shadowproof--2020-02-13--Even Brief Exposure To Solitary Confinement May Increase Risk Of Death After Prison

Those who experience even short stints in solitary confinement died at higher rates in the five years following their release from prison than those who did not , according to a new study .
The study , which was published in The Lancet : Public Health and focused on former prisoners in Denmark , found the causes of death were consistent with high mortality among former prisoners in the United States and Europe .
Professors Christopher Wildeman and Lars Andersen were careful to note more research is needed and that a possible causal effect could not be calculated .
They @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these results translated to other countries.
” However , the finding of a statistically significant increase in mortality suggests there might be a relationship between punitive isolation and death after release .
At the very least , these results should prompt similar inquiries in the United States , where the use of solitary confinement is rampant and for durations longer than prisoners experience in Denmark .
Kalief Browder ’ s case is one high profile example of this potential dynamic .
He was in solitary confinement for two out of the three years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ New York City and suffered from mental illness .
Within two years of his release from jail , he died by suicide .
Mortality From Brief Stints In Solitary Confinement Researchers analyzed data from 13,776 formerly incarcerated people in Denmark , who served a prison sentence of at least 7 days between 2006 and 2011 .
The amount of time each person spent in isolation varied , but the average was 8.7 days .
Two-thirds of people spent less than a week in isolation .
Most returned to the general population within a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ weeks or months because of Denmark ’ s short sentences .
Former Danish prisoners who experienced solitary confinement had a higher overall mortality five years after release from prison ( 4.5 percent ) than those who did not ( 2.8 percent ) .
“ The five-year mortality among formerly incarcerated individuals who were placed in solitary confinement was almost ten times that in the general population , ” according to the authors .
Importantly , the study did not include data on protective custody in the cohort they defined as experiencing isolation .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ administrative segregation , including protective custody data points among the control group .
This is significant because , although prisoners go to protective custody for different reasons than punitive segregation , both take a toll on the body .
It is also crucial to note researchers focused only on a person ’ s first prison sentence .
“ Research has shown , however , that solitary confinement might increase rates of reincarceration , ” they contended , “ which means that new prison sentences could affect our comparison groups differentially.
” Even brief @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mortality.
” This finding is especially significant for countries like the U.S. , where “ extremely long periods ( eg years ) in solitary confinement are common , ” and where “ solitary confinement would probably also be linked to elevated rates of mortality through natural causes as well ( eg through lack of exercise or exposure to light ) , ” the researchers surmised .
As the U.S. experiments with prison reform , the results beg the question of whether limiting the use of solitary confinement—instead of abolishing it—is enough to ensure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ Our findings suggest that incarcerated individuals ever placed in solitary confinement are a vulnerable population in need of interventions , ” Wildeman and Andersen wrote .
Dr. Terry Allen Kupers is a psychiatrist , scholar , and author of Prison Madness and Solitary : The Inside Story of Supermax Isolation and How We Can Abolish It .
He ’ s a national expert on the health impacts of solitary confinement and has testified in dozens of class-action lawsuits about jail and prison conditions .
“ The Lancet study is one further @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is supported by a lot of other evidence : solitary confinement damages prisoners , compromises their mental stability , impairs their ability to benefit from rehabilitation programs in prison and then leads to major problems for them adjusting in the community after being released from prison , ” Dr. Kupers told Shadowproof .
“ I have described a ‘ SHU Post-Release Syndrome , ’ where prisoners and formerly incarcerated individuals who spent significant periods in solitary confinement tend to isolate themselves even after being released from solitary and have great difficulty in social @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because their time in solitary is a mark against them and they didn ’ t have the opportunity to accumulate the program successes the parole board looks for , ” Dr. Kupers explained .
“ After their release , there is massive stigma against the formerly incarcerated , so their chances of finding meaningful work are terrible.
” “ They live with the psychological scars and disabilities caused by isolation and idleness in prison , and it is no surprise that they suffer increased mortality rates from multiple causes in the years following @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only proves what we as directly impacted survivors have stated for years now : the impact of human isolation never leaves you , ” Five Mualimm-ak told Shadowproof .
Five is a human rights and prison reform advocate .
He ’ s the founder of Incarcerated Nation Corp. , a collective of previously incarcerated people .
He spent years in solitary confinement while imprisoned in New York .
“ After returning home a survivor of solitary , I found out that my punishment had just begun , ” he said .
“ Years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I am still battling the now permanent damage I and so many live with.
” Five is receiving disability benefits as a result of the trauma of his isolation .
“ The damage that I can never recover from is the extreme anxiety attacks I still live with seven years later.
” “ Living in the shelter system of New York City only increased my everyday possibility of returning to prison .
Survivors are left to be dropped off after months or even years in total isolation.
” “ I found myself fighting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Five said , such as medication , housing , and food .
“ With no answers to any of these life-saving needs , it often is just easier to just give up , leave this painful world behind.
” “ If it wasn ’ t for my sons and the hope I keep alive that we will someday end torture , I would have taken my life a long time ago .
It ’ s a space very easy to find yourself in .
Isolation brings a despair that is only soothed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you away from the pain of existing and living in a constant state of torture.
“ More Research Needed On Solitary Confinement And Post-Release Mortality There is a paucity of research on relationships between short stays in solitary confinement and post-release mortality .
One of the few such studies was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in October 2019 .
It looked at 229,274 people released from North Carolina state prisons between December 2000 to December 2015 .
Researchers found that prisoners who spent any time in restrictive housing “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first year after release of all causes , especially from suicide and homicide ” than prisoners who were not isolated .
They also discovered that those individuals were “ more likely to die of an opioid overdose in the first two weeks after release and to become reincarcerated.
” Additionally , individuals with two or more exposures to solitary confinement “ had a greater risk of death or reincarceration.
” North Carolina prisoners who experienced less than 14 days in solitary confinement had elevated mortality similar to the Denmark study .
For all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 17 percent more likely to die within a year after release .
These prisoners were 35 percent more likely to die from an opioid overdose , 21 percent more likely to die from homicide , and 72 percent more likely to die by suicide within a year after their release .
Those who spent more than 14 consecutive days in isolation “ had a greater risk of all-cause mortality , homicide , suicide , and reincarceration within 1 year after release but not of opioid overdose deaths ” compared to prisoners who never @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the association of restrictive housing with opioid overdose death and suicide after release was more pronounced among white individuals compared with nonwhite individuals.
” Meanwhile , “ The association of restrictive housing with [ death by ] homicide and reincarceration was higher for nonwhite individuals compared with white individuals.
” Do The Mandela Rules On Solitary Confinement Go Far Enough ?
Given the significant differences in imprisonment and reentry conditions between Denmark and the U.S. , the results of these studies should provide a sense of urgency for more research and action @ @ @ @ @ @ @ confinement .
Incarceration practices in Denmark and other Scandinavian countries have been lauded by reformers in the U.S. as a potential model .
Yet , even in Denmark ’ s system , in which far fewer people spend much less time in conditions that are superior to U.S. prisons , researchers found elevated rates of mortality among those who spent a few days in isolation .
In 2015 , the United Nations special rapporteur on torture revised international detention standards known as the Mandela Rules to declare that exposure to solitary confinement for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
This became a standard that several state prison systems would use to guide reforms .
But the results from the Denmark and North Carolina studies might indicate that reforms set to the Mandela Rules standard fall short of what is necessary to protect life during and after incarceration .
Additional research on the relationship between solitary confinement and post-release mortality is necessary and may provide additional evidence for abolishing the practice in the U.S. entirely .
“ This existence post solitary is not existing , ” Five said .
“ It ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ghost haunting a body I used to own and battling a raging mind I have no way of rewiring back to a time before the box .
”

