters who had previously voted by mail. The issue is particularly concerning in key battleground states like Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, the three states that tipped the race to President Trump in 2016. Election officials in those states alone “tossed out more than 60,480 ballots” during the primaries, according to the Washington Post. More than 60,000 more votes were rejected in swing states such as Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, Nevada and Maine.
“If the election is close, it doesn’t matter how well it was run — it will be a mess,” Charles Stewart III, an election data expert at MIT, told the Post. “The two campaigns will be arguing over nonconforming ballots, which is going to run up against voters’ beliefs in fair play.”
Some states expect to see a tenfold increase in the number of mail ballots cast this year. While some states have long held elections by mail, in some cases exclusively, others are unprepared to handle the influx.
“In states like Colorado or Washington, where they’ve been implementing vote by mail for a long time, or at least over several cycles, you don’t see that signature spoilage rate. So it’s the newness of the process,” Kurz told Salon. “When you first implement vote-by-mail, a lot of things can go wrong.”
Washington state, which has held all-mail elections for years, has a rejection rate of between 1% and 2%, Kylee Zabel, a spokeswoman for Washington Secretary of State Kim Wyman, told Salon.
“Ballots are most commonly rejected for late postmarks, or missing or mismatched signatures,” Zabel explained.
Voters in at least 20 states, including Washington, can address signature issues until Election Day, though although the processes for doing so vary by state.
“In order for their completed ballot to be processed, voters must sign and date the exterior of their (postage prepaid!) return envelope,” Zabel said. “Those signatures are checked against the signatures on file in their voter registration records. If a signature does not match, the county elections office reaches out to the voter with a form they can sign and return to attest to the validity of their signature. This enables the voter to correct or update their signature on file and, if the voter did not return a ballot, notify election officials that a ballot may have been returned fraudulently on their behalf.”
Kurz’s organization aims to educate voters, with the goal of avoiding having their ballot ensnared in the system.
“Depending on the state, we have legal redress for ballots… but who wants to go through that?” she said. “It would be so much better if people just were informed and educated and reminded about the proper way to fill their ballot out, the proper time to return it and the place to put your signature.”
In some states, stray marks on a ballot can lead to disqualification. In others, slight tears in the envelope can invalidate a ballot.
Kurz is planning to launch an advertising campaign to educate voters about how to properly fill out their ballot and iVoteFacts will soon launch an app that will help voters in a half-dozen states that are adopting expanded mail voting systems get all the information they need.
“Sometimes the instructions are really simple, just reminding voters to sign their ballot,” she said. “It’s literally that people fill the ballots out wrong.”
Democratic lawyers and election officials in more than 30 states are pushing to limit the number of reasons that ballots can be rejected. Studies have found that these rejections disproportionately affect voters of color and young people.
A nationwide mail slowdown at the U.S. Postal Service also threatens to delay the arrival of ballots. The USPS recently warned 46 states that ballots may not arrive in time for election deadlines.
Each state has a “unique system,” a spokesperson for the National Association of Secretaries of State told Salon, but “overall, every state is encouraging their voters to mail back or deliver ballots as early as possible.”
Some states, like Michigan, are pushing for the legislature to extend deadlines and allow ballots that are postmarked by Election Day to be counted even if they arrive several days later.
“If that doesn’t change and if there are no other changes, we’re facing a scenario where we could have to reject a number of otherwise valid votes sent through the mail that are delayed through no fault of the voter, because of the Postal Service or some other snafu,” Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson recently told voting rights activists. “So those voters could be disenfranchised, and that number could exceed the margin of victory for a number of races, statewide and local.”
Many states are also adding ballot drop boxes so that voters don’t have to rely on the USPS to send back their ballot.
Kurz said that secretaries of state have led the charge on trying to educate voters on how to make sure their vote is counted.
“I call them the first responders because nobody should lose their vote or their voice because they put their signature or marked the envelope in the wrong way,” she said. “There’s a hundred reasons that are just ridiculous. And then you add to that the post office troubles and Trump’s campaign, and you could see a disaster really happening. We’re trying to avoid that. I think the secretaries [of state] are really going to be really focused on this ballot spoilage issue.”
While secretaries of state and Democratic lawyers have sought to ease restrictions that can lead to a ballot being rejected, Trump and many Republican elected officials have launched a legal campaign of their own, arguing that strict signature-matching requirements and voter identification are necessary to prevent fraud. Numerous studies have found that mail-ballot fraud is virtually nonexistent.
“Overhauling the way Americans vote less than 80 days out will only spread chaos and confusion,” Mandi Merritt, a spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee, told the Post.
Kurz described the ballot rejection issue as a “potential hanging chad on steroids,” referring to an infamous issue that arose during the controversial Florida recount in the 2000 presidential race between George W. Bush and Al Gore.
“Anything that is going to decrease people’s voices being heard is just terrible for the country,” she said. “So in a pandemic, whether you’re a Republican or a Democrat, you should be trying to solve these problems, not throw wrenches into the problem. That’s absurd. There’s a global pandemic and, more than ever, people need to vote on who their leaders should be to see us out of this. So we should not be doing things to stop people from voting. It’s un-American. Any issue where you’re trying to stop eligible citizens from voting, you’re just wrong.”
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.


truthout--2020-09-08--Sanders Condemns Trump Effort to Rush COVID Vaccine Before Election

After President Donald Trump on Monday suggested a Covid-19 vaccine could be fully developed and put to market “ before a very special day ” — apparently referring to the November 3 presidential election — Sen. Bernie Sanders warned that Trump ’ s ongoing politicization of the vaccine process threatens to undermine public trust and safety .
“ I think you got a president who ’ s losing it , and I think most people are sick and tired of the ranting and the ravings of Donald Trump , ” the Vermont senator said in an appearance on CNN late @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a vaccine , but we want to make sure that that vaccine is safe .
We don ’ t want to see that vaccine put on the market for political reasons.
” Sanders went on to urge doctors , scientists , and pharmaceutical companies to “ do the right thing and get it onto the market , get it into people ’ s arms when it is ready , not when it suits the political purposes of this increasingly irrational president.
” “ Let ’ s not politicize this thing .
We have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decade .
We have to give the resources to the doctors and the scientists to do their work , ” Sanders said .
“ We ’ ve got to make sure that vaccine undergoes the clinical trials that [ are ] necessary to make sure that it is safe.
” The Vermont senator ’ s remarks came hours after Trump claimed during a Labor Day press conference Monday that “ we ’ re going to have a vaccine very soon , maybe even before a very special day.
” Asked whether he ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coronavirus vaccine for political gain , Trump said : “ No , I ’ m saying that because we want to save a lot of lives .
With me , it ’ s the faster the better .
With somebody else , maybe they would say it politically but I ’ m saying it in terms of this is what we need.
” “ Now , ” Trump continued , “ do benefits inure if you ’ re able to get something years ahead of schedule ?
I guess maybe they do.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the president ’ s suggested timeline , saying there ’ s little chance that a sufficiently tested vaccine will be ready ahead of the November election .
“ I don ’ t know any scientist involved in this effort who thinks we will be getting shots into arms any time before Election Day , ” one anonymous federal official familiar with Operation Warp Speed told CNN Monday , echoing the public statements of other officials involved with the vaccine development effort .

