shadowproof--2020-09-26--Prosecutors’ Password-Cracking Conspiracy Theory Against Assange Unravels At Extradition Trial

When the first indictment against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange was disclosed by the United States Justice Department , the response from some attorneys and advocates was mixed .
It was viewed as “ narrowly tailored ” to avoid “ broader legal and policy implications.
” Assange was charged with “ conspiracy to commit computer intrusion ” and accused of “ agreeing ” to assist Pfc .
Chelsea Manning in “ cracking a password.
” At the end of the third week of an extradition trial , allegations related to this were entirely discredited by Patrick Eller , who was a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ team of more than 80 examiners at U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command headquarters in Quantico , Virginia .
Eller analyzed court martial records in Manning ’ s case that contained Jabber chat logs relevant to the allegations .
He considered testimony from the U.S. military ’ s own forensic expert that contradicted presumptions at the core of this charge against Assange .
Manning never provided the two files necessary to “ reconstruct the decryption key ” for the password hash , Eller testified .
“ At the time , it would not have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hash , such as the one Manning obtained.
” Or put another way , Eller declared , “ What Manning sent was insufficient to be able to crack the password in the way that the government [ has ] described.
” The U.S. Justice Department charged Assange with 17 counts of violating the Espionage Act in May 2019 .
But prior to that , a 2018 indictment alleging Assange engaged in a “ conspiracy to commit a computer intrusion ” was unsealed after he was arrested and expelled from the Ecuador embassy in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ morphed over more than two years from a specific charge under provisions of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act ( CFAA ) into a vague and inexact assortment of general allegations about conduct Assange may or may not have engaged in from 2009 to 2015 .
But the alleged agreement to “ crack a password ” remains in the 2020 indictment announced in June .
Password hashes are generally used to help authenticate users and passwords on a computer .
Lead prosecutor James Lewis asked Eller if he agreed that Manning and Assange @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and agreed to attempt to crack a password.
” He told Lewis a hash was provided and the account the U.S. government associates with Assange said they had “ rainbow tables for it , ” but Manning never shared where she obtained the hash .
( Using “ rainbow tables ” is one decryption method for cracking the hash by guessing different password values . )
Contradicted By U.S. Government ’ s Own Expert Witness In Manning Court Martial “ The government ’ s own expert witness in the court martial stated that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be able to do it , ” Eller added .
He specifically meant to crack the password .
On June 12 , 2013 , David Shaver , who was a special agent for the Army Computer Crimes Investigating Unit , testified the “ hash value ” was included in the chat , but it was not the “ full hash value.
” Major Thomas Hurley , who was on Manning ’ s defense team , asked if Manning would ’ ve needed more of the hash value to crack the password .
Shaver @ @ @ @ @ @ @ file , you would need that part as well.
” ( This is one of the two files Eller said are necessary for decryption . )
“ So the hash value included in the chat wouldn ’ t be enough to actually gain any passwords or user information ?
” Hurley asked .
Furthermore , Eller was asked multiple times by defense attorney Mark Summers on re-examination whether he saw evidence that linked Assange to the “ Nathaniel Frank ” identity , which the government believes is Assange .
He said , “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ asked if he was aware of who sat at the other end of whatever computer terminal “ Nathaniel Frank ” used .
“ Of course not .
I could not have that personal knowledge , ” Eller added .
This tracks with evidence in the Manning trial .
The government had no clear evidence in 2013 that Assange was the one communicating with Manning through that Jabber username , and they still do not have proof it was Assange in 2020 .
Eller ’ s testimony explicitly cast doubt on the conspiracy theory @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had already downloaded the Reykjavik cable , Guantanamo Files , Iraq War Logs , and Afghanistan War Logs .
“ Routinely in the course of work , ” she downloaded war log documents to have “ offline backups ” in the event of “ connectivity issues ” with the Secret Internet Protocol Router Network ( SIPRNet ) that was used .
“ The only set of documents named in the indictment that Manning sent after the alleged password cracking attempt were the State Department cables.
” But Eller noted , “ Manning had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government argues Assange agreed to help Manning crack a password for an FTP user account partly because it had administrative access privileges .
Eller showed soldiers at Forward Operating Base Hammer in Iraq , where Manning was stationed , were constantly trying to crack administrative passwords to install programs that were not authorized for their computers .
Jason Milliman , a computer engineer contracted to manage laptops at the base , told a military court “ soldiers cracked his password in order to install a program and then deleted his administrator account.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tried to use a password hash to exfiltrate files for submission to WikiLeaks .
She had a Linux CD that allowed her to access files on her computer and bypass Windows security features .
It is known she used this CD .
Sgt .
David Sadtler testified during Manning ’ s court martial that Manning proposed starting “ some sort of hash cracking business.
” Q .
During your conversations with PFC Manning , did you ever have a conversation about setting up a hash table software ?
A .
He had brought @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seemed to be a private conversation and he fielded the idea to me that he wanted to generate hash tables on a computer and market that in some fashion .
A. Hash tables are mathematical calculations of passwords that are supposed to be in a one-way fashion so that you can ’ t reverse that sequence into the original password , thereby securing that password from release .
Q .
And the idea that PFC Manning was talking to you about from what you heard , did you believe that was a marketable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been accomplished in the open-source world .
Or it was generally already known to exist .
So for reimplementing it , it did make sense to me.
” ( Exhibit 13 , p.9854 ) Eller wrote in his statement to the court , “ While she was discussing rainbow tables and password hashes in the Jabber chat , she was also discussing the same topics with her colleagues .
This , and the other factors previously highlighted , may indicate that the hash cracking topic was unrelated to leaking documents.
” It is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Assange was never about journalism .
The charge specifically criminalizes Assange for allegedly knowing Manning had made unauthorized disclosures of classified information to WikiLeaks , as if he was supposed to reject documents from a source because she was breaking the law .
This language is directly from the Espionage Act , not any law against computer crimes or defrauding the U.S. government .
FBI Special Agent Megan Brown , who was assigned to the “ counterespionage squad ” at the Washington Field Office in the District of Columbia , focused on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Logs in an affidavit she submitted on this charge in December 2017 .
The affidavit confirmed the Justice Department was alleging a computer crime as a way of targeting the publication of information that exposed evidence relating to U.S. torture and war crimes .
The Ever-Shifting Charge Intended To Smear Assange As A Hacker Unfortunately for Assange ’ s legal team , Eller ’ s testimony is dated because the charge has shifted dramatically in the latest indictment .
Prosecutors no longer believe they have to prove anything related to Manning to convince @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conspiracy to commit a computer intrusion.
” It seems like payback for embarrassing the U.S. government by unraveling their password-cracking conspiracy theory with their own digital forensic expert ’ s testimony .
Assange is accused in the 2020 indictment of conspiring with a hacktivist group known as LulzSec , who were convicted of offenses several years ago .
He is accused of making speeches at conferences to recruit systems administrators at U.S. intelligence agencies as WikiLeaks sources , like NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden who WikiLeaks helped leave Hong Kong .
Snowden was never @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not matter .
This charge is a mishmash of anything hacking-related that they can fling at Assange with alleged unindicted co-conspirators suddenly included .
The judge refused a defense request to remove this conduct from the fresh extradition request , which was served against Assange weeks before the extradition trial .
Assange ’ s legal team will have to find a way to address it in their closing argument , even though they have no witness to appropriately deal with the allegations .