This article was published in partnership with Solitary Watch
Those who experience even short stints in solitary confinement died at higher rates in the five years following their release from prison than those who did not, according to a new study.
The study, which was published in The Lancet: Public Health and focused on former prisoners in Denmark, found the causes of death were consistent with high mortality among former prisoners in the United States and Europe.
Professors Christopher Wildeman and Lars Andersen were careful to note more research is needed and that a possible causal effect could not be calculated. They also acknowledged it was “unclear how these results translated to other countries.”
However, the finding of a statistically significant increase in mortality suggests there might be a relationship between punitive isolation and death after release.
At the very least, these results should prompt similar inquiries in the United States, where the use of solitary confinement is rampant and for durations longer than prisoners experience in Denmark.
Kalief Browder’s case is one high profile example of this potential dynamic. He was in solitary confinement for two out of the three years he was incarcerated on Rikers Island in New York City and suffered from mental illness.
Within two years of his release from jail, he died by suicide.
Mortality From Brief Stints In Solitary Confinement
Researchers analyzed data from 13,776 formerly incarcerated people in Denmark, who served a prison sentence of at least 7 days between 2006 and 2011.
The amount of time each person spent in isolation varied, but the average was 8.7 days. Two-thirds of people spent less than a week in isolation. Most returned to the general population within a few days and returned to society within weeks or months because of Denmark’s short sentences.
Former Danish prisoners who experienced solitary confinement had a higher overall mortality five years after release from prison (4.5 percent) than those who did not (2.8 percent).
“The five-year mortality among formerly incarcerated individuals who were placed in solitary confinement was almost ten times that in the general population,” according to the authors.
Importantly, the study did not include data on protective custody in the cohort they defined as experiencing isolation. Instead, they focused on disciplinary and administrative segregation, including protective custody data points among the control group.
This is significant because, although prisoners go to protective custody for different reasons than punitive segregation, both take a toll on the body.
It is also crucial to note researchers focused only on a person’s first prison sentence.
“Research has shown, however, that solitary confinement might increase rates of reincarceration,” they contended, “which means that new prison sentences could affect our comparison groups differentially.”
Even brief exposure was “linked to elevated post-release mortality.”
This finding is especially significant for countries like the U.S., where “extremely long periods (eg years) in solitary confinement are common,” and where “solitary confinement would probably also be linked to elevated rates of mortality through natural causes as well (eg through lack of exercise or exposure to light),” the researchers surmised.
As the U.S. experiments with prison reform, the results beg the question of whether limiting the use of solitary confinement—instead of abolishing it—is enough to ensure health and safety, and preserve life.
“Our findings suggest that incarcerated individuals ever placed in solitary confinement are a vulnerable population in need of interventions,” Wildeman and Andersen wrote.
SHU Post-Release Syndrome
Dr. Terry Allen Kupers is a psychiatrist, scholar, and author of Prison Madness and Solitary: The Inside Story of Supermax Isolation and How We Can Abolish It. He’s a national expert on the health impacts of solitary confinement and has testified in dozens of class-action lawsuits about jail and prison conditions.
“The Lancet study is one further empirical validation of a troubling fact that is supported by a lot of other evidence: solitary confinement damages prisoners, compromises their mental stability, impairs their ability to benefit from rehabilitation programs in prison and then leads to major problems for them adjusting in the community after being released from prison,” Dr. Kupers told Shadowproof.
“I have described a ‘SHU Post-Release Syndrome,’ where prisoners and formerly incarcerated individuals who spent significant periods in solitary confinement tend to isolate themselves even after being released from solitary and have great difficulty in social situations.”
“Their parole is delayed because their time in solitary is a mark against them and they didn’t have the opportunity to accumulate the program successes the parole board looks for,” Dr. Kupers explained. “After their release, there is massive stigma against the formerly incarcerated, so their chances of finding meaningful work are terrible.”
“They live with the psychological scars and disabilities caused by isolation and idleness in prison, and it is no surprise that they suffer increased mortality rates from multiple causes in the years following their release.”
‘Isolation Brings A Despair’
“Reading this report only proves what we as directly impacted survivors have stated for years now: the impact of human isolation never leaves you,” Five Mualimm-ak told Shadowproof.
Five is a human rights and prison reform advocate. He’s the founder of Incarcerated Nation Corp., a collective of previously incarcerated people. He spent years in solitary confinement while imprisoned in New York.
“After returning home a survivor of solitary, I found out that my punishment had just begun,” he said. “Years after being released from solitary confinement, I am still battling the now permanent damage I and so many live with.”
Five is receiving disability benefits as a result of the trauma of his isolation. “The damage that I can never recover from is the extreme anxiety attacks I still live with seven years later.”
“Living in the shelter system of New York City only increased my everyday possibility of returning to prison. Survivors are left to be dropped off after months or even years in total isolation.”
“I found myself fighting for everything I needed to survive,” Five said, such as medication, housing, and food. “With no answers to any of these life-saving needs, it often is just easier to just give up, leave this painful world behind.”
“If it wasn’t for my sons and the hope I keep alive that we will someday end torture, I would have taken my life a long time ago. It’s a space very easy to find yourself in. Isolation brings a despair that is only soothed by death or a solution that takes you away from the pain of existing and living in a constant state of torture.“
More Research Needed On Solitary Confinement And Post-Release Mortality
There is a paucity of research on relationships between short stays in solitary confinement and post-release mortality.
One of the few such studies was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in October 2019. It looked at 229,274 people released from North Carolina state prisons between December 2000 to December 2015.
Researchers found that prisoners who spent any time in restrictive housing “were more likely to die in the first year after release of all causes, especially from suicide and homicide” than prisoners who were not isolated.
They also discovered that those individuals were “more likely to die of an opioid overdose in the first two weeks after release and to become reincarcerated.”
Additionally, individuals with two or more exposures to solitary confinement “had a greater risk of death or reincarceration.”
North Carolina prisoners who experienced less than 14 days in solitary confinement had elevated mortality similar to the Denmark study. For all causes of death, this group was 17 percent more likely to die within a year after release.
These prisoners were 35 percent more likely to die from an opioid overdose, 21 percent more likely to die from homicide, and 72 percent more likely to die by suicide within a year after their release.
Those who spent more than 14 consecutive days in isolation “had a greater risk of all-cause mortality, homicide, suicide, and reincarceration within 1 year after release but not of opioid overdose deaths” compared to prisoners who never went to the hole.
“Further, the association of restrictive housing with opioid overdose death and suicide after release was more pronounced among white individuals compared with nonwhite individuals.”
Meanwhile, “The association of restrictive housing with [death by] homicide and reincarceration was higher for nonwhite individuals compared with white individuals.”
Do The Mandela Rules On Solitary Confinement Go Far Enough?
Given the significant differences in imprisonment and reentry conditions between Denmark and the U.S., the results of these studies should provide a sense of urgency for more research and action on drastically reducing the use of solitary confinement.
Incarceration practices in Denmark and other Scandinavian countries have been lauded by reformers in the U.S. as a potential model. Yet, even in Denmark’s system, in which far fewer people spend much less time in conditions that are superior to U.S. prisons, researchers found elevated rates of mortality among those who spent a few days in isolation.
In 2015, the United Nations special rapporteur on torture revised international detention standards known as the Mandela Rules to declare that exposure to solitary confinement for 15 consecutive days or more is torture. This became a standard that several state prison systems would use to guide reforms.
But the results from the Denmark and North Carolina studies might indicate that reforms set to the Mandela Rules standard fall short of what is necessary to protect life during and after incarceration.
Additional research on the relationship between solitary confinement and post-release mortality is necessary and may provide additional evidence for abolishing the practice in the U.S. entirely.
“This existence post solitary is not existing,” Five said. “It’s as if I’m a ghost haunting a body I used to own and battling a raging mind I have no way of rewiring back to a time before the box.”
“Being tortured keeps people living in torturous conditions forever.”


shadowproof--2020-02-14--Dissenter Weekly: Alleged ‘Vault 7’ Materials Leaker On Trial, Interior Department Whistleblower Rei

Dissenter Weekly: Alleged ‘Vault 7’ Materials Leaker On Trial, Interior Department Whistleblower Reinstated

On this edition of the “ Dissenter Weekly , ” host and Shadowproof editor Kevin Gosztola highlights the trial against alleged CIA leaker Joshua Schulte , who the government claims provided “ Vault 7 ” materials to WikiLeaks .
Schulte ’ s lawyer Sabrina Shroff , according to Matthew Russell Lee of Inner City Press , opened the trial by maintaining the CIA did not want these documents published and the CIA had no idea how they were leaked nor do they know when , why , or who leaked them .
She suggested the CIA felt pressure to blame @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ All they know is WikiLeaks published the information on March 7 , 2017.
” Later in the episode , Gosztola discusses the case of an Interior Department whistleblower , who was reinstated to his job and promoted as the result of a settlement .
This whistleblower was fired five years ago for complaining about “ insufficient environmental studies of Alaskan drilling sites.
” ( President Barack Obama was still in the White House . )
The episode concludes with an update on WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange ’ s extradition case , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a Spanish high court that is hearing complaints against David Morales , owner of a private security company that engaged in espionage against Assange on behalf of the CIA .
Gosztola will travel to London in February to cover a week-long extradition hearing for Assange .
The case the United States has brought against him threatens global press freedom .
Help us fund his trip by making a donation or becoming a Shadowproof member .
“ Dissenter Weekly ” airs every Thursday at 4pm ET on YouTube and Facebook , and covers whistleblower @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Alleged CIA Leaker Joshua Schulte Was Made Scapegoat For Being ‘ Pain In The Ass , ’ Defense Says Veterans Affairs Secretary Looked For Dirt On A House Staffer Who Reported Sexual Assault In A VA Hospital , Complaint Says Interior Whistleblower Reinstated and Promoted as Part of Settlement Chelsea Manning has been in jail for 337 days .
She owes $ 228,000 in fines .
Julian Assange has been in jail for 308 days , since he was expelled from the Ecuador embassy in London .
This show is brought to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reader-funded press organization .
If you enjoy our work , you can support us with a donation or by subscribing for $ 5/month or more : https : //shadowproof.com/donate

On this edition of the “Dissenter Weekly,” host and Shadowproof editor Kevin Gosztola highlights the trial against alleged CIA leaker Joshua Schulte, who the government claims provided “Vault 7” materials to WikiLeaks.
Schulte’s lawyer Sabrina Shroff, according to Matthew Russell Lee of Inner City Press, opened the trial by maintaining the CIA did not want these documents published and the CIA had no idea how they were leaked nor do they know when, why, or who leaked them. She suggested the CIA felt pressure to blame someone and Schulte was an easy target. “All they know is WikiLeaks published the information on March 7, 2017.”
Later in the episode, Gosztola discusses the case of an Interior Department whistleblower, who was reinstated to his job and promoted as the result of a settlement. This whistleblower was fired five years ago for complaining about “insufficient environmental studies of Alaskan drilling sites.” (President Barack Obama was still in the White House.)
The episode concludes with an update on WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange’s extradition case, particularly what happened in recent days at a Spanish high court that is hearing complaints against David Morales, owner of a private security company that engaged in espionage against Assange on behalf of the CIA.
Gosztola will travel to London in February to cover a week-long extradition hearing for Assange. The case the United States has brought against him threatens global press freedom.
Help us fund his trip by making a donation or becoming a Shadowproof member.
“Dissenter Weekly” airs every Thursday at 4pm ET on YouTube and Facebook, and covers whistleblower and press freedom news from that week.
This week’s stories:
Alleged CIA Leaker Joshua Schulte Was Made Scapegoat For Being ‘Pain In The Ass,’ Defense Says
Veterans Affairs Secretary Looked For Dirt On A House Staffer Who Reported Sexual Assault In A VA Hospital, Complaint Says
DOJ Grant To ‘Hookers For Jesus’ Triggers Whistleblower Complaint
Interior Whistleblower Reinstated and Promoted as Part of Settlement
New leaks shatter OPCW’s attacks on Douma whistleblowers
Spaniard at center of Julian Assange’s spying accusations claims ambassador ordered espionage
***
Chelsea Manning has been in jail for 337 days. She owes $228,000 in fines.
Julian Assange has been in jail for 308 days, since he was expelled from the Ecuador embassy in London.
Send tips and feedback to editor@shadowproof.com
This show is brought to you by Shadowproof.com, a 100% reader-funded press organization. If you enjoy our work, you can support us with a donation or by subscribing for $5/month or more: https://shadowproof.com/donate


shadowproof--2020-02-18--NSA Whistleblower Reality Winner Asks Trump To Commute Her Prison Sentence