The senator’s remarks came hours after Trump suggested a vaccine could be put to market “before a very special day.”
After President Donald Trump on Monday suggested a Covid-19 vaccine could be fully developed and put to market “before a very special day” — apparently referring to the November 3 presidential election — Sen. Bernie Sanders warned that Trump’s ongoing politicization of the vaccine process threatens to undermine public trust and safety.
“I think you got a president who’s losing it, and I think most people are sick and tired of the ranting and the ravings of Donald Trump,” the Vermont senator said in an appearance on CNN late Monday. “Look, everybody wants a vaccine, but we want to make sure that that vaccine is safe. We don’t want to see that vaccine put on the market for political reasons.”
Sanders went on to urge doctors, scientists, and pharmaceutical companies to “do the right thing and get it onto the market, get it into people’s arms when it is ready, not when it suits the political purposes of this increasingly irrational president.”
“Let’s not politicize this thing. We have developed vaccines for decade after decade after decade. We have to give the resources to the doctors and the scientists to do their work,” Sanders said. “We’ve got to make sure that vaccine undergoes the clinical trials that [are] necessary to make sure that it is safe.”
Watch:
“Let’s not politicize this thing,” Sen. Bernie Sanders says about the coronavirus vaccine. “We have developed vaccines for decade after decade after decade. We have to give the resources to the doctors and the scientists to do their work.” https://t.co/GqSF5xfRbd pic.twitter.com/jwJVMQo12i — The Situation Room (@CNNSitRoom) September 7, 2020
The Vermont senator’s remarks came hours after Trump claimed during a Labor Day press conference Monday that “we’re going to have a vaccine very soon, maybe even before a very special day.”
Asked whether he’s pushing for speedy approval of a coronavirus vaccine for political gain, Trump said: “No, I’m saying that because we want to save a lot of lives. With me, it’s the faster the better. With somebody else, maybe they would say it politically but I’m saying it in terms of this is what we need.”
“Now,” Trump continued, “do benefits inure if you’re able to get something years ahead of schedule? I guess maybe they do.”
“The faster, the better” — Trump on a coronavirus vaccine pic.twitter.com/Lc83qixbp3 — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) September 7, 2020
Federal officials have repeatedly cast doubt on the president’s suggested timeline, saying there’s little chance that a sufficiently tested vaccine will be ready ahead of the November election.
“I don’t know any scientist involved in this effort who thinks we will be getting shots into arms any time before Election Day,” one anonymous federal official familiar with Operation Warp Speed told CNN Monday, echoing the public statements of other officials involved with the vaccine development effort.
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.


truthout--2020-09-09--DHS Whistleblower Says He Was Pushed to Alter Intel to Fit Trump’s Antifa Views

A whistleblower within the Department of Homeland Security ( DHS ) is alleging that at least two of the agency ’ s politically-appointed officials instructed employees within the department to revise intelligence assessments to better fit statements and narratives made by President Donald Trump .
Specifically , higher-ups at the department demanded changes in order to hype antifa ( an umbrella term for those with beliefs in opposition to fascism ) as a bigger threat to the U.S. than they actually are and to downplay the threat posed by white supremacists to the country .
Brian Murphy alleges in his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ alter intelligence assessments he said were requested of him by acting DHS Secretary Chad Wolf and acting Director of U.S .
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ken Cuccinelli , he faced retaliation for his objections .
“ The protected disclosures that prompted the retaliatory personnel actions at issue primarily focused on the compilation of intelligence reports and threat assessments that conflicted with policy objectives set forth by the White House and senior Department of Homeland Security , ” Murphy ’ s complaint reads .
Murphy states in his complaint that he refused to make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a draft report on domestic terror threats in the U.S .
Following his refusal , both Wolf and Cuccinelli halted that report from being made public .
There were concerns by Wolf and Cuccinelli , Murphy alleges , that emphasis on the threat of white supremacist groups and individuals would reflect disfavorably on Trump .
The complaint also alleges that there was “ a repeated pattern of abuse of authority , attempted censorship of intelligence analysis and improper administration of an intelligence program related to Russian efforts to influence and undermine United @ @ @ @ @ @ @ halted from publication obtained by the website Lawfare demonstrate that changes were indeed planned when it came to language on white supremacy .
In the first draft , for example , direct references to such groups were explicitly stated .
“ Lone offenders and small cells of individuals motivated by a diverse array of social , ideological , and personal factors will pose the primary terrorist threat to the United States , ” the first draft read .
“ Among these groups , we assess that white supremacist extremists – who increasingly are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pose the most persistent and lethal threat.
” In subsequent drafts , however , that paragraph was changed , replacing “ white supremacist extremists ” with the less specific terminology of “ Domestic Violent Extremists.
” None of the three drafts obtained by Lawfare , however , referred to antifa as a significant threat to the country .
The Democratic-led House Intelligence Committee is requesting that Murphy testify about his complaint .
Committee chair Rep. Adam Schiff ( D-California ) decried the alleged actions of Cuccinelli and Wolf in a statement on Wednesday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bottom of this , expose any and all misconduct or corruption to the American people , and put a stop to the politicization of intelligence , ” Schiff said .
Trump has made a number of baseless comments about the supposedly violent actions of antifa in the U.S. , announcing on May 31 that he would be designating the organization ( which , again , doesn ’ t exist in a formal way ) as a terrorist group .
That designation , however , has not yet been officially made .
The president @ @ @ @ @ @ @ weeks alleging that individuals in “ dark shadows ” had attempted to cause “ damage ” to the Republican National Convention ( RNC ) last month .
It ’ s unclear how Trump developed that theory , however , because there is no evidence to support that allegation .
Trump ’ s descriptions of the supposed conspiracy against the RNC , however , do align with a number of baseless claims made on Facebook that members of antifa were planning to cause harm to local communities .
Those posts have been discredited , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ altercations between Trump supporters and individuals they wrongly identified as belonging to the fictional version of antifa .

DHS heads also sought to downplay threats of white supremacy, fearing assessments could hurt Trump, the complaint said.
A whistleblower within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is alleging that at least two of the agency’s politically-appointed officials instructed employees within the department to revise intelligence assessments to better fit statements and narratives made by President Donald Trump.
Specifically, higher-ups at the department demanded changes in order to hype antifa (an umbrella term for those with beliefs in opposition to fascism) as a bigger threat to the U.S. than they actually are and to downplay the threat posed by white supremacists to the country.
Brian Murphy alleges in his 24-page complaint that when he refused to alter intelligence assessments he said were requested of him by acting DHS Secretary Chad Wolf and acting Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Ken Cuccinelli, he faced retaliation for his objections.
“The protected disclosures that prompted the retaliatory personnel actions at issue primarily focused on the compilation of intelligence reports and threat assessments that conflicted with policy objectives set forth by the White House and senior Department of Homeland Security,” Murphy’s complaint reads.
Murphy states in his complaint that he refused to make the changes that were asked of him in a draft report on domestic terror threats in the U.S. Following his refusal, both Wolf and Cuccinelli halted that report from being made public.
There were concerns by Wolf and Cuccinelli, Murphy alleges, that emphasis on the threat of white supremacist groups and individuals would reflect disfavorably on Trump.
The complaint also alleges that there was “a repeated pattern of abuse of authority, attempted censorship of intelligence analysis and improper administration of an intelligence program related to Russian efforts to influence and undermine United States interests.”
Drafts of the report halted from publication obtained by the website Lawfare demonstrate that changes were indeed planned when it came to language on white supremacy. In the first draft, for example, direct references to such groups were explicitly stated.
“Lone offenders and small cells of individuals motivated by a diverse array of social, ideological, and personal factors will pose the primary terrorist threat to the United States,” the first draft read. “Among these groups, we assess that white supremacist extremists – who increasingly are networking with likeminded persons abroad – will pose the most persistent and lethal threat.”
In subsequent drafts, however, that paragraph was changed, replacing “white supremacist extremists” with the less specific terminology of “Domestic Violent Extremists.”
None of the three drafts obtained by Lawfare, however, referred to antifa as a significant threat to the country.
The Democratic-led House Intelligence Committee is requesting that Murphy testify about his complaint. Committee chair Rep. Adam Schiff (D-California) decried the alleged actions of Cuccinelli and Wolf in a statement on Wednesday.
“We will get to the bottom of this, expose any and all misconduct or corruption to the American people, and put a stop to the politicization of intelligence,” Schiff said.
Trump has made a number of baseless comments about the supposedly violent actions of antifa in the U.S., announcing on May 31 that he would be designating the organization (which, again, doesn’t exist in a formal way) as a terrorist group. That designation, however, has not yet been officially made.
The president has also pushed conspiracy theories in recent weeks alleging that individuals in “dark shadows” had attempted to cause “damage” to the Republican National Convention (RNC) last month. It’s unclear how Trump developed that theory, however, because there is no evidence to support that allegation.
Trump’s descriptions of the supposed conspiracy against the RNC, however, do align with a number of baseless claims made on Facebook that members of antifa were planning to cause harm to local communities. Those posts have been discredited, although they did lead to some violent altercations between Trump supporters and individuals they wrongly identified as belonging to the fictional version of antifa.
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
Copyright © Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.