When the first indictment against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange was disclosed by the United States Justice Department, the response from some attorneys and advocates was mixed. It was viewed as “narrowly tailored” to avoid “broader legal and policy implications.”
Assange was charged with “conspiracy to commit computer intrusion” and accused of “agreeing” to assist Pfc. Chelsea Manning in “cracking a password.”
At the end of the third week of an extradition trial, allegations related to this were entirely discredited by Patrick Eller, who was a command digital forensic examiner responsible for a team of more than 80 examiners at U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command headquarters in Quantico, Virginia.
Eller analyzed court martial records in Manning’s case that contained Jabber chat logs relevant to the allegations. He considered testimony from the U.S. military’s own forensic expert that contradicted presumptions at the core of this charge against Assange.
Manning never provided the two files necessary to “reconstruct the decryption key” for the password hash, Eller testified. “At the time, it would not have been possible to crack an encrypted password hash, such as the one Manning obtained.”
Or put another way, Eller declared, “What Manning sent was insufficient to be able to crack the password in the way that the government [has] described.”
The U.S. Justice Department charged Assange with 17 counts of violating the Espionage Act in May 2019. But prior to that, a 2018 indictment alleging Assange engaged in a “conspiracy to commit a computer intrusion” was unsealed after he was arrested and expelled from the Ecuador embassy in April 2019.
The computer charge has morphed over more than two years from a specific charge under provisions of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) into a vague and inexact assortment of general allegations about conduct Assange may or may not have engaged in from 2009 to 2015. But the alleged agreement to “crack a password” remains in the 2020 indictment announced in June.
Password hashes are generally used to help authenticate users and passwords on a computer.
Lead prosecutor James Lewis asked Eller if he agreed that Manning and Assange “thought they could crack a password and agreed to attempt to crack a password.” He told Lewis a hash was provided and the account the U.S. government associates with Assange said they had “rainbow tables for it,” but Manning never shared where she obtained the hash. (Using “rainbow tables” is one decryption method for cracking the hash by guessing different password values.)
Contradicted By U.S. Government’s Own Expert Witness In Manning Court Martial
“The government’s own expert witness in the court martial stated that was not enough for them to actually be able to do it,” Eller added. He specifically meant to crack the password.
On June 12, 2013, David Shaver, who was a special agent for the Army Computer Crimes Investigating Unit, testified the “hash value” was included in the chat, but it was not the “full hash value.”
Major Thomas Hurley, who was on Manning’s defense team, asked if Manning would’ve needed more of the hash value to crack the password. Shaver answered, “I mentioned the system file, you would need that part as well.” (This is one of the two files Eller said are necessary for decryption.)
“So the hash value included in the chat wouldn’t be enough to actually gain any passwords or user information?” Hurley asked.
Shaver replied, “Correct.”
Furthermore, Eller was asked multiple times by defense attorney Mark Summers on re-examination whether he saw evidence that linked Assange to the “Nathaniel Frank” identity, which the government believes is Assange. He said, “No, I did not.”
Summers asked if he was aware of who sat at the other end of whatever computer terminal “Nathaniel Frank” used. “Of course not. I could not have that personal knowledge,” Eller added.
This tracks with evidence in the Manning trial. The government had no clear evidence in 2013 that Assange was the one communicating with Manning through that Jabber username, and they still do not have proof it was Assange in 2020.
Casting Doubt On the Prosecution’s Conspiracy Theory
Eller’s testimony explicitly cast doubt on the conspiracy theory that underpinned this initial charge.
Manning had already downloaded the Reykjavik cable, Guantanamo Files, Iraq War Logs, and Afghanistan War Logs. “Routinely in the course of work,” she downloaded war log documents to have “offline backups” in the event of “connectivity issues” with the Secret Internet Protocol Router Network (SIPRNet) that was used.
“The only set of documents named in the indictment that Manning sent after the alleged password cracking attempt were the State Department cables.” But Eller noted, “Manning had authorized access to these documents.”
The government argues Assange agreed to help Manning crack a password for an FTP user account partly because it had administrative access privileges.
Eller showed soldiers at Forward Operating Base Hammer in Iraq, where Manning was stationed, were constantly trying to crack administrative passwords to install programs that were not authorized for their computers.
Jason Milliman, a computer engineer contracted to manage laptops at the base, told a military court “soldiers cracked his password in order to install a program and then deleted his administrator account.”
To Eller, Manning never would have tried to use a password hash to exfiltrate files for submission to WikiLeaks. She had a Linux CD that allowed her to access files on her computer and bypass Windows security features. It is known she used this CD.
Sgt. David Sadtler testified during Manning’s court martial that Manning proposed starting “some sort of hash cracking business.”
From the court martial record:
Q. During your conversations with PFC Manning, did you ever have a conversation about setting up a hash table software? A. He had brought me to the side to have what seemed to be a private conversation and he fielded the idea to me that he wanted to generate hash tables on a computer and market that in some fashion. Q. What are hash tables? A. Hash tables are mathematical calculations of passwords that are supposed to be in a one-way fashion so that you can’t reverse that sequence into the original password, thereby securing that password from release. Q. And the idea that PFC Manning was talking to you about from what you heard, did you believe that was a marketable idea? A. It had already been accomplished in the open-source world. Or it was generally already known to exist. So for reimplementing it, it did make sense to me.” (Exhibit 13, p.9854)
Eller wrote in his statement to the court, “While she was discussing rainbow tables and password hashes in the Jabber chat, she was also discussing the same topics with her colleagues. This, and the other factors previously highlighted, may indicate that the hash cracking topic was unrelated to leaking documents.”
Computer Crime Charge Always Targeted Journalism
It is far-fetched to argue the computer charge against Assange was never about journalism.
The charge specifically criminalizes Assange for allegedly knowing Manning had made unauthorized disclosures of classified information to WikiLeaks, as if he was supposed to reject documents from a source because she was breaking the law.
At the time, Assange agreed to receive and received from Manning for the purpose of public disclosure on WikiLeaks the classified Guantanamo Bay detainee assessment briefs, the U.S. Department of State Cables, and the Iraq rules of engagement files, Assange knew that Manning was unlawfully taking and disclosing them, and at the time Assange agreed to assist Manning in cracking the encrypted password hash, Assange knew that Manning was taking and illegally providing WikiLeaks with classified documents and records containing national defense information from classified databases.
This language is directly from the Espionage Act, not any law against computer crimes or defrauding the U.S. government.
FBI Special Agent Megan Brown, who was assigned to the “counterespionage squad” at the Washington Field Office in the District of Columbia, focused on the publication of the Iraq and Afghanistan War Logs in an affidavit she submitted on this charge in December 2017.
The affidavit confirmed the Justice Department was alleging a computer crime as a way of targeting the publication of information that exposed evidence relating to U.S. torture and war crimes.
The Ever-Shifting Charge Intended To Smear Assange As A Hacker
Unfortunately for Assange’s legal team, Eller’s testimony is dated because the charge has shifted dramatically in the latest indictment.
Prosecutors no longer believe they have to prove anything related to Manning to convince Judge Vanessa Baraitser there was a “conspiracy to commit a computer intrusion.”
It seems like payback for embarrassing the U.S. government by unraveling their password-cracking conspiracy theory with their own digital forensic expert’s testimony.
Assange is accused in the 2020 indictment of conspiring with a hacktivist group known as LulzSec, who were convicted of offenses several years ago. He is accused of making speeches at conferences to recruit systems administrators at U.S. intelligence agencies as WikiLeaks sources, like NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden who WikiLeaks helped leave Hong Kong.
Snowden was never a WikiLeaks source, but it does not matter. This charge is a mishmash of anything hacking-related that they can fling at Assange with alleged unindicted co-conspirators suddenly included.
The judge refused a defense request to remove this conduct from the fresh extradition request, which was served against Assange weeks before the extradition trial. Assange’s legal team will have to find a way to address it in their closing argument, even though they have no witness to appropriately deal with the allegations.


shadowproof--2020-09-21--Trump Jr. Fixer: Everyone In WikiLeaks Deserves The Death Penalty

Trump Jr. Fixer : Everyone In WikiLeaks Deserves The Death Penalty When Richard Grenell , one of President Donald Trump ’ s closest envoys in Europe , was the ambassador to Germany , Grenell reportedly brokered a deal with the Ecuador government for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange ’ s arrest and expulsion from the London embassy .
A wealthy Republican donor named Arthur Schwartz , who handled communications for Grenell while he was ambassador and has close ties with Donald Trump Jr. , was apparently aware of the plans months before they were carried out .
He retaliated against political @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the conservative publication known as the Gateway Pundit , after she informed Assange of the Trump administration ’ s plans .
Schwartz also apparently shared his view that WikiLeaks staff “ deserved the death penalty.
” Assange is accused of 17 counts of violating the Espionage Act and one count of conspiracy to commit a computer crime that , as alleged in the indictment , is written like an Espionage Act offense .
The charges criminalize the act of merely receiving classified information , as well as the publication of state secrets from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ common practices in newsgathering , which is why the case is widely opposed by press freedom organizations throughout the world .
On the tenth day of an extradition trial against Assange , his legal team entered a statement into the record from Fairbanks that was dated June 7 , 2020 , and described communications with Schwartz in which she became aware of the Trump administration ’ s pressure campaign to remove Assange from the embassy .
The prosecution did not object to the truth of the matter asserted—that Trump officials were directly involved @ @ @ @ @ @ @ part of a direct message group that contained “ multiple people who either worked for President Trump or were close to him in other ways.
” The group included Grenell and Schwartz .
After Fairbanks shared an interview in October 2018 featuring Christine Assange , Assange ’ s mother .
She hoped someone would be moved to help Assange , but Schwartz called her ten minutes later and was outraged at what she did .
“ I did not agree our conversation was off record , though he did tell me not to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ according to Fairbanks .
Fairbanks said Schwartz brought up her nine year-old child , which she perceived as an “ intimidation tactic.
” “ [ Schwartz ] repeatedly insisted that I stop advocating for WikiLeaks and Assange , telling me that a ‘ pardon isn ’ t going to fucking happen , ' ” Fairbanks declared .
“ He knew very specific details about a future prosecution against Assange that were later made public and that only those very close to the situation then would have been aware of .
He told me @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ case that he would be charged with and that it would not involve the Vault 7 publication or anything to do with the DNC .
He also told me that they would be going after Chelsea Manning.
” As recounted by Fairbanks , Schwartz told her the U.S. government would go into the embassy to snatch Assange .
She maintained entering the “ embassy of a sovereign nation and kidnapping a political refugee would be an act of war , and he responded ‘ not if they let us . '
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about the deal Grenell brokered in March 2018 with Ecuador . )
Fairbanks visited Assange in the Ecuador embassy on January 7 , 2019 , and informed him of everything Schwartz told her .
“ I know that he was concerned about being overheard or spied on , and he had a little radio to cover up the conversation.
” “ Assange and I had to take steps to communicate with each other to try to not be within the sight or hearing of surveillance cameras or microphones , by turning up a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” Fairbanks noted .
Both Assange and Fairbanks survived an even worse experience on March 25 , 2019 , that Fairbanks reported on thoroughly for Gateway Pundit when it happened .
Here is what she included in her statement about the meeting : …I described the extraordinary circumstances where I was locked in a cold meeting room for an hour while Embassy staff demanded Assange be subjected to a full body scan with a metal detector before allowing him in the room .
I described it at the time as “ eerily @ @ @ @ @ @ @ inmates at federal penitentiaries in the U.S. ” I considered at the time “ it seemed our government was getting what they wanted from Ecuador , as a former senior State Department official told Buzzfeed in January .
‘ As far as we ’ re concerned , he ’ s in jail . '
” I noted “ in an interview with El Pais in July , President Moreno said his ‘ ideal solution ’ is that Assange may “ enjoy ” being ‘ extradited ’ if the U.K. promises that the U.S. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ issue was that Assange wanted to bring a small radio into the conference room to muffle our voices so that microphones undoubtedly surveilling the room would not pick up what we were saying as easily .
Only eight minutes of our two hour scheduled visit were in the end available because of the conflict with security staff at the Embassy .
We were told if we wanted to talk it must be done in the conference room and only two minutes were left .
From Fairbanks ’ report , she heard Assange say @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This is how you treat a prisoner , not a political refugee !
” He accused the embassy of targeting him with illegal surveillance .
Fairbanks asked Schwartz on March 29 , a few days later , if it was true that Assange would be removed soon , and Schwartz called to say there was an “ investigation ” into who “ leaked ” information about Assange in October 2018 .
Schwartz did not believe he could trust Fairbanks with information related to WikiLeaks any longer .
He apparently knew what would happen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ embassy but refused to talk about it .
ABC News reported on April 15 , after Assange ’ s arrest , that Grenell was involved in a “ verbal pledge ” to Ecuador that the U.S. government would not pursue the death penalty .
When Fairbanks confronted Schwartz with the ABC News report , he sent several messages about “ how everyone involved with WikiLeaks deserved the death penalty.
” “ I noted in our conversation that it had been reported that Grenell only got a verbal agreement that there would be no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Schwartz ’ s response to this was to send me a shrug emoji and he continued his tirade about how Assange deserved to die , ” according to Fairbanks .
It did not make sense for Grenell , who had nothing to do with the U.K. or Australia , was so involved with what was happening to Assange .
She tweeted the ABC News report , and Grenell was furious .
Fairbanks said her boss at the Gateway Pundit was messaged , and Grenell tried to get her fired .
He demanded the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ did .
Schwartz called her too and was “ ranting and raving ” about how he could go to jail .
He claimed she had tweeted “ classified information , ” which made no sense because she shared a news media report .
He eventually indicated Grenell coordinated for Assange ’ s removal on “ orders from the President.
” “ I believed this connected President Trump to those who have been reported as having secured the deal to arrest Assange .
I believed Schwartz ’ s statement to be correct because his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Grenell are well-known , ” Fairbanks concluded .
Just Another Target In Trump ’ s War On Journalism Fairbanks maintains the contents of her meeting with Assange were definitely fed back to U.S. authorities by Ecuador embassy staff .
By that time , Undercover Global , the private security company that targeted Assange on behalf of U.S. intelligence had long been replaced , but that doesn ’ t mean the company was not explicitly sharing intercepted communications with intelligence officials in the Trump administration .
The involvement of Schwartz adds to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the prosecution is a part of the Trump administration ’ s wider war on journalists .
In January 2019 , the Daily Beast reported , Schwartz is known to aggressively attack “ perceived enemies.
” On September 18 , a statement from Assange attorney Jennifer Robinson was entered into the record in which the U.S. government accepted as evidence that former Congressman Dana Rohrabacher offered a pardon if Assange would reveal the source of the DNC leaks and help protect Trump from the investigation by Special Counsel Robert Mueller .
Assange , who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not Russia , refused because it would have violated his journalistic principles .
He would not let Trump use him as a political bargaining chip , which may have infuriated officials like Grenell and Schwartz .
As Fairbanks noted in her statements , both of Schwartz ’ s dire predictions came true .
By March 2019 , Manning was subpoenaed to appear before a grand jury empaneled to investigate WikiLeaks .
By April 2019 , Assange was expelled , arrested , and jailed at the Belmarsh maximum security prison .
Grenell left his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but prior to his resignation , he served as acting director for the Office of the Director for National Intelligence ( ODNI ) .
He still holds a position in the Trump administration as the special envoy for Serbia and Kosovo peace negotiations .