NSA whistleblower Reality Winner submitted a petition for a commutation of her prison sentence .
“ The continued imprisonment of Reality Leigh Winner serves no social or preventative purpose , ” the petition declares .
“ Her continued incarceration is costly , unnecessary to protect the public , burdensome to her health and well-being , and not commensurate with the severity of her offense.
” Billie Winner-Davis , her mother , said , “ I am so very happy about the filing today .
For me , this means we are finally able to officially ask for Reality ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , “ Keeping Reality in prison serves no purpose .
She is not a threat or a danger and has already served so much time behind bars .
She has accepted responsibility and has paid a very high price .
It ’ s time to bring her home.
” Winner pled guilty to one count of violating the Espionage Act when she disclosed an NSA report to The Intercept .
She believed the analyst report contained evidence of Russian hackers targeting United States voter registration systems during the 2016 election .
On August @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to five years and three months in federal prison .
She has served more than half of her prison sentence—nearly 33 months—at Federal Medical Center Carswell in Fort Worth , Texas .
A federal court denied her bail prior to her guilty plea , and she was in jail for one year and nearly three months before her sentencing .
Bobby Christine , the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Georgia , boasted that Winner ’ s sentence was the “ longest received by a defendant for an unauthorized disclosure of national @ @ @ @ @ @ @ appropriately satisfies the need for both punishment and deterrence in light of the nature and seriousness of the offense.
” In arguing for leniency in federal court , Winner ’ s defense highlighted the cases of Bryan Nishimura , a former Navy reservist who transported classified material from a base in Afghanistan to his home ; David Petraeus , a former CIA director who improperly handled and disclosed classified information to his biographer with whom he was having an affair ; Sandy Berger , a former Clinton national security adviser who removed classified @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; and Shamai Leibowitz , a former FBI linguist who was prosecuted for showing classified information to a journalist on what he described as illegal and constitutional acts .
The document was marked “ top secret , ” but primarily , the report described a spear phishing attack , which is an extremely common tactic employed by scammers .
Multiple accounts at VR Systems , a Florida-based elections technology software and systems vendor , received an email that was amateur in nature and could hardly be said to contain sensitive information .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ under the Espionage Act , however , she did not work with a foreign agent or entity to conspire against her country , ” the petition contends .
“ Her disclosure did not jeopardize the security or safety of human lives or strategic information .
She sought no compensation or attributes and only acted to inform the public.
” FBI agents raided Winner ’ s home in June 2017 , and when they interrogated her ( without Mirandizing her ) , she told agents , “ I felt really hopeless , and seeing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and forth , back and forth in the public domain for so long , trying to figure out , like , with everything else that keeps getting released and keeps getting leaked—Why isn ’ t this getting , why isn ’ t this out there ?
Why can ’ t this be public ?
” Winner has a “ greater management variable ” designation which prevents her from stepping down to a camp , according to the petition .
FBI whistleblower Terry Albury , who was also prosecuted by President Donald Trump ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sentence in federal prison for two counts of violating the Espionage Act .
He was given a “ management variable ” designation .
“ The [ Bureau of Prisons ] typically applies this MGTV [ management variable ] to offenders with lengthy prior arrest records but few convictions , nonviolent offenders who have a history of poor adjustment under probation or community supervision , offenders with a history of organized crime , offenders with significant foreign ties and/or financial resources , and offenders who have had disciplinary problems during prior incarceration .
Inmates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ security level higher than their score would otherwise require , ” Albury wrote in a letter in 2019 .
The clemency petition asserts the federal court failed to consider her record of volunteerism and service in the military when she was sentenced .
She was a cryptologic language analyst in the 94th Intelligence Squadron in the U.S. Air Force .
Instead of viewing her service in the Air Force as meritorious , an appeals court interpreted it in the most negative way possible to justify keeping her in jail before she pled guilty @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Ms. Winner—who is fluent in Farsi , Dari , and Pashto—has long wanted to live and work in the Middle East , ” the appeals court stated .
“ She wanted the Air Force to deploy her to Afghanistan .
She researched traveling , working , and living in places like Kurdistan , Iraq , Afghanistan , Jordan , and the Palestinian territories .
She researched flights to Kurdistan and Erbil .
She researched buying a home in Jordan .
And she researched how to obtain a work visa in Afghanistan.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it seem like she was intent to go join the Taliban in Afghanistan , even though she had been involved in helping the military kill “ high value targets ” who were considered terrorists .
“ Reality Winner is diagnosed with depression , anxiety , and bulimia , ” the petition notes .
“ Her placement at FMC Carswell was recommended so that she could receive treatment , however , the only treatment available to Reality Winner at this placement is medication.
” “ The Bureau of Prisons does not offer therapy to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mental illness or assist in providing coping mechanism that will help her overcome , adjust , and function .
Reality is enduring substantial suffering and in need of therapy to treat her illness , ” the petition adds .
Winner has no infractions on her record .
She is a fitness trainer at FMC Carswell , and she has pursued education while incarcerated .
On the day of Winner ’ s sentence , Trump tweeted that her sentence was “ unfair ” and criticized then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions for issuing a disproportionate sentence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how she was not prosecuted for mishandling classified information on her private email server .
After Trump made a statement related to her case , Winner commented , “ Even our commander-in-chief , President Trump , has kind of come out and said , ‘ Wait a minute , this is really unfair .
There ’ s this double standard here.
’ ” Winner continued , “ For that , I can ’ t thank him enough , because for 16 months , those words , ‘ so unfair , ’ were actually @ @ @ @ @ @ @ my team or my family to really say out in the public .
So I just can ’ t thank him enough for finally saying what everybody has been thinking for 16 months.
” Alison Grinter , a criminal defense attorney in Texas , helped Winner and her family file the request for clemency , and Winner-Davis thanked Grinter for her assistance .
She now hopes that President Donald Trump will consider their request .

NSA whistleblower Reality Winner submitted a petition for a commutation of her prison sentence.
“The continued imprisonment of Reality Leigh Winner serves no social or preventative purpose,” the petition declares. “Her continued incarceration is costly, unnecessary to protect the public, burdensome to her health and well-being, and not commensurate with the severity of her offense.”
Billie Winner-Davis, her mother, said, “I am so very happy about the filing today. For me, this means we are finally able to officially ask for Reality’s immediate release from prison.”
She emphasized, “Keeping Reality in prison serves no purpose. She is not a threat or a danger and has already served so much time behind bars. She has accepted responsibility and has paid a very high price. It’s time to bring her home.”
Winner pled guilty to one count of violating the Espionage Act when she disclosed an NSA report to The Intercept. She believed the analyst report contained evidence of Russian hackers targeting United States voter registration systems during the 2016 election.
On August 23, 2018, Winner was sentenced to five years and three months in federal prison. She has served more than half of her prison sentence—nearly 33 months—at Federal Medical Center Carswell in Fort Worth, Texas.
A federal court denied her bail prior to her guilty plea, and she was in jail for one year and nearly three months before her sentencing.
Bobby Christine, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Georgia, boasted that Winner’s sentence was the “longest received by a defendant for an unauthorized disclosure of national defense information to the media. It appropriately satisfies the need for both punishment and deterrence in light of the nature and seriousness of the offense.”
In arguing for leniency in federal court, Winner’s defense highlighted the cases of Bryan Nishimura, a former Navy reservist who transported classified material from a base in Afghanistan to his home; David Petraeus, a former CIA director who improperly handled and disclosed classified information to his biographer with whom he was having an affair; Sandy Berger, a former Clinton national security adviser who removed classified information from the National Archives without authorization; and Shamai Leibowitz, a former FBI linguist who was prosecuted for showing classified information to a journalist on what he described as illegal and constitutional acts.
The document was marked “top secret,” but primarily, the report described a spear phishing attack, which is an extremely common tactic employed by scammers. Multiple accounts at VR Systems, a Florida-based elections technology software and systems vendor, received an email that was amateur in nature and could hardly be said to contain sensitive information.
“In contrast to others charged and convicted under the Espionage Act, however, she did not work with a foreign agent or entity to conspire against her country,” the petition contends. “Her disclosure did not jeopardize the security or safety of human lives or strategic information. She sought no compensation or attributes and only acted to inform the public.”
FBI agents raided Winner’s home in June 2017, and when they interrogated her (without Mirandizing her), she told agents, “I felt really hopeless, and seeing that information that has been contested back and forth, back and forth in the public domain for so long, trying to figure out, like, with everything else that keeps getting released and keeps getting leaked—Why isn’t this getting, why isn’t this out there? Why can’t this be public?”
Winner has a “greater management variable” designation which prevents her from stepping down to a camp, according to the petition.
FBI whistleblower Terry Albury, who was also prosecuted by President Donald Trump’s Justice Department, is serving a sentence in federal prison for two counts of violating the Espionage Act. He was given a “management variable” designation.
“The [Bureau of Prisons] typically applies this MGTV [management variable] to offenders with lengthy prior arrest records but few convictions, nonviolent offenders who have a history of poor adjustment under probation or community supervision, offenders with a history of organized crime, offenders with significant foreign ties and/or financial resources, and offenders who have had disciplinary problems during prior incarceration. Inmates who receive this MGTV are placed one security level higher than their score would otherwise require,” Albury wrote in a letter in 2019.
The clemency petition asserts the federal court failed to consider her record of volunteerism and service in the military when she was sentenced. She was a cryptologic language analyst in the 94th Intelligence Squadron in the U.S. Air Force.
Instead of viewing her service in the Air Force as meritorious, an appeals court interpreted it in the most negative way possible to justify keeping her in jail before she pled guilty.
“Evidence in the record indicates that Ms. Winner—who is fluent in Farsi, Dari, and Pashto—has long wanted to live and work in the Middle East,” the appeals court stated. “She wanted the Air Force to deploy her to Afghanistan. She researched traveling, working, and living in places like Kurdistan, Iraq, Afghanistan, Jordan, and the Palestinian territories. She researched flights to Kurdistan and Erbil. She researched buying a home in Jordan. And she researched how to obtain a work visa in Afghanistan.”
The mosaic the appeals court created made it seem like she was intent to go join the Taliban in Afghanistan, even though she had been involved in helping the military kill “high value targets” who were considered terrorists.
“Reality Winner is diagnosed with depression, anxiety, and bulimia,” the petition notes. “Her placement at FMC Carswell was recommended so that she could receive treatment, however, the only treatment available to Reality Winner at this placement is medication.”
“The Bureau of Prisons does not offer therapy to deal with the underlying causes of her mental illness or assist in providing coping mechanism that will help her overcome, adjust, and function. Reality is enduring substantial suffering and in need of therapy to treat her illness,” the petition adds.
Winner has no infractions on her record. She is a fitness trainer at FMC Carswell, and she has pursued education while incarcerated.
On the day of Winner’s sentence, Trump tweeted that her sentence was “unfair” and criticized then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions for issuing a disproportionate sentence. He referred to Hillary Clinton and how she was not prosecuted for mishandling classified information on her private email server.
After Trump made a statement related to her case, Winner commented, “Even our commander-in-chief, President Trump, has kind of come out and said, ‘Wait a minute, this is really unfair. There’s this double standard here.’”
Winner continued, “For that, I can’t thank him enough, because for 16 months, those words, ‘so unfair,’ were actually not allowed by either myself, or my team or my family to really say out in the public. So I just can’t thank him enough for finally saying what everybody has been thinking for 16 months.”
Alison Grinter, a criminal defense attorney in Texas, helped Winner and her family file the request for clemency, and Winner-Davis thanked Grinter for her assistance. She now hopes that President Donald Trump will consider their request.


