Chelsea and Julian are in Jail. History Trembles. 1010

Tonight both Chelsea Manning and Julian Assange are in jail, both over offences related to the publication of materials specifying US war crimes in Afghanistan and Iraq, and both charged with nothing else at all. No matter what bullshit political and MSM liars try to feed you, that is the simple truth. Manning and Assange are true heroes of our time, and are suffering for it.

If a Russian opposition politician were dragged out by armed police, and within three hours had been convicted on a political charge by a patently biased judge with no jury, with a lengthy jail sentence to follow, can you imagine the Western media reaction to that kind of kangaroo court? Yet that is exactly what just happened in London.

District Judge Michael Snow is a disgrace to the bench who deserves to be infamous well beyond his death. He displayed the most plain and open prejudice against Assange in the 15 minutes it took for him to hear the case and declare Assange guilty, in a fashion which makes the dictators’ courts I had witnessed, in Babangida’s Nigeria or Karimov’s Uzbekistan, look fair and reasonable, in comparison to the gross charade of justice conducted by Michael Snow.

One key fact gave away Snow’s enormous prejudice. Julian Assange said nothing during the whole brief proceedings, other than to say “Not guilty” twice, and to ask a one sentence question about why the charges were changed midway through this sham “trial”. Yet Judge Michael Snow condemned Assange as “narcissistic”. There was nothing that happened in Snow’s brief court hearing that could conceivably have given rise to that opinion. It was plainly something he brought with him into the courtroom, and had read or heard in the mainstream media or picked up in his club. It was in short the very definition of prejudice, and “Judge” Michael Snow and his summary judgement is a total disgrace.

We wrapped up the final Wikileaks and legal team meeting at 21.45 tonight and thereafter Kristian Hrafnsson and I had dinner together. The whole team, including Julian, is energised rather than downhearted. At last there is no more hiding for the pretend liberals behind ludicrous Swedish allegations or bail jumping allegations, and the true motive – revenge for the Chelsea Manning revelations – is now completely in the open.

To support the persecution of Assange in these circumstances is to support absolute state censorship of the internet. It is to support the claim that any journalist who receives and publishes official material which indicates US government wrongdoing, can be punished for its publication. Furthermore this US claim involves an astonishing boost to universal jurisdiction. Assange was nowhere near the USA when he published the documents, but nonetheless US courts are willing to claim jurisdiction. This is a threat to press and internet freedom everywhere.

These are scary times. But those may also be the most inspiring of times.


We are reassembling Wikileaks/Julian legal and media team from 10am Friday in Doughty Street Chambers. I and others will be available for further media interviews from then. I can be reached on 07979 691085.


Unlike our adversaries including the Integrity Initiative, the 77th Brigade, Bellingcat, the Atlantic Council and hundreds of other warmongering propaganda operations, this blog has no source of state, corporate or institutional finance whatsoever. It runs entirely on voluntary subscriptions from its readers – many of whom do not necessarily agree with the articles, but welcome the alternative voice, insider information and debate.

Subscriptions to keep this blog going are gratefully received.

Choose subscription amount from dropdown box:

Recurring Donations


Allowed HTML - you can use: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

1,010 thoughts on “Chelsea and Julian are in Jail. History Trembles.

1 2 3 4 5 11
  • N_

    Magistrates, judges, prosecutors, police officers, Home Office and Foreign Office officials as well as politicians who choose to involve themselves on the side of the war criminals in this case should be personally identified and called out as soon as possible, not after they’ve done something especially egregious that has been reported. I mean for example that Michael Snow should have been publicly named even before Julian Assange came to court, and people should have looked into his background, exposed what kind of person he is, and past wrongdoings. Names, addresses, the schools they went to, previous choices they’ve made in previous cases – publicise the lot of it.

    The warfare state can’t function without such people.

    And they don’t like it up ’em.

    I keep seeing that grinning uniformed cop who took part in the kidnapping alongside his plainclothes brethren. He’s obviously having the time of his life, to be involved, and probably to get shown on the telly, helping out in the kidnapping for the war criminals who caused at least half a million deaths in Iraq and that’s before we’ve counted the proportion of the deaths in Syria that can be attributed to the effect of the Iraq invasion.

    What’s his shoulder number? It looks like U and then either *67 or **67. The lower string may be N67 or IV67. The “U” means he’s in the Territorial Support Group.

    Every bastard who’s involved at every level should be named and investigated and made to feel uneasy about what they are doing. As Karl Marx put it, let’s “make shame more shameful still”.