truthout--2020-09-09--Trump Told Bob Woodward He Was Intentionally Deceptive on “Deadly” COVID

President Trump was well aware of how dangerous COVID-19 was in the early days of the pandemic .
He even admitted to journalist Bob Woodward in February that he understood the disease was deadlier than the flu , contradicting his public statements and attitudes toward the disease during that time and in the months following .
Excerpts and audio recordings of Woodward ’ s conversations with Trump , set to be included in the veteran journalist ’ s upcoming book about the Trump administration entitled Rage , were made public on Wednesday , showcasing Trump ’ s detailed knowledge about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ among the U.S. populace .
But while Trump seemed to understand how deadly the disease might become , he also told Woodward he preferred not to be candid with the American people about it .
Coronavirus is “ more deadly than your — you know , your , even your strenuous flus , ” Trump said on February 7 to Woodward .
“ You know , people don ’ t realize , we lose 25,000 , 30,000 people a year here .
Who would ever think that , right ?
” That statement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suggested otherwise .
Later in February , for instance , Trump said coronavirus would disappear “ like a miracle , ” and called criticisms of his preparations for the disease a new political “ hoax ” against him .
On March 9 , despite what he told Woodward in private , he misleadingly compared COVID-19 to the flu , suggesting on Twitter that calls to close the economy in order to deal with the coronavirus were overblown reactions to the pandemic , as tens of thousands of Americans die annually from influenza .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ confirmed cases of CoronaVirus , with 22 deaths .
Think about that !
” Trump said at the time .
As of Wednesday , more than 194,000 Americans have died from coronavirus , with some health models projecting as many as 314,000 deaths from the disease by December 1 .
Trump also told Woodward he was warned in late January about the gravity of the situation , having been briefed by National Security Adviser Robert O ’ Brien about the potential deadliness coronavirus posed to the United States .
“ This will be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in your presidency , ” O ’ Brien had said to Trump .
“ This is going to be the roughest thing you face.
” In later interviews that took place in mid-March , Trump explained to Woodward his rationale for not informing Americans about the true implications of the disease .
“ I wanted to always play it down .
I still like playing it down , because I don ’ t want to create a panic , ” Trump said .
But the president ’ s refusal to take the disease @ @ @ @ @ @ @ According to one study from a pair of epidemiologists in mid-April , for example , had Trump implemented or encouraged stay-at-home orders just two weeks earlier than when they came about on March 16 , 90 percent of all coronavirus deaths in the U.S. up to that point could have been avoided .
Instead , just days after speaking with Woodward in March , Trump was advocating for states to suspend their stay-at-home orders , even though the White House ’ s own “ 15 Days to Slow the Spread ” guidelines were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ WE CAN NOT LET THE CURE BE WORSE THAN THE PROBLEM ITSELF , ” Trump tweeted in all capital letters on March 22 .
The following day , he began advocating for states to restart their economies in public statements .
“ Our country wasn ’ t built to be shut down , ” Trump said on March 23 .
Woodward ’ s book Rage will not only touch upon Trump ’ s response to coronavirus , it will also delve into other matters Trump has failed to adequately address during his presidency @ @ @ @ @ @ @ telling exchange , the journalist asked Trump if it was important to recognize white privilege in American society , and whether he had a responsibility as president to “ understand the anger and the pain ” being expressed by Black Americans .
“ No .
You really drank the Kool-Aid , didn ’ t you ?
Just listen to you , ” Trump responded to Woodward .
“ Wow .
No , I don ’ t feel that at all.
” Trump ’ s comments on race to Woodward occurred on June 19 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” a day that recognizes the freeing of the last enslaved Black Americans in the Confederacy after the Civil War .

Trump told the journalist in February that COVID-19 is deadlier than the flu, contradicting what he’s said in public.
President Trump was well aware of how dangerous COVID-19 was in the early days of the pandemic. He even admitted to journalist Bob Woodward in February that he understood the disease was deadlier than the flu, contradicting his public statements and attitudes toward the disease during that time and in the months following.
Excerpts and audio recordings of Woodward’s conversations with Trump, set to be included in the veteran journalist’s upcoming book about the Trump administration entitled Rage, were made public on Wednesday, showcasing Trump’s detailed knowledge about COVID-19 prior to it becoming more widespread among the U.S. populace. But while Trump seemed to understand how deadly the disease might become, he also told Woodward he preferred not to be candid with the American people about it.
Coronavirus is “more deadly than your — you know, your, even your strenuous flus,” Trump said on February 7 to Woodward. “You know, people don’t realize, we lose 25,000, 30,000 people a year here. Who would ever think that, right?”
“This is more deadly,” Trump added.
That statement contradicts the many times the president has suggested otherwise. Later in February, for instance, Trump said coronavirus would disappear “like a miracle,” and called criticisms of his preparations for the disease a new political “hoax” against him. On March 9, despite what he told Woodward in private, he misleadingly compared COVID-19 to the flu, suggesting on Twitter that calls to close the economy in order to deal with the coronavirus were overblown reactions to the pandemic, as tens of thousands of Americans die annually from influenza.
“At this moment there are 546 confirmed cases of CoronaVirus, with 22 deaths. Think about that!” Trump said at the time.
As of Wednesday, more than 194,000 Americans have died from coronavirus, with some health models projecting as many as 314,000 deaths from the disease by December 1.
Trump also told Woodward he was warned in late January about the gravity of the situation, having been briefed by National Security Adviser Robert O’Brien about the potential deadliness coronavirus posed to the United States.
“This will be the biggest national security threat you face in your presidency,” O’Brien had said to Trump. “This is going to be the roughest thing you face.”
In later interviews that took place in mid-March, Trump explained to Woodward his rationale for not informing Americans about the true implications of the disease.
“I wanted to always play it down. I still like playing it down, because I don’t want to create a panic,” Trump said.
But the president’s refusal to take the disease head on came with severe consequences. According to one study from a pair of epidemiologists in mid-April, for example, had Trump implemented or encouraged stay-at-home orders just two weeks earlier than when they came about on March 16, 90 percent of all coronavirus deaths in the U.S. up to that point could have been avoided.
Instead, just days after speaking with Woodward in March, Trump was advocating for states to suspend their stay-at-home orders, even though the White House’s own “15 Days to Slow the Spread” guidelines were barely into their first week. “WE CANNOT LET THE CURE BE WORSE THAN THE PROBLEM ITSELF,” Trump tweeted in all capital letters on March 22.
The following day, he began advocating for states to restart their economies in public statements. “Our country wasn’t built to be shut down,” Trump said on March 23.
Woodward’s book Rage will not only touch upon Trump’s response to coronavirus, it will also delve into other matters Trump has failed to adequately address during his presidency, including race relations. In one telling exchange, the journalist asked Trump if it was important to recognize white privilege in American society, and whether he had a responsibility as president to “understand the anger and the pain” being expressed by Black Americans.
“No. You really drank the Kool-Aid, didn’t you? Just listen to you,” Trump responded to Woodward. “Wow. No, I don’t feel that at all.”
Trump’s comments on race to Woodward occurred on June 19 of this year, or “Juneteenth,” a day that recognizes the freeing of the last enslaved Black Americans in the Confederacy after the Civil War.
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
Copyright © Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.


truthout--2020-09-09--Trump Is Throwing Billions at the Pentagon But Wants Us to Believe He’s a Dove