shadowproof--2020-02-20--Hardships Chelsea Manning Has Endured Are Unlike Any Other Case Of Grand Jury Resistance

As United States Army whistleblower Chelsea Manning yet again affirmed she will not testify before a federal grand jury empaneled against WikiLeaks , her legal team filed a motion to force her release from jail .
“ Manning has now been incarcerated for eleven of the maximum eighteen months .
There is no reason to believe she will experience a change of heart .
There are a plethora of indications that she will not , ” the motion asserts [ PDF ] .
It additionally argues , “ The state of the law with respect to civil confinement is clear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ confinement is to exert a coercive effect upon a recalcitrant [ uncooperative ] witness .
In the absence of a reasonable expectation of coercing testimony , coercive enforcement has exceeded its lawful scope and must be terminated.
” “ Counsel has been unable to find a case involving any other witnesses who have endured the kind of hardships Ms. Manning has endured , let alone for the length of time she has endured them , prior to release .
Having now endured eleven months of confinement that she could have ostensibly ended at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ remain any serious doubt regarding the ruthlessness with which she will hew to her convictions , ” Manning ’ s legal team concludes .
Manning has been confined at the William G. Truesdale Adult Detention Center in Alexandria , Virginia , for 343 days and owes $ 234,000 in fines .
There is no evidence that Manning ’ s resistance has prevented the Justice Department from indicting anyone .
In fact , WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange was indicted on 17 counts of allegedly violating the Espionage Act and one count of conspiracy to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ refusal to testify continues , predicated on my long standing belief that grand juries , as they function in the contemporary era , are often used by federal prosecutors to harass and disrupt political opponents and activists through secrecy , coercion , and jailing without trial , ” Manning declared in a released statement .
She indicated her confinement “ reinforces ” her belief that grand juries are abused in practice and mentioned her mother Susan Fox , who lived in Wales , died during her time in jail .
“ I can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ process .
No matter how much you punish me , I will remain confident in my decision .
I have been separated from my loved ones , deprived of sunlight , and could not even attend my mother ’ s funeral , ” Manning shared .
“ It is easier to endure these hardships now than to cooperate to win back some comfort , and live the rest of my life knowing that I acted out of self interest and not principle.
” Dr. Sara Boyd conducted a personality assessment and concluded Manning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the incarceration setting , and the more she adapts , the more she is harmed.
” That form involves “ institutionalization , ” and it manifests as “ anxiety about returning to the community.
” “ Manning exhibits long standing personality features that relate to her scrupulousness , her persistence , and dedication , and her willingness to endure social disapproval as well as formal punishments , ” Boyd determined .
“ She also has a tendency to see issues in black and white terms with regard to ethical and values-based judgment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be modified by any intervention.
” According to the motion , if Manning can “ show by a preponderance of the evidence that there is no reasonable possibility that she will testify , then continued confinement transforms from a coercive sanction to a punishment , ” which becomes evidence for her immediate release .
“ Manning has well-founded reasons to doubt the propriety of this particular subpoena and believes that she does in fact have just cause for her refusal to testify , ” her legal team maintains .
“ But beyond @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that to cooperate with this grand jury would be a betrayal of her beliefs about the grand jury process in general , and this grand jury in particular.
” “ She has always been prepared to suffer the consequences for her beliefs in this regard and in light of her history , it should surprise nobody to find that she has the courage of her convictions.
” The motion refers to her “ internal moral code ” as a driving force behind her resistance .
It also suggests worldwide recognition discourages her from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ international hero , a person of principle who [ is ] willing to sacrifice everything in the public interest.
” “ Her moral compass and the support she receives from her various communities function to mutually reinforce each other.
” Furthermore , Manning ’ s legal team contend “ her reincarceration on the basis of the subpoena is seen by many as retaliation for President [ Barack ] Obama ’ s commutation , and as an end-run around the principles of double jeopardy .
Her resistance to the grand jury is understood @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of a contribution to a long history of principled resistance to government secrecy and political repression.
” “ The aim of the court was presumably to compound the coercive effect of confinement with a financial sanction .
However , Ms. Manning has not been , and can not be moved , by threats of financial ruin any more than she has been moved by her eleven-month confinement , ” according to her legal team .
The motion adds , “ The limited financial records provided to the court in July and August did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ capacity now , or any prospect of earning anywhere near the half million dollars that could accrue by the end of her confinement .
She has already been fined orders of magnitude more money than she currently has , and she is not expected to earn , or even to be able to earn enough money to pay these fines even were she to relinquish ten percent of her salary over the course of forty-five years.
” As Manning ’ s legal team describes , “ Her earning potential is largely speculative .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ adult life not in prison .
Her primary marketable skill is in being Chelsea Manning , and while she is a person of intrigue and interest , the documentary made about her has not made enough money for her to have benefited financially at all , and the autobiography she is supposed to write has been so disrupted by her incarceration that there is reason to think that whatever earnings it might yet yield diminish by the day.
” In 2019 , a Showtime documentary called “ X/Y Chelsea ” premiered right around @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the grand jury and forced into confinement .
The motion also highlights United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture Nils Melzer ’ s objection to Manning ’ s continued confinement .
Melzer released a letter [ PDF ] from November 1 , 2019 , to the U.S. government that raised serious concerns over “ coercive measures ” against Manning .
He suggested authorities were intentionally inflicting “ progressively severe mental and emotional suffering for the purposes of coercion and intimidation at the order of judicial authorities , ” and it is compounding Manning ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ physical health problems she still experiences as a result of prior abuse she endured when she was imprisoned for releasing documents to WikiLeaks .
“ I conclude that such deprivation of liberty does not constitute a circumscribed sanction for a specific offense but an open-ended , progressively severe measure of coercion fulfilling all the constitutive elements of torture or other cruel , inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment , ” Melzer declared .
It was the second time in less than a decade that a UN Special Rapporteur on Torture accused the U.S. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 16 , 2019 , Manning ’ s legal team moved to quash a new subpoena for her confinement .
They argued her testimony was unnecessary and challenged the U.S. government ’ s inadequate denials related to their allegations that Manning was unlawfully surveilled .
“ The court acknowledged that post-indictment subpoenas were inherently suspect .
The court futhermore pressed the government to clarify that their offered denial of unlawful electronic surveillance was limited only to Article III surveillance and did not cover for example any potential surveillance that may have taken place under @ @ @ @ @ @ @ statutory authority , such as FISA , ” the motion recounts .
“ Finally the court acknowledged that the cumulative effect of grand jury secrecy and ex parte filings functioned to force Ms Mannng to litigate blind .
Nevertheless , the Court denied Ms. Manning ’ s motions.
” “ The key issue before Judge [ Anthony Trenga is whether continued incarceration could persuade Chelsea to testify , ” said Moira Meltzer-Cohen , an attorney for Manning .
“ Judges have complained of the ‘ perversity ’ of this law : that a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in their contempt of court .
However , should Judge Trenga agree that Chelsea will never agree to testify , he will be compelled by the law to order her release.
” Meltzer-Cohen further contended : “ The evidence overwhelmingly supports the claim we have made from the beginning : Ms. Manning can not be pressured into betraying her principles .
If her confinement is not having a coercive impact , it has exceeded its permissible scope , and Ms. Manning must be released .
”