When Richard Grenell, one of President Donald Trump’s closest envoys in Europe, was the ambassador to Germany, Grenell reportedly brokered a deal with the Ecuador government for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange’s arrest and expulsion from the London embassy.
A wealthy Republican donor named Arthur Schwartz, who handled communications for Grenell while he was ambassador and has close ties with Donald Trump Jr., was apparently aware of the plans months before they were carried out.
He retaliated against political activist Cassandra Fairbanks, who writes for the conservative publication known as the Gateway Pundit, after she informed Assange of the Trump administration’s plans.
Schwartz also apparently shared his view that WikiLeaks staff “deserved the death penalty.”
Assange is accused of 17 counts of violating the Espionage Act and one count of conspiracy to commit a computer crime that, as alleged in the indictment, is written like an Espionage Act offense.
The charges criminalize the act of merely receiving classified information, as well as the publication of state secrets from the United States government. It targets common practices in newsgathering, which is why the case is widely opposed by press freedom organizations throughout the world.
On the tenth day of an extradition trial against Assange, his legal team entered a statement into the record from Fairbanks that was dated June 7, 2020, and described communications with Schwartz in which she became aware of the Trump administration’s pressure campaign to remove Assange from the embassy.
The prosecution did not object to the truth of the matter asserted—that Trump officials were directly involved in plans against Assange.
‘Pardon Isn’t Going To Fucking Happen’
Fairbanks was part of a direct message group that contained “multiple people who either worked for President Trump or were close to him in other ways.” The group included Grenell and Schwartz.
After Fairbanks shared an interview in October 2018 featuring Christine Assange, Assange’s mother. She hoped someone would be moved to help Assange, but Schwartz called her ten minutes later and was outraged at what she did.
“I did not agree our conversation was off record, though he did tell me not to tell anyone about the call,” according to Fairbanks.
Fairbanks said Schwartz brought up her nine year-old child, which she perceived as an “intimidation tactic.”
“[Schwartz] repeatedly insisted that I stop advocating for WikiLeaks and Assange, telling me that a ‘pardon isn’t going to fucking happen,'” Fairbanks declared. “He knew very specific details about a future prosecution against Assange that were later made public and that only those very close to the situation then would have been aware of. He told me that it would be the ‘Manning’ case that he would be charged with and that it would not involve the Vault 7 publication or anything to do with the DNC. He also told me that they would be going after Chelsea Manning.”
As recounted by Fairbanks, Schwartz told her the U.S. government would go into the embassy to snatch Assange. She maintained entering the “embassy of a sovereign nation and kidnapping a political refugee would be an act of war, and he responded ‘not if they let us.'” (Note: Fairbanks did not know about the deal Grenell brokered in March 2018 with Ecuador.)
‘Eerily Similar’ To Visits To Federal Prisons
Fairbanks visited Assange in the Ecuador embassy on January 7, 2019, and informed him of everything Schwartz told her.
“I know that he was concerned about being overheard or spied on, and he had a little radio to cover up the conversation.”
“Assange and I had to take steps to communicate with each other to try to not be within the sight or hearing of surveillance cameras or microphones, by turning up a background of white noise and writing notes,” Fairbanks noted.
Both Assange and Fairbanks survived an even worse experience on March 25, 2019, that Fairbanks reported on thoroughly for Gateway Pundit when it happened.
Here is what she included in her statement about the meeting:
…I described the extraordinary circumstances where I was locked in a cold meeting room for an hour while Embassy staff demanded Assange be subjected to a full body scan with a metal detector before allowing him in the room. I described it at the time as “eerily similar to visits I have made to inmates at federal penitentiaries in the U.S.” I considered at the time “it seemed our government was getting what they wanted from Ecuador, as a former senior State Department official told Buzzfeed in January. ‘As far as we’re concerned, he’s in jail.'” I noted “in an interview with El Pais in July, President Moreno said his ‘ideal solution’ is that Assange may “enjoy” being ‘extradited’ if the U.K. promises that the U.S. will not kill him. A major issue was that Assange wanted to bring a small radio into the conference room to muffle our voices so that microphones undoubtedly surveilling the room would not pick up what we were saying as easily. Only eight minutes of our two hour scheduled visit were in the end available because of the conflict with security staff at the Embassy. We were told if we wanted to talk it must be done in the conference room and only two minutes were left.
From Fairbanks’ report, she heard Assange say, “Is this a prison? This is how you treat a prisoner, not a political refugee!” He accused the embassy of targeting him with illegal surveillance.
Fairbanks asked Schwartz on March 29, a few days later, if it was true that Assange would be removed soon, and Schwartz called to say there was an “investigation” into who “leaked” information about Assange in October 2018.
Schwartz did not believe he could trust Fairbanks with information related to WikiLeaks any longer. He apparently knew what would happen and why she was mistreated in the embassy but refused to talk about it.
ABC News reported on April 15, after Assange’s arrest, that Grenell was involved in a “verbal pledge” to Ecuador that the U.S. government would not pursue the death penalty.
When Fairbanks confronted Schwartz with the ABC News report, he sent several messages about “how everyone involved with WikiLeaks deserved the death penalty.”
“I noted in our conversation that it had been reported that Grenell only got a verbal agreement that there would be no death penalty, nothing in writing. Schwartz’s response to this was to send me a shrug emoji and he continued his tirade about how Assange deserved to die,” according to Fairbanks.
It did not make sense for Grenell, who had nothing to do with the U.K. or Australia, was so involved with what was happening to Assange. She tweeted the ABC News report, and Grenell was furious.
Fairbanks said her boss at the Gateway Pundit was messaged, and Grenell tried to get her fired. He demanded the tweet be deleted, which she eventually did.
Schwartz called her too and was “ranting and raving” about how he could go to jail. He claimed she had tweeted “classified information,” which made no sense because she shared a news media report. He eventually indicated Grenell coordinated for Assange’s removal on “orders from the President.”
“I believed this connected President Trump to those who have been reported as having secured the deal to arrest Assange. I believed Schwartz’s statement to be correct because his close personal ties to both President Trump and Grenell are well-known,” Fairbanks concluded.
Just Another Target In Trump’s War On Journalism
Fairbanks maintains the contents of her meeting with Assange were definitely fed back to U.S. authorities by Ecuador embassy staff.
By that time, Undercover Global, the private security company that targeted Assange on behalf of U.S. intelligence had long been replaced, but that doesn’t mean the company was not explicitly sharing intercepted communications with intelligence officials in the Trump administration.
The involvement of Schwartz adds to the Assange legal team’s argument that the prosecution is a part of the Trump administration’s wider war on journalists.
In January 2019, the Daily Beast reported, Schwartz is known to aggressively attack “perceived enemies.”
In the nearly two years since he arrived in Washington with a new wave of Trump appointees, mid-level players, and hangers-on, Schwartz has gained a reputation as a fixer, behind-the-scenes operative, and social-media agitator with a particular specialty: shopping information on enemies and doing battle with reporters. That’s helped him forge close relationships with numerous Trumpworld officials and family members like Donald Trump Jr. The two are now so close they spent last year’s Super Bowl together. Schwartz has served as a gatekeeper for many journalists looking to get in touch with the president’s son, and has occasionally served as his bulldog when negative stories are written about him.
On September 18, a statement from Assange attorney Jennifer Robinson was entered into the record in which the U.S. government accepted as evidence that former Congressman Dana Rohrabacher offered a pardon if Assange would reveal the source of the DNC leaks and help protect Trump from the investigation by Special Counsel Robert Mueller.
Assange, who said in November 2016 the source was not Russia, refused because it would have violated his journalistic principles. He would not let Trump use him as a political bargaining chip, which may have infuriated officials like Grenell and Schwartz.
As Fairbanks noted in her statements, both of Schwartz’s dire predictions came true. By March 2019, Manning was subpoenaed to appear before a grand jury empaneled to investigate WikiLeaks. By April 2019, Assange was expelled, arrested, and jailed at the Belmarsh maximum security prison.
Grenell left his position as German ambassador on June 1, but prior to his resignation, he served as acting director for the Office of the Director for National Intelligence (ODNI). He still holds a position in the Trump administration as the special envoy for Serbia and Kosovo peace negotiations.


