21stcenturywire--2020-02-19--Pilger: Julian Assange Must Be Freed, Not Betrayed

On Saturday , there will be a march from Australia House in London to Parliament Square , the centre of British democracy .
People will carry pictures of the Australian publisher and journalist Julian Assange who , on 24 February , faces a court that will decide whether or not he is to be extradited to the United States and a living death .
I know Australia House well .
As an Australian myself , I used to go there in my early days in London to read the newspapers from home .
Opened by King George V over a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and stone , chandeliers and solemn portraits , imported from Australia when Australian soldiers were dying in the slaughter of the First World War , have ensured its landmark as an imperial pile of monumental servility .
As one of the oldest “ diplomatic missions ” in the United Kingdom , this relic of empire provides a pleasurable sinecure for Antipodean politicians : a “ mate ” rewarded or a troublemaker exiled .
Known as High Commissioner , the equivalent of an ambassador , the current beneficiary is George Brandis , who as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s Race Discrimination Act and approved raids on whistleblowers who had revealed the truth about Australia ’ s illegal spying on East Timor during negotiations for the carve-up of that impoverished country ’ s oil and gas .
This led to the prosecution of whistleblowers Bernard Collaery and “ Witness K ” , on bogus charges .
Like Julian Assange , they are to be silenced in a Kafkaesque trial and put away .
Australia House is the ideal starting point for Saturday ’ s march .
“ I confess , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , in 1898 , “ that countries are pieces on a chessboard upon which is being played out a great game for the domination of the world.
” ” We Australians have been in the service of the Great Game for a very long time .
Having devastated our Indigenous people in an invasion and a war of attrition that continues to this day , we have spilt blood for our imperial masters in China , Africa , Russia , the Middle East , Europe and Asia .
No imperial adventure against those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ escaped our dedication .
Deception has been a feature .
When Prime Minister Robert Menzies sent Australian soldiers to Vietnam in the 1960s , he described them as a training team , requested by a beleaguered government in Saigon .
It was a lie .
A senior official of the Department of External Affairs wrote secretly that “ although we have stressed the fact publicly that our assistance was given in response to an invitation by the government of South Vietnam ” , the order came from Washington.
” Two versions .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them .
As many as four million people died in the Vietnam war .
When Indonesia invaded East Timor in 1975 , the Australian Ambassador , Richard Woolcott , secretly urged the government in Canberra to “ act in a way which would be designed to minimise the public impact in Australia and show private understanding to Indonesia.
” In other words , to lie .
He alluded to the beckoning spoils of oil and gas in the Timor Sea which , boasted Foreign Minister Gareth Evans , were worth “ zillions ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at least 200,000 East Timorese died .
Australia recognised , almost alone , the legitimacy of the occupation .
When Prime Minister John Howard sent Australian special forces to invade Iraq with America and Britain in 2003 , he — like George W. Bush and Tony Blair — lied that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction .
More than a million people died in Iraq .
WikiLeaks was not the first to call out the pattern of criminal lying in democracies that remain every bit as rapacious as in Lord Curzon ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ remarkable publishing organisation founded by Julian Assange has been to provide the proof .
WikiLeaks has informed us how illegal wars are fabricated , how governments are overthrown and violence is used in our name , how we are spied upon through our phones and screens .
The true lies of presidents , ambassadors , political candidates , generals , proxies , political fraudsters have been exposed .
One by one , these would-be emperors have realised they have no clothes .
It has been an unprecedented public service ; above all , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can be judged by the degree of apoplexy of the corrupt and their apologists .
For example , in 2016 , WikiLeaks published the leaked emails of Hillary Clinton ’ s campaign manager John Podesta , which revealed a direct connection between Clinton , the foundation she shares with her husband and the funding of organised jihadism in the Middle East — terrorism .
One email disclosed that Islamic State ( ISIS ) was bankrolled by the governments of Saudi Arabia and Qatar , from which Clinton accepted huge “ donations ” .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , she approved the world ’ s biggest ever arms sale to her Saudi benefactors , worth more than $ 80 billion .
Thanks to her , US arms sales to the world — for use in stricken countries like Yemen — doubled .
Revealed by WikiLeaks and published in The New York Times , the Podesta emails triggered a vituperative campaign against editor-in-chief Julian Assange , bereft of evidence .
He was an “ agent of Russia working to elect Trump ” ; the nonsensical “ Russiagate ” followed .
That WikiLeaks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ damning documents from Russia was ignored .
On an Australian Broadcasting Corporation programme , Four Corners , in 2017 , Clinton was interviewed by Sarah Ferguson , who began : “ No one could fail to be moved by the pain on your face at [ the moment of Donald Trump ’ s inauguration ] … Do you remember how visceral it was for you ?
” Having established Clinton ’ s visceral suffering , the fawning Ferguson described “ Russia ’ s role ” and the “ damage done personally to you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , “ He [ Assange ] is very clearly a tool of Russian intelligence .
And he has done their bidding.
” Ferguson said to Clinton , “ Lots of people , including in Australia , think that Assange is a martyr of free speech and freedom of information .
How would you describe him ?
” Again , Clinton was allowed to defame Assange — a “ nihilist ” in the service of “ dictators ” — while Ferguson assured her interviewee she was “ the icon of your generation ” .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ document , revealed by WikiLeaks , called Libya Tick Tock , prepared for Hillary Clinton , which described her as the central figure driving the destruction of the Libyan state in 2011 .
This resulted in 40,000 deaths , the arrival of ISIS in North Africa and the European refugee and migrant crisis .
For me , this episode of Clinton ’ s interview — and there are many others – vividly illustrates the division between false and true journalism .
On 24 February , when Julian Assange steps into Woolwich Crown Court @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crime on trial .
I am sometimes asked why I have championed Assange .
For one thing , I like and I admire him .
He is a friend with astonishing courage ; and he has a finely honed , wicked sense of humour .
He is the diametric opposite of the character invented then assassinated by his enemies .
As a reporter in places of upheaval all over the world , I have learned to compare the evidence I have witnessed with the words and actions of those with power .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ get a sense of how our world is controlled and divided and manipulated , how language and debate are distorted to produce the propaganda of false consciousness .
When we speak about dictatorships , we call this brainwashing : the conquest of minds .
It is a truth we rarely apply to our own societies , regardless of the trail of blood that leads back to us and which never dries .
WikiLeaks has exposed this .
That is why Assange is in a maximum security prison in London facing concocted political charges @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shamed so many of those paid to keep the record straight .
Watch these journalists now look for cover as it dawns on them that the American fascists who have come for Assange may come for them , not least those on the Guardian who collaborated with WikiLeaks and won prizes and secured lucrative book and Hollywood deals based on his work , before turning on him .
In 2011 , David Leigh , the Guardian ’ s “ investigations editor ” , told journalism students at City University in London that Assange @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a puzzled student asked why , Leigh replied , “ Because he doesn ’ t understand the parameters of conventional journalism ” .
But it ’ s precisely because he did understand that the “ parameters ” of the media often shielded vested and political interests and had nothing to do with transparency that the idea of WikiLeaks was so appealing to many people , especially the young , rightly cynical about the so-called “ mainstream ” .
Leigh mocked the very idea that , once extradited , Assange would end up “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were things , he said , “ that he and his lawyer are saying in order to feed his paranoia ” .
The current US charges against Assange centre on the Afghan Logs and Iraq Logs , which the Guardian published and Leigh worked on , and on the Collateral Murder video showing an American helicopter crew gunning down civilians and celebrating the crime .
For this journalism , Assange faces 17 charges of “ espionage ” which carry prison sentences totaling 175 years .
Whether or not his prison uniform will be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ court files seen by Assange ’ s lawyers reveal that , once extradited , Assange will be subject to Special Administrative Measures , known as SAMS .
A 2017 report by Yale University Law School and the Center for Constitutional Rights described SAMS as “ the darkest corner of the US federal prison system ” combining “ the brutality and isolation of maximum security units with additional restrictions that deny individuals almost any connection to the human world … The net effect is to shield this form of torture from any real public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all along , and getting him to Sweden was a fraud to cover an American plan to “ render ” him , is finally becoming clear to many who swallowed the incessant scuttlebutt of character assassination .
“ I speak fluent Swedish and was able to read all the original documents , ” Nils Melzer , the United Nations Rapporteur on Torture , said recently , “ I could hardly believe my eyes .
According to the testimony of the woman in question , a rape had never taken place at all .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s testimony was later changed by the Stockholm Police without her involvement in order to somehow make it sound like a possible rape .
I have all the documents in my possession , the emails , the text messages.
” Keir Starmer is currently running for election as leader of the Labour Party in Britain .
Between 2008 and 2013 , he was Director of Public Prosecutions and responsible for the Crown Prosecution Service .
According to Freedom of Information searches by the Italian journalist Stefania Maurizi , Sweden tried to drop @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a CPS official in London told the Swedish prosecutor not to treat it as “ just another extradition ” .
In 2012 , she received an email from the CPS : “ Don ’ t you dare get cold feet !
!
!
” Other CPS emails were either deleted or redacted .
Why ?
Keir Starmer needs to say why .
At the forefront of Saturday ’ s march will be John Shipton , Julian ’ s father , whose indefatigable support for his son is the antithesis of the collusion and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our homeland .
The roll call of shame begins with Julia Gillard , the Australian Labor prime minister who , in 2010 , wanted to criminalise WikiLeaks , arrest Assange and cancel his passport– until the Australian Federal Police pointed out that no law allowed this and that Assange had committed no crime .
While falsely claiming to give him consular assistance in London , it was the Gillard government ’ s shocking abandonment of its citizen that led to Ecuador granting political asylum to Assange in its London embassy .
In a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Gillard , a favourite of the US embassy in Canberra , broke records for sycophancy ( according to the website Honest History ) as she declared , over and again , the fidelity of America ’ s “ mates Down Under ” .
Today , while Assange waits in his cell , Gillard travels the world , promoting herself as a feminist concerned about “ human rights ” , often in tandem with that other right-on feminist Hillary Clinton .
The truth is that Australia could have rescued Julian Assange and can still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ arranged to meet a prominent Liberal ( Conservative ) Member of Parliament , Malcolm Turnbull .
As a young barrister in the 1980s , Turnbull had successfully fought the British Government ’ s attempts to prevent the publication of the book , Spycatcher , whose author Peter Wright , a spy , had exposed Britain ’ s “ deep state ” .
We talked about his famous victory for free speech and publishing and I described the miscarriage of justice awaiting Assange — the fraud of his arrest in Sweden and its connection @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the US Constitution and the rule of international law .
Turnbull appeared to show genuine interest and an aide took extensive notes .
I asked him to deliver a letter to the Australian government from Gareth Peirce , the renowned British human rights lawyer who represents Assange .
In the letter , Peirce wrote , “ Given the extent of the public discussion , frequently on the basis of entirely false assumptions… it is very hard to attempt to preserve for [ Julian Assange ] any presumption of innocence .
Mr. Assange has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two Damocles swords , of potential extradition to two different jurisdictions in turn for two different alleged crimes , neither of which are crimes in his own country , and that his personal safety has become at risk in circumstances that are highly politically charged.
” Turnbull promised to deliver the letter , follow it through and let me know .
I subsequently wrote to him several times , waited and heard nothing .
In 2018 , John Shipton wrote a deeply moving letter to the then prime minister of Australia asking him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government ’ s disposal and bring Julian home .
He wrote that he feared that if Julian was not rescued , there would be a tragedy and his son would die in prison .
He received no reply .
The prime minister was Malcolm Turnbull .
Last year , when the current prime minister , Scott Morrison , a former public relations man , was asked about Assange , he replied in his customary way , “ He should face the music !
” When Saturday ’ s march reaches the Houses of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mother of Parliaments ” , Morrison and Gillard and Turnbull and all those who have betrayed Julian Assange should be called out ; history and decency will not forget them or those who remain silent now .
And if there is any sense of justice left in the land of Magna Carta , the travesty that is the case against this heroic Australian must be thrown out .
Or beware , all of us .
EVENT : The march on Saturday , 22 February begins at Australia House in Aldwych , London WC2B @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 11.30pm