As United States Army whistleblower Chelsea Manning yet again affirmed she will not testify before a federal grand jury empaneled against WikiLeaks, her legal team filed a motion to force her release from jail.
“Manning has now been incarcerated for eleven of the maximum eighteen months. There is no reason to believe she will experience a change of heart. There are a plethora of indications that she will not,” the motion asserts [PDF].
It additionally argues, “The state of the law with respect to civil confinement is clear: the sole lawful purpose of civil confinement is to exert a coercive effect upon a recalcitrant [uncooperative] witness. In the absence of a reasonable expectation of coercing testimony, coercive enforcement has exceeded its lawful scope and must be terminated.”
“Counsel has been unable to find a case involving any other witnesses who have endured the kind of hardships Ms. Manning has endured, let alone for the length of time she has endured them, prior to release. Having now endured eleven months of confinement that she could have ostensibly ended at any time, there can no longer remain any serious doubt regarding the ruthlessness with which she will hew to her convictions,” Manning’s legal team concludes.
Manning has been confined at the William G. Truesdale Adult Detention Center in Alexandria, Virginia, for 343 days and owes $234,000 in fines.
There is no evidence that Manning’s resistance has prevented the Justice Department from indicting anyone. In fact, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange was indicted on 17 counts of allegedly violating the Espionage Act and one count of conspiracy to commit a computer crime.
“My refusal to testify continues, predicated on my long standing belief that grand juries, as they function in the contemporary era, are often used by federal prosecutors to harass and disrupt political opponents and activists through secrecy, coercion, and jailing without trial,” Manning declared in a released statement.
She indicated her confinement “reinforces” her belief that grand juries are abused in practice and mentioned her mother Susan Fox, who lived in Wales, died during her time in jail.
“I cannot agree to participate in such a process. No matter how much you punish me, I will remain confident in my decision. I have been separated from my loved ones, deprived of sunlight, and could not even attend my mother’s funeral,” Manning shared. “It is easier to endure these hardships now than to cooperate to win back some comfort, and live the rest of my life knowing that I acted out of self interest and not principle.”
Dr. Sara Boyd conducted a personality assessment and concluded Manning is “being harmed via her adaptation to the incarceration setting, and the more she adapts, the more she is harmed.” That form involves “institutionalization,” and it manifests as “anxiety about returning to the community.”
“Manning exhibits long standing personality features that relate to her scrupulousness, her persistence, and dedication, and her willingness to endure social disapproval as well as formal punishments,” Boyd determined. “She also has a tendency to see issues in black and white terms with regard to ethical and values-based judgment. These personality features are not likely to be modified by any intervention.”
According to the motion, if Manning can “show by a preponderance of the evidence that there is no reasonable possibility that she will testify, then continued confinement transforms from a coercive sanction to a punishment,” which becomes evidence for her immediate release.
“Manning has well-founded reasons to doubt the propriety of this particular subpoena and believes that she does in fact have just cause for her refusal to testify,” her legal team maintains. “But beyond those legal issues, she is convinced that to cooperate with this grand jury would be a betrayal of her beliefs about the grand jury process in general, and this grand jury in particular.”
“She has always been prepared to suffer the consequences for her beliefs in this regard and in light of her history, it should surprise nobody to find that she has the courage of her convictions.”
The motion refers to her “internal moral code” as a driving force behind her resistance. It also suggests worldwide recognition discourages her from testifying because she is regarded as an “international hero, a person of principle who [is] willing to sacrifice everything in the public interest.”
“Her moral compass and the support she receives from her various communities function to mutually reinforce each other.”
Furthermore, Manning’s legal team contend “her reincarceration on the basis of the subpoena is seen by many as retaliation for President [Barack] Obama’s commutation, and as an end-run around the principles of double jeopardy. Her resistance to the grand jury is understood by historical and legal experts as part of a contribution to a long history of principled resistance to government secrecy and political repression.”
“The aim of the court was presumably to compound the coercive effect of confinement with a financial sanction. However, Ms. Manning has not been, and cannot be moved, by threats of financial ruin any more than she has been moved by her eleven-month confinement,” according to her legal team.
The motion adds, “The limited financial records provided to the court in July and August did not reflect that she has any financial capacity now, or any prospect of earning anywhere near the half million dollars that could accrue by the end of her confinement. She has already been fined orders of magnitude more money than she currently has, and she is not expected to earn, or even to be able to earn enough money to pay these fines even were she to relinquish ten percent of her salary over the course of forty-five years.”
As Manning’s legal team describes, “Her earning potential is largely speculative. She has spent very little of her adult life not in prison. Her primary marketable skill is in being Chelsea Manning, and while she is a person of intrigue and interest, the documentary made about her has not made enough money for her to have benefited financially at all, and the autobiography she is supposed to write has been so disrupted by her incarceration that there is reason to think that whatever earnings it might yet yield diminish by the day.”
In 2019, a Showtime documentary called “X/Y Chelsea” premiered right around the time that she was subpoenaed by the grand jury and forced into confinement.
The motion also highlights United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture Nils Melzer’s objection to Manning’s continued confinement.
Melzer released a letter [PDF] from November 1, 2019, to the U.S. government that raised serious concerns over “coercive measures” against Manning.
He suggested authorities were intentionally inflicting “progressively severe mental and emotional suffering for the purposes of coercion and intimidation at the order of judicial authorities,” and it is compounding Manning’s post-traumatic symptoms and other mental and physical health problems she still experiences as a result of prior abuse she endured when she was imprisoned for releasing documents to WikiLeaks.
“I conclude that such deprivation of liberty does not constitute a circumscribed sanction for a specific offense but an open-ended, progressively severe measure of coercion fulfilling all the constitutive elements of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment,” Melzer declared.
It was the second time in less than a decade that a UN Special Rapporteur on Torture accused the U.S. government of torturing Manning.
On May 16, 2019, Manning’s legal team moved to quash a new subpoena for her confinement. They argued her testimony was unnecessary and challenged the U.S. government’s inadequate denials related to their allegations that Manning was unlawfully surveilled.
“The court acknowledged that post-indictment subpoenas were inherently suspect. The court futhermore pressed the government to clarify that their offered denial of unlawful electronic surveillance was limited only to Article III surveillance and did not cover for example any potential surveillance that may have taken place under the authority of executive order or other statutory authority, such as FISA,” the motion recounts.
“Finally the court acknowledged that the cumulative effect of grand jury secrecy and ex parte filings functioned to force Ms Mannng to litigate blind. Nevertheless, the Court denied Ms. Manning’s motions.”
“The key issue before Judge [Anthony Trenga is whether continued incarceration could persuade Chelsea to testify,” said Moira Meltzer-Cohen, an attorney for Manning. “Judges have complained of the ‘perversity’ of this law: that a witness may win their freedom by persisting in their contempt of court. However, should Judge Trenga agree that Chelsea will never agree to testify, he will be compelled by the law to order her release.”
Meltzer-Cohen further contended: “The evidence overwhelmingly supports the claim we have made from the beginning: Ms. Manning cannot be pressured into betraying her principles. If her confinement is not having a coercive impact, it has exceeded its permissible scope, and Ms. Manning must be released.”


shadowproof--2020-02-20--Dissenter Weekly: Chelsea Manning Urges Judge To Free Her (Again)—Plus, What To Expect At Upcoming A

Dissenter Weekly: Chelsea Manning Urges Judge To Free Her (Again)—Plus, What To Expect At Upcoming Assange Hearing

On this edition of the “ Dissenter Weekly , ” we depart from our normal routine and focus solely on WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange ’ s upcoming extradition hearing , as well as a recent motion to free United States Army whistleblower Chelsea Manning , which was filed by her legal team .
As United States Army whistleblower Chelsea Manning yet again affirmed she will not testify before a federal grand jury empaneled against WikiLeaks , her legal team outlined how she will not be coerced by confinement or financial sanctions , and what the federal judge is allowing the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Assange ’ s legal team informed the judge presiding over Assange ’ s extradition case that President Donald Trump allegedly offered a pardon through an intermediary .
The media establishment wildly misreported what the legal team said so Gosztola clarifies what was really asserted .
Later in the episode , Gosztola offers an overview ahead of next week ’ s extradition hearing .
The first couple days will focus on opening arguments and then shift to the issue of whether the U.S.-U.K. extradition treaty covers Assange .
There will be much deliberation over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ looks back at the reasons why Ecuador granted Assange asylum .
Gosztola will be in London to cover a week-long extradition hearing for Assange .
The case the United States has brought against him threatens global press freedom .
Help us fund his trip by making a donation or becoming a Shadowproof member .
“ Dissenter Weekly ” airs every Thursday at 4pm ET on YouTube and Facebook , and covers whistleblower and press freedom news from that week .
The Hardships Chelsea Manning Has Endured Are Unlike Any Other Case Of Grand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Were Offered A Pardon From Trump When Ecuador Granted Asylum Because He Was Accused Of ‘ Political Offenses ’ In Rejecting DNC Lawsuit Against WikiLeaks , Judge Strongly Defended First Amendment Rights Of Journalists Chelsea Manning has been in jail for 343 days .
She owes $ 234,000 in fines .
Julian Assange has been in jail for 316 days , since he was expelled from the Ecuador embassy in London .
This show is brought to you by Shadowproof.com , a 100 % reader-funded press organization .
If you enjoy our work @ @ @ @ @ @ @ donation or by subscribing for $ 5/month or more : https : //shadowproof.com/donate