“ I ’ m not saying the military ’ s in love with me , ” Donald Trump said on Monday .
“ The soldiers are .
The top people in the Pentagon probably aren ’ t because they want to do nothing but fight wars so that all of those wonderful companies that make the bombs and make the planes and make everything else stay happy.
” Thus , the man who had us on the brink of war with Iran before COVID-19 hit , who throws literally unrequested billions of dollars at the Pentagon , who circumvents Congress @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and who fawns so shamelessly over the tools of war-making that he wants his political rallies to look like North Korean military parades , painted himself as an anti-war dove facing off against the warmongers in the defense department and their army of lobbyists .
And the kernel of self-serving truth swaddled in all these lies ?
The fact that war is among the most profitable industries in the U.S .
Among the most insidious tricks Donald Trump plays on people is his habit of seasoning the delivery of his daily verbal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ truth .
When he pivots off a truth like that to paint himself as some ersatz savior , however , and when he makes promises he knows he won ’ t keep , and especially when he tells that rare truth in order to hide from his serial lies , Trump does a greater disservice to the truth than all his confabulations combined .
The truth from a damned liar becomes a lie itself , tainted by a bitter alchemy that steals from the people even the smallest solace found in being able @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that which they most need to hear .
The nation clanged off this phenomenon again last week when Jeffrey Goldberg ’ s bombshell article in The Atlantic painted Trump as disdainful to serving soldiers , veterans and the military dead .
“ Suckers ” and “ losers ” are Trump ’ s words for the armed forces , according to Goldberg and the numerous sources he cited .
The president of the United States has no concept of service or sacrifice , was the gist , and views those who give without getting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has made great hay out of demands to respect soldiers and the flag at professional sporting events .
Now here he is , allegedly pissing in the faces of those troops on a regular basis and as an expression of his core beliefs .
To trample on the virtue of the sacred soldier in America , allegedly or in fact , is about the most perilous thing a politician can do .
This was the perfect scandal for a 21st-century American military empire whose hegemony over vast swaths of the planet remains undisputed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so long that “ Support the troops !
” may as well be printed on the currency .
Anyone crossing the line into overt criticism of the military runs the risk of public defenestration .
Reaction from the administration was swift and frantic .
Trump denounced the Atlantic story with all the venom he could muster , and a number of present and former Trump officials issued non-denial denials regarding ever having heard Trump speak this way .
When Trump deemed those defenses to be inadequate to the moment , he lashed out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bit of truth in the process by citing the power of “ all of those wonderful companies that make the bombs and make the planes.
” There are many things wrong with the United States today , but this nation ’ s ability to kill billions of people in less time than it takes to bake a meatloaf remains fully and expensively intact .
Nestled deep in missile silos marking time beneath Nebraska cornfields is apocalyptic fire , awaiting only an order from a man like Trump to reveal itself .
The Pentagon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and the pipeline between that building , the lobbyists , the weapons manufacturers and Congress is wide open and well worn .
Despite promises to “ drain the swamp , ” Trump has done nothing whatsoever to ameliorate the process .
Now , he attacks it to distract people from accusations that he calls fallen soldiers “ suckers.
” Are they ?
My father volunteered for Vietnam and came home with a head full of broken glass , all his plans for the future scrambled by war .
Did that make him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ U.S. soldiers who shot civilians and bombed ambulances in Fallujah under the command of Marine Corps Gen. James “ Mad Dog ” Mattis automatically qualify as heroes because they wear the uniform ?
These are the conversations that fall by the wayside in this hypermilitarized nation , with its nearly truthless president and his penchant for stealing the honor of his betters for his own self-preservation .
The alchemy of the liar poisons the necessary truth , and we are all the real losers in the end .

Hounded by his own scandals, Trump admitted the profit motives behind U.S. militarism, but he’s still funding it.
“I’m not saying the military’s in love with me,” Donald Trump said on Monday. “The soldiers are. The top people in the Pentagon probably aren’t because they want to do nothing but fight wars so that all of those wonderful companies that make the bombs and make the planes and make everything else stay happy.”
Thus, the man who had us on the brink of war with Iran before COVID-19 hit, who throws literally unrequested billions of dollars at the Pentagon, who circumvents Congress to sell weapons to murderous regimes overseas, and who fawns so shamelessly over the tools of war-making that he wants his political rallies to look like North Korean military parades, painted himself as an anti-war dove facing off against the warmongers in the defense department and their army of lobbyists.
Priceless.
And the kernel of self-serving truth swaddled in all these lies? The fact that war is among the most profitable industries in the U.S.
Among the most insidious tricks Donald Trump plays on people is his habit of seasoning the delivery of his daily verbal avalanches with the occasional nugget of raw truth.
When he pivots off a truth like that to paint himself as some ersatz savior, however, and when he makes promises he knows he won’t keep, and especially when he tells that rare truth in order to hide from his serial lies, Trump does a greater disservice to the truth than all his confabulations combined.
The truth from a damned liar becomes a lie itself, tainted by a bitter alchemy that steals from the people even the smallest solace found in being able to trust in any truth, especially that which they most need to hear.
The nation clanged off this phenomenon again last week when Jeffrey Goldberg’s bombshell article in The Atlantic painted Trump as disdainful to serving soldiers, veterans and the military dead. “Suckers” and “losers” are Trump’s words for the armed forces, according to Goldberg and the numerous sources he cited. The president of the United States has no concept of service or sacrifice, was the gist, and views those who give without getting as dupes and fools.
Trump himself has made great hay out of demands to respect soldiers and the flag at professional sporting events. Now here he is, allegedly pissing in the faces of those troops on a regular basis and as an expression of his core beliefs. To trample on the virtue of the sacred soldier in America, allegedly or in fact, is about the most perilous thing a politician can do.
This was the perfect scandal for a 21st-century American military empire whose hegemony over vast swaths of the planet remains undisputed. We have been at war for so long that “Support the troops!” may as well be printed on the currency. Anyone crossing the line into overt criticism of the military runs the risk of public defenestration.
Reaction from the administration was swift and frantic. Trump denounced the Atlantic story with all the venom he could muster, and a number of present and former Trump officials issued non-denial denials regarding ever having heard Trump speak this way. When Trump deemed those defenses to be inadequate to the moment, he lashed out at the Pentagon… and told quite a bit of truth in the process by citing the power of “all of those wonderful companies that make the bombs and make the planes.”
The kernel of self-serving truth swaddled in all the lies? The fact that war is among the most profitable industries in the U.S.
There are many things wrong with the United States today, but this nation’s ability to kill billions of people in less time than it takes to bake a meatloaf remains fully and expensively intact. Nestled deep in missile silos marking time beneath Nebraska cornfields is apocalyptic fire, awaiting only an order from a man like Trump to reveal itself.
The Pentagon is the storefront for this global industry, and the pipeline between that building, the lobbyists, the weapons manufacturers and Congress is wide open and well worn. Despite promises to “drain the swamp,” Trump has done nothing whatsoever to ameliorate the process. Now, he attacks it to distract people from accusations that he calls fallen soldiers “suckers.”
Are they? My father volunteered for Vietnam and came home with a head full of broken glass, all his plans for the future scrambled by war. Did that make him a loser? Conversely, do the U.S. soldiers who shot civilians and bombed ambulances in Fallujah under the command of Marine Corps Gen. James “Mad Dog” Mattis automatically qualify as heroes because they wear the uniform?
These are the conversations that fall by the wayside in this hypermilitarized nation, with its nearly truthless president and his penchant for stealing the honor of his betters for his own self-preservation. The alchemy of the liar poisons the necessary truth, and we are all the real losers in the end.
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
Copyright © Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.


truthout--2020-09-09--In Memoriam: Kevin Zeese Is Irreplaceable

Kevin Zeese was a major constant reliable presence in the movement for peace and justice .
He used writing , editing , online and all other forms of communication .
He organized events , protests , occupations .
He risked arrest .
He ran for office .
He was an attorney and used the courts and shared his expertise .
He thought independently .
He acted collaboratively .
He maintained good relations with those he disagreed with — even those he disagreed with over that most disagreeable of topics in a collapsing oligarchy : elections .
Kevin and his partner @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , civil resistance , music , journalism , radio , and coalition building to cross issue areas and energize .
Losing Kevin is a horrible blow , but nobody can say he didn ’ t put his time to good use .
Nobody can say that if thousands followed his lead we wouldn ’ t have a world transformed .
Nobody can say that he didn ’ t make a major difference , exposing injustice and changing public policy and culture for the better .
When I type in “ Zeese ” on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Take a listen .
Then I find an old announcement of a shadow cabinet with myself as Secretary of Peace and Kevin as Attorney General .
I find plans for event and joint statements — pages and pages and pages of them .
I find that Kevin was part of protecting an embassy against a coup , occupying Washington , D.C. , legalizing drugs , opposing NATO , meeting with the U.S. Institute of Peace to ask them to support peace , rallying in support of numerous whistleblowers , speaking out powerfully for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , an anti-racist , a socialist , a war abolitionist , a poverty abolitionist .
He supported World BEYOND War from the get-go and served on our advisory board , not only in name , but actually strategizing and advising , wisely and creatively .
Kevin took on the plutocrats , the lobbyists , the Chamber of Commerce , the weapons dealers , the politicians , and the pundits , — fairly and fearlessly .
Going back through my own website I see how many times I interviewed him and he interviewed me @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people he influenced .
But looking up “ Zeese ” on worldbeyondwar.org , is overwhelming .
Another : Iran Wants Peace .
Will The US Allow Peace With Iran ?
By Kevin Zeese and Margaret Flowers See Kevin ’ s portrait and bio on Americans Who Tell the Truth .
But perhaps best of all , watch this video of a speech that Kevin made at World BEYOND War ’ s conference in Toronto in 2018 , in which Kevin discusses his understanding of how to build a social movement that succeeds .
@ @ @