John Pilger
21st Century Wire
On Saturday, there will be a march from Australia House in London to Parliament Square, the centre of British democracy. People will carry pictures of the Australian publisher and journalist Julian Assange who, on 24 February, faces a court that will decide whether or not he is to be extradited to the United States and a living death.
I know Australia House well. As an Australian myself, I used to go there in my early days in London to read the newspapers from home. Opened by King George V over a century ago, its vastness of marble and stone, chandeliers and solemn portraits, imported from Australia when Australian soldiers were dying in the slaughter of the First World War, have ensured its landmark as an imperial pile of monumental servility.
As one of the oldest “diplomatic missions” in the United Kingdom, this relic of empire provides a pleasurable sinecure for Antipodean politicians: a “mate” rewarded or a troublemaker exiled.
Known as High Commissioner, the equivalent of an ambassador, the current beneficiary is George Brandis, who as Attorney General tried to water down Australia’s Race Discrimination Act and approved raids on whistleblowers who had revealed the truth about Australia’s illegal spying on East Timor during negotiations for the carve-up of that impoverished country’s oil and gas.
This led to the prosecution of whistleblowers Bernard Collaery and “Witness K”, on bogus charges. Like Julian Assange, they are to be silenced in a Kafkaesque trial and put away.
Australia House is the ideal starting point for Saturday’s march.
“I confess,” wrote Lord Curzon, Viceroy of India, in 1898, “that countries are pieces on a chessboard upon which is being played out a great game for the domination of the world.””
We Australians have been in the service of the Great Game for a very long time. Having devastated our Indigenous people in an invasion and a war of attrition that continues to this day, we have spilt blood for our imperial masters in China, Africa, Russia, the Middle East, Europe and Asia. No imperial adventure against those with whom we have no quarrel has escaped our dedication.
Deception has been a feature. When Prime Minister Robert Menzies sent Australian soldiers to Vietnam in the 1960s, he described them as a training team, requested by a beleaguered government in Saigon. It was a lie. A senior official of the Department of External Affairs wrote secretly that “although we have stressed the fact publicly that our assistance was given in response to an invitation by the government of South Vietnam”, the order came from Washington.”
Two versions. The lie for us, the truth for them. As many as four million people died in the Vietnam war.
When Indonesia invaded East Timor in 1975, the Australian Ambassador, Richard Woolcott, secretly urged the government in Canberra to “act in a way which would be designed to minimise the public impact in Australia and show private understanding to Indonesia.” In other words, to lie. He alluded to the beckoning spoils of oil and gas in the Timor Sea which, boasted Foreign Minister Gareth Evans, were worth “zillions”.
In the genocide that followed, at least 200,000 East Timorese died. Australia recognised, almost alone, the legitimacy of the occupation.
When Prime Minister John Howard sent Australian special forces to invade Iraq with America and Britain in 2003, he — like George W. Bush and Tony Blair — lied that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. More than a million people died in Iraq.
WikiLeaks was not the first to call out the pattern of criminal lying in democracies that remain every bit as rapacious as in Lord Curzon’s day. The achievement of the remarkable publishing organisation founded by Julian Assange has been to provide the proof.
WikiLeaks has informed us how illegal wars are fabricated, how governments are overthrown and violence is used in our name, how we are spied upon through our phones and screens. The true lies of presidents, ambassadors, political candidates, generals, proxies, political fraudsters have been exposed. One by one, these would-be emperors have realised they have no clothes.
It has been an unprecedented public service; above all, it is authentic journalism, whose value can be judged by the degree of apoplexy of the corrupt and their apologists.
For example, in 2016, WikiLeaks published the leaked emails of Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager John Podesta, which revealed a direct connection between Clinton, the foundation she shares with her husband and the funding of organised jihadism in the Middle East — terrorism.
One email disclosed that Islamic State (ISIS) was bankrolled by the governments of Saudi Arabia and Qatar, from which Clinton accepted huge “donations”. Moreover, as US Secretary of State, she approved the world’s biggest ever arms sale to her Saudi benefactors, worth more than $80 billion. Thanks to her, US arms sales to the world — for use in stricken countries like Yemen — doubled.
Revealed by WikiLeaks and published in The New York Times, the Podesta emails triggered a vituperative campaign against editor-in-chief Julian Assange, bereft of evidence. He was an “agent of Russia working to elect Trump”; the nonsensical “Russiagate” followed. That WikiLeaks had also published more than 800,000 frequently damning documents from Russia was ignored.
On an Australian Broadcasting Corporation programme, Four Corners, in 2017, Clinton was interviewed by Sarah Ferguson, who began: “No one could fail to be moved by the pain on your face at [the moment of Donald Trump’s inauguration] … Do you remember how visceral it was for you?”
Having established Clinton’s visceral suffering, the fawning Ferguson described “Russia’s role” and the “damage done personally to you” by Julian Assange.
Clinton replied, “He [Assange] is very clearly a tool of Russian intelligence. And he has done their bidding.”
Ferguson said to Clinton, “Lots of people, including in Australia, think that Assange is a martyr of free speech and freedom of information. How would you describe him?”
Again, Clinton was allowed to defame Assange — a “nihilist” in the service of “dictators” — while Ferguson assured her interviewee she was “the icon of your generation”.
There was no mention of a leaked document, revealed by WikiLeaks, called Libya Tick Tock, prepared for Hillary Clinton, which described her as the central figure driving the destruction of the Libyan state in 2011. This resulted in 40,000 deaths, the arrival of ISIS in North Africa and the European refugee and migrant crisis.
For me, this episode of Clinton’s interview — and there are many others – vividly illustrates the division between false and true journalism. On 24 February, when Julian Assange steps into Woolwich Crown Court, true journalism will be the only crime on trial.
I am sometimes asked why I have championed Assange. For one thing, I like and I admire him. He is a friend with astonishing courage; and he has a finely honed, wicked sense of humour. He is the diametric opposite of the character invented then assassinated by his enemies.
As a reporter in places of upheaval all over the world, I have learned to compare the evidence I have witnessed with the words and actions of those with power. In this way, it is possible to get a sense of how our world is controlled and divided and manipulated, how language and debate are distorted to produce the propaganda of false consciousness.
When we speak about dictatorships, we call this brainwashing: the conquest of minds. It is a truth we rarely apply to our own societies, regardless of the trail of blood that leads back to us and which never dries.
WikiLeaks has exposed this. That is why Assange is in a maximum security prison in London facing concocted political charges in America, and why he has shamed so many of those paid to keep the record straight. Watch these journalists now look for cover as it dawns on them that the American fascists who have come for Assange may come for them, not least those on the Guardian who collaborated with WikiLeaks and won prizes and secured lucrative book and Hollywood deals based on his work, before turning on him.
In 2011, David Leigh, the Guardian’s “investigations editor”, told journalism students at City University in London that Assange was “quite deranged”. When a puzzled student asked why, Leigh replied, “Because he doesn’t understand the parameters of conventional journalism”.
But it’s precisely because he did understand that the “parameters” of the media often shielded vested and political interests and had nothing to do with transparency that the idea of WikiLeaks was so appealing to many people, especially the young, rightly cynical about the so-called “mainstream”.
Leigh mocked the very idea that, once extradited, Assange would end up “wearing an orange jumpsuit”. These were things, he said, “that he and his lawyer are saying in order to feed his paranoia”.
The current US charges against Assange centre on the Afghan Logs and Iraq Logs, which the Guardian published and Leigh worked on, and on the Collateral Murder video showing an American helicopter crew gunning down civilians and celebrating the crime. For this journalism, Assange faces 17 charges of “espionage” which carry prison sentences totaling 175 years.
Whether or not his prison uniform will be an “orange jumpsuit”, US court files seen by Assange’s lawyers reveal that, once extradited, Assange will be subject to Special Administrative Measures, known as SAMS. A 2017 report by Yale University Law School and the Center for Constitutional Rights described SAMS as “the darkest corner of the US federal prison system” combining “the brutality and isolation of maximum security units with additional restrictions that deny individuals almost any connection to the human world … The net effect is to shield this form of torture from any real public scrutiny.”
That Assange has been right all along, and getting him to Sweden was a fraud to cover an American plan to “render” him, is finally becoming clear to many who swallowed the incessant scuttlebutt of character assassination. “I speak fluent Swedish and was able to read all the original documents,” Nils Melzer, the United Nations Rapporteur on Torture, said recently, “I could hardly believe my eyes. According to the testimony of the woman in question, a rape had never taken place at all. And not only that: the woman’s testimony was later changed by the Stockholm Police without her involvement in order to somehow make it sound like a possible rape. I have all the documents in my possession, the emails, the text messages.”
Keir Starmer is currently running for election as leader of the Labour Party in Britain. Between 2008 and 2013, he was Director of Public Prosecutions and responsible for the Crown Prosecution Service. According to Freedom of Information searches by the Italian journalist Stefania Maurizi, Sweden tried to drop the Assange case in 2011, but a CPS official in London told the Swedish prosecutor not to treat it as “just another extradition”.
In 2012, she received an email from the CPS: “Don’t you dare get cold feet!!!” Other CPS emails were either deleted or redacted. Why? Keir Starmer needs to say why.
At the forefront of Saturday’s march will be John Shipton, Julian’s father, whose indefatigable support for his son is the antithesis of the collusion and cruelty of the governments of Australia, our homeland.
The roll call of shame begins with Julia Gillard, the Australian Labor prime minister who, in 2010, wanted to criminalise WikiLeaks, arrest Assange and cancel his passport– until the Australian Federal Police pointed out that no law allowed this and that Assange had committed no crime.
While falsely claiming to give him consular assistance in London, it was the Gillard government’s shocking abandonment of its citizen that led to Ecuador granting political asylum to Assange in its London embassy.
In a subsequent speech before the US Congress, Gillard, a favourite of the US embassy in Canberra, broke records for sycophancy (according to the website Honest History) as she declared, over and again, the fidelity of America’s “mates Down Under”.
Today, while Assange waits in his cell, Gillard travels the world, promoting herself as a feminist concerned about “human rights”, often in tandem with that other right-on feminist Hillary Clinton.
The truth is that Australia could have rescued Julian Assange and can still rescue him.
In 2010, I arranged to meet a prominent Liberal (Conservative) Member of Parliament, Malcolm Turnbull. As a young barrister in the 1980s, Turnbull had successfully fought the British Government’s attempts to prevent the publication of the book, Spycatcher, whose author Peter Wright, a spy, had exposed Britain’s “deep state”.
We talked about his famous victory for free speech and publishing and I described the miscarriage of justice awaiting Assange — the fraud of his arrest in Sweden and its connection with an American indictment that tore up the US Constitution and the rule of international law.
Turnbull appeared to show genuine interest and an aide took extensive notes. I asked him to deliver a letter to the Australian government from Gareth Peirce, the renowned British human rights lawyer who represents Assange.
In the letter, Peirce wrote, “Given the extent of the public discussion, frequently on the basis of entirely false assumptions… it is very hard to attempt to preserve for [Julian Assange] any presumption of innocence. Mr. Assange has now hanging over him not one but two Damocles swords, of potential extradition to two different jurisdictions in turn for two different alleged crimes, neither of which are crimes in his own country, and that his personal safety has become at risk in circumstances that are highly politically charged.”
Turnbull promised to deliver the letter, follow it through and let me know. I subsequently wrote to him several times, waited and heard nothing.
In 2018, John Shipton wrote a deeply moving letter to the then prime minister of Australia asking him to exercise the diplomatic power at his government’s disposal and bring Julian home. He wrote that he feared that if Julian was not rescued, there would be a tragedy and his son would die in prison. He received no reply. The prime minister was Malcolm Turnbull.
Last year, when the current prime minister, Scott Morrison, a former public relations man, was asked about Assange, he replied in his customary way, “He should face the music!”
When Saturday’s march reaches the Houses of Parliament, said to be “the Mother of Parliaments”, Morrison and Gillard and Turnbull and all those who have betrayed Julian Assange should be called out; history and decency will not forget them or those who remain silent now.
And if there is any sense of justice left in the land of Magna Carta, the travesty that is the case against this heroic Australian must be thrown out. Or beware, all of us.
EVENT: The march on Saturday, 22 February begins at Australia House in Aldwych, London WC2B 4LA, at 12.30pm: assemble at 11.30pm.
www.johpilger.com – Twitter: @johnpilger
READ MORE ASSANGE NEWS AT: 21st Century Wire Assange/Wikileaks Files
SUPPORT OUR MEDIA PLATFORM – BECOME A MEMBER @21WIRE.TV