On this edition of the “Dissenter Weekly,” we depart from our normal routine and focus solely on WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange’s upcoming extradition hearing, as well as a recent motion to free United States Army whistleblower Chelsea Manning, which was filed by her legal team.
As United States Army whistleblower Chelsea Manning yet again affirmed she will not testify before a federal grand jury empaneled against WikiLeaks, her legal team outlined how she will not be coerced by confinement or financial sanctions, and what the federal judge is allowing the government to do is profoundly cruel.
Assange’s legal team informed the judge presiding over Assange’s extradition case that President Donald Trump allegedly offered a pardon through an intermediary. The media establishment wildly misreported what the legal team said so Gosztola clarifies what was really asserted.
Later in the episode, Gosztola offers an overview ahead of next week’s extradition hearing. The first couple days will focus on opening arguments and then shift to the issue of whether the U.S.-U.K. extradition treaty covers Assange. There will be much deliberation over “political offenses” and so Gosztola looks back at the reasons why Ecuador granted Assange asylum.
Gosztola will be in London to cover a week-long extradition hearing for Assange. The case the United States has brought against him threatens global press freedom.
Help us fund his trip by making a donation or becoming a Shadowproof member.
“Dissenter Weekly” airs every Thursday at 4pm ET on YouTube and Facebook, and covers whistleblower and press freedom news from that week.
This week’s stories:
Accused Leaker Of ‘Vault 7’ Materials Moves For Mistrial
The Hardships Chelsea Manning Has Endured Are Unlike Any Other Case Of Grand Jury Resistance
Assange Lawyer Tells Court They Were Offered A Pardon From Trump
When Ecuador Granted Asylum Because He Was Accused Of ‘Political Offenses’
In Rejecting DNC Lawsuit Against WikiLeaks, Judge Strongly Defended First Amendment Rights Of Journalists
***
Chelsea Manning has been in jail for 343 days. She owes $234,000 in fines.
Julian Assange has been in jail for 316 days, since he was expelled from the Ecuador embassy in London.
Send tips and feedback to editor@shadowproof.com
This show is brought to you by Shadowproof.com, a 100% reader-funded press organization. If you enjoy our work, you can support us with a donation or by subscribing for $5/month or more: https://shadowproof.com/donate


shadowproof--2020-02-21--New York Times Catches Culinary Workers Union Leadership Discouraging Members From Supporting Sander

New York Times Catches Culinary Workers Union Leadership Discouraging Members From Supporting Sanders

U.S .
Senator Bernie Sanders speaking with attendees at the Clark County Democratic Party 's 2020 Kick Off to Caucus Gala at the Tropicana Las Vegas in Las Vegas , Nevada .
( Photo by Gage Skidmore on Flickr . )
A representative from the Culinary Workers Union discouraged a member , who supports Senator Bernie Sanders ’ presidential campaign , from talking to the press .
New York Times reporters witnessed the encounter .
The union member , Amigdia , was counseled by the union representative .
When he spoke to the Times , he was enthusiastic about why @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Later , a Times reporter followed up with him and he no longer sounded as assertive .
In fact , he seemed confused about what to say about Sanders .
Voters are set to participate in the Nevada caucuses on February 22 , but for the first time , they have had an opportunity to participate in multiple days of early voting .
The Culinary Workers Union did not endorse a candidate , but union leadership distributed literature to members that explicitly suggested if Sanders is elected president he will “ require ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ union health care .
In fact , they lumped Sanders in with President Donald Trump as candidates who must be opposed .
For the Times ’ weekly podcast , “ The Field , ” where the newspaper ’ s political reporters travel throughout the United States to speak with voters about the election , they highlighted this so-called feud that was largely instigated by the leadership of the Culinary Workers Union .
When Geoconda Argüello-Kline , the secretary-treasurer , was asked about this encounter that Times reporters witnessed , Bethany Khan , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the interview and accused Jenny Medina , one of the New York Times reporters , of making blatant accusations that were “ unacceptable.
” “ We don ’ t tell them anything .
We haven ’ t endorsed .
It ’ s mostly about making sure that they know their rights and protecting them on the work .
We ’ ve talked about this , Jenny , before .
I think you ’ ve accused me blatantly , and I think that ’ s not acceptable , ” Khan stated .
Argüello-Kline added @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a policy to say don ’ t talk to the press and like that with the union rep in there.
” She claimed she did not know why a union representative spoke with the Sanders supporter the way the representative did .
In the same episode released on February 21 , Austin Mitchell , a Time reporter , asks Amigdia who he voted for .
“ Number one , Bernie .
Bernie Sanders.
” Amigdia has been in the union for 29 years .
He is in his sixties and works at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ carpets , polishes marble , and does other labor .
“ We love Bernie , ” he adds .
As Mitchell reports a talking point in the Culinary Workers Union literature about Bernie “ replacing ” their health care with Medicare For All , Amigdia replies , “ No , no , I think that it ’ s a better system , you know , it ’ s for all .
Not for a few people .
It ’ s for all people.
” He is not worried about his health care plan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ okay because the minority people get access .
A lot of people don ’ t have access now.
” As the reporters say goodbye , a woman who was standing around while they talked with him follows Amigdia to his car .
The show notes , “ Somebody from the union is here kind of monitoring—and there ’ s lots of press here so it ’ s kind of easy to understand why—but they ’ re kind of listening to the conversations and then they follow after the conversations seem to be following @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ] ask them what they said.
” Two days later , Medina contacts Amigdia .
He does not speak the same way .
He is confused and recalls that he was told not to talk to the press by himself .
He is “ indignant ” and says that he knows his rights .
Medina asks if the union representative mentioned Sanders .
He suggests she did in the course of talking about health care , although it is tough to entirely understand him .
“ Amigdia is not the only person who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ discouraged them from speaking with the press , ” according to “ The Field.
” While talking with Argüello-Kline , Medina asked , “ Would you discourage somebody , a member , who supports Sanders from speaking to the press ?
” “ That ’ s their business , not mine .
What I put to you is the facts .
What is the health care for you , and what is protecting your health care , and what is not protecting your health care , ” Argüello-Kline replied .
“ You decide @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we ’ ve been treated .
I can show you the texts that my daughter sent me last night .
You have to , look .
Read this .
This is from my daughter .
This is from [ a ] follower of Senator Sanders.
” “ Fuck off Geoconda .
If Sanders loses and we don ’ t get Medicare For All and a union worker gets cancer and gets fired and he dies , their blood will be on Geoconda Argüello-Kline , who for selfish reasons decided to spread these lies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Argüello-Kline maintained it was not right for a mother to see this .
“ I ’ m very upset .
And I ’ m going to keep talking , and nobody is going to quiet me .
Nobody .
This is what they ’ re doing to minorities .
This is what they are doing to women of color.
” But Medina told her there are “ also Bernie supporters , who are women of color.
” “ They attack this woman of color , too .
And you know why they attack @ @ @ @ @ @ @ facts .
They ’ re not going to put tape on my mouth.
” When asked what she would say to women of color who support Bernie Sanders , Argüello-Kline responded , “ Do you really fight for the real movement ?
That ’ s my only question.
” Argüello-Kline ’ s comment was similar to remarks that were often heard in 2016 , when Sanders opposed Hillary Clinton .
For example , former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said there was a “ special place in hell ” for women who did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ noted , the Culinary Workers Union and its affiliates “ represent some 60,000 workers in the restaurant and hospitality industries in Las Vegas and Reno .
It is also the largest immigrant organization in the state , with Latinos accounting for more than half of its membership , and it is a major source of voter mobilization.
” The Culinary Health Fund is what is known as a multi-employer Taft-Hartley Fund .
It pays for health insurance coverage for members through collective bargaining agreements .
Employer trustees for the Culinary Health Fund include @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Hilton Worldwide , Hostmark Hospitality Group , Hyatt Hotels and Resorts , The Mirage , Sodexo , Starwood Hotels and Resorts , Tishman Hotel Corporation , and Geneva HRM Advisors , which is involved in corporate labor relations .
All of these companies , which are part of the casino and gaming industry , have an interest in maintaining the status quo when it comes to health care because if workers were not focused on protecting their health care , they would have more leverage to demand higher wages , better pensions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Culinary Workers Union was contacted for additional comment but did not respond .