shadowproof--2020-09-28--Defense Witnesses In Assange’s Extradition Trial Counter Key Prosecution Lie About US Solitary Confi

Defense Witnesses In Assange’s Extradition Trial Counter Key Prosecution Lie About US Solitary Confinement

Defense Witnesses In Assange ’ s Extradition Trial Counter Key Prosecution Lie About US Solitary Confinement Prosecutors in WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange ’ s extradition trial have consistently maintained he would be able to talk through the doors or windows of his cell if he was held in solitary confinement—or what the Bureau of Prisons refers to as “ administrative segregation.
” “ Typically , there are several inmates in administrative segregation , ” Gordon Kromberg , assistant United States attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia told the court in a declaration in support of extradition .
“ Inmates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to one other through the doors and windows of their cells.
” Kromberg makes this claim a second time .
“ Even in administrative segregation , Assange would be able to communicate with other inmates through the doors and windows of his cell.
” But on September 28 , Judge Vanessa Baraitser heard testimony from Yancey Ellis that exposed this as a terrible lie .
The defense and prosecution agree Assange will be held at the Alexandria Detention Center ( ADC ) if he is extradited .
The unit he is most likely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ X block ” or “ 1X.
” Ellis , an attorney who has represented numerous defendants jailed at the ADC , was asked by Edward Fitzgerald , Assange ’ s defense attorney , whether Assange would be able to “ associate with other prisoners.
” As Ellis put it , “ The short answer is not really.
” The point of “ administrative segregation ” is to keep a detainee away from all other detainees .
Most likely Assange would be in his cell 22 hours a day .
“ [ It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those doors , ” Ellis shared .
He previously tried to communicate through those doors in the X block .
One almost has to “ scream at the top of their lungs.
” The statement to the court from Ellis was even more clear .
“ While this is technically true , it is practically impossible .
In 1X ADSEG the cell doors are made of thick steel and the ‘ windows ’ are a transparent , thick plexiglass material with no slots or holes.
” “ I have tried to speak to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is very difficult , even when standing several inches away .
I find it implausible that inmates could really communicate in this way , unless they constantly screamed at loud volumes .
I would routinely have to ask for a deputy sheriff to open the cell ’ s food tray slot in order to be able to speak with a client , ” Ellis added .
Kromberg ’ s lie about detainees communicating with one another is part of the U.S. government ’ s efforts to deceive a British court into believing Assange @ @ @ @ @ @ @ solitary confinement .
However , as Ellis declared , “ 1X ADSEG unit is essentially the same as solitary confinement.
” Assange would be in one of the four-to-six cells in the unit .
According to Ellis , “ Each cell is a single-occupancy cell , less than approximately 50 square feet , and contains a sleeping area , a small sink , and a toilet .
Meals are typically taken inside the inmate ’ s cell.
” He would have one-to-two hours out of his cell on any given day .
This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at “ very odd hours , ” Ellis said .
“ This is typically spent in the common area of the ADSEG unit , which may be about twice the square footage , ” Ellis additionally shared .
“ Based on my experience , only one inmate in the ADSEG unit is permitted to be outside of his cell at one time .
There is limited interaction with other ADSEG inmates during this time because their doors and food-tray slots are closed.
” Once again , it would be impossible for Assange to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ housed in the unit .
Joel Sickler , an expert on jail and prison conditions who heads the Justice Advocacy Group in Alexandria , testified after Ellis .
He told the court in secure housing units , or SHUs , “ There ’ s a lot of noise and a lot of screaming .
It renders people angry and confused , and there ’ s a lot of yelling.
” “ To have a discourse between inmates for social reasons is a little preposterous , ” Sickler declared .
Sickler informed the court @ @ @ @ @ @ @ comparable to isolation in a cell .
There is little natural light as well as access to fresh air .
There is no communication allowed with other prisoners.
” “ There is usually one 15-minute phone call to family allowed per month and all calls are monitored .
The inmates are denied access to information regarding current events with all materials being censored.
” “ The Alexandria Sheriff ’ s Office will allow Mr. Assange ’ s attorneys to meet with him at any time during professional visiting hours , ” Sickler additionally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the ADSEG unit at the ADC could compromise Mr. Assange ’ s ability to focus on and assist his attorneys in his defense—for reasons related to how debilitating the experience can be for a prisoner.
” Prosecutor Clair Dobbin led a lengthy cross-examination of Sickler , attempting to disqualify him as an expert witness .
At one point , Sickler shared his experience representing an individual who had a mental breakdown at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn , New York .
He notified the administrators that he had a “ serious psychiatric @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
He later acted out and was “ severely beaten by correctional officers ” then “ thrown in the hole naked.
” Eventually , a federal court granted him bail , and the state wrote a writ for treatment at the Bellevue psychiatric center .
Dobbin justified the inhuman treatment Sickler ’ s client endured , saying this example showed “ judicial oversight ” occurred .
The system worked , although he was abused before he was sent to a psychiatric hospital .
Ever the detector of devious tricks by Assange ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ asked Ellis if the defense had him insert the words “ solitary confinement ” in his statement to the court .
He said no .
When one considers the amount of time detainees in administrative segregation are allowed outside their cell , that is “ generally equivalent to solitary confinement.
” Lewis also insisted to Ellis that Assange would not be in solitary confinement if he was meeting with his lawyers three hours each day .
When high-profile defendants like Maria Butina and Paul Manafort were housed at the ADC , they were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ believes Assange would be treated no differently .
In a rare moment , Baraitser actually had a question and asked Ellis to expand on how the Bureau of Prisons handles high-profile defendants .
“ Assange has been in custody in this jurisdiction for 18 months , ” in the general wing in the prison in the United Kingdom , Baraitser said .
“ Other than his being a public figure , any reason you think he ’ ll be held in administrative segregation ?
” Ellis contended the “ primary reason ” is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” though perhaps his mental health could factor into the decision .
The mental health unit in the jail is in the general population , and if they did not want him to associate with inmates , they would have to put him in “ administrative segregation.
” Whether one ’ s case is “ high profile ” or not “ won ’ t affect conditions in which you are held , ” Baraitser told Ellis .
“ Is that not the same ?
The mere fact you are high-profile dictates conditions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ specific conditions and factors would be consulted when placing Assange .
Yet , he did indicate from his experience with the jail that the ADC likes to “ segregate these types of defendants.
” “ I can ’ t tell you why , just that it ’ s been the case , ” Ellis declared .