    • Jack

      Also, keep watching Integrity Initiative and their agents these days on i.e. social media.

  • Martinned

    It might be of interest to some here that the sentencing remarks in the Jack Shepherd absconding case were just published:

    These are the “other factors” that the judge highlighted:

    Other factors that in my judgment are relevant to the appropriate sentence in your case are
    1. the seriousness of the offence that you faced.
    2. the fact that you made a conscious, deliberate and considered decision to go on the run.
    3. the amount of time that it has taken to find you and thus the amount of time that you were unlawfully at large, which has hugely added to the distress of Charlotte’s family who could not have known when, if at all, you would be apprehended; you, the person who had spent the last hours of her life with their beloved daughter and sister.
    4. the time and resources that have been involved in tracking you down.
    5. I take the view that it is important in a case such as this that the court deals with you in such a way as to make it clear to others who may be minded to do what you did that, such conduct will not go unpunished.

    Some of these are not applicable to Assange (particularly point 1), but the others are.

      • N_

        No, but Richard “conscious” Marks seems to fancy himself as a psychologist as much as Michael “narcissist” Snow does, given the way he refers to a “conscious” decision, a term which if it were made by an intelligent person should be read as emphasising the distinction between the conscious and the unconscious. These judges are such pompous charlies! Few of them would have a clue how to conduct themselves at bus stops to ask someone whether the half past bus to town has gone yet.

          • N_

            A lot of judges will have been used to taking part in poor-quality theatrics in the freemasons, especially ones who prance about in the City, where there are many other opportunities too for such theatrics (“our ancient traditions”). It’s kind of embarrassing to watch someone do the verbal equivalent of masturbating when he’s sitting half way up the wall wearing funny uniform.

            Marks was dishonestly adding reasons for a sentencing decision that when they are looked at properly don’t stack up, even if one disregards the rhetorical amplification. I am assuming that the defence did not assert that the defendant acted unconsciously and happened to abscond when he believed he was actually surrendering himself.

    • N_

      No those points are not. The British state always knew where Julian Assange was, so 3-4 obviously don’t apply. 5 is just silly, in that Shepherd says “a case such as this”. Many lawyers aren’t half as clever as they think they are. As for 2, Richard Marks (“Serjeant-at-Law in the Common Hall)” sounds a complete berk when he says “made a conscious, deliberate and considered decision” and then adds the street level watched-too-many-crime-shows phrase “go on the run”. You can imagine him wearing leather gloves as he punches the defendant: “conscious”, punch, “deliberate”, punch, “considered”, punch. Who’s that creep to “judge” anyone? His previous record includes time on the “Restricted Patients Panel”. Might be worth looking into. He got right narky when he was removed from presiding over the prosecution of Sun journalists for bribing public officials too. The Scum journalists protested his removal. Funny that. Did they have confidence in how “helpful” he was going to be? Strangely they mentioned Putin. What was that all about?

    • giyane


      1. the seriousness of the offence that you faced.
      The case against Assange was false and it was only made under pressure from political enemies of Assange
      2. the fact that you made a conscious, deliberate and considered decision to go on the run.
      The reason that Assange gave to seek asylum , fear of being hijacked on a charge of extradition to the US has now been proven valid.
      3. 4. the amount of time that it has taken to find you etc
      5. I take the view that it is important in a case such as this that the court deals with you in such a way as to make it clear to others who may be minded to do what you did that, such conduct will not go unpunished.

      Indeed in Assange’s case the main purpose of last nights events was to send a warning to anyone else who fears injustice on behalf of the UK government, that nobody is innocent until proved guilty in the UK.

      Off with his head!. Sentence first. Verdict afterwards.

      Mrs May is a perfect caricature of the bonkers Duchess.
      When she gets shunted from her party she can take up the title in the hoiuse of Lords:
      The Lord and Lady, the rt hon Duchess of Jabberwocky and spouse.

      • Casual Observer

        The very fact that Mr Assange obtained the protection of a foreign state, and his case has been considered by the UN, guarantee that there will be plenty of scope for legal argument regarding his failure to surrender.

        As for Ms May, given her track record on the subject of extradition and her rebuttal by the judiciary, it might be thought that she would avoid the potential for further embarrassment 🙂

    • Northern

      You might want to try again with that one. Points 1 through 3 actually undermine your opinion if you think through them logically and 4 and 5 can be knocked down in short order. 5 in particular just lays out the motivations if you apply it to this case.