A representative from the Culinary Workers Union discouraged a member, who supports Senator Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign, from talking to the press. New York Times reporters witnessed the encounter.
The union member, Amigdia, was counseled by the union representative. When he spoke to the Times, he was enthusiastic about why he planned to vote for Sanders. Later, a Times reporter followed up with him and he no longer sounded as assertive. In fact, he seemed confused about what to say about Sanders.
Voters are set to participate in the Nevada caucuses on February 22, but for the first time, they have had an opportunity to participate in multiple days of early voting.
The Culinary Workers Union did not endorse a candidate, but union leadership distributed literature to members that explicitly suggested if Sanders is elected president he will “require” Medicare For All and take away their union health care. In fact, they lumped Sanders in with President Donald Trump as candidates who must be opposed.
For the Times’ weekly podcast, “The Field,” where the newspaper’s political reporters travel throughout the United States to speak with voters about the election, they highlighted this so-called feud that was largely instigated by the leadership of the Culinary Workers Union.
When Geoconda Argüello-Kline, the secretary-treasurer, was asked about this encounter that Times reporters witnessed, Bethany Khan, the union’s communications director, interrupted the interview and accused Jenny Medina, one of the New York Times reporters, of making blatant accusations that were “unacceptable.”
“We don’t tell them anything. We haven’t endorsed. It’s mostly about making sure that they know their rights and protecting them on the work. We’ve talked about this, Jenny, before. I think you’ve accused me blatantly, and I think that’s not acceptable,” Khan stated.
Argüello-Kline added, “We don’t have a policy to say don’t talk to the press and like that with the union rep in there.” She claimed she did not know why a union representative spoke with the Sanders supporter the way the representative did.
In the same episode released on February 21, Austin Mitchell, a Time reporter, asks Amigdia who he voted for. “Number one, Bernie. Bernie Sanders.”
Amigdia has been in the union for 29 years. He is in his sixties and works at the Golden Nugget casino, where he cleans carpets, polishes marble, and does other labor. “We love Bernie,” he adds.
As Mitchell reports a talking point in the Culinary Workers Union literature about Bernie “replacing” their health care with Medicare For All, Amigdia replies, “No, no, I think that it’s a better system, you know, it’s for all. Not for a few people. It’s for all people.”
He is not worried about his health care plan being changed. “It’s okay because the minority people get access. A lot of people don’t have access now.”
As the reporters say goodbye, a woman who was standing around while they talked with him follows Amigdia to his car.
The show notes, “Somebody from the union is here kind of monitoring—and there’s lots of press here so it’s kind of easy to understand why—but they’re kind of listening to the conversations and then they follow after the conversations seem to be following up with them I presume [to] ask them what they said.”
Two days later, Medina contacts Amigdia. He does not speak the same way. He is confused and recalls that he was told not to talk to the press by himself. He is “indignant” and says that he knows his rights.
Medina asks if the union representative mentioned Sanders. He suggests she did in the course of talking about health care, although it is tough to entirely understand him.
“Amigdia is not the only person who has told me that the union has discouraged them from speaking with the press,” according to “The Field.”
While talking with Argüello-Kline, Medina asked, “Would you discourage somebody, a member, who supports Sanders from speaking to the press?”
“That’s their business, not mine. What I put to you is the facts. What is the health care for you, and what is protecting your health care, and what is not protecting your health care,” Argüello-Kline replied. “You decide. We are upset at the way we’ve been treated. I can show you the texts that my daughter sent me last night. You have to, look. Read this. This is from my daughter. This is from [a] follower of Senator Sanders.”
“Fuck off Geoconda. If Sanders loses and we don’t get Medicare For All and a union worker gets cancer and gets fired and he dies, their blood will be on Geoconda Argüello-Kline, who for selfish reasons decided to spread these lies,” the text message said.
Argüello-Kline maintained it was not right for a mother to see this. “I’m very upset. And I’m going to keep talking, and nobody is going to quiet me. Nobody. This is what they’re doing to minorities. This is what they are doing to women of color.”
But Medina told her there are “also Bernie supporters, who are women of color.”
“They attack this woman of color, too. And you know why they attack us Jenny? Because we put the facts. They’re not going to put tape on my mouth.”
When asked what she would say to women of color who support Bernie Sanders, Argüello-Kline responded, “Do you really fight for the real movement? That’s my only question.”
Argüello-Kline’s comment was similar to remarks that were often heard in 2016, when Sanders opposed Hillary Clinton. For example, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said there was a “special place in hell” for women who did not support Clinton.
As POLITICO previously noted, the Culinary Workers Union and its affiliates “represent some 60,000 workers in the restaurant and hospitality industries in Las Vegas and Reno. It is also the largest immigrant organization in the state, with Latinos accounting for more than half of its membership, and it is a major source of voter mobilization.”
The Culinary Health Fund is what is known as a multi-employer Taft-Hartley Fund. It pays for health insurance coverage for members through collective bargaining agreements.
Employer trustees for the Culinary Health Fund include executives from Boyd Gaming, Caesars Palace, Hilton Worldwide, Hostmark Hospitality Group, Hyatt Hotels and Resorts, The Mirage, Sodexo, Starwood Hotels and Resorts, Tishman Hotel Corporation, and Geneva HRM Advisors, which is involved in corporate labor relations.
All of these companies, which are part of the casino and gaming industry, have an interest in maintaining the status quo when it comes to health care because if workers were not focused on protecting their health care, they would have more leverage to demand higher wages, better pensions, and improved workplace conditions.
The Culinary Workers Union was contacted for additional comment but did not respond.


shadowproof--2020-02-21--Beyond Prisons: Epistemic Violence feat. Michelle Jones

Beyond Prisons Co-host Kim Wilson interviews Michelle Jones about her work as an artist , activist , and historian .
Michelle shares the projects that she ’ s currently working on and she reflects on what it ’ s like to be a third-year graduate student working on her dissertation proposal .
She speaks to Kim about reentry for women in Indiana , having a soft place to land after incarceration , and her fight for sentence modification so that she could attend grad school after having spent 20 years in prison .
Michelle speaks candidly about what it means @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , her art installation “ Point of Triangulation ” and the need for arts-based research .
They round out the hour by addressing the problematic notion of exceptionalism with regards to prisoners and former prisoners , Michelle ’ s response to being “ thingified ” by the media , as well as what it was like to have academics attempt to co-opt the work that she and other women historians did inside .
Michelle Jones is a third-year doctoral student in the American Studies program at New York University .
She is interested @ @ @ @ @ @ @ convictions for people and families directly impacted by mass incarceration , in addition to participating in a scholarly project challenging the narratives of the history of women ’ s prison with a group of incarcerated scholars .
While incarcerated , Michelle published and presented her research findings to dispel notions about the reach and intellectual capacity of justice-involved women .
Michelle ’ s advocacy extends beyond the classroom through collaborations and opportunities to speak truth to power .
While incarcerated , she presented legislative testimony on a reentry alternative she created for long-term @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Indiana State Interim Committee on the Criminal Code and SHE has joined the advisory boards of the Lumina Foundation and the Urban Institute .
She is a founding member and chair of the board of Constructing Our Future , a reentry alternative for women created by incarcerated women in Indiana .
She is A 2017-18 Beyond the Bars fellow , a 2017-18 Research Fellow at the Charles Warren Center for Studies in American History at Harvard University , and a 2018-19 Ford Foundation Bearing Witness Fellow with Art for Justice , a 2019 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2019 Code for America Fellow , and A 2019-2020 Mural Arts Fellow .
Michelle is currently under contract with The New Press to publish the history of Indiana ’ s carceral institutions for women with fellow incarcerated and formerly incarcerated scholars .
As an artist , Michelle is interested in finding ways to funnel her research pursuits into theater , dance , and photography .
Her original co-authored play , “ The Duchess of Stringtown , ” was produced in December 2017 in Indianapolis and New York City and her artist installation about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” ran September 26 , – October 1 , 2019 in New York .
Support our show and join us on Patreon .
Please listen , subscribe , and rate/review our podcast on iTunes , Spotify , and on Google Play Join our mailing list for updates on new episodes , events , and more Kim Wilson is available for speaking engagements and to facilitate workshops .
Please contact beyondprisonspodcast @ gmail.com for more information

Beyond Prisons Co-host Kim Wilson interviews Michelle Jones about her work as an artist, activist, and historian.
Michelle shares the projects that she’s currently working on and she reflects on what it’s like to be a third-year graduate student working on her dissertation proposal. She speaks to Kim about reentry for women in Indiana, having a soft place to land after incarceration, and her fight for sentence modification so that she could attend grad school after having spent 20 years in prison.
Michelle speaks candidly about what it means to her to have a spiritual practice, her art installation “Point of Triangulation” and the need for arts-based research. They round out the hour by addressing the problematic notion of exceptionalism with regards to prisoners and former prisoners, Michelle’s response to being “thingified” by the media, as well as what it was like to have academics attempt to co-opt the work that she and other women historians did inside.
Michelle Jones is a third-year doctoral student in the American Studies program at New York University. She is interested in excavating the collateral consequences of criminal convictions for people and families directly impacted by mass incarceration, in addition to participating in a scholarly project challenging the narratives of the history of women’s prison with a group of incarcerated scholars. While incarcerated, Michelle published and presented her research findings to dispel notions about the reach and intellectual capacity of justice-involved women.
Michelle’s advocacy extends beyond the classroom through collaborations and opportunities to speak truth to power. While incarcerated, she presented legislative testimony on a reentry alternative she created for long-term incarcerated people that was approved by the Indiana State Interim Committee on the Criminal Code and SHE has joined the advisory boards of the Lumina Foundation and the Urban Institute.
She is a founding member and chair of the board of Constructing Our Future, a reentry alternative for women created by incarcerated women in Indiana. She is A 2017-18 Beyond the Bars fellow, a 2017-18 Research Fellow at the Charles Warren Center for Studies in American History at Harvard University, and a 2018-19 Ford Foundation Bearing Witness Fellow with Art for Justice, a 2019 SOZE Right of Return Fellow, a 2019 Code for America Fellow, and A 2019-2020 Mural Arts Fellow. Michelle is currently under contract with The New Press to publish the history of Indiana’s carceral institutions for women with fellow incarcerated and formerly incarcerated scholars. As an artist, Michelle is interested in finding ways to funnel her research pursuits into theater, dance, and photography. Her original co-authored play, “The Duchess of Stringtown,” was produced in December 2017 in Indianapolis and New York City and her artist installation about stigma, “Point of Triangulation,” ran September 26, – October 1, 2019 in New York.
Support our show and join us on Patreon.
Please listen, subscribe, and rate/review our podcast on iTunes, Spotify, and on Google Play
Join our mailing list for updates on new episodes, events, and more
Send tips, comments, and questions to beyondprisonspodcast@gmail.com
Kim Wilson is available for speaking engagements and to facilitate workshops. Please contact beyondprisonspodcast@gmail.com for more information
Twitter: @Beyond_Prison
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/beyondprisonspodcast/
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/beyondprisons/
Hosts: Kim Wilson and Brian Sonenstein
Music: Jared Ware


shadowproof--2020-02-23--The DNC May Have Paved The Way For Julian Assange’s Acquittal

