Unkempt, Heavily Bearded Julian Assange No Longer Has Embassy Cat For Company

[jpak]

https://www.thedailybeast.com/unkempt-heavily-bearded-julian-assange-no-longer-has-embassy-cat-for-company

It has been six long years since Australian secret-spiller Julian Assange jumped bail and sought refuge in the Ecuadorian embassy in London to escape an international arrest warrant for alleged sex abuse and rape in Sweden. During that time, he has gained Ecuadorian citizenship and the Swedish charges have been dropped, but if he leaves the embassy, he risks arrest for breaching bail and the possibility of extradition to the United States, where federal charges appear to have been filed against him in secret.

He is suspected of acting on behalf of Russia’s GRU intelligence agency to distribute emails and hacked documents belonging to the Democratic National Committee during the 2016 presidential election. In April 2017, CIA Director Mike Pompeo called Assange’s web-based agency WikiLeaks a “a non-state hostile intelligence service, often abetted by state actors like Russia.”

The Ecuadorian embassy staff have apparently grown tired of hosting their global persona non grata, and are essentially trying to squeeze him out by forcing him into what amounts to isolation. They’ve cut off his internet—his lifeline, and won’t let most visitors in to see him. Those who try to leave messages, like Trump presidential adviser Roger Stone, who left his card earlier this year, are apparently turned away. Not even former Baywatch star Pamela Anderson, his ardent supporter who was a frequent guest and suspected paramour, can get past the guards.

But last week, journalists from the Italian newspaper La Repubblica, who have visited Assange annually for the last six years, were able to once again gain access—on the condition that they do not print an interview that might provoke even more pressure on Ecuador to kick him out.

<more>

[BannonsLiver]

1. This put a smile on my face

Glad he’s miserable.

[marble falls]

2. He's still a nob.

[tonedevil]

3. I hope someone nice...

is taking care of the cat.

[912gdm]

4. Awwwwwwwwwwww.

?t=18

[smirkymonkey]

15. Heh, Heh!

Love that scene!

[JCanete]

5. What is the crime though? This is really problematic. Reporters are allowed to use whatever sources

they have and have immunity when doing so. He broke no laws in getting that information. I agree that Wikileaks is sadly a one-sided propaganda vessel for only news that generally makes America look bad(stories I think we deserve to see) or specifically goes after only democrats. But none of that makes it okay for us to charge him with a crime for leaking documents. Trying to ascertain his agenda is irrelevant. Nor could you argue some convoluted argument of treason, since he's not an American citizen anyway.

I fully admit I'm not expert on this, but could somebody chime in and actually justify these charges?

[WeekiWater]

6. I'm pretty sure some of it would fall under this.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-37

[JCanete]

10. Way too slippery a slope. Anybody reporting on any leak that does damage to the US

image or releases anything that the government deems sensitive information pertinent to national security(which we've seen how broadly they use that definition) could be accused of this. Its ridiculous.

Thank you for the link though.

[LanternWaste]

12. Predicated on what objective measure?

"Way too slippery a slope..."

That allegation being predicated on what specific and objective measure?

[JCanete]

17. Edit....dug into this further and it isn't as broad as my initial surface reading suggested, so

I'm going to reign in my judgement on this.

[WeekiWater]

13. I see no slide on that slope.

It seems really black and white.

Very little about it is ridiculous. I find that charge alone to be a bit transparent. "Ridiculous" simply isn't a word that fits as you have used it. The Act would not need to have NS broadened very broadly in order to make a case. The definition can actually be quite narrow.

[JCanete]

16. Its a dangerous precedent. Is that better? nt

[WeekiWater]

21. I'm not sure how it would be precedent.

Unless you are simply saying it’s never happened to assange. But then every charge, for the most part, would be precedent.

[JCanete]

18. Oh I see. Hmm. The broad header is much more restricted in the details.

I'm still a little nervous about it, but the case that has to be made is that Assange knowingly accepted stolen intelligence by a foreign government. But I'm still confused as to how that would apply to him, since he isn't an American. How does a US code apply to Assange?

[WeekiWater]

20. They only need to have his feet touch US soil.

One does not have to be a citizen to be charged and arrested under the Espionage Act.

[Wintryjade]

8. He was charged with a crime and ran away. Which makes a crime, if nothing else.

[JCanete]

9. no...that's a totally different crime for which charges were dropped. This "crime"

he is being accused of now...how can he be prosecuted for this?

[Wintryjade]

11. I believe I read that the charges were dropped yet there is still a charge of not showing.

[Denzil_DC]

24. He skipped bail in the UK when he hid out in the Ecuadorian embassy.

He cost a number of his trusting supporters a very substantial cash bond when he did that. A continued warrant for Assange's arrest was upheld back in February: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/feb/13/judge-refuses-to-withdraw-julian-assange-arrest-warrant

I doubt he'll get bail in the UK again. Other than the cash forfeit, the UK penalties for skipping bail aren't all that heavy in the grand scheme of things, but nobody knows now what else might happen legally while he's in custody.

When Assange first hid out in the embassy, he claimed he was fearful that if he was extradited to Sweden to face charges there, he might be further extradited to the US once the Swedes had finished with him.

There's a few layers of irony.

One is the daft idea that, if his fears were grounded, he was safer in the UK than in Sweden. The UK was far likelier to go along with any US extradition request, as long as the charges he faced wouldn't be liable for the death penalty.

Another is that even if he'd been taken to Sweden and found guilty of the charges there, he'd have been free long before now, if he'd have faced incarceration at all.

Yet another is that whatever alleged offences he might have committed running up to 2012 that might have warranted extradition to the US, they're compounded, and possibly even dwarfed by, what he's got himself embroiled in during his time in the embassy (contravening the agreement with his Ecuadorian hosts that he wouldn't interfere in other countries' affairs, but that's really the least of it by now). There was no real evidence in 2012 to back up Assange's fears of a US extradition request, but it now sounds like Mueller might be on the case.

[Blue_true]

19. He skipped out on two rape investigations in Sweden.

Plus concluding with a foreign power to influence our elections make him a coconspirator.

[Wintryjade]

7. He may have run from prosecution, but it does seem to be a jail sentence.

[struggle4progress]

14. Smelly cat

[ProudLib72]

22. What a weak story! All I got were two sentences about the cat

Who gives a shit about Asshatange? I want to know about the cat!

Oh, but I am glad he is suffering.

[Raine]

23. I hope the cat is alright