21stcenturywire--2020-02-20--Show Trial Ends: Roger Stone Sentenced to 40 months in Prison, Judge Decries ‘Threat to Democracy’

Today , the President ’ s long-time friend and former campaign consultant , Roger Stone , was sentenced to 40 months in a federal prison for multiple charges relating to his Congressional testimony and Robert Mueller ’ s Russia probe .
US District Judge Amy Berman Jackson issued Stone ’ s sentence after his lawyers had first requested that he receive no prison time .
After the sentence was handed down , Stone refrained from making a personal statement to the court .
The prosecution originally asked for a 7 to 9 years sentence , so today ’ s ruling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Dept of Justice who weighed-in in January to reduce the sentence .
When that story broke , Trump was also tweeting like mad in the background which triggered a partisan storm drawing accusations of the President imposing his will on the judiciary , although the timeline of events suggests that the DOJ intervened on its own volition .
Normally , one might refrain from criticizing a judge too harshly , but this was no ordinary closing remarks performance , as Judge Jackson seemed to go on forever , attempting to address all of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ want to justify the premise of the legal proceedings .
After reviewing her statements , to say ( and I don ’ t say this lightly ) that she had personal axe to grind is an understatement , and her extended diatribe appears to point to an obvious political agenda .
Judge Jackson wasn ’ t shy about showing her bias either , remaining in lockstep with the original RussiaGate narrative – even though it ’ s been proven to be hoax after a 3 year-long Mueller Investigation produced no evidence of alleged @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to do this here : “ He was not prosecuted for standing up for the president , ” said Judge Jackson during her closing remarks .
“ He was prosecuted for covering up for the president.
” Only the President did nothing which required covering for .
As that wasn ’ t enough , the judge went on during her hours-long sentencing hearing to claim that what Roger Stone did was somehow “ a threat to our democracy ” .
We ’ re still trying to work out exactly what she is talking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ year-old Stone became so powerful as to bring down democracy in the United States .
I mean , he has certain skills , but take down the United States of America ?
Here Jackson is dog whistling to the RussiaGate consensus – when in fact there was no collusion between Stone , Trump , WikiLeaks and Russia – nor did Stone have any ‘ back channel ’ to WikiLeaks .
Any rational , objective professional might look at that and conclude that there was no underlying conspiracy which this entire Russia Investigation effort @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is , Stone ’ s entire case was erected to help maintain the RussiaGate narrative , but to help towards delegitimizing Trump ’ s historic 2016 upset victory .
Validating the hoax also helps to fortify a hawkish US foreign policy against Russia , and all the political , geopolitical and military industrial spoils that go with it .
In response to public comments made by Trump about the trial being a farce , Judge Jackson felt compelled to defend her political show trial , exclaiming that , “ There was nothing unfair @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or the prosecution.
” If only it ended there .
She kept going , insisting that the Stone case was ‘ serious ’ and not a joke , which Trump had publicly intimated .
“ The problem is nothing about this case was a joke , ” said Jackson just prior to sentencing Stone .
“ It wasn ’ t funny .
It wasn ’ t a stunt and it wasn ’ t a prank , ” said Jackson .
That old Hamlet adage comes to mind , The lady doth protest too @ @ @ @ @ @ @ President ’ s insistence on weighing-in with such vigour , it seems likely that Stone will eventually be pardoned by Trump , but it ’ s not certain when .
Some have speculated that the White House would be better served to wait until after the General Election , but then again , Trump tends to defy the experts on conventional logic .
As I wrote in a feature published this morning at RT International , Roger Stone was simply the last available scalp for the Mueller brigade in order to lend credence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Stone ’ s criminal case is built on top of .
His criminality was assumed under the guise ‘ Trump-Russia Collusion ’ which is predicated on the as yet evidence-free official conspiracy theory that Russian GRU operatives hacked the DNC and Podesta and then gave those emails to Julian Assange and WikiLeaks .
I explained how the underlying assumptions are fallacies and why the underlying assumptions in this case never did raise to the standard of criminality , while all of the little process crimes and reprimand which came during the legal circus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ build up Stone ’ s charge sheet .
I encourage readers to please go and read my feature here : Roger Stone ’ s conviction is the last hope to save RussiaGate In the end , all of this is just more grist to the mill .
But for how much longer ?
The level of panic and desperation surrounding this case , as well as the politicized behavior of the judge and prosecutors – really demonstrated how deeply infected the federal judiciary with partisan propaganda and conspiracy theories of Russian interference which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , objective judge or jury would look at this picture and deduce that there were definitely a lot of things going on here ( like things that happen during elections , leaks and campaign bluster ) , but not a crime .
For the prosecution , of the supposed ‘ crimes ’ came long after 2016 , as part of the process of trying to prove there was Trump-Russia Collusion , which there wasn ’ t .
So one should consider Roger Stone as collateral damage in what is perhaps the greatest political @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , very few will step forward and stand-up for a character like Roger Stone , and why would they ?
He ’ s a flamboyant political operative who cut his teeth working under Richard Nixon of all people .
He ’ s guy everyone loves to hate , so the support is sparse .
But let ’ s not forget that back when this all began – it was Stone who told Congress that there was never any Russian involvement .
Of course , Stone was right , and the evidence is on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other hand , was wrong .
Yet , here we are three years later , still re-litigating an election which happened four years ago .
When will American exercise its 2016 collective trauma and return to some semblance of sanity ?
SEE ALSO : The Stalinist Show Trial of Roger Stone