Prosecutors in WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange’s extradition trial have consistently maintained he would be able to talk through the doors or windows of his cell if he was held in solitary confinement—or what the Bureau of Prisons refers to as “administrative segregation.”
“Typically, there are several inmates in administrative segregation,” Gordon Kromberg, assistant United States attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia told the court in a declaration in support of extradition. “Inmates in administrative segregation are able to speak to one other through the doors and windows of their cells.”
Kromberg makes this claim a second time. “Even in administrative segregation, Assange would be able to communicate with other inmates through the doors and windows of his cell.”
But on September 28, Judge Vanessa Baraitser heard testimony from Yancey Ellis that exposed this as a terrible lie.
The defense and prosecution agree Assange will be held at the Alexandria Detention Center (ADC) if he is extradited. The unit he is most likely to be held in is called the “X block” or “1X.”
Ellis, an attorney who has represented numerous defendants jailed at the ADC, was asked by Edward Fitzgerald, Assange’s defense attorney, whether Assange would be able to “associate with other prisoners.”
As Ellis put it, “The short answer is not really.” The point of “administrative segregation” is to keep a detainee away from all other detainees. Most likely Assange would be in his cell 22 hours a day.
“[It is] very difficult to talk through those doors,” Ellis shared. He previously tried to communicate through those doors in the X block. One almost has to “scream at the top of their lungs.”
The statement to the court from Ellis was even more clear. “While this is technically true, it is practically impossible. In 1X ADSEG the cell doors are made of thick steel and the ‘windows’ are a transparent, thick plexiglass material with no slots or holes.”
“I have tried to speak to my clients through these doors and it is very difficult, even when standing several inches away. I find it implausible that inmates could really communicate in this way, unless they constantly screamed at loud volumes. I would routinely have to ask for a deputy sheriff to open the cell’s food tray slot in order to be able to speak with a client,” Ellis added.
Kromberg’s lie about detainees communicating with one another is part of the U.S. government’s efforts to deceive a British court into believing Assange would not be subject to conditions of solitary confinement. However, as Ellis declared, “1X ADSEG unit is essentially the same as solitary confinement.”
Assange would be in one of the four-to-six cells in the unit. According to Ellis, “Each cell is a single-occupancy cell, less than approximately 50 square feet, and contains a sleeping area, a small sink, and a toilet. Meals are typically taken inside the inmate’s cell.”
He would have one-to-two hours out of his cell on any given day. This time outside of his cell may come at “very odd hours,” Ellis said.
“This is typically spent in the common area of the ADSEG unit, which may be about twice the square footage,” Ellis additionally shared. “Based on my experience, only one inmate in the ADSEG unit is permitted to be outside of his cell at one time. There is limited interaction with other ADSEG inmates during this time because their doors and food-tray slots are closed.”
Once again, it would be impossible for Assange to talk to any of the few detainees housed in the unit.
Joel Sickler, an expert on jail and prison conditions who heads the Justice Advocacy Group in Alexandria, testified after Ellis. He told the court in secure housing units, or SHUs, “There’s a lot of noise and a lot of screaming. It renders people angry and confused, and there’s a lot of yelling.”
“To have a discourse between inmates for social reasons is a little preposterous,” Sickler declared.
Sickler informed the court, “There is significant sensory deprivation comparable to isolation in a cell. There is little natural light as well as access to fresh air. There is no communication allowed with other prisoners.”
“There is usually one 15-minute phone call to family allowed per month and all calls are monitored. The inmates are denied access to information regarding current events with all materials being censored.”
“The Alexandria Sheriff’s Office will allow Mr. Assange’s attorneys to meet with him at any time during professional visiting hours,” Sickler additionally noted. “However, placement in the ADSEG unit at the ADC could compromise Mr. Assange’s ability to focus on and assist his attorneys in his defense—for reasons related to how debilitating the experience can be for a prisoner.”
Prosecutor Clair Dobbin led a lengthy cross-examination of Sickler, attempting to disqualify him as an expert witness.
At one point, Sickler shared his experience representing an individual who had a mental breakdown at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn, New York. He notified the administrators that he had a “serious psychiatric disorder,” but they dismissed him. He later acted out and was “severely beaten by correctional officers” then “thrown in the hole naked.”
Eventually, a federal court granted him bail, and the state wrote a writ for treatment at the Bellevue psychiatric center.
Dobbin justified the inhuman treatment Sickler’s client endured, saying this example showed “judicial oversight” occurred. The system worked, although he was abused before he was sent to a psychiatric hospital.
Ever the detector of devious tricks by Assange’s legal team, lead prosecutor James Lewis asked Ellis if the defense had him insert the words “solitary confinement” in his statement to the court. He said no. When one considers the amount of time detainees in administrative segregation are allowed outside their cell, that is “generally equivalent to solitary confinement.”
Lewis also insisted to Ellis that Assange would not be in solitary confinement if he was meeting with his lawyers three hours each day.
When high-profile defendants like Maria Butina and Paul Manafort were housed at the ADC, they were placed in “administrative segregation.” Ellis believes Assange would be treated no differently.
In a rare moment, Baraitser actually had a question and asked Ellis to expand on how the Bureau of Prisons handles high-profile defendants.
“Assange has been in custody in this jurisdiction for 18 months,” in the general wing in the prison in the United Kingdom, Baraitser said. “Other than his being a public figure, any reason you think he’ll be held in administrative segregation?”
Ellis contended the “primary reason” is that he is a “public figure,” though perhaps his mental health could factor into the decision. The mental health unit in the jail is in the general population, and if they did not want him to associate with inmates, they would have to put him in “administrative segregation.” Whether one’s case is “high profile” or not “won’t affect conditions in which you are held,” Baraitser told Ellis. “Is that not the same? The mere fact you are high-profile dictates conditions?”
Ellis could not say how specific conditions and factors would be consulted when placing Assange. Yet, he did indicate from his experience with the jail that the ADC likes to “segregate these types of defendants.”
“I can’t tell you why, just that it’s been the case,” Ellis declared.


shadowproof--2020-09-29--Assange Trial Highlights How US Government Is Likely Deceiving British Court To Win Extradition

Assange Trial Highlights How US Government Is Likely Deceiving British Court To Win Extradition Mostafa Kamel Mostafa , also known as Abu Hamza , was accused of terrorism offenses and extradited to the United States from the United Kingdom in 2012 .
His extradition was permitted by the European Court of Human Rights and the British courts because the U.S. government assured them Mostafa would not be confined at a supermax prison in Florence , Colorado , for a “ lengthy indefinite period.
” Yet , for the last five years , Mostafa has been housed at ADX Florence in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ measures ( SAMs ) .
Mostafa ’ s attorney Lindsay Lewis maintains the U.S. government misled the courts in order to make it seem like he would not be subject to cruel and inhuman treatment if extradited .
Lewis testified at WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange ’ s extradition trial on September 29 and told the British magistrate court “ the unreliable nature of the U.S. government ’ s assurances ” should be a concern for the court and British authorities in “ determining whether to extradite ” Assange to the United States .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Department with 17 counts of violating the Espionage Act and one count of conspiracy to commit a computer intrusion that , as alleged in the indictment , is written like an Espionage Act offense .
The charges criminalize the act of merely receiving classified information , as well as the publication of state secrets from the U.S. government .
It targets common practices in newsgathering , which is why the case is widely opposed by press freedom organizations throughout the world .
During the third week of the extradition trial , the court @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and physical health , including how he was diagnosed with Asperger ’ s syndrome and severe depression while detained at Belmarsh prison .
Lewis drew from her experiences representing Mostafa on prison and medical issues that could arise if Assange is brought to the U.S. , convicted at trial , and designated for SAMs at ADX Florence .
Mostafa , as Lewis detailed for the court , is “ severely disabled.
” He is a “ double- upper-arm amputee , blind in one eye , and suffers from diabetes , hypertension , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hyperhidrosis .
In 2007 , Judge Tim Workman of the Westminster Magistrates ’ Court , the same court reviewing the extradition request for Assange , ruled in favor of Mostafa ’ s extradition .
Workman indicated , “ ADX Florence could , if “ applied for a lengthy indefinite period ” result in “ inhuman and degrading treatment ” that violated Article 3 of the Convention Against Torture .
But Ron Wiley , who was the warden at ADX Florence , told the court it was “ highly unlikely ” for someone like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ raised blood pressure , psoriasis , loss of sight in one eye and bilateral amputation of both forearms , ” who “ required assistance with the activities of daily living , ” to be placed at ADX Florence .
As Lewis noted during her testimony , Wiley stated , “ If it is determined that [ Mr. Mostafa ] can not manage his activities of daily living , it is highly unlikely that he would be placed at the ADX but , rather , at a medical center.
” That led the judge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the defendant would not be detained in these conditions [ i.e.
, ADX ] indefinitely , that his undoubted ill health and physical disabilities would be considered , and at worst , he would only be accommodated in these conditions [ i.e.
, ADX ] for a relatively short period of time.
” “ Whilst I find these conditions offensive to my sense of propriety in dealing with prisoners , I can not conclude that , in the short term , the incarceration in a supermax prison would be incompatible with his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
‘ There Would Not Be A Risk Of Isolation ’ The determination by the magistrates ’ court hampered Mostafa ’ s challenge through the rest of his appeals .
“ ‘ Unless [ the ] ADX Florence regime ignores [ Mostafa ’ s ] medical condition and his need for nursing assistance , ’ there would not be a risk of isolation since a nursing assistant ( such as the one Mr. Mostafa saw multiple times a day while in custody in the U.K. ) would be assisting in Mr. Mostafa ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the High Court of Justice declared in their rejection of his appeal , according to Lewis .
When the case came before the European Court of Human Rights ( ECHR ) , the Foreign and Commonwealth Office of the United Kingdom asked the human rights court to affirm the lower courts ’ decision since it was unlikely Mostafa would be detained in supermax detention .
If he was detained at a supermax , it would be “ for a relatively short period , given the extent and nature ” of his “ ill @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as outlined by Lewis , it was asserted by the FCO that he would not be put in solitary confinement because he would need to receive care for his disabilities .
Any time he spent at ADX Florence would be “ relatively short ” until a medical evaluation was completed .
Then he would be transferred to a medical center .
The ECHR accepted these assurances and rejected Mostafa ’ s appeal .
During cross-examination , prosecutor Clair Dobbin argued multiple times that the U.S. government never represented that Mostafa would not be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this argument and criticized the “ rubber stamp ” process that has kept Mostafa at ADX and “ lacked transparency.
” After exhausting a series of requests for administrative remedies to improve confinement conditions , Mostafa now has a case in federal court “ challenging the conditions of his confinement at ADX Florence and the SAMs that have been imposed.
” CIA ’ s View Of Assange Would Likely Factor Into SAMs Designation Prior to Lewis , Maureen Baird , former warden of the Metropolitan Correctional Center in New York , testified .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ South Unit , who were confined in conditions of solitary confinement during pretrial .
Baird was “ surprised ” the U.S. government has not said they do not have plans to apply for SAMs in Assange ’ s case .
Instead , they have left the door open , despite it being “ really unusual to even make that a proposal.
” While Assange was in the Ecuador embassy , it is known that he was targeted with an espionage operation by UC Global , a Spanish security company .
The defense believes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ company .
( Two former UC Global employees were granted anonymity to provide testimony to the court . )
Edward Fitzgerald , one of Assange ’ s attorneys , asked Baird about the procedure for determining whether Assange is placed under SAMs .
She said the attorney general would consult with the intelligence services .
The CIA , as well as the FBI and Customs and Border Protection , would provide input , and what an agency thought about Assange would be an “ important factor.
” According to the CIA , WikiLeaks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Former CIA director Mike Pompeo described Assange as someone who has “ attracted a devoted following among some of [ America ’ s ] most determined enemies.
” Oddly , every time a defense witness maintains Assange would be placed under SAMs and in solitary confinement because the U.S. government would want to restrict his communications with the outside world , the prosecution recoils .
Dobbin even questioned Baird ’ s assertion that the U.S. Attorney ’ s Office , after consulting intelligence officials , would view Assange as a threat to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ medical care Mostafa received in the United Kingdom to the treatment he has received in the United States .
For example , Mostafa used to receive daily nursing care four to six times a day , which does not happen at ADX Florence .
As Fitzgerald wrapped up his questions for Lewis , he noted at Belmarsh prison Assange is permitted to associate with prisoners .
He may make regular phone calls .
He has had access to sessions with a psychiatrist .
Lewis told the court this would change for Assange if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ADX Florence under SAMs .
He would not receive “ anywhere near the same care or accommodations as he had in the U.K .
”