Kevin Zeese was a major, constant and reliable presence in the movement for peace and justice.
Kevin Zeese was a major constant reliable presence in the movement for peace and justice. He used writing, editing, online and all other forms of communication. He organized events, protests, occupations. He risked arrest. He ran for office. He was an attorney and used the courts and shared his expertise. He thought independently. He acted collaboratively. He maintained good relations with those he disagreed with — even those he disagreed with over that most disagreeable of topics in a collapsing oligarchy: elections.
Kevin and his partner in recent years Margaret Flowers combined art, civil resistance, music, journalism, radio, and coalition building to cross issue areas and energize. Losing Kevin is a horrible blow, but nobody can say he didn’t put his time to good use. Nobody can say that if thousands followed his lead we wouldn’t have a world transformed. Nobody can say that he didn’t make a major difference, exposing injustice and changing public policy and culture for the better.
When I type in “Zeese” on davidswanson.org I find this radio show. Take a listen.
Then I find an old announcement of a shadow cabinet with myself as Secretary of Peace and Kevin as Attorney General.
I find plans for event and joint statements — pages and pages and pages of them. I find that Kevin was part of protecting an embassy against a coup, occupying Washington, D.C., legalizing drugs, opposing NATO, meeting with the U.S. Institute of Peace to ask them to support peace, rallying in support of numerous whistleblowers, speaking out powerfully for countless causes. Kevin was an environmentalist, an anti-racist, a socialist, a war abolitionist, a poverty abolitionist. He supported World BEYOND War from the get-go and served on our advisory board, not only in name, but actually strategizing and advising, wisely and creatively.
Kevin took on the plutocrats, the lobbyists, the Chamber of Commerce, the weapons dealers, the politicians, and the pundits, — fairly and fearlessly. Going back through my own website I see how many times I interviewed him and he interviewed me, and I recall how many other people he influenced. But looking up “Zeese” on worldbeyondwar.org, is overwhelming.
A recent classic:
Guaidó’s Failed Foreign Tour Ends With A Flop
By Kevin Zeese and Margaret Flowers
Another:
Iran Wants Peace. Will The US Allow Peace With Iran?
By Kevin Zeese and Margaret Flowers
More:
Koreas Negotiating Peace Treaty and End To Demilitarized Zone
By Kevin Zeese
See Kevin’s portrait and bio on Americans Who Tell the Truth.
But perhaps best of all, watch this video of a speech that Kevin made at World BEYOND War’s conference in Toronto in 2018, in which Kevin discusses his understanding of how to build a social movement that succeeds. Listen carefully.
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.


truthout--2020-09-09--WikiLeaks Founder Julian Assange May Face Up to 175 Years in Prison