By
Patrick Henningsen
21st Century Wire
Today, the President’s long-time friend and former campaign consultant, Roger Stone, was sentenced to 40 months in a federal prison for multiple charges relating to his Congressional testimony and Robert Mueller’s Russia probe.
US District Judge Amy Berman Jackson issued Stone’s sentence after his lawyers had first requested that he receive no prison time.
After the sentence was handed down, Stone refrained from making a personal statement to the court.
The prosecution originally asked for a 7 to 9 years sentence, so today’s ruling appears to vindicate Bill Barr’s Dept of Justice who weighed-in in January to reduce the sentence. When that story broke, Trump was also tweeting like mad in the background which triggered a partisan storm drawing accusations of the President imposing his will on the judiciary, although the timeline of events suggests that the DOJ intervened on its own volition.
Normally, one might refrain from criticizing a judge too harshly, but this was no ordinary closing remarks performance, as Judge Jackson seemed to go on forever, attempting to address all of her critics, and seemed compelled to want to justify the premise of the legal proceedings.
After reviewing her statements, to say (and I don’t say this lightly) that she had a personal axe to grind is an understatement, and her extended diatribe appears to point to an obvious political agenda.
Judge Jackson wasn’t shy about showing her bias either, remaining in lockstep with the original RussiaGate narrative – even though it’s been proven to be hoax after a 3 year-long Mueller Investigation produced no evidence of alleged ‘Trump-Russia Collusion.’ She clearly attempted to do this here:
“He was not prosecuted for standing up for the president,” said Judge Jackson during her closing remarks. “He was prosecuted for covering up for the president.”
Only the President did nothing which required covering for.
"Covering up" what, exactly? Certainly not any illicit "collusion" with Russia and/or WikiLeaks, which was not even alleged in the charges against Stone. Another judge trying to score political points based on widespread disinformation in the public arena https://t.co/jV7QTdYjSu — Michael Tracey (@mtracey) February 20, 2020
As that wasn’t enough, the judge went on during her hours-long sentencing hearing to claim that what Roger Stone did was somehow “a threat to our democracy”.
We’re still trying to work out exactly what she is talking about there, or how the 67 year-old Stone became so powerful as to bring down democracy in the United States. I mean, he has certain skills, but take down the United States of America? Here Jackson is dog whistling to the RussiaGate consensus – when in fact there was no collusion between Stone, Trump, WikiLeaks and Russia – nor did Stone have any ‘back channel’ to WikiLeaks. Any rational, objective professional might look at that and conclude that there was no underlying conspiracy which this entire Russia Investigation effort was supposed to uncover.
The truth is, Stone’s entire case was erected to help maintain the RussiaGate narrative, to help towards delegitimizing Trump’s historic 2016 upset victory. Validating the hoax also helps to fortify a hawkish US foreign policy against Russia, and all the political, geopolitical and military industrial spoils that go with it.
In response to public comments made by Trump about the trial being a farce, Judge Jackson felt compelled to defend her political show trial, exclaiming that, “There was nothing unfair, phony or disgraceful about the investigation or the prosecution.”
If only it ended there. She kept going, insisting that the Stone case was ‘serious’ and not a joke, which Trump had publicly intimated. “The problem is nothing about this case was a joke,” said Jackson just prior to sentencing Stone. “It wasn’t funny. It wasn’t a stunt and it wasn’t a prank,” said Jackson.
That old Hamlet adage comes to mind, The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
Due to the President’s insistence on weighing-in with such vigour, it seems likely that Stone will eventually be pardoned by Trump, but it’s not certain when. Some have speculated that the White House would be better served to wait until after the General Election, but then again, Trump tends to defy the experts on conventional logic.
As I wrote in a feature published this morning at RT International, Roger Stone was simply the last available scalp for the Mueller brigade in order to lend credence to the underlying RussiaGate narrative upon which Stone’s criminal case was built. His criminality was assumed under the guise ‘Trump-Russia Collusion’ which is predicated on the as yet evidence-free official conspiracy theory that Russian GRU operatives hacked the DNC and Podesta and then gave those emails to Julian Assange and WikiLeaks. I explained how the underlying assumptions are fallacies and why the underlying assumptions in this case never did raise to the standard of criminality, while all of the little process crimes and reprimand which came during the legal circus was what this judge was compiling to build up Stone’s charge sheet.
I encourage readers to please go and read my feature here:
Roger Stone’s conviction is the last hope to save RussiaGate
In the end, all of this is just more grist to the mill. But for how much longer? The level of panic and desperation surrounding this case, as well as the politicized behavior of the judge and prosecutors – really demonstrated how deeply infected the federal judiciary was. Partisan propaganda and conspiracy theories of Russian interference were debunked long ago.
Any reasonable, objective judge or jury would look at this picture and deduce that there were definitely a lot of things going on here (like things that happen during elections, leaks and campaign bluster), but not a crime. For the prosecution, of the supposed ‘crimes’ came long after 2016, as part of the process of trying to prove there was Trump-Russia Collusion, which there wasn’t.
So one should consider Roger Stone as collateral damage in what is perhaps the greatest political hoax in American history.
As @JonathanTurley noted in 2018, “Even if Stone received early word of the WikiLeaks release, it would not necessarily be a crime for Trump, his campaign, or Stone himself.” That and fact his case assumed #Mueller would get something substantiative. It never did. #RogerStone — Patrick Henningsen (@21WIRE) February 20, 2020
Of course, very few will step forward and stand-up for a character like Roger Stone, and why would they? He’s a flamboyant political operative who cut his teeth working under Richard Nixon of all people. He’s the guy everyone loves to hate, so the support is sparse.
But let’s not forget that back when this all began – it was Stone who told Congress that there was never any Russian involvement. Of course, Stone was right, and the evidence is on his side. Official Washington on the other hand, was wrong. Yet, here we are three years later, still re-litigating an election which happened four years ago.
When will American exercise its 2016 collective trauma and return to some semblance of sanity?
SEE ALSO: The Stalinist Show Trial of Roger Stone
READ MORE RUSSIAGATE NEWS AT: 21st Century Wire RussiaGate Files
SUPPORT THIS INDEPENDENT MEDIA PLATFORM – BECOME A MEMBER @21WIRE.TV


21stcenturywire--2020-02-21--Assange European Defense Lawyers Will Try for Asylum in France

PARIS ( AP ) — Julian Assange ’ s European defense team said Thursday it will try to seek asylum @ @ @ @ @ founder , whose full hearings for extradition to the United States on spying charges start @ @ @ @ @ French team member Eric Dupont-Moretti said Assange ’ s case placed at stake “ the @ @ @ @ @ all journalists.
” He was one of a team of lawyers lined up at a @ @ @ @ @ why they view the case against Assange as unfair , citing his poor health and @ @ @ @ @ while in jail in London .
French members of the team said they have been @ @ @ @ @ demand ” for Macron to grant Assange asylum in France , where he has children @ @ @ @ @ at its founding .
“ It is not an ordinary demand , ” lawyer Antoine @ @ @ @ @ Assange is not on French soil .

By
PARIS (AP) — Julian Assange’s European defense team said Thursday it will try to seek asylum in France for the Wikileaks founder, whose full hearings for extradition to the United States on spying charges start next week in London.
French team member Eric Dupont-Moretti said Assange’s case placed at stake “the fate and the status of all journalists.”
He was one of a team of lawyers lined up at a Paris news conference to explain why they view the case against Assange as unfair, citing his poor health and alleged violations of his rights while in jail in London.
French members of the team said they have been working on a “concrete demand” for Macron to grant Assange asylum in France, where he has children and where Wikileaks was present at its founding.
“It is not an ordinary demand,” lawyer Antoine Vey said, noting that Assange is not on French soil.
Continue this story at AP
READ MORE ASSANGE NEWS AT: 21st Century Wire Assange/Wikileaks Files
SUPPORT OUR MEDIA PLATFORM – BECOME A MEMBER @21WIRE.TV


21stcenturywire--2020-02-21--What’s Really Behind Rohrbacher’s ‘Assange Pardon’ Story?