Mostafa Kamel Mostafa, also known as Abu Hamza, was accused of terrorism offenses and extradited to the United States from the United Kingdom in 2012. His extradition was permitted by the European Court of Human Rights and the British courts because the U.S. government assured them Mostafa would not be confined at a supermax prison in Florence, Colorado, for a “lengthy indefinite period.”
Yet, for the last five years, Mostafa has been housed at ADX Florence in solitary confinement and subject to special administrative measures (SAMs). Mostafa’s attorney Lindsay Lewis maintains the U.S. government misled the courts in order to make it seem like he would not be subject to cruel and inhuman treatment if extradited.
Lewis testified at WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange’s extradition trial on September 29 and told the British magistrate court “the unreliable nature of the U.S. government’s assurances” should be a concern for the court and British authorities in “determining whether to extradite” Assange to the United States.
Assange was charged by the U.S. Justice Department with 17 counts of violating the Espionage Act and one count of conspiracy to commit a computer intrusion that, as alleged in the indictment, is written like an Espionage Act offense.
The charges criminalize the act of merely receiving classified information, as well as the publication of state secrets from the U.S. government. It targets common practices in newsgathering, which is why the case is widely opposed by press freedom organizations throughout the world.
During the third week of the extradition trial, the court heard evidence about Assange’s mental and physical health, including how he was diagnosed with Asperger’s syndrome and severe depression while detained at Belmarsh prison.
Lewis drew from her experiences representing Mostafa on prison and medical issues that could arise if Assange is brought to the U.S., convicted at trial, and designated for SAMs at ADX Florence.
Mostafa, as Lewis detailed for the court, is “severely disabled.” He is a “double- upper-arm amputee, blind in one eye, and suffers from diabetes, hypertension, and a skin condition,” known as hyperhidrosis.
In 2007, Judge Tim Workman of the Westminster Magistrates’ Court, the same court reviewing the extradition request for Assange, ruled in favor of Mostafa’s extradition.
Workman indicated, “ADX Florence could, if “applied for a lengthy indefinite period” result in “inhuman and degrading treatment” that violated Article 3 of the Convention Against Torture.
But Ron Wiley, who was the warden at ADX Florence, told the court it was “highly unlikely” for someone like Mostafa with “type 2 diabetes, raised blood pressure, psoriasis, loss of sight in one eye and bilateral amputation of both forearms,” who “required assistance with the activities of daily living,” to be placed at ADX Florence.
As Lewis noted during her testimony, Wiley stated, “If it is determined that [Mr. Mostafa] cannot manage his activities of daily living, it is highly unlikely that he would be placed at the ADX but, rather, at a medical center.”
That led the judge to declare, “I am satisfied that the defendant would not be detained in these conditions [i.e., ADX] indefinitely, that his undoubted ill health and physical disabilities would be considered, and at worst, he would only be accommodated in these conditions [i.e., ADX] for a relatively short period of time.”
“Whilst I find these conditions offensive to my sense of propriety in dealing with prisoners, I cannot conclude that, in the short term, the incarceration in a supermax prison would be incompatible with his Article 3 Rights,” Workman concluded.
‘There Would Not Be A Risk Of Isolation’
The determination by the magistrates’ court hampered Mostafa’s challenge through the rest of his appeals.
“‘Unless [the] ADX Florence regime ignores [Mostafa’s] medical condition and his need for nursing assistance,’ there would not be a risk of isolation since a nursing assistant (such as the one Mr. Mostafa saw multiple times a day while in custody in the U.K.) would be assisting in Mr. Mostafa’s activities of daily living,” the High Court of Justice declared in their rejection of his appeal, according to Lewis.
When the case came before the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), the Foreign and Commonwealth Office of the United Kingdom asked the human rights court to affirm the lower courts’ decision since it was unlikely Mostafa would be detained in supermax detention. If he was detained at a supermax, it would be “for a relatively short period, given the extent and nature” of his “ill health and physical disabilities.”
Furthermore, as outlined by Lewis, it was asserted by the FCO that he would not be put in solitary confinement because he would need to receive care for his disabilities. Any time he spent at ADX Florence would be “relatively short” until a medical evaluation was completed. Then he would be transferred to a medical center.
The ECHR accepted these assurances and rejected Mostafa’s appeal.
During cross-examination, prosecutor Clair Dobbin argued multiple times that the U.S. government never represented that Mostafa would not be sent to ADX Florence.
Lewis rejected this argument and criticized the “rubber stamp” process that has kept Mostafa at ADX and “lacked transparency.”
After exhausting a series of requests for administrative remedies to improve confinement conditions, Mostafa now has a case in federal court “challenging the conditions of his confinement at ADX Florence and the SAMs that have been imposed.”
CIA’s View Of Assange Would Likely Factor Into SAMs Designation
Prior to Lewis, Maureen Baird, former warden of the Metropolitan Correctional Center in New York, testified. She oversaw SAMs detainees in the 10 South Unit, who were confined in conditions of solitary confinement during pretrial.
Baird was “surprised” the U.S. government has not said they do not have plans to apply for SAMs in Assange’s case. Instead, they have left the door open, despite it being “really unusual to even make that a proposal.”
While Assange was in the Ecuador embassy, it is known that he was targeted with an espionage operation by UC Global, a Spanish security company. The defense believes the CIA was involved in supporting the company. (Two former UC Global employees were granted anonymity to provide testimony to the court.)
Edward Fitzgerald, one of Assange’s attorneys, asked Baird about the procedure for determining whether Assange is placed under SAMs. She said the attorney general would consult with the intelligence services.
The CIA, as well as the FBI and Customs and Border Protection, would provide input, and what an agency thought about Assange would be an “important factor.”
According to the CIA, WikiLeaks is a “non-state hostile intelligence service.” Former CIA director Mike Pompeo described Assange as someone who has “attracted a devoted following among some of [America’s] most determined enemies.”
Oddly, every time a defense witness maintains Assange would be placed under SAMs and in solitary confinement because the U.S. government would want to restrict his communications with the outside world, the prosecution recoils.
Dobbin even questioned Baird’s assertion that the U.S. Attorney’s Office, after consulting intelligence officials, would view Assange as a threat to U.S. national security.
Lewis compared the medical care Mostafa received in the United Kingdom to the treatment he has received in the United States. For example, Mostafa used to receive daily nursing care four to six times a day, which does not happen at ADX Florence.
As Fitzgerald wrapped up his questions for Lewis, he noted at Belmarsh prison Assange is permitted to associate with prisoners. He may make regular phone calls. He has had access to sessions with a psychiatrist.
Lewis told the court this would change for Assange if he was extradited and confined post-trial at ADX Florence under SAMs. He would not receive “anywhere near the same care or accommodations as he had in the U.K.”


shadowproof--2020-09-29--Live Event 10/3: Julian Assange’s Extradition Trial And The War On Journalism

Live Event 10/3 : Julian Assange ’ s Extradition Trial And The War On Journalism WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange ’ s legal team called their last witness in the extradition trial , which has unfolded over the past four weeks at the Old Bailey Courthouse in London .
The defense and prosecution will file closing submissions to the magistrate court , and a decision on extradition is expected in January 2021 .
Throughout the extradition trial , independent media have led the way in defying a blackout by corporate media institutions around the world .
They have worked to focus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ instead of trivial moments that establishment reporters have turned into sensational clickbait headlines that distract from what is at stake for global press freedom .
On October 3 , journalists from independent or alternative media , who were credentialed by the court , will come together to highlight crucial developments during the extradition trial .
They will outline some of the most effective testimony and also discuss some of the obstacles , which Assange ’ s legal team face in convincing a judge to reject the United States government ’ s extradition request @

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange’s legal team called their last witness in the extradition trial, which has unfolded over the past four weeks at the Old Bailey Courthouse in London. The defense and prosecution will file closing submissions to the magistrate court, and a decision on extradition is expected in January 4, 2021.
Throughout the extradition trial, independent media have led the way in defying a blackout by corporate media institutions around the world. They have worked to focus on the substance of testimony from witnesses instead of trivial moments that establishment reporters have turned into sensational clickbait headlines that distract from what is at stake for global press freedom.
On October 3, journalists from independent or alternative media, who were credentialed by the court, came together to highlight crucial developments during the extradition trial. They outlined some of the most effective testimony and also discussed some of the obstacles, which Assange’s legal team faced in convincing a judge to reject the United States government’s extradition request.
Below is a full video of the 2-hour discussion:
Panel Mohamed Elmaazi, Sputnik Tareq Haddad, London-based independent reporter Mary Kostakidis, Sydney-based journalist Taylor Hudak, acTVism Munich Joe Lauria and Cathy Vogan, Consortium News Richard Medhurst, independent journalist


shadowproof--2020-09-30--UC Global Employee Thwarted Plan To Massively Bug Ecuador Embassy To Spy On Assange