As the long-awaited extradition hearing for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange gets underway in London , his legal adviser , Jennifer Robinson , says the case could set a chilling precedent for press freedoms around the world .
“ He faces 175 years in prison for doing his job as a journalist and a publisher .
That ’ s why this case is so dangerous , ” says Robinson .
Assange faces numerous charges , including under the U.S .
Espionage Act , related to the release of diplomatic cables published by WikiLeaks that revealed war crimes committed by U.S. forces @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a possible life sentence if he is extradited to the U.S .
This is a rush transcript .
Copy may not be in its final form .
AMY GOODMAN : We ’ re going to turn right now to London .
This week , WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is appearing in court for the first time in six months , after his extradition hearing was delayed due to the coronavirus pandemic .
Assange has been held in London ’ s high-security Belmarsh prison since he was arrested in April 2019 at the Ecuadoran @ @ @ @ @ @ @ taken refuge for almost seven years .
As Assange arrived at the courthouse Monday , he was arrested on 18 new charges from a U.S. indictment filed in June .
Assange is wanted in the United States for exposing U.S. war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan .
He faces 175 years for espionage and hacking charges .
On Tuesday , the proceedings were briefly adjourned after Assange shouted , quote , “ Nonsense !
” as James Lewis , a lawyer acting for the U.S. government , told a witness that Assange was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the names of informants , and not for handling leaked documents .
The comment was a response to witness Clive Stafford Smith testifying that documents published by WikiLeaks had exposed , quote , “ grave violations of law , ” such as targeted U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan .
The judge warned Assange he would be removed from the courtroom if he yelled again .
Protests in defense of Assange and press freedom have taken place in London and in cities around the world .
This is Julian Assange ’ s father , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ left the London courthouse .
AMY GOODMAN : For more , we go to London for an update from Jennifer Robinson , the human rights attorney who ’ s been advising Julian Assange and WikiLeaks since 2010 .
She ’ s joining us during the court ’ s lunch break right outside the courthouse .
Jen Robinson , welcome back to Democracy Now !
You are seeing Julian Assange for the first time in six months .
He ’ s been at the high-security Belmarsh prison for a year and a half , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Can you describe , well , what it ’ s like to see him now for the first time and what these charges are against him , including the new ones that were just brought ?
So , we saw Julian for the first time in six months as a result of the COVID shutdown .
He hasn ’ t had any social or legal visits since the pandemic broke out , which has left him incredibly isolated in prison .
And it was surprising to us to see that he has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we , of course , have continuing concerns about his health , given the long-term impacts of being both inside the embassy and now in a high-security prison in these circumstances .
Of course , you mentioned in your opening that we now have had not one , but two superseding indictments .
He was arrested on a second superseding indictment on Monday that the Department of Justice issued in June .
We were first told that it made no substantive difference , and we ’ re now told that those new allegations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Snowden , providing assistance to the NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden , now are part of the case and could form part of separate criminal allegations if he is returned to the United States .
This is part of what we say the U.S. government is trying to shift the goalposts , as it were .
We heard from our defense counsel in court on Monday that , of course , this is perhaps in response to the strength of our case that the U.S. government is now shifting and changing its case , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after the closing and submission of evidence from both parties .
It is a very unusual and highly irregular process in any kind of extradition case , and certainly one as unprecedented as this .
JUAN GONZÁLEZ : And , Jennifer Robinson , what about these new hacking allegations , bringing them so late in the process here as the hearing has started ?
JENNIFER ROBINSON : I think adding these additional , quote , “ hacking ” allegations , which are general and questionable and , of course , are denied by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Department of Justice ’ s attempt to try and shift the case away from the Manning disclosures and , of course , the evidence that we ’ ve heard this week and seen in the publications around the world , evidence of war crimes , human rights abuse , corruption the world over .
It is a clear press freedom case .
And the attempts by the Department of Justice to somehow create this as a hacking case , when there is absolutely no evidence of any hacking by Mr. Assange , I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ away from the important issues on press freedom .
We ’ ve heard already in the evidence this case — in the evidence this week from Clive Stafford Smith , the founder of Reprieve , about the importance of WikiLeaks ’ disclosures about U.S. extraordinary rendition , torture , and , importantly , drone strikes and extrajudicial killings in Pakistan , and how those disclosures have been essential in his work , both in terms of holding the U.S. government accountable for those actions in Pakistan , but also with respect to his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We ’ ve also heard evidence from professor Mark Feldstein about the unprecedented nature of the attack on First Amendment that this case represents and the history of the Espionage Act being threatened against journalists by various presidents , including Roosevelt and Nixon , and now , in this case , by President Trump himself .
JUAN GONZÁLEZ : Specifically , you mentioned Mark Feldstein ’ s testimony and the evidence he presented .
One of the interesting things , as I ’ ve reviewed that statement of his , was not only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in America for many — really , for a couple of hundred years was a highly partisan press , but he also talks about how the First Amendment doesn ’ t protect the press as an industry , but as a technology .
Could you — for our viewers and listeners who are not aware of professor Feldstein ’ s testimony , could you elaborate on that portion of his evidence ?
JENNIFER ROBINSON : Well , Professor Feldstein explained at some length the importance of the First Amendment and how it protects @ @ @ @ @ @ @ U.S. jurisdiction , their ability to — their free speech .
And , of course , it protects the media ’ s ability to communicate with sources , receive information and publish it in the public interest .
What we ’ re seeing — what he pointed out about the danger of this particular case is the breakdown of the distinction between sources and journalists .
So , we ’ ve often seen that sources who make unlawful or unauthorized disclosures are prosecuted and can face criminal prosecution as a result of their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ never been directed at the media .
The First Amendment is understood to protect the media in receiving and publishing that information in the public interest , which is exactly what WikiLeaks did .
And in this case , what the Trump administration is alleging is that Julian Assange , by virtue of having communications with Chelsea Manning , receiving information from Chelsea Manning and publishing that information , is somehow conspiring and is conspiring in the underlying criminal act .
And we ’ ve seen this same prosecution strategy now rolled out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Greenwald .
That ’ s why this is so dangerous , because this is the kind of activity that journalists engage in all day , every day , across the United States and elsewhere around the world , which is why The New York Times and The Washington Post have both , in their editorials , said that this is criminalizing public interest journalism and news gathering practices that have been used for decades .
AMY GOODMAN : I want to explain to people that Jen Robinson is standing outside the courtroom at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many protesters who are there , as there have been protesters in cities around the world , as Julian Assange is in the midst of a month-long extradition hearing , whether he will be extradited to the United States .
We wanted to turn to Julian in his own words .
We haven ’ t been able to speak to him in Belmarsh prison , but I went to London and interviewed him when he had political exile in the Ecuadorian Embassy in 2015 .
AMY GOODMAN : So , that ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he was taken a year and half ago by British police and he was put in the Belmarsh prison .
This is Nils Melzer , the United Nations special rapporteur on torture , who visited Julian last year in London ’ s high-security Belmarsh prison .
AMY GOODMAN : So , that ’ s Nils Melzer , the United Nations special rapporteur on torture , who visited Assange at Belmarsh .
Jen Robinson , for people who aren ’ t familiar with Julian Assange ’ s case , if you can talk about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ here , where Britain will decide whether to extradite him to the United States , where he faces 175 years ?
What was it that WikiLeaks released , the millions of documents around Afghanistan , Iraq , etc.
?
And what was Chelsea Manning ’ s role in this , and the significance of what she did ?
JENNIFER ROBINSON : Well , Julian has been charged under the Espionage Act , the first time in the history of the United States , for receiving , publishing — receiving and publishing classified U.S. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Murder ” publication , the Iraq rules of engagement , which demonstrates war crimes in Iraq .
It includes the Iraq and Afghan war logs , which demonstrated that the United States government was not sharing the truth about what was actually happening in those conflicts , including the killing of more than 15,000 civilians in the context of the Iraq War .
And he ’ s also being prosecuted in relation to the State Department cables and the publication of those cables , which revealed human rights abuse and corruption the world @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , for which he was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize , the Sydney Peace Prize , won the Walkley Award for Most Outstanding Contribution to Journalism .
And he faces 175 years in prison for doing his job as a journalist and as a publisher .
That ’ s why this case is so dangerous .
And as you ’ ll be hearing , the evidence that will be heard over the next four weeks is from journalists , from NGOs , such as Reprieve — is what we heard from yesterday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leaks , how they ’ ve been used in terms of political movements , in terms of human rights litigation , in terms of holding governments to account for their wrongdoing , and more evidence also about the prison conditions that Julian will face if he is in fact returned to the United States to face prosecution .
JUAN GONZÁLEZ : And , Jen Robinson , could you talk about the fact that it was President Trump , when he was running for president , as a candidate , actually said in public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he urged them , if they had information on the Hillary Clinton emails , the supposed disappeared emails , to release them , that now it is the Trump administration that is seeking to prosecute him and extradite him back to the United States ?
JENNIFER ROBINSON : That ’ s right .
There ’ s certainly been a change in approach from President Trump , from prior to being elected and now in his role as president .
What we saw was a change in position from the Trump administration .
We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ under the Obama administration .
Of course , that whole process was secret because of the grand jury process .
But the indictment was not issued until well into the Trump administration .
And we had indications that the Trump administration was going to take a different approach , when Mike Pompeo , as head of the CIA , declared that WikiLeaks is a hostile nonstate intelligence agency and that they would be working to take WikiLeaks down and that Julian ought not benefit from First Amendment protections , followed very quickly by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sessions , saying it was a priority to prosecute WikiLeaks .
And now we ’ ve seen the outcome of that .
We see an indictment where Julian faces 175 years in prison .
This is part of , we say , the Trump administration ’ s attack on journalism , and war on whistleblowers and journalism .
And it is a precedent that will be used against journalists not just in the United States , but journalists around the world , because the most dangerous thing about this — and a position @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clear in his evidence before this court — is that not only is the U.S. government seeking to exercise jurisdiction over journalists and publishers outside of the United States for publishing information about the United States , they are also saying that they will exercise that jurisdiction , but at the same time foreign publishers and journalists will not benefit and should not benefit from First Amendment protections .
And that should be very concerning for journalists everywhere around the world .
AMY GOODMAN : And , of course , many of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with Julian Assange , like The New York Times , like The Washington Post , in exposing war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan .
Have they come out to the extent that you would like to see , and would it make a difference ?
As well , if you can talk about what you expect to see over this month ?
Is Daniel Ellsberg testifying today , one of the most famous whistleblowers in the world ?
JENNIFER ROBINSON : That ’ s correct .
So , we will be seeing over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ number of experts on the free speech implications of this indictment .
Daniel Ellsberg will also be giving evidence about his own experience as the leaker of the Pentagon Papers .
We ’ ll be hearing evidence from expert witnesses about the nature of the grand jury process , the nature of the U.S. prosecution process and the prison conditions inside prison .
AMY GOODMAN : And the role of U.S. press , so significant because it ’ s the U.S. that ’ s seeking the extradition of Julian Assange , again , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in prison ?
JENNIFER ROBINSON : Historically , I think the position of the U.S. press has been disappointing .
We ’ ve been saying since 2010 that this was a risk and that if this precedent would be sought as against WikiLeaks , it could be used against The New York Times and other media organizations and journalists .
But since this indictment was issued by the Trump administration , we ’ ve seen unanimous responses , from The Washington Post , from The New York Times , from news organizations and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that this is a dangerous precedent for journalism and for freedom of the press , and that Julian ought to be released immediately .
We ’ ve had a resolution from the Council of Europe calling on the U.K. to release Julian because of the danger of this precedent for press freedom .
So , I think that it is true to say that there is , I think , a chorus of mainstream media organizations , NGOs , and indeed some governments , that say that this case is dangerous and it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ GONZÁLEZ : And , Jen Robinson , how is Julian Assange ’ s health ?
What ’ s the situation in the prison with COVID and the potential for him to be exposed ?
JENNIFER ROBINSON : Well , as I explained , we haven ’ t been able to visit him in prison since the pandemic broke out .
All social and legal visits were canceled , which means he ’ s been even more isolated than he was before in this high-security prison .
Because of his long-term — having been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years inside the embassy and now inside the prison , he has a number of respiratory issues , along with other health concerns , which make him particularly susceptible to COVID .
It has been difficult to even have videoconferencing with him , because of his doctor ’ s advice that he shouldn ’ t be moving within the prison because of the risk of contracting COVID .
And there have , in fact , been a number of deaths , COVID deaths , inside the British prisons since the outbreak of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been very concerned about his health from a pandemic perspective , but also seeing a decline in his health as a result of this long-term imprisonment .
And it ’ s very unusual .
This is a publisher who is being held on remand in a high-security prison because of an indictment and an extradition request from the Trump administration .
You know , it is having a serious impact on his health .
And we will be hearing further evidence , psychiatric evidence , about the impact this has had on Julian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the doctor ’ s concerns for him , if he is returned to prison in the United States .
AMY GOODMAN : Is there any discussion between your team , Julian Assange ’ s legal team , and the Trump administration over a pardon ?
JENNIFER ROBINSON : That will be the subject of evidence in these proceedings , so you ’ ll have to wait to see what happens in court .
AMY GOODMAN : Well , we , of course , will continue to follow the case of Julian Assange @ @ @ @ @ @ @ either in political exile inside the Ecuadorian Embassy or at the high-security Belmarsh prison , for over eight years at this point , the last six months in almost total lockdown at the high-security prison because of the pandemic .
We ’ ll continue to cover this case .
Jennifer Robinson , human rights attorney who ’ s been advising Julian Assange and WikiLeaks since 2010 , speaking to us right outside the courthouse during the lunch break of the case around Julian Assange .
When we come back , we look at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Central America has led to the ongoing migrant crisis .
We ’ ll speak with Salvadoran American journalist Roberto Lovato , author of the new book Unforgetting .
Stay with us .