Just as Roger Stone ’ s sentencing was getting underway this afternoon , another story began drifting out into the media sphere – another potential spanner in the works just in time for part one of Julian Assange ’ s US extradition hearing which is due to commence this Monday .
According to a revelation aired during a recent scheduled case hearing on Wednesday by a member of Assange ’ s defence team , Edward Fitzgerald QC , Assange was informally offered some kind of pardon deal by a US representative during the first year of the Trump Administration .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Assange ’ s lawyer Jennifer Robinson , reportedly saying : This statement is referring to former US Congressman Dana Rohrbacher ( R-CA ) who says he visited Assange as part of Rohrbacher ’ s own independent ‘ fact finding mission ’ at London ’ s Ecuadorian Embassy in August 2017 , near the beginning of the Mueller Investigation .
The White House has firmly denied the claim and states the President had no contact with Rohrbacher .
Before we continue and unravel what has been said and by whom , there are three @ @ @ @ @ @ @ consider .
The first and most importantly – is the media spin aspect .
Given that this is both a highly-charged partisan , as well as geopolitical case , and that we are just days away from the start of Assange ’ s historic extradition hearing , there are powerful forces , be they state , partisan or media – who will try and spin this and other ‘ bombshells ’ in a way which suits their political agenda .
It also goes without saying that there are agents of influence within mainstream @ @ @ @ @ @ @ able to manipulate , twist , distort or fabricate any aspect of a story like this in order to further the interests of the two primary government stakeholders in this case , the United States and United Kingdom .
This has already been demonstrated time and time again with the Assange story , most notably by The Guardian newspaper who completely fabricated at least one headline story by Luke Harding and Danny Collyns claiming that former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort had visited Julian Assange in the Ecuadorian Embassy .
The Guardian then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a sequel in which they used Harding ’ s Manafort story to help bolster another bogus claim that an ally of Nigel Farage was attempting to obtain emails from WikiLeaks .
Bottom line : if there is any opportunity to advance a Trump-Russia or RussiaGate narrative , there are mainstream journalists and editors ready to publish or say anything , even if it ’ s a complete lie .
The second thing to consider is how this latest news will factor into Julian Assange ’ s extradition hearing next week .
And thirdly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ story will ultimately help , or hurt the real protagonist in this case , Julian Assange .
Most certainly , the mainstream media have distorted this story from the word go , mostly to advance anti-Trump and anti-Russian narratives .
We ’ ll look at two reports , one from the Daily Beast , and the other from the UK ’ s Independent .
The Daily Beast story written by Nico Hines carries an over-the-top headline , “ Trump Offered Assange Pardon if He Covered Up Russian Hack , WikiLeaks Founder ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this isn ’ t actually what the lawyer said .
The headline doesn ’ t actually correspond with the claims made below in the article .
Hine ’ s own article does not stipulate that Trump himself made such an offer to Assange .
Hine then repeats the same lie in the sub-header , saying that Rohrbacher “ had brought the message to London from Trump.
” In addition to this , the headline erroneously asserts that Assange is also orchestrating a cover-up .
No doubt the Daily Beast ’ s management and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ percentage of online readers , especially those seeing content via social media , only skim the headline of a post and do not read the body of the article ( content engineers need to know this data because it is how they place and bill for advertising space ) .
In addition to this , according to a statement made by former Congressman Dana Rohrbacher , the former Congressman denies having made a pardon offer on behalf of Trump , saying that he made a proposition to Assange that if the WikiLeaks founder @ @ @ @ @ @ @ provided the DNC and related email leaks , Rohrbacher would do his best to lobby the President for a pardon .
Technically , this is not breaking news , as it was reported back in September 2017 my multiple mainstream outlets .
Just below the Daily Beast ’ s gratuitous headline is stamped with “ Quid Pro Quo ” in red lettering , Here author Hines was attempting to re-purpose the UkraineGate-Impeachment accusation of Trump ’ s abuse of power in asking the Ukrainian President Zelensky for an illicit ‘ Quid Pro Quo @ @ @ @ @ @ @ another under-the-table dodgy deal .
Above all , this story is being crafted to look as if Trump was in league with Assange to try and cover-up any Russian involvement in the DNC Leaks and the 2016 Election – leaving the reader to assume that there was Russian involvement .
This story is complete spin and clickbait by the Daily Beast .
In classic propaganda style , the author also uses this opportunity to reinforce the usual laundry list of unproven RussiaGate narrative talking points , stating a series of evidence-free assertions and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ facts ( now standard operating procedure for most US mainstream outlets ) : “ Russia ’ s involvement in hacking emails from the Democratic National Committee.
” “ WikiLeaks posted the stolen DNC emails after they were hacked by Russian operatives.
” This is followed by a cheap , ad hominem smear against Rohrbacher : “ Rohrabacher , who was known as Putin ’ s favorite congressman.
” Like The Guardian , formerly a respectable newspaper , the UK ’ s Independent has become a formidable online propaganda outlet .
It ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ further , adding ‘ Russian election interference ’ for good measure : “ Trump offered to pardon Assange if he covered up Russian interference in US election , court told ” .
Of course , this is not what the court was told , but the truth doesn ’ t seem to be a priority for these mainstream outlets .
It repeats most of the lies woven through the Daily Beast article , and then builds a partisan angle on top of the initial lie , making reference to the 2020 US election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Mr Trump ’ s re-election effort if proven true.
” Note also the use of the cheap throwaway propaganda phrase , “ if proven true ” – which more often than not denotes a fake allegation , and is proof of deceptive intent , or a pre-existing agenda or bias by the author .
A similar election smear here : “ It ’ s another indication that Trump ’ s assault on the rule of law isn ’ t new ; it ’ s been ongoing throughout his term .
And imagine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ yet know.
” The propaganda housekeeping continues , advancing the official conspiracy theory that the DNC and Clinton emails were hacked , when there is still no proof to validate this claim , citing a likely partisan source , Obama CIA official Ned Price : “ A series of emails embarrassing for the Democrats and the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign were hacked before being published by WikiLeaks… ” More of the same , reinforcing unproven , untested accusations tabled by Mueller probe : The Mueller investigation , published in April , found Russian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ private server for the first time just hours after Mr Trump ’ s public request for Russia to “ find the 30,000 emails that are missing ” .
Needless to say , when it comes to stories like this , most mainstream media outlets are not fit for purpose , and most likely co-opted by some partisan interests , or worse , by an intelligence agency .
History is replete with examples of this .
The second consideration is : how will this latest revelation effect Julian Assange ’ s extradition hearing next @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all of the media and partisan spin , you can see that this new information was introduced by the defense for a reason which may have less to do with Trump and Russia , and more to do with substantiating a complaint made by the defense that Assange should not be extradited to the U.S. because Washington ’ s case against him is in fact politically motivated .
In this case , as a serving member of Congressman , Rohrbacher ’ s meeting with Assange and solicitation of a deal automatically proves that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ advance of the Department of Justice ’ s 18 superceding indictments of Assange served this past summer .
In addition to this , the defense has proof of a CIA-led operation which spied on Assange in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London , which included surveillance of his discussions with his attorneys .
Taken together , these two pieces of evidence could be crucial in the defense ’ s effort to have the US extradition request overturned on the basis that the US effort is entirely politically motivated and therefore in violation the extradition @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tweeted out today that this Rohrbacker story will come into play on Tuesday ’ s session of the hearing .
WikiLeaks also points out the issue of the timeline of events with this story – that the Rohrbacher meeting took place long after Assange had publicly stated that his source for the DNC leaks was not a sate actor .
In addion to this , former UK Ambassador and friend of Assange , Craig Murray , has also declared publicly ( and confidently ) on numerous occasions that the source was not Russia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ .
From Sputnik News : In December 2016 Murray told Radio Sputnik that the DNC Leaks had “ absolutely nothing to do with Russia ” .
He said that he discovered the source while attending a whistleblowing conference in the US and stressed that it came from “ official circles in Washington DC ” .
Lastly , there is the question of whether or not the Dana Rohrbacher story will help , or hurt the credibility of Julian Assange and WikiLeaks .
As I have stated a number of times previously , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Assange lies in the language in which they have reframed Assange and WikiLeaks from being a journalist and a press outlet , and instead labeled him as a ‘ cyber terrorist and Russian asset ’ , and a ‘ hostile non-state foreign intelligence service ’ , respectively .
This reframing will also allow the US to strip Assange and WikiLeaks of any first Amendment protections upon arrival in the US , as well as justify Special Administrative Measures , which places Assange essentially in the same category as an enemy combatant or terrorist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exercise more credible is by attacking the credibility of both Assange and WikiLeaks , to portray them as not acting like ‘ conventional journalistic outlets , ’ simply to demonstrate that Assange and WikiLeaks are cavalier or careless in keeping to their journalistic principles .
This is where the claims made by Dana Rohrbacher might be used to undermine Julian Assange ’ s insistence that WikiLeaks protects their sources at all costs .
The insinuation by Rohrbacher – which has now cascaded through the world ’ s media – is that Assange was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Washington who leaked the DNC emails in order to save his own skin in the form of a pardon from President Trump .
“ Upon my return , I spoke briefly with Gen. Kelly .
I told him that Julian Assange would provide information about the purloined DNC emails in exchange for a pardon.
” In his statement posted on Feb. 20 , 2020 , Rohrbacher was careful not to state explicitly that Assange had told him “ Yes ” and agreed to give up his source in exchange for a Presidential @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rohrbacher ’ s above quote , “ I told him that Julian Assange would provide information… ” – but he does not specify what exactly that information would be : a source , contextual information , deductive information , ie .
who it wasn ’ t , or some other forensic evidence which would rule out a Russian state actor .
It ’ s hard to know at this point , but that didn ’ t stop the mainstream media from colonizing that vacuum of information with the usual bevy of speculation , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ earlier in this article .
But the general impression in all of the reporting and from the Congressman himself , is that Assange had told Rohrbacher he would indeed give up his source in exchange for a pardon .
This does not square with many vehement statements made by Assange about maintaining the integrity of WikiLeaks ’ sources .
Who would really expect Assange to have have suffered this ten-year long ordeal – only to suddenly trust an emissary of the United States government to keep his promise to make good on some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ freedom ?
It ’ s also worth noting here that this same narrative mirrors a story which has been circulating somewhat under the radar for months , about a former FOX News contributor named Ellen Ratner ( late brother Michael Ratner had been a U.S. lawyer for WikiLeaks ) who says she visited with Assange in the Ecuadorian Embassy in the fall of 2016 .
Claims about her visit were then made by an alleged associate , another FOX News contributor and Dallas financial manager named Ed Butowsky – and Butowsky claims that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ source was the late Seth Rich , a DNC employee who was shot and killed a block from his apartment in Washington DC on July 10 , 2016 .
This of course infers , by extension , that Rich was murdered because he was the leaker .
The Ratner-Butowsky story has been mentioned by a few mainstream media outlets , but is more popular in alternative American conservative media .
All of this is purely speculative , and as yet , without any evidence to validate the theory .
However , Butowsky ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a lawsuits led by a libel suit filed by the family of Seth Rich against various parties and media outlets who made the claim that Rich leaked the DNC emails to WikiLeaks .
Rohrbacher also mentions Seth Rich on this statement made on his website : “ Even though I wasn ’ t successful in getting this message through to the President I still call on him to pardon Julian Assange , who is the true whistleblower of our time .
Finally , we are all holding our breath waiting for an honest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” One has to also ask why , if Rohrbacher believed in Assange ’ s cause of press freedom and clear First Amendment implications for the American people should Assange be put on trial for doing journalism , that the Congressman has never canvased for the release of Assange from arbitrary detention all these years , but instead only dangles a private deal in front of Assange requiring him to give up his source ?
The amount of media noise surrounding this issue can easily obfuscate some of the fundamental principles and themes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this story .
What ’ s important to note here is that just like Rohrbacher ’ s inference that Assange had agreed to provide information on the DNC leaks , Butowsky ’ s unfounded claim infers that Julian Assange gave up his source to Ellen Ratner – a core principle which Assange has sworn he would never betray .
Again , such a narrative actually undermines the ethical and professional credibility and staunch reputation of Julian Assange and WikiLeaks as serious journalists .
Rohrbacker ’ s approach wasn ’ t the first interface @ @ @ @ @ @ @ While Rohrbacher ’ s approach was a traditional face to face meeting and offer of a pardon , a previous approach was said to have been made by the FBI and CIA agencies in 2017 , as reported by John Solomon in 2018 , whereby Assange would be offered immunity from prosecution in exchange for cooperation with intelligence agencies in mitigating some of the damage from WikiLeaks release of a CIA document trove .
Solomon reports for The Hill : This yarn begins in January 2017 when Assange ’ s legal team approached @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — to see if the new Trump administration would negotiate with the WikiLeaks founder , holed up in Ecuador ’ s London embassy .
They hoped Waldman , a former Clinton Justice Department official , might navigate the U.S. law enforcement bureaucracy and find the right people to engage .
Allegedly , FBI director James Comey then intervened later in the process in order to kill the deal .
The Rohrbacher story is just one of many fascinating details which will be introduced during the process of Assange ’ s hearing which will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ February , and then in May .
But with all of these details and revelations , readers should pay close attention to how and why the news is being spun the way it is , and to the benefit of whom .
Also , consider the source of the information .
The first half of Assange ’ s extradition hearing will begin on Monday Feb 24th at Woolwich Crown Court , where US lawyers will make the case that he should be extradited to the United States to face 18 federal counts of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , totally 175 years in prison – if he is found guilty .