UC Global Employee Thwarted Plan To Massively Bug Ecuador Embassy To Spy On Assange An IT expert who worked for UC Global , the Spanish security company which engaged in an espionage operation against Julian Assange while he was in the Ecuador embassy , refused to install numerous microphones and camera systems with “ streaming capabilities ” because they believed it was illegal .
UC Global director David Morales was told Assange would discover the cameras were streaming in order to “ restrain Morales.
” “ I did not want to collaborate in an illegal act of this magnitude , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Witness # 2 ” told a British magistrates ’ court during Assange ’ s extradition trial .
According to Witness # 2 , “ The entire embassy was to be bugged , ” and , “ Morales indicated the purpose of installing the microphones , as per the request of the United States , ” were for targeting Assange ’ s defense attorneys .
Gathering intelligence on Baltasar Garzón , a Spanish former judge and member of Assange ’ s legal team , was prioritized .
“ The security guards at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of travels to Argentina and Russia in Garzón ’ s passport pages , which were photographed.
” “ Security personnel that were physically deployed in the embassy were specifically asked to monitor these meetings of Assange with his lawyers , as this was required by our ‘ U.S .
friends , ” Witness # 2 added .
“ Morales always ended these instructions commenting that he was the only one who had full knowledge of the contract and who knew the measures that were necessary to take in order to fulfill it.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Department with 17 counts of violating the Espionage Act and one count of conspiracy to commit a computer intrusion that , as alleged in the indictment , is written like an Espionage Act offense .
The charges criminalize the act of merely receiving classified information , as well as the publication of state secrets from the U.S. government .
It targets common practices in newsgathering , which is why the case is widely opposed by press freedom organizations throughout the world .
Key details about the espionage operation were previously reported by El @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in May 2020 .
In October 2019 , a Spanish high court charged Morales with offenses “ related to violating the privacy of the WikiLeaks founder and passing the information on to the United States ’ intelligence services , ” according to El Pais .
Two former employees , Witness # 1 and Witness # 2 , submitted evidence in that case , and the Spanish court granted them anonymity and protection , given the threat of retaliation from Morales .
Judge Vanessa Baraitser , who is presiding over Assange ’ s extradition @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Spanish court and deemed it was “ appropriate ” to allow the witnesses to remain anonymous during extradition proceedings .
The prosecution instructed the court that it would not confirm or deny whether the statements of the witnesses were “ right or wrong.
” They argue the evidence is “ irrelevant ” to the charges against Assange .
Witness # 1 said Morales “ showed at times a real obsession in relation to monitoring and recording the lawyers who met with the ‘ guest ’ ( Julian Assange ) because ‘ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” They informed the court that the company ’ s work for the Ecuador government was practically the company ’ s “ sole contract ” in October 2015 .
They were to provide “ security services for the daughters of then-President of Ecuador , Rafael Correa.
” A second contract was signed afterward for security at the Ecuador embassy in London .
“ Ecuadorian security personnel had to travel to the United Kingdom ” and experienced difficulties obtaining a visa in a timely manner .
“ UC Global on the other hand had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ able to move freely and reside in the United Kingdom by virtue of their EU citizenship , ” according to Witness # 1 .
Morales traveled to Las Vegas for a “ security sector trade fair ” in July 2016 and insisted Witness # 1 not accompany him .
He obtained a contract with Las Vegas Sands , the casino owned by Sheldon Adelson , who was a major bankroller of President Donald Trump ’ s campaign .
“ The contract did not make sense because its purpose was to provide security to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Adelson , the Queen Miri , when the boat entered the Mediterranean Sea .
That is to say , the contract was to provide security to the luxury boat during the short period during which it found itself in Mediterranean waters , ” Witness # 1 shared .
“ But the most striking thing about it was that the boat had its own security , which consisted of a sophisticated security detail , and that the contract consisted in adding an additional person , in this case , David Morales , for a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which David Morales would receive an elevated sum.
” The contract was apparently intended to conceal an agreement with U.S. intelligence .
Witness # 1 said Morales returned and told employees he had “ switched to ‘ the dark side , ’ referring to cooperating with U.S. authorities , and as a result of that collaboration , ‘ the Americans will get us contracts all over the world . '
” “ [ Once ] Donald Trump won the elections , at the end of 2016 , ” as Witness # 2 recalled @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as Morales became more obsessed with obtaining as much information as possible.
” “ Between June and July 2017 , I was summoned by David Morales to form a task force of workers at our headquarters in Jerez .
The purpose of this unit was to execute , from a technical perspective , the capture , systematization and processing of information collected at the embassy that David Morales requested.
” Witness # 2 added , “ I was tasked with executing David Morales ’ s orders , with the technical means that existed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were installed by order of Morales , in addition to the information gathered by the UC Global employees who were physically present in the diplomatic mission .
This unit also had to travel to London every month to collect information.
” Instructions For Spying From the ‘ Highest Spheres ’ In 2017 , Morales informed the task force that “ the contract with Ecuador required that the cameras had to be changed every three years .
This made no sense to [ Witness # 2 ] because the contract had been in force @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clause had not been fulfilled to date.
” “ Although I was not aware of the clause , ” said Witness # 2 , “ I considered that its existence was not a reasonable justification .
The circuit that was in operation at the time consisted of CCTV security cameras , which obviously did not record sound , were sufficient to provide physical security against intrusion inside the building.
” Witness # 2 was also asked around this same time to “ contact providers that sell security cameras with sophisticated audio recording capabilities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ possible , the cameras should not show that they are recording sound , or at least that the appearance of the cameras should not show that they are recording sound.
” “ Because of this , and in accordance with the orders of David Morales , who claimed that all of this was necessary to fulfil the contract , I sought providers for these types of cameras , insisting in , to the extent possible , concealing audio-recording capabilities , ” Witness # 2 shared .
“ Around June 2017 , while I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ equipment , David Morales instructed that the cameras should allow streaming capabilities so that ‘ our friends in the United States , ’ as Morales explicitly put it , would be able to gain access to the interior of the embassy in real time .
This request alarmed me greatly , and in order to impede the request , I claimed that remote access via streaming the camera circuit was not technically achievable.
” As Morales insisted it be done “ for the Americans , ” and emailed him a PowerPoint document in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ install this system , Witness # 2 alleged this was “ manifestly illegal.
” They also told Morales it “ would clearly be discovered by Mr. Assange ” because the argument would “ restrain Morales.
” The security cameras with audio-recording capabilities were installed in early December 2017 , but Witness # 2 was instructed not to share information about the system and to deny that the cameras were recording audio .
“ I was told that it was imperative that these instructions be carried out as they came , supposedly , from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I was asked on several occasions by Mr. Assange and the Political Counselor Maria Eugenia whether the new cameras recorded sound , to which I replied that they did not , as my boss had instructed me to do , ” Witness # 2 recalled .
“ From that moment on , the cameras began to record sound regularly so every meeting that the asylee held was captured .
At our offices in UC Global it was mentioned that the cameras had been paid for twice , by Ecuador and the United States @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to corroborate this assertion.
” The installation of cameras with audio-recording capabilities occurred during the same month that Assange received a diplomatic passport from Ecuadorian authorities and planned to leave the embassy on Christmas Day .
“ I recall that the security personnel of UC Global deployed at the embassy were closely monitoring the then-consul of Ecuador , Fidel Narvaez , who was in charge of the relevant documentation with which he entered and exited the embassy , ” Witness # 2 mentioned .
In January 2018 , Witness # 2 said Morales @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on all the external windows of the embassy .
Specifically , he requested that I place them in the top left corner of all the windows .
The stickers were rather rigid .
They indicated that CCTV was in operation.
” ” I found this strange because there had been a closed-circuit system for several years , and it didn ’ t make sense to now have to advertise this on the windows of the embassy .
Nonetheless , during my visit to London I placed the stickers that had been supplied in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the embassy.
” “ Our American friends , ” Morales said , had laser microphones that were directional and pointed at the windows .
They would “ capture all conversations.
” But according to Witness # 2 , since Assange used a white noise machine that “ produced a vibration in the window that stopped the sound being extracted via the laser microphone , which US intelligence had installed outside.
” With the stickers placed in the upper left-hand side of each of the windows , they eliminated the vibration allowing the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Witness # 2 was upset Morales had not informed them of the real reason for the stickers .
‘ The Americans ’ Desperate For End To Assange ’ s ‘ Permanence In the Embassy ’ During November 2017 , Morales spoke about breaking into the legal office of the law firm headed by Baltasar Garzón .
“ Two weeks after this conversation , the national media reported that men in balaclavas had entered Garzon ’ s law offices .
I recall that the news was shared amongst the employees in the Jerez office @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have to do with what our boss , David Morales , had suggested , ” according to Witness # 2 .
“ The Americans ” supporting UC Global grew increasingly desperate for an end to Assange ’ s “ permanence in the embassy.
” Around December 2017 , Witness # 2 recalled Morales ’ proposal to leave the door open to the embassy , as an “ accidental mistake , ” so persons could be allowed to enter and “ kidnap ” Assange .
Poisoning Assange was also discussed “ with his contacts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ employees were shocked at these suggestions and commented amongst ourselves that the course that Morales had embarked on was beginning to become dangerous , ” Witness # 2 stated .
Microphones were already planted in a fire extinguisher in the meeting room of the embassy and a bathroom , where Assange would meet with his legal team .
In January 2018 , Morales tried to convince Witness # 2 , as part of his “ dealings with US intelligence , ” to install microphones in all the fire extinguishers .
“ Once again @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of these measures and I tried to dissuade Morales indicating that , in addition to it being completely illegal , installing microphones at this scale would be discovered for sure , ” Witness # 2 stated .
Witness # 2 believed installing so many microphones would be a “ crazy act , ” and he does not believe the plan was ever carried out .
Following the arrest of Assange , Witness # 1 said they alerted Assange ’ s lawyers that Morales “ betrayed both the terms of the contract and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the Government of Ecuador , by systematically handing over information to U.S. intelligence agencies.
” “ During a period of time , he handed all information relating to security of the embassy and eventually also in relation to Rafael Correa .
Thus , I came to realize that David Morales decided to sell all the information to the enemy , the United States , which is the reason I put an end to my professional relationship with him .
”