      Find me a single case that shows precedent for the British state’s (or any others for that matter, if you can find one that isn’t one of those nasty dictatorships we’re obviously superior to) response to this level of charge? To try and imply that Assange is responsible for the decisions of the state after the fact is seriously disingenuous and Julian’s solicitors would rebuff such an accusation easily.

      Why are you more offended by the publishing of classified information than you are by the massacre of innocent civilians? By all means claim that I’m wrong, but all your posts and opinions here seem to suggest I’m not.

    • Crispa

      Well it will be interesting to compare the two sentences, once Assange’s has been delivered, which as I have read it will be at Southwark Crown Court at a date to be specified – thus separating it from the other charge.

      As I understand it Shepherd was given a mere six months additional sentence for absconding after he had been found guilty of manslaughter with his actions causing immense grief to the family of the person he had killed. In terms of proportionality Assange’s bail skipping is far less significant and arguably had far more justification. Therefore one would expect a considerably less sentence than that for Shepherd.

      I am not holding my breath, but presumably the current time in custody will contribute to the amount of time he has to serve on this count so the issue might already have been addressed by the time he is sentenced. It is unlikely that he will be released, however, I would take a bet on that.

      • Martinned

        I will note that Shepherd got a third discount for pleading guilty.

        Otherwise, I’m not so sure the factors listed by the judge don’t apply to Assange at least as much, with the exception of the gravity of the crime. Eyeballing all of that, I’d expect a sentence of 6-9 months.

        • Crispa

          Which (i.e. a sentence of 6 – 9 .months) would suggest that the law is an ass. Shepherd skipped the country to avoid his punishment for causing some’s death and causing great harm to others. Assange’s guilt was not even proven to the charges at the time and his actions have resulted in no harm to anyone but himself, mentally and physically, from all accounts. If the law has any compassion and common sense and is truly impartial of political considerations it will give a substantial “discount” for the self – harm suffered.

        • Casual Observer

          Yikes ! A fairly hefty sentence then, which of course would tend to detract from the UK’s standing in the world community at just the time when Brexit means the UK will need all the sympathy it can get ?

          One might have to conclude that HMG are banking on a rather quick conclusion to the extradition request (s) in the hope that some Pilate like act will get them off the hook.

  • Xavi

    Sadly the real criminals will never be convicted. Instead they are revered as emblems of gentler, more decent times.

    • giyane


      I disagree:

      Al-Quran Surah 85. Al-Buruj, Ayah 10

      ” Those who persecute the believing men and believing women and do not repent, shall receive the punishment of hell, wherein they shall have the punishment of conflagration. ”

      There is still time for Blair, Cameron, Hague, Obama, Nuland etc to repent, otherwise they will see justice in the end.

  • Jo1

    And Politics Live wheels out four people to discuss Assange including, incredibly, the insufferable David Starkey whose hatred of JA is not at all disguised. We also have Ash Sarkar, then some guy from yet another “think tank” Onward and a Guardian journalist. Not a single one of them backs Assange. Starkey openly dismisses Sarkar in his usual arrogant fashion.

    Sarkar says don’t send JA to the US but send him to Sweden because he’s not a nice man.
    Onward guy says send him to the US. He’s only likely to get five years.
    Jess from the Guardian says, not very forcefully, that potentially there are implications for journalism.
    Starkey just rants and claims Corbyn hates the West so should be ignored in any case.

    So, that’s the BBC for you.

  • John2o2o

    I note that it is being reported that the lawyer representing the woman in the rape allegation case in Sweden is calling for this to be re-opened.

    I think it worth saying that under UK law there exists a “presumption of innocence”. That is to say, a person is innocent in the eyes of the law until proven guilty.

    So Julian is currently guilty only of skipping bail.

    It is worth also saying that this case highlights the grave dangers of the current popular attitude that anyone making an allegation of sexual misconduct “must be believed”.

    I have never thought this a reasonable attitude, and as a matter of principle I never believe allegations of sexual misconduct that cannot be evidenced other than by an accusation. That then includes for me ALL allegations of “historical” sexual abuse. ALL of them.

    I very strongly believe that the accusation of rape made against Julian is false. Julian was at that time already a figure hated and feared by powerful repressive governments and regimes the world over. This includes the regimes of Barack Obama and David Cameron.

    The accusations are I believe a crude and malicious smear designed to prejudice public opinion against Julian. I do not believe the accusations. I will never believe them.

    For all his great many faults Trump has at least been a public supporter of Wikileaks in the past and so far as I am aware has chosen not to comment on this matter at present. I do not believe Trump is the de-facto president of the United States at the present time anyway.
    That is John Bolton.