By
IMAGE: Congressman Dana Rohrabacher and Julian Assange.
Patrick Henningsen
21st Century Wire
Just as Roger Stone’s sentencing was getting underway this afternoon, another story began drifting out into the media sphere – another potential spanner in the works just in time for part one of Julian Assange’s US extradition hearing which is due to commence this Monday.
According to a revelation aired during a recent scheduled case hearing on Wednesday by a member of Assange’s defence team, Edward Fitzgerald QC, Assange was informally offered some kind of pardon deal by a US representative during the first year of the Trump Administration. Fitzgerald was reading from a statement by Assange’s lawyer Jennifer Robinson, reportedly saying:
“Mr Rohrabacher going to see Mr Assange and saying, on instructions from the president, he was offering a pardon or some other way out, if Mr Assange … said Russia had nothing to do with the DNC leaks.”
This statement is referring to former US Congressman Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) who says he visited Assange as part of Rohrabacher’s own independent ‘fact finding mission’ at London’s Ecuadorian Embassy in August 2017, near the beginning of the Mueller Investigation.
The White House has firmly denied the claim and states the President had no contact with Rohrabacher.
Before we continue and unravel what has been said and by whom, there are three key aspects of this latest news to consider.
The first and most importantly – is the media spin aspect. Given that this is both a highly-charged partisan, as well as geopolitical case, and that we are just days away from the start of Assange’s historic extradition hearing, there are powerful forces, be they state, partisan or media – who will try and spin this and other ‘bombshells’ in a way which suits their political agenda. It also goes without saying that there are agents of influence within mainstream media organizations who are both willing and able to manipulate, twist, distort or fabricate any aspect of a story like this in order to further the interests of the two primary government stakeholders in this case, the United States and United Kingdom. This has already been demonstrated time and time again with the Assange story, most notably by The Guardian newspaper who completely fabricated at least one headline story by Luke Harding and Danny Collyns claiming that former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort had visited Julian Assange in the Ecuadorian Embassy. The Guardian then followed this fake news story up with a sequel in which they used Harding’s Manafort story to help bolster another bogus claim that an ally of Nigel Farage was attempting to obtain emails from WikiLeaks. Bottom line: if there is any opportunity to advance a Trump-Russia or RussiaGate narrative, there are mainstream journalists and editors ready to publish or say anything, even if it’s a complete lie.
The second thing to consider is how this latest news will factor into Julian Assange’s extradition hearing next week.
And thirdly, whether or not the Dana Rohrabacher story will ultimately help, or hurt the real protagonist in this case, Julian Assange.
Most certainly, the mainstream media have distorted this story from the word go, mostly to advance anti-Trump and anti-Russian narratives. We’ll look at two reports, one from the Daily Beast, and the other from the UK’s Independent.
The Daily Beast story written by Nico Hines carries an over-the-top headline, “Trump Offered Assange Pardon if He Covered Up Russian Hack, WikiLeaks Founder’s Lawyer Claims”. Of course, this isn’t actually what the lawyer said. The headline doesn’t actually correspond with the claims made below in the article. Hine’s own article does not stipulate that Trump himself made such an offer to Assange. Hine then repeats the same lie in the sub-header, saying that Rohrabacher “had brought the message to London from Trump.” In addition to this, the headline erroneously asserts that Assange is also orchestrating a cover-up. No doubt the Daily Beast’s management and data analytics team knows that a large percentage of online readers, especially those seeing content via social media, only skim the headline of a post and do not read the body of the article (content engineers need to know this data because it is how they place and bill for advertising space).
In addition to this, according to a statement made by former Congressman Dana Rohrabacher, the former Congressman denies having made a pardon offer on behalf of Trump, saying that he made a proposition to Assange that if the WikiLeaks founder was prepared to give proof of who provided the DNC and related email leaks, Rohrabacher would do his best to lobby the President for a pardon.
Technically, this is not breaking news, as it was reported back in September 2017 my multiple mainstream outlets.
Just below the Daily Beast’s gratuitous headline is stamped with “Quid Pro Quo” in red lettering, Here author Hines was attempting to re-purpose the UkraineGate-Impeachment accusation of Trump’s abuse of power in asking the Ukrainian President Zelensky for an illicit ‘Quid Pro Quo’ favor, thus engaging in yet another under-the-table dodgy deal.
Above all, this story is being crafted to look as if Trump was in league with Assange to try and cover-up any Russian involvement in the DNC Leaks and the 2016 Election – leaving the reader to assume that there was Russian involvement. This story is complete spin and clickbait by the Daily Beast. In classic propaganda style, the author also uses this opportunity to reinforce the usual laundry list of unproven RussiaGate narrative talking points, stating a series of evidence-free assertions and falsehoods as if they were iron-clad proven facts (now standard operating procedure for most US mainstream outlets):
“Russia’s involvement in hacking emails from the Democratic National Committee.”
“WikiLeaks posted the stolen DNC emails after they were hacked by Russian operatives.”
This is followed by a cheap, ad hominem smear against Rohrabacher:
“Rohrabacher, who was known as Putin’s favorite congressman.”
Like The Guardian, formerly a respectable newspaper, the UK’s Independent has become a formidable online propaganda outlet. It’s headline takes the Daily Beast spin even further, adding ‘Russian election interference’ for good measure: “Trump offered to pardon Assange if he covered up Russian interference in US election, court told”. Of course, this is not what the court was told, but the truth doesn’t seem to be a priority for these mainstream outlets. It repeats most of the lies woven through the Daily Beast article, and then builds a partisan angle on top of the initial lie, making reference to the 2020 US election:
“… could have profound consequences for Mr Trump’s re-election effort if proven true.”
Note also the use of the cheap throwaway propaganda phrase, “if proven true” – which more often than not denotes a fake allegation, and is proof of deceptive intent, or a pre-existing agenda or bias by the author. A similar election smear here:
“It’s another indication that Trump’s assault on the rule of law isn’t new; it’s been ongoing throughout his term. And imagine just how much we don’t yet know.”
The propaganda housekeeping continues, advancing the official conspiracy theory that the DNC and Clinton emails were hacked, when there is still no proof to validate this claim, citing a likely partisan source, Obama CIA official Ned Price:
“A series of emails embarrassing for the Democrats and the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign were hacked before being published by WikiLeaks…”
More of the same, reinforcing unproven, untested accusations tabled by Mueller probe:
The Mueller investigation, published in April, found Russian GRU agents hacked Ms Clinton’s private server for the first time just hours after Mr Trump’s public request for Russia to “find the 30,000 emails that are missing”.
(NOTE: DOJ indictments of ‘GRU hackers’ have shown no proof, FBI did not forensically inspect DNC servers, only showed redacted IT reports from the private firm Crowdsrike, and posited an unproven theory that Russian GRU agents ran online cut-outs like Guccifer 2.0)
SEE ALSO: Media Spinning ‘Assange Pardon’ as Proof of Russiagate Conspiracy
Needless to say, when it comes to stories like this, most mainstream media outlets are not fit for purpose, and most likely co-opted by some partisan interests, or worse, by an intelligence agency. History is replete with examples of this.
The second consideration is: how will this latest revelation effect Julian Assange’s extradition hearing next week? If you can filter out all of the media and partisan spin, you can see that this new information was introduced by the defense for a reason which may have less to do with Trump and Russia, and more to do with substantiating a complaint made by the defense that Assange should not be extradited to the U.S. because Washington’s case against him is in fact politically motivated. In this case, as a serving member of Congressman, Rohrabacher’s meeting with Assange and solicitation of a deal automatically proves that there was direct US political involvement in advance of the Department of Justice’s 18 superceding indictments of Assange served this past summer. In addition to this, the defense has proof of a CIA-led operation which spied on Assange in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, which included surveillance of his discussions with his attorneys. Taken together, these two pieces of evidence could be crucial in the defense’s effort to have the US extradition request overturned on the basis that the US effort is entirely politically motivated and therefore in violation the extradition treaty between the two countries.