Shadowproof editor Kevin Gosztola is in London for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange ’ s week-long extradition hearing .
Stay tuned to Shadowproof , as well as his Twitter , for coverage .
And if you support our work and are able to help fund Kevin ’ s reporting , go here to donate In their zeal to hold WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange accountable for the role they believe he played in Russiagate , the Democratic National Committee may have paved the way for his acquittal .
But Special Counsel Robert Mueller ’ s investigation into alleged Russian efforts to meddle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ confirm , without a doubt , that Russian intelligence agents or individuals tied to Russian intelligence agencies passed on emails from Hillary Clinton ’ s campaign to WikiLeaks .
On April 20 , 2018 , the Democratic National Committee ( DNC ) sued President Donald Trump ’ s campaign , the Russian Federation , Assange , and WikiLeaks on April 20 , 2018 , alleging the dissemination of materials “ furthered the prospects ” of the Trump campaign .
They argued officials “ welcomed ” the assistance of agents allegedly working for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ federal judge , dismissed the lawsuit in July 2019 .
Whether or not WikiLeaks knew the materials were obtained illegally , they were protected by the First Amendment .
“ The First Amendment prevents such liability in the same way it would preclude liability for press outlets that publish materials of public interest despite defects in the way the materials were obtained so long as the disseminator did not participate in any wrongdoing in obtaining the materials in the first place , ” Koeltl asserted .
Koeltl reference the Pentagon Papers case , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a “ heavy presumption ” against the “ constitutional validity of prior restraints ” ( suppressing ) the publication of information .
The DNC alleged that WikiLeaks sent Russian intelligence operatives “ using the name Guccifer 2.0 a private message , asking the operatives to ‘ send any material [ stolen from the DNC ] here for us to review.
’ ” “ This was not a solicitation to steal documents but a request for material that had been stolen .
Journalists are allowed to request documents that have been stolen and to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stated .
Prosecutors for Donald Trump ’ s Justice Department intend to argue that Assange has no First Amendment rights .
It does not make much sense because he is charged with allegedly violating the Espionage Act , when he published classified information from United States Army whistleblower Chelse Manning in 2010 .
As former New York Times general counsel James Goodale said , “ How can the government have it one way and not the other way ?
You can ’ t have it both ways.
” More significantly , Koeltl ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ court .
The Justice Department will have to overrule his decision if they hope to successfully argue that the First Amendment does not apply to Assange .
Goodale further summarized the significance of Koeltl ’ s decision .
“ He decided the First Amendment applies to Julian Assange in this country , and that Julian Assange ’ s activities with respect to the release of information concerning the DNC was protected by the First Amendment.
” “ That suit was brought by the DNC , and Judge Koetl went out of his way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in releasing that information were fully protected by the First Amendment.
” Most of the Democratic Party establishment views Assange as a kind of Russian agent , who wittingly or unwittingly helped President Vladimir Putin in his effort to prevent Clinton from winning the 2016 election .
That is the mythology that dominates one of the United States ’ most prominent political parties .
The Hill reported in 2018 that Assange was willing to “ discuss technical evidence ” that would help the intelligence committee rule out “ certain parties in the controversial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” He was also willing to share his “ technical expertise on the U.S. government to help address what he perceived as clear flaws in security systems that led to the loss of the U.S. cyber weapons program.
” Testimony related to cyber weapons would have involved Assange ’ s insights on the “ Vault 7 ” materials that WikiLeaks published .
The CIA lost control of this information in 2017 .
But apparently former FBI director James Comey , through Senator Mark Warner , quashed a potential deal to give testimony in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ When Assange was expelled from the Ecuador embassy and arrested in April of last year , Democatic Senator Mark Warner , who is part of the Senate intelligence committee , declared , “ Julian Assange has long professed high ideals and moral superiority .
Unfortunately , whatever his intentions when he started WikiLeaks , what he ’ s really become is a direct participant in Russian efforts to undermine the West and a dedicated accomplice in efforts to undermine American security.
” “ It is my hope that the British courts will quickly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can finally get the justice he deserves , ” Warner added .
In 2017 , Comey testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee .
“ Just pushing out information about sources and methods without regard to interests , without regard to the First Amendment values that normally underlie press reporting and simply becomes a conduit for the Russian intelligence services or some other adversary of the United States just to push out information to damage the United States.
” Comey added , “ I realize reasonable people struggle to draw a line , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s so far to the side of the line that we can all agree that there is nothing that even smells journalist about some of this conduct.
” Koeltl did not agree that there was nothing that smelled like journalism .
He did not let panic over Russia prevent him from upholding First Amendment rights under the Constitution .
In defying the dominant political discourse , Koeltl issued a decision that could help free Assange .
And astoundingly , if it plays a decisive role in the outcome , it will be largely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ freedom of the press , which they share with the Trump administration .

Editor’s Note Shadowproof editor Kevin Gosztola is in London for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange’s week-long extradition hearing. Stay tuned to Shadowproof, as well as his Twitter , for coverage. And if you support our work and are able to help fund Kevin’s reporting, go here to donate
In their zeal to hold WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange accountable for the role they believe he played in Russiagate, the Democratic National Committee may have paved the way for his acquittal.
Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into alleged Russian efforts to meddle in the 2016 presidential election did not confirm, without a doubt, that Russian intelligence agents or individuals tied to Russian intelligence agencies passed on emails from Hillary Clinton’s campaign to WikiLeaks.
On April 20, 2018, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) sued President Donald Trump’s campaign, the Russian Federation, Assange, and WikiLeaks on April 20, 2018, alleging the dissemination of materials “furthered the prospects” of the Trump campaign. They argued officials “welcomed” the assistance of agents allegedly working for the Russian Federation.
John Koetl, a federal judge, dismissed the lawsuit in July 2019. Whether or not WikiLeaks knew the materials were obtained illegally, they were protected by the First Amendment.
“The First Amendment prevents such liability in the same way it would preclude liability for press outlets that publish materials of public interest despite defects in the way the materials were obtained so long as the disseminator did not participate in any wrongdoing in obtaining the materials in the first place,” Koeltl asserted.
Koeltl reference the Pentagon Papers case, acknowledging the Supreme Court held there was a “heavy presumption” against the “constitutional validity of prior restraints” (suppressing) the publication of information.
The DNC alleged that WikiLeaks sent Russian intelligence operatives “using the name Guccifer 2.0 a private message, asking the operatives to ‘send any material [stolen from the DNC] here for us to review.’”
“This was not a solicitation to steal documents but a request for material that had been stolen. Journalists are allowed to request documents that have been stolen and to publish those documents,” Koeltl unequivocally stated.
Prosecutors for Donald Trump’s Justice Department intend to argue that Assange has no First Amendment rights. It does not make much sense because he is charged with allegedly violating the Espionage Act, when he published classified information from United States Army whistleblower Chelse Manning in 2010.
As former New York Times general counsel James Goodale said, “How can the government have it one way and not the other way? You can’t have it both ways.”
More significantly, Koeltl’s decision is a precedent in federal court. The Justice Department will have to overrule his decision if they hope to successfully argue that the First Amendment does not apply to Assange.
Goodale further summarized the significance of Koeltl’s decision. “He decided the First Amendment applies to Julian Assange in this country, and that Julian Assange’s activities with respect to the release of information concerning the DNC was protected by the First Amendment.”
“That suit was brought by the DNC, and Judge Koetl went out of his way to say that the activities of Assange in releasing that information were fully protected by the First Amendment.”
Most of the Democratic Party establishment views Assange as a kind of Russian agent, who wittingly or unwittingly helped President Vladimir Putin in his effort to prevent Clinton from winning the 2016 election. That is the mythology that dominates one of the United States’ most prominent political parties.
The Hill reported in 2018 that Assange was willing to “discuss technical evidence” that would help the intelligence committee rule out “certain parties in the controversial leak of Democratic Party emails to WikiLeaks.” He was also willing to share his “technical expertise on the U.S. government to help address what he perceived as clear flaws in security systems that led to the loss of the U.S. cyber weapons program.”
Testimony related to cyber weapons would have involved Assange’s insights on the “Vault 7” materials that WikiLeaks published. The CIA lost control of this information in 2017.
But apparently former FBI director James Comey, through Senator Mark Warner, quashed a potential deal to give testimony in exchange for “limited immunity deal.”
When Assange was expelled from the Ecuador embassy and arrested in April of last year, Democatic Senator Mark Warner, who is part of the Senate intelligence committee, declared, “Julian Assange has long professed high ideals and moral superiority. Unfortunately, whatever his intentions when he started WikiLeaks, what he’s really become is a direct participant in Russian efforts to undermine the West and a dedicated accomplice in efforts to undermine American security.”
“It is my hope that the British courts will quickly transfer him to U.S. custody so he can finally get the justice he deserves,” Warner added.
In 2017, Comey testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee. “Just pushing out information about sources and methods without regard to interests, without regard to the First Amendment values that normally underlie press reporting and simply becomes a conduit for the Russian intelligence services or some other adversary of the United States just to push out information to damage the United States.”
Comey added, “I realize reasonable people struggle to draw a line, but surely there’s conduct that’s so far to the side of the line that we can all agree that there is nothing that even smells journalist about some of this conduct.”
Koeltl did not agree that there was nothing that smelled like journalism. He did not let panic over Russia prevent him from upholding First Amendment rights under the Constitution.
In defying the dominant political discourse, Koeltl issued a decision that could help free Assange. And astoundingly, if it plays a decisive role in the outcome, it will be largely owed to the Democrats’ contempt for freedom of the press, which they share with the Trump administration.