As the long-awaited extradition hearing for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange gets underway in London, his legal adviser, Jennifer Robinson, says the case could set a chilling precedent for press freedoms around the world. “He faces 175 years in prison for doing his job as a journalist and a publisher. That’s why this case is so dangerous,” says Robinson. Assange faces numerous charges, including under the U.S. Espionage Act, related to the release of diplomatic cables published by WikiLeaks that revealed war crimes committed by U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. He faces a possible life sentence if he is extradited to the U.S.
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: We’re going to turn right now to London. This week, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is appearing in court for the first time in six months, after his extradition hearing was delayed due to the coronavirus pandemic. Assange has been held in London’s high-security Belmarsh prison since he was arrested in April 2019 at the Ecuadoran Embassy in London, where he had taken refuge for almost seven years. As Assange arrived at the courthouse Monday, he was arrested on 18 new charges from a U.S. indictment filed in June. Assange is wanted in the United States for exposing U.S. war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan. He faces 175 years for espionage and hacking charges.
On Tuesday, the proceedings were briefly adjourned after Assange shouted, quote, “Nonsense!” as James Lewis, a lawyer acting for the U.S. government, told a witness that Assange was facing extradition proceedings over the publication of the names of informants, and not for handling leaked documents. The comment was a response to witness Clive Stafford Smith testifying that documents published by WikiLeaks had exposed, quote, “grave violations of law,” such as targeted U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan. The judge warned Assange he would be removed from the courtroom if he yelled again.
Protests in defense of Assange and press freedom have taken place in London and in cities around the world. This is Julian Assange’s father, John Shipton, speaking Monday as he left the London courthouse.
JOHN SHIPTON: I think the case is a fraud against the court. That’s what I think: fraud against the court applied by the American Department of Justice. Julian is an Australian citizen. The publications are in the United Kingdom. And yet he is kidnapped and judicially abducted to the United States to spend 175 years in jail.
AMY GOODMAN: For more, we go to London for an update from Jennifer Robinson, the human rights attorney who’s been advising Julian Assange and WikiLeaks since 2010. She’s joining us during the court’s lunch break right outside the courthouse.
Jen Robinson, welcome back to Democracy Now! You are seeing Julian Assange for the first time in six months. He’s been at the high-security Belmarsh prison for a year and a half, and then under lockdown because of COVID. Can you describe, well, what it’s like to see him now for the first time and what these charges are against him, including the new ones that were just brought?
JENNIFER ROBINSON: Good morning, Amy.
So, we saw Julian for the first time in six months as a result of the COVID shutdown. He hasn’t had any social or legal visits since the pandemic broke out, which has left him incredibly isolated in prison. And it was surprising to us to see that he has lost a lot of weight. And we, of course, have continuing concerns about his health, given the long-term impacts of being both inside the embassy and now in a high-security prison in these circumstances.
Of course, you mentioned in your opening that we now have had not one, but two superseding indictments. He was arrested on a second superseding indictment on Monday that the Department of Justice issued in June. We were first told that it made no substantive difference, and we’re now told that those new allegations, which include allegations related to Edward Snowden, providing assistance to the NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, now are part of the case and could form part of separate criminal allegations if he is returned to the United States.
This is part of what we say the U.S. government is trying to shift the goalposts, as it were. We heard from our defense counsel in court on Monday that, of course, this is perhaps in response to the strength of our case that the U.S. government is now shifting and changing its case, almost 18 months after they started and after the closing and submission of evidence from both parties. It is a very unusual and highly irregular process in any kind of extradition case, and certainly one as unprecedented as this.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Jennifer Robinson, what about these new hacking allegations, bringing them so late in the process here as the hearing has started?
JENNIFER ROBINSON: I think adding these additional, quote, “hacking” allegations, which are general and questionable and, of course, are denied by Mr. Assange, I think is the Department of Justice’s attempt to try and shift the case away from the Manning disclosures and, of course, the evidence that we’ve heard this week and seen in the publications around the world, evidence of war crimes, human rights abuse, corruption the world over. It is a clear press freedom case. And the attempts by the Department of Justice to somehow create this as a hacking case, when there is absolutely no evidence of any hacking by Mr. Assange, I think, demonstrates their desire to move away from the important issues on press freedom.
We’ve heard already in the evidence this case — in the evidence this week from Clive Stafford Smith, the founder of Reprieve, about the importance of WikiLeaks’ disclosures about U.S. extraordinary rendition, torture, and, importantly, drone strikes and extrajudicial killings in Pakistan, and how those disclosures have been essential in his work, both in terms of holding the U.S. government accountable for those actions in Pakistan, but also with respect to his Guantánamo litigation in the United States.
We’ve also heard evidence from professor Mark Feldstein about the unprecedented nature of the attack on First Amendment that this case represents and the history of the Espionage Act being threatened against journalists by various presidents, including Roosevelt and Nixon, and now, in this case, by President Trump himself.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Specifically, you mentioned Mark Feldstein’s testimony and the evidence he presented. One of the interesting things, as I’ve reviewed that statement of his, was not only his historical look at how the press in America for many — really, for a couple of hundred years was a highly partisan press, but he also talks about how the First Amendment doesn’t protect the press as an industry, but as a technology. Could you — for our viewers and listeners who are not aware of professor Feldstein’s testimony, could you elaborate on that portion of his evidence?
JENNIFER ROBINSON: Well, Professor Feldstein explained at some length the importance of the First Amendment and how it protects every American citizen and any person within U.S. jurisdiction, their ability to — their free speech. And, of course, it protects the media’s ability to communicate with sources, receive information and publish it in the public interest.
What we’re seeing — what he pointed out about the danger of this particular case is the breakdown of the distinction between sources and journalists. So, we’ve often seen that sources who make unlawful or unauthorized disclosures are prosecuted and can face criminal prosecution as a result of their disclosures. But historically, that has never been directed at the media. The First Amendment is understood to protect the media in receiving and publishing that information in the public interest, which is exactly what WikiLeaks did. And in this case, what the Trump administration is alleging is that Julian Assange, by virtue of having communications with Chelsea Manning, receiving information from Chelsea Manning and publishing that information, is somehow conspiring and is conspiring in the underlying criminal act.
And we’ve seen this same prosecution strategy now rolled out in Brazil by President Bolsonaro against Glenn Greenwald. That’s why this is so dangerous, because this is the kind of activity that journalists engage in all day, every day, across the United States and elsewhere around the world, which is why The New York Times and The Washington Post have both, in their editorials, said that this is criminalizing public interest journalism and news gathering practices that have been used for decades.
AMY GOODMAN: I want to explain to people that Jen Robinson is standing outside the courtroom at the lunch break, and there are many protesters who are there, as there have been protesters in cities around the world, as Julian Assange is in the midst of a month-long extradition hearing, whether he will be extradited to the United States. We wanted to turn to Julian in his own words. We haven’t been able to speak to him in Belmarsh prison, but I went to London and interviewed him when he had political exile in the Ecuadorian Embassy in 2015.
JULIAN ASSANGE: The U.S. government, in terms of its attack on WikiLeaks, has tried to construct a theory which, if permitted, will be the end of national security journalism, not just in the United States, but also about the United States. That claim is that journalists can’t solicit information from sources and to solicit information is to be involved in a conspiracy. And — AMY GOODMAN: An accomplice to the conspiracy. JULIAN ASSANGE: Yeah. And the United States, in terms of the charge types that it’s trying to charge me with — those include conspiracy and conspiracy to commit espionage — this is rubbish. We cannot tolerate this at the political level or the media level.