WikiLeaks tweeted out today that this Rohrabacker story will come into play on Tuesday’s session of the hearing.
The meeting and the offer were made prior to Assange's indictment.
If you really want to know what this is about — tune in to Court on Tuesday 25th — WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) February 19, 2020
WikiLeaks also points out the issue of the timeline of events with this story – that the Rohrabacher meeting took place long after Assange had publicly stated that his source for the DNC leaks was not a sate actor.
Chronology matters:
The meeting and the offer were made ten months after Julian Assange had already independently stated Russia was not the source of the DNC publication.
The witness statement is one of the many bombshells from the defence to comehttps://t.co/XsAmJe6n9j — WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) February 19, 2020
In addition to this, former UK Ambassador and friend of Assange, Craig Murray, has also declared publicly ( and confidently) on numerous occasions that the source was not Russia, but from ‘Washington DC circles’. From Sputnik News:
In December 2016 Murray told Radio Sputnik that the DNC Leaks had “absolutely nothing to do with Russia”. He said that he discovered the source while attending a whistleblowing conference in the US and stressed that it came from “official circles in Washington DC”.
The hysterical way in which the mainstream media has spun this story, and the extreme politicization by the establishment – may also play into the hands of the defense team.
Lastly, there is the question of whether or not the Dana Rohrabacher story will help, or hurt the credibility of Julian Assange and WikiLeaks.
As I have stated a number of times previously, the key to the DOJ case against Assange lies in the language in which they have reframed Assange and WikiLeaks from being a journalist and a press outlet, and instead labeled him as a ‘cyber terrorist and Russian asset’, and a ‘hostile non-state foreign intelligence service’, respectively. This reframing will also allow the US to strip Assange and WikiLeaks of any first Amendment protections upon arrival in the US, as well as justify Special Administrative Measures, which places Assange essentially in the same category as an enemy combatant or terrorist. One way to make this reframing exercise more credible is by attacking the credibility of both Assange and WikiLeaks, to portray them as not acting like ‘conventional journalistic outlets,’ simply to demonstrate that Assange and WikiLeaks are cavalier or careless in keeping to their journalistic principles. This is where the claims made by Dana Rohrabacher might be used to undermine Julian Assange’s insistence that WikiLeaks protects their sources at all costs. The insinuation by Rohrabacher – which has now cascaded through the world’s media – is that Assange was willing to sell-out his principles by divulging to Washington who leaked the DNC emails in order to save his own skin in the form of a pardon from President Trump.
In Rohrabacker’s own words:
“Upon my return, I spoke briefly with Gen. Kelly. I told him that Julian Assange would provide information about the purloined DNC emails in exchange for a pardon.”
In his statement posted on Feb. 20, 2020, Rohrabacher was careful not to state explicitly that Assange had told him “Yes” and agreed to give up his source in exchange for a Presidential pardon – it was only inferred in Rohrabacher’s above quote, “I told him that Julian Assange would provide information…” – but he does not specify what exactly that information would be: a source, contextual information, deductive information, ie. who it wasn’t, or some other forensic evidence which would rule out a Russian state actor. It’s hard to know at this point, but that didn’t stop the mainstream media from colonizing that vacuum of information with the usual bevy of speculation, spin and fake news which we demonstrated earlier in this article. But the general impression in all of the reporting and from the Congressman himself, is that Assange had told Rohrabacher he would indeed give up his source in exchange for a pardon. This does not square with many vehement statements made by Assange about maintaining the integrity of WikiLeaks’ sources.
Who would really expect Assange to have have suffered this ten-year long ordeal – only to suddenly trust an emissary of the United States government to keep his promise to make good on some informal, and highly uncertain promise of freedom?
It’s also worth noting here that this same narrative mirrors a story which has been circulating somewhat under the radar for months, about a former FOX News contributor named Ellen Ratner (late brother Michael Ratner had been a U.S. lawyer for WikiLeaks) who says she visited with Assange in the Ecuadorian Embassy in the fall of 2016. Claims about her visit were then made by an alleged associate, another FOX News contributor and Dallas financial manager named Ed Butowsky – and Butowsky claims that Ratner told him that Assange said his source was the late Seth Rich, a DNC employee who was shot and killed a block from his apartment in Washington DC on July 10, 2016. This of course infers, by extension, that Rich was murdered because he was the leaker. The Ratner-Butowsky story has been mentioned by a few mainstream media outlets, but is more popular in alternative American conservative media. All of this is purely speculative, and as yet, without any evidence to validate the theory. However, Butowsky’s third-hand claims have triggered a chain a lawsuits led by a libel suit filed by the family of Seth Rich against various parties and media outlets who made the claim that Rich leaked the DNC emails to WikiLeaks.
Rohrabacher also mentions Seth Rich on this statement made on his website:
“Even though I wasn’t successful in getting this message through to the President I still call on him to pardon Julian Assange, who is the true whistleblower of our time. Finally, we are all holding our breath waiting for an honest investigation into the murder of Seth Rich.”
One has to also ask why, if Rohrabacher believed in Assange’s cause of press freedom and clear First Amendment implications for the American people should Assange be put on trial for doing journalism, that the Congressman has never canvased for the release of Assange from arbitrary detention all these years, but instead only dangles a private deal in front of Assange requiring him to give up his source?
The amount of media noise surrounding this issue can easily obfuscate some of the fundamental principles and themes which are governing the mainstream narrative of this story.
What’s important to note here is that just like Rohrabacher’s inference that Assange had agreed to provide information on the DNC leaks, Butowsky’s unfounded claim infers that Julian Assange gave up his source to Ellen Ratner – a core principle which Assange has sworn he would never betray. Again, such a narrative actually undermines the ethical and professional credibility and staunch reputation of Julian Assange and WikiLeaks as serious journalists.
Rohrabacker’s approach wasn’t the first interface between US officials and Julian Assange. While Rohrabacher’s approach was a traditional face to face meeting and offer of a pardon, a previous approach was said to have been made by the FBI and CIA agencies in 2017, as reported by John Solomon in 2018, whereby Assange would be offered immunity from prosecution in exchange for cooperation with intelligence agencies in mitigating some of the damage from WikiLeaks release of a CIA document trove. Solomon reports for The Hill:
This yarn begins in January 2017 when Assange’s legal team approached Waldman — known for his government connections — to see if the new Trump administration would negotiate with the WikiLeaks founder, holed up in Ecuador’s London embassy. They hoped Waldman, a former Clinton Justice Department official, might navigate the U.S. law enforcement bureaucracy and find the right people to engage.
Allegedly, FBI director James Comey then intervened later in the process in order to kill the deal.
The Rohrabacher story is just one of many fascinating details which will be introduced during the process of Assange’s hearing which will take place in two parts; in February, and then in May. But with all of these details and revelations, readers should pay close attention to how and why the news is being spun the way it is, and to the benefit of whom. Also, consider the source of the information.
The first half of Assange’s extradition hearing will begin on Monday Feb 24th at Woolwich Crown Court, where US lawyers will make the case that he should be extradited to the United States to face 18 federal counts of espionage and conspiring to commit computer intrusion, totally 175 years in prison – if he is found guilty.
STAY TUNED FOR UPDATES
READ MORE ASSANGE NEWS AT: 21st Century Wire Assange/Wikileaks Files
SUPPORT OUR MEDIA PLATFORM – BECOME A MEMBER @21WIRE.TV