An IT expert who worked for UC Global, the Spanish security company which engaged in an espionage operation against Julian Assange while he was in the Ecuador embassy, refused to install numerous microphones and camera systems with “streaming capabilities” because they believed it was illegal.
UC Global director David Morales was told Assange would discover the cameras were streaming in order to “restrain Morales.”
“I did not want to collaborate in an illegal act of this magnitude,” the IT expert referred to as “Witness #2” told a British magistrates’ court during Assange’s extradition trial.
According to Witness #2, “The entire embassy was to be bugged,” and, “Morales indicated the purpose of installing the microphones, as per the request of the United States,” were for targeting Assange’s defense attorneys.
Gathering intelligence on Baltasar Garzón, a Spanish former judge and member of Assange’s legal team, was prioritized. “The security guards at the embassy were requested to search for evidence of travels to Argentina and Russia in Garzón’s passport pages, which were photographed.”
“Security personnel that were physically deployed in the embassy were specifically asked to monitor these meetings of Assange with his lawyers, as this was required by our ‘U.S. friends,” Witness #2 added. “Morales always ended these instructions commenting that he was the only one who had full knowledge of the contract and who knew the measures that were necessary to take in order to fulfill it.”
Assange was charged by the U.S. Justice Department with 17 counts of violating the Espionage Act and one count of conspiracy to commit a computer intrusion that, as alleged in the indictment, is written like an Espionage Act offense.
The charges criminalize the act of merely receiving classified information, as well as the publication of state secrets from the U.S. government. It targets common practices in newsgathering, which is why the case is widely opposed by press freedom organizations throughout the world.
Key details about the espionage operation were previously reported by El Pais in July 2019 and The Grayzone in May 2020.
In October 2019, a Spanish high court charged Morales with offenses “related to violating the privacy of the WikiLeaks founder and passing the information on to the United States’ intelligence services,” according to El Pais.
Two former employees, Witness #1 and Witness #2, submitted evidence in that case, and the Spanish court granted them anonymity and protection, given the threat of retaliation from Morales.
Judge Vanessa Baraitser, who is presiding over Assange’s extradition case, “respected” the decision of the Spanish court and deemed it was “appropriate” to allow the witnesses to remain anonymous during extradition proceedings.
The prosecution instructed the court that it would not confirm or deny whether the statements of the witnesses were “right or wrong.” They argue the evidence is “irrelevant” to the charges against Assange.
A ‘Real Obsession’ With Spying On Assange’s Legal Team
Witness #1 said Morales “showed at times a real obsession in relation to monitoring and recording the lawyers who met with the ‘guest’ (Julian Assange) because ‘our American friends’ were requesting it.”
They informed the court that the company’s work for the Ecuador government was practically the company’s “sole contract” in October 2015. They were to provide “security services for the daughters of then-President of Ecuador, Rafael Correa.” A second contract was signed afterward for security at the Ecuador embassy in London.
“Ecuadorian security personnel had to travel to the United Kingdom” and experienced difficulties obtaining a visa in a timely manner. “UC Global on the other hand had employees with Spanish nationality, who were able to move freely and reside in the United Kingdom by virtue of their EU citizenship,” according to Witness #1.
Morales traveled to Las Vegas for a “security sector trade fair” in July 2016 and insisted Witness #1 not accompany him. He obtained a contract with Las Vegas Sands, the casino owned by Sheldon Adelson, who was a major bankroller of President Donald Trump’s campaign.
“The contract did not make sense because its purpose was to provide security to the luxury boat that belongs to Sheldon Adelson, the Queen Miri, when the boat entered the Mediterranean Sea. That is to say, the contract was to provide security to the luxury boat during the short period during which it found itself in Mediterranean waters,” Witness #1 shared.
“But the most striking thing about it was that the boat had its own security, which consisted of a sophisticated security detail, and that the contract consisted in adding an additional person, in this case, David Morales, for a very short period of time, through which David Morales would receive an elevated sum.”
The contract was apparently intended to conceal an agreement with U.S. intelligence. Witness #1 said Morales returned and told employees he had “switched to ‘the dark side,’ referring to cooperating with U.S. authorities, and as a result of that collaboration, ‘the Americans will get us contracts all over the world.'”
“[Once] Donald Trump won the elections, at the end of 2016,” as Witness #2 recalled, “the collection of information intensified as Morales became more obsessed with obtaining as much information as possible.”
“Between June and July 2017, I was summoned by David Morales to form a task force of workers at our headquarters in Jerez. The purpose of this unit was to execute, from a technical perspective, the capture, systematization and processing of information collected at the embassy that David Morales requested.”
Witness #2 added, “I was tasked with executing David Morales’s orders, with the technical means that existed in the embassy and additional measures that were installed by order of Morales, in addition to the information gathered by the UC Global employees who were physically present in the diplomatic mission. This unit also had to travel to London every month to collect information.”
Instructions For Spying From the ‘Highest Spheres’
In 2017, Morales informed the task force that “the contract with Ecuador required that the cameras had to be changed every three years. This made no sense to [Witness #2] because the contract had been in force for longer than three years and the clause had not been fulfilled to date.”
“Although I was not aware of the clause,” said Witness #2, “I considered that its existence was not a reasonable justification. The circuit that was in operation at the time consisted of CCTV security cameras, which obviously did not record sound, were sufficient to provide physical security against intrusion inside the building.”
Witness #2 was also asked around this same time to “contact providers that sell security cameras with sophisticated audio recording capabilities. He even indicated that insofar as possible, the cameras should not show that they are recording sound, or at least that the appearance of the cameras should not show that they are recording sound.”
“Because of this, and in accordance with the orders of David Morales, who claimed that all of this was necessary to fulfil the contract, I sought providers for these types of cameras, insisting in, to the extent possible, concealing audio-recording capabilities,” Witness #2 shared.
“Around June 2017, while I was sourcing providers for the new camera equipment, David Morales instructed that the cameras should allow streaming capabilities so that ‘our friends in the United States,’ as Morales explicitly put it, would be able to gain access to the interior of the embassy in real time. This request alarmed me greatly, and in order to impede the request, I claimed that remote access via streaming the camera circuit was not technically achievable.”
As Morales insisted it be done “for the Americans,” and emailed him a PowerPoint document in English that contained instructions on how to install this system, Witness #2 alleged this was “manifestly illegal.” They also told Morales it “would clearly be discovered by Mr. Assange” because the argument would “restrain Morales.”
The security cameras with audio-recording capabilities were installed in early December 2017, but Witness #2 was instructed not to share information about the system and to deny that the cameras were recording audio.
“I was told that it was imperative that these instructions be carried out as they came, supposedly, from the highest spheres. In fact, I was asked on several occasions by Mr. Assange and the Political Counselor Maria Eugenia whether the new cameras recorded sound, to which I replied that they did not, as my boss had instructed me to do,” Witness #2 recalled.
“From that moment on, the cameras began to record sound regularly so every meeting that the asylee held was captured. At our offices in UC Global it was mentioned that the cameras had been paid for twice, by Ecuador and the United States, although I have no documentary evidence to corroborate this assertion.”
The installation of cameras with audio-recording capabilities occurred during the same month that Assange received a diplomatic passport from Ecuadorian authorities and planned to leave the embassy on Christmas Day.
“I recall that the security personnel of UC Global deployed at the embassy were closely monitoring the then-consul of Ecuador, Fidel Narvaez, who was in charge of the relevant documentation with which he entered and exited the embassy,” Witness #2 mentioned.
US Intelligence Neutralizes Assange’s White Noise Machine
In January 2018, Witness #2 said Morales urged them to “place certain stickers on all the external windows of the embassy. Specifically, he requested that I place them in the top left corner of all the windows. The stickers were rather rigid. They indicated that CCTV was in operation.”
”I found this strange because there had been a closed-circuit system for several years, and it didn’t make sense to now have to advertise this on the windows of the embassy. Nonetheless, during my visit to London I placed the stickers that had been supplied in the upper left-hand corner of the windows of the embassy.”
“Our American friends,” Morales said, had laser microphones that were directional and pointed at the windows. They would “capture all conversations.” But according to Witness #2, since Assange used a white noise machine that “produced a vibration in the window that stopped the sound being extracted via the laser microphone, which US intelligence had installed outside.”
With the stickers placed in the upper left-hand side of each of the windows, they eliminated the vibration allowing the laser microphones to “extract conversations. Witness #2 was upset Morales had not informed them of the real reason for the stickers.
‘The Americans’ Desperate For End To Assange’s ‘Permanence In the Embassy’
During November 2017, Morales spoke about breaking into the legal office of the law firm headed by Baltasar Garzón.
“Two weeks after this conversation, the national media reported that men in balaclavas had entered Garzon’s law offices. I recall that the news was shared amongst the employees in the Jerez office, and we speculated whether this could have to do with what our boss, David Morales, had suggested,” according to Witness #2.
“The Americans” supporting UC Global grew increasingly desperate for an end to Assange’s “permanence in the embassy.” Around December 2017, Witness #2 recalled Morales’ proposal to leave the door open to the embassy, as an “accidental mistake,” so persons could be allowed to enter and “kidnap” Assange. Poisoning Assange was also discussed “with his contacts in the United States.”
“We employees were shocked at these suggestions and commented amongst ourselves that the course that Morales had embarked on was beginning to become dangerous,” Witness #2 stated.
Microphones were already planted in a fire extinguisher in the meeting room of the embassy and a bathroom, where Assange would meet with his legal team. In January 2018, Morales tried to convince Witness #2, as part of his “dealings with US intelligence,” to install microphones in all the fire extinguishers.
“Once again, I challenged Morales on the legality of these measures and I tried to dissuade Morales indicating that, in addition to it being completely illegal, installing microphones at this scale would be discovered for sure,” Witness #2 stated.
Witness #2 believed installing so many microphones would be a “crazy act,” and he does not believe the plan was ever carried out.
Following the arrest of Assange, Witness #1 said they alerted Assange’s lawyers that Morales “betrayed both the terms of the contract and the trust that had been given to him by the Government of Ecuador, by systematically handing over information to U.S. intelligence agencies.”
“During a period of time, he handed all information relating to security of the embassy and eventually also in relation to Rafael Correa. Thus, I came to realize that David Morales decided to sell all the information to the enemy, the United States, which is the reason I put an end to my professional relationship with him.”