AMY GOODMAN: So, that’s Julian Assange inside the Ecuadoran Embassy before he was taken a year and half ago by British police and he was put in the Belmarsh prison. This is Nils Melzer, the United Nations special rapporteur on torture, who visited Julian last year in London’s high-security Belmarsh prison.
NILS MELZER: I spoke with him for an hour just to get a good first impression. Then we had a physical examination for an hour by our forensic expert, and then we had the two-hour psychiatric examination. And all three of us had the same impression — and, well, I had certainly an impression, and the medical doctors had a diagnosis, that they — we all came to the conclusion that he showed all the symptoms that are typical for a person that has been exposed to psychological torture over an extended period of time.
AMY GOODMAN: So, that’s Nils Melzer, the United Nations special rapporteur on torture, who visited Assange at Belmarsh. Jen Robinson, for people who aren’t familiar with Julian Assange’s case, if you can talk about what he is — the underlying charges here, where Britain will decide whether to extradite him to the United States, where he faces 175 years? What was it that WikiLeaks released, the millions of documents around Afghanistan, Iraq, etc.? And what was Chelsea Manning’s role in this, and the significance of what she did?
JENNIFER ROBINSON: Well, Julian has been charged under the Espionage Act, the first time in the history of the United States, for receiving, publishing — receiving and publishing classified U.S. information. That includes the “Collateral Murder” publication, the Iraq rules of engagement, which demonstrates war crimes in Iraq. It includes the Iraq and Afghan war logs, which demonstrated that the United States government was not sharing the truth about what was actually happening in those conflicts, including the killing of more than 15,000 civilians in the context of the Iraq War. And he’s also being prosecuted in relation to the State Department cables and the publication of those cables, which revealed human rights abuse and corruption the world over.
These are incredibly important publications, for which he was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize, the Sydney Peace Prize, won the Walkley Award for Most Outstanding Contribution to Journalism. And he faces 175 years in prison for doing his job as a journalist and as a publisher. That’s why this case is so dangerous.
And as you’ll be hearing, the evidence that will be heard over the next four weeks is from journalists, from NGOs, such as Reprieve — is what we heard from yesterday — talking about the importance of these leaks, how they’ve been used in terms of political movements, in terms of human rights litigation, in terms of holding governments to account for their wrongdoing, and more evidence also about the prison conditions that Julian will face if he is in fact returned to the United States to face prosecution.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Jen Robinson, could you talk about the fact that it was President Trump, when he was running for president, as a candidate, actually said in public statements that he loved WikiLeaks, and he urged them, if they had information on the Hillary Clinton emails, the supposed disappeared emails, to release them, that now it is the Trump administration that is seeking to prosecute him and extradite him back to the United States?
JENNIFER ROBINSON: That’s right. There’s certainly been a change in approach from President Trump, from prior to being elected and now in his role as president. What we saw was a change in position from the Trump administration. We now know that there was no indictment under the Obama administration. Of course, that whole process was secret because of the grand jury process. But the indictment was not issued until well into the Trump administration.
And we had indications that the Trump administration was going to take a different approach, when Mike Pompeo, as head of the CIA, declared that WikiLeaks is a hostile nonstate intelligence agency and that they would be working to take WikiLeaks down and that Julian ought not benefit from First Amendment protections, followed very quickly by statements by the attorney general, Jeff Sessions, saying it was a priority to prosecute WikiLeaks. And now we’ve seen the outcome of that. We see an indictment where Julian faces 175 years in prison.
This is part of, we say, the Trump administration’s attack on journalism, and war on whistleblowers and journalism. And it is a precedent that will be used against journalists not just in the United States, but journalists around the world, because the most dangerous thing about this — and a position that the United States attorney has made clear in his evidence before this court — is that not only is the U.S. government seeking to exercise jurisdiction over journalists and publishers outside of the United States for publishing information about the United States, they are also saying that they will exercise that jurisdiction, but at the same time foreign publishers and journalists will not benefit and should not benefit from First Amendment protections. And that should be very concerning for journalists everywhere around the world.
AMY GOODMAN: And, of course, many of the news organizations in the United States worked with Julian Assange, like The New York Times, like The Washington Post, in exposing war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan. Have they come out to the extent that you would like to see, and would it make a difference? As well, if you can talk about what you expect to see over this month? Is Daniel Ellsberg testifying today, one of the most famous whistleblowers in the world?
JENNIFER ROBINSON: That’s correct. So, we will be seeing over the next four weeks evidence from a number of experts on the free speech implications of this indictment. Daniel Ellsberg will also be giving evidence about his own experience as the leaker of the Pentagon Papers. We’ll be hearing evidence from expert witnesses about the nature of the grand jury process, the nature of the U.S. prosecution process and the prison conditions inside prison.
AMY GOODMAN: And the role of U.S. press, so significant because it’s the U.S. that’s seeking the extradition of Julian Assange, again, for which he would face 175 years in prison?
JENNIFER ROBINSON: Historically, I think the position of the U.S. press has been disappointing. We’ve been saying since 2010 that this was a risk and that if this precedent would be sought as against WikiLeaks, it could be used against The New York Times and other media organizations and journalists. But since this indictment was issued by the Trump administration, we’ve seen unanimous responses, from The Washington Post, from The New York Times, from news organizations and free speech NGOs the world over, that this is a dangerous precedent for journalism and for freedom of the press, and that Julian ought to be released immediately. We’ve had a resolution from the Council of Europe calling on the U.K. to release Julian because of the danger of this precedent for press freedom. So, I think that it is true to say that there is, I think, a chorus of mainstream media organizations, NGOs, and indeed some governments, that say that this case is dangerous and it ought to be shut down.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Jen Robinson, how is Julian Assange’s health? What’s the situation in the prison with COVID and the potential for him to be exposed?
JENNIFER ROBINSON: Well, as I explained, we haven’t been able to visit him in prison since the pandemic broke out. All social and legal visits were canceled, which means he’s been even more isolated than he was before in this high-security prison.
Because of his long-term — having been effectively in prison long-term, his seven-and-a-half years inside the embassy and now inside the prison, he has a number of respiratory issues, along with other health concerns, which make him particularly susceptible to COVID. It has been difficult to even have videoconferencing with him, because of his doctor’s advice that he shouldn’t be moving within the prison because of the risk of contracting COVID. And there have, in fact, been a number of deaths, COVID deaths, inside the British prisons since the outbreak of the pandemic. So, we’ve been very concerned about his health from a pandemic perspective, but also seeing a decline in his health as a result of this long-term imprisonment.
And it’s very unusual. This is a publisher who is being held on remand in a high-security prison because of an indictment and an extradition request from the Trump administration. You know, it is having a serious impact on his health. And we will be hearing further evidence, psychiatric evidence, about the impact this has had on Julian, and what will happen to him and the doctor’s concerns for him, if he is returned to prison in the United States.
AMY GOODMAN: Is there any discussion between your team, Julian Assange’s legal team, and the Trump administration over a pardon?
JENNIFER ROBINSON: That will be the subject of evidence in these proceedings, so you’ll have to wait to see what happens in court.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, we, of course, will continue to follow the case of Julian Assange. He has been in captivity, either in political exile inside the Ecuadorian Embassy or at the high-security Belmarsh prison, for over eight years at this point, the last six months in almost total lockdown at the high-security prison because of the pandemic. We’ll continue to cover this case. Jennifer Robinson, human rights attorney who’s been advising Julian Assange and WikiLeaks since 2010, speaking to us right outside the courthouse during the lunch break of the case around Julian Assange.
When we come back, we look at how decades of U.S. military intervention in Central America has led to the ongoing migrant crisis. We’ll speak with Salvadoran American journalist Roberto Lovato, author of the new book Unforgetting. Stay with us.