21stcenturywire--2020-02-21--U.S. Intel Briefs Bernie Sanders That Russia is Trying to Boost His Presidential Run

“ It ’ s like a nightmare , isn ’ t it ?
It just keeps getting worse and worse.
” – Grady Seasons in The Color of Money Just when you thought America would eventually get over its addiction to scapegoating The Russians !
™ for helping any anti-establishment or political outsider to get elected , there they go again .
As I predicted earlier this morning , it was only a question of time before the US establishment would blame those dastardly Russians for Bernie Sanders double-digit lead in national polls .
It was only yesterday , when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aka the vaunted Intelligence Community ( a verified oxymoron at this point ) has finally decided that the Russians are already active behind the scenes trying to swing the 2020 US Presidential Election in favor of President Trump .
You really have to marvel at how a grown adult professional can get away with this frivolity .
If it weren ’ t so tragic , it might actually be funny .
It ’ s really kind of disturbing to read tweets like this : Then 24 hours later the great paragon of honest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tells us that intelligence officials have brief Senator Bernie Sanders about how Russia is attempting to elevate his presidential campaign ( no actual specifics were given , only a gut feeling we ’ re told ) as part of a grand plot to “ interfere with the Democratic contest.
” Of course , the Post ’ s source for this ‘ bombshell ’ was no one specific , just “ according to people familiar with the matter , who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive intelligence.
” How reassuring .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ basically , this means that it ’ s now open season on Sanders – in the debates , with rude and cynical questions from CNN moderators , and imbecile questions from the likes of Chuck Todd .
Soon Sanders will have no choice but to accept media spot on Fox News .
His Democratic primary competitors are all struggling for traction , so you expect they will take advantage of this latest psy-op .
I ran this poll as a joke yesterday , not expecting it would begin to come to fruition so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and mainstream media couldn ’ t sink any lower into the banal , anti-intellectual quicksand of RussiaGate , they seem to have done it again .
Even sadder than the realization that America ’ s media has fallen off the cliff of sanity , is the how Bernie Sanders himself appears to have swallowed the RussiaGate hoax rhetoric hook , line and sinker .
If anyone wants to see a sneak preview of how Bernie might perform as President in the face of US intelligence agencies dictating their worldview to the White House @ @ @ @ @ @ @ further than this tawdry vignette .
Warning , you are about to experience some seriously painful reading Jeff Bezos ’ s Washington Post had to stick no less than FOUR different names on this story to launder it and spread the blame around when the paper eventually is forced to admit this is 100 % pure fake news… .
Washington Post : “ Bernie Sanders briefed by U.S. officials that Russia is trying to help his presidential campaign ”

By
Patrick Henningsen
21st Century Wire
“It’s like a nightmare, isn’t it? It just keeps getting worse and worse.”
– Grady Seasons in The Color of Money
Just when you thought America would eventually get over its addiction to scapegoating The Russians!™ for helping any anti-establishment or political outsider to get elected, there they go again.
As I predicted earlier this morning, it was only a question of time before the US establishment would blame those dastardly Russians for Bernie Sanders double-digit lead in national polls.
It was only yesterday, when we learned how the “IC” aka the vaunted Intelligence Community (a verified oxymoron at this point) has finally decided that the Russians are already active behind the scenes trying to swing the 2020 US Presidential Election in favor of President Trump.
You really have to marvel at how a grown adult professional can get away with this frivolity. If it weren’t so tragic, it might actually be funny. It’s really kind of disturbing to read tweets like this:
We are now in a full-blown national security crisis. By trying to prevent the flow of intelligence to Congress, Trump is abetting a Russian covert operation to keep him in office for Moscow’s interests, not America’s. https://t.co/Vj6lUV5ZNu — John O. Brennan (@JohnBrennan) February 21, 2020
Then 24 hours later the great paragon of honest journalism, the Washington Post, then tells us that intelligence officials have briefed Senator Bernie Sanders about how Russia is attempting to elevate his presidential campaign (no actual specifics were given, only a gut feeling we’re told) as part of a grand plot to “interfere with the Democratic contest.”
Of course, the Post’s source for this ‘bombshell’ was no one specific, just “according to people familiar with the matter, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive intelligence.”
How reassuring. It must be true then.
So basically, this means that it’s now open season on Sanders – in the debates, with rude and cynical questions from CNN moderators, and imbecile questions from the likes of Chuck Todd. Soon Sanders will have no choice but to accept a media spot on Fox News. His Democratic primary competitors are all struggling for traction, so you expect they will take advantage of this latest psy-op.
I ran this poll as a joke yesterday, not expecting it would begin to come to fruition so soon.
With #BernieSanders jumping out into double-digit lead nationally (WashPh/ABC Poll), it's only a matter of time before the scapegoat is introduced. Which Dem will be the first to blame #Russia for Sanders popular support? #BernieBros #BidenIsCorrupt — Patrick Henningsen (@21WIRE) February 20, 2020
Just when you thought American politics and mainstream media couldn’t sink any lower into the banal, anti-intellectual quicksand of RussiaGate, they seem to have done it again.
Even sadder than the realization that America’s media has fallen off the cliff of sanity, is how Bernie Sanders himself appears to have swallowed the RussiaGate hoax rhetoric hook, line and sinker. If anyone wants to see a sneak preview of how Bernie might perform as President in the face of US intelligence agencies dictating their worldview to the White House, you needn’t look any further than this tawdry vignette.
Warning, you are about to experience some seriously painful reading
Jeff Bezos’s Washington Post had to stick no less than FOUR different names on this story to launder it and spread the blame around when the paper eventually is forced to admit this is 100% pure fake news….
Washington Post: “Bernie Sanders briefed by U.S. officials that Russia is trying to help his presidential campaign”
.
By Shane Harris, Ellen Nakashima, Michael Scherer and Sean Sullivan
U.S. officials have told Sen. Bernie Sanders that Russia is attempting to help his presidential campaign as part of an effort to interfere with the Democratic contest, according to people familiar with the matter. President Trump and lawmakers on Capitol Hill have also been informed about the Russian assistance to the Vermont senator, according to people familiar with the matter, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive intelligence.
It is not clear what form that Russian assistance has taken. U.S. prosecutors found a Russian effort in 2016 to use social media to boost Sanders’s campaign against Hillary Clinton, part of a broader effort to hurt Clinton, sow dissension in the American electorate and ultimately help elect Donald Trump. “I don’t care, frankly, who Putin wants to be president,” Sanders said in a statement to The Washington Post. “My message to Putin is clear: Stay out of American elections, and as president I will make sure that you do. “In 2016, Russia used Internet propaganda to sow division in our country, and my understanding is that they are doing it again in 2020. Some of the ugly stuff on the Internet attributed to our campaign may well not be coming from real supporters.” A spokesperson for the Sanders campaign declined to comment on the briefing by U.S. officials on Russia’s efforts. Sanders has frequently warned about the threat of foreign interference in U.S. elections and criticized Trump for not doing enough to stop it. “Let me be clear: We must not live in denial while allowing Russia and other state actors to undermine our democracy or divide us,” the senator in January. “Russia targets the divisions in our society; we will work to heal those divisions.”… Continue this really fake news story at The Washington Post STAY TUNED FOR MORE UPDATES READ MORE 2020 ELECTION NEWS AT: 21st Century Wire 2020 Files SUPPORT THIS INDEPENDENT MEDIA PLATFORM – BECOME A MEMBER @21WIRE.TV


21stcenturywire--2020-02-21--Media Spinning ‘Assange Pardon’ as Proof of Russiagate Conspiracy

In this segment recorded on Thursday February 21st , Jacquie Luqman and Sean Blackmon are joined by Patrick Henningsen , @ @ @ @ @ 21st Century Wire , to talk about the allegations by Julian Assange ’ s legal @ @ @ @ @ a pardon to Assange on behalf of Donald Trump on the condition that Assange could @ @ @ @ @ Podesta ’ s leaked email was someone unrelated to Russia , why mainstream media is @ @ @ @ @ imply the Russian government was behind the hacks and colluded with Trump to cover it @ @ @ @ @ news reveals about the way the broader case against Assange has become hopelessly politicized .
@ @

By
In this segment recorded on Thursday February 21st, Jacquie Luqman and Sean Blackmon are joined by Patrick Henningsen, co-founder and executive editor of 21st Century Wire, to talk about allegations by Julian Assange’s legal team that Dana Rohrabacher offered a pardon to Assange on behalf of Donald Trump on the condition that Assange could prove the source of John Podesta’s leaked emails was someone unrelated to Russia, why mainstream media is already spinning the news to imply the Russian government was behind the hacks and colluded with Trump to cover it up, and what the news reveals about the way the broader case against Assange has become hopelessly politicized. Listen:
READ MORE ASSANGE NEWS AT: 21st Century Wire Assange/Wikileaks Files
SUPPORT OUR MEDIA PLATFORM – BECOME A MEMBER @21WIRE.TV


21stcenturywire--2020-02-21--UKC News: Turkey in Idlib, Assange, Stone, MH17, UK Regime Change Journos

Turkey is threatening to start a shooting war with Syria and Russia in order to save its jihadist forces from @ @ @ @ @ terrorist stronghold of Idlib , triggering US and UK to try and use the UNSC @ @ @ @ @ was sentence this week , as the US establishment use his case to bolster the @ @ @ @ @ , it ’ s been revealed that since 2013 , the UK government recruited and @ @ @ @ @ in Syria to help promote the ‘ moderate rebels ’ and call for regime change @ @ @ @ @ and more .
Co-hosts Patrick Henningsen and Mike Robinson with the end of week news @ @ @ @ @ SEE MORE UK COLUMN EPISODES HERE

By
Turkey is threatening to start a shooting war with Syria and Russia in order to save its jihadist forces from annihilation in the last remaining terrorist stronghold of Idlib, triggering the US and UK to try and use the UNSC to intervene. Roger Stone was sentenced this week, as the US establishment used his case to bolster the Russia-WikiLeaks conspiracy theory. Also, it’s been revealed that since 2013, the UK government recruited and funded ‘opposition’ journalists in Syria to help promote the ‘moderate rebels’ and call for regime change in Damascus. All this and more.
Co-hosts Patrick Henningsen and Mike Robinson with the end of week news run-down. Watch:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BcwJqCwv3Zw
.
SEE MORE UK COLUMN EPISODES HERE
READ MORE ASSANGE NEWS AT: 21st Century Wire Assange/Wikileaks Files
SUPPORT OUR MEDIA PLATFORM – BECOME A MEMBER @21WIRE.TV