    • giyane


      “I do not believe Trump is the de-facto president of the United States at the present time ”
      So which embassy would you advise Trump to seek asylum in ? Putin’s? Xi’s? Venezuala?
      North Korea, maybe?

  • John Goss

    The judge, Michael Snow, showed his bias in calling Julian Assange a “narcissist” and “selfish” but what he said later was even more damning.

    He said Assange should “get over to the US” and “get on with your life”.”

    Of course he well knows that if JA was in the US there would be no chance of him getting on with his life. I suggest what Snow meant was get on with your “life sentence”.

    • SA

      It also shows collusion. The judge is so sure that the extradition will be successful as all of this has been carefully plotted beforehand.

  • Isa

    Admittedly I’m not at ease with common law systems but this would have been the procedure in a civil law system :

    Judges would have to decide proved matter on the case :

    the EAW issued without charges : proved
    The CPS destroyed documents : proved
    The CPS pressured the Swedish prosecutor not to drop case : proved
    The CPS mislead the Swedish prosecutor it was ilegal to interview assange in U.K. : proved
    The Swedish prosecutor delayed case : proved
    The allegations by two alleged victims are a crime : unproved
    The women denied they wanted to press charges for rape : proved
    Did assange travel to U.K. with Swedish knowledge and permission : proved
    Did assange serve “x” days in solitary confinement : proved
    Did Assange serve 581 days of house arrest : proved
    Solitary confinement for allegations is against the law and disproportionate : proved
    Assange sought asylum for fear of extradition to USA : proved
    the U.K. was aware of those intentions : proved

    On the principles of retroactivity of law :

    The law is deemed possible to act retroactively if it favours the defendant .

    Verdict : due to all proved matter the defendant is free

    Deriving from this case obligatory :

    A criminal action would be brought against the CPS
    A civil law suit for damages would follow and Assange would be compensated .

    On extradition : the USA has no jurisdiction and the indictment is not s crime in the jurisdiction competent as press freedom on public interest cases is a principle of the ECHR and also in the convention . Such law , article 8 of convection , if memory does not fail me supersedes national laws . It can only be disputed when there’s s conflict between two equally strong rights ( ie freedom of speech vs right to a good name ).

    The U.K. must abide by the ECHR and convention . Any decision to extradite will directly contravene the convention .

    Then again the U.K. ignores the ICC why do I still believe in unicorns when all there are is minotaurs everywhere .

    • Martinned

      I have many questions about your comment, but let’s focus on this one:

      “Did assange serve “x” days in solitary confinement : proved”

      When was Assange ever in solitary confinement? Even if you accept that his time at the embassy was detention, which is plainly nonsense, he wasn’t in there alone.

      • Isa

        I’m not talking about the arbitrary detention in the embassy . I’m talking about factual jail and house arrest .
        He was in solitary confinement in a maximum security jail for 10 days and then under house arrest for 550 days . That’s roughly 1.6 years time that under civil law system would legally have to be deducted from any related future sentencing as per a criminal processual code .

        • Martinned

          When was this?

          And I’m not sure if you’d have to deduct it. That depends on whether it was related to the same charge. I don’t think civil law systems and common law systems have materially different rules about deducting pre-trial detention. IIRC from my (civil law) studies, you wouldn’t deduct the time spent in pre-trial detention for a rape charge from the sentence imposed for the absconding charge, because those are different matters. So if the house arrest was in relation to the rape charge, that wouldn’t be deducted from anything until a possible future Swedish trial.

          • Isa

            This was in December 2010 when he presented to the police station because of EAW.

            Since the case is the same ( skipping bail on a case that no longer has charges ) the sentencing has to be deducted or revoked all together in which case there would be a simultaneous civil suit to compensate for the time served unduly .

            Sentencing may be cumulative and generally is but for different offences . In this case these are completely interlinked and impossible to separate . A bail breach in a dropped case and following the proved and not proved facts that must be established and made public before proceeding to the next trial phase of the final decision . After that sentencing is applied according to the processual criminal or civil code depending on nature of offence .

          • giyane


            Compensation and its rules are different from days served and its rules and both issues are completely irrelevant.

            The issue with Assange is not his conviction or not conviction but rather the British governmen’s breaking the law by getting Swedish authorities to make false charges against Assange in order to illegally extradite him to the US

            If you had any working experience of the Law you would know that in today’s universal spying intelligence decisions about who when and what charge are always taken on the basis of intelligence.

            That means if your criminal stole a car but was already wanted for a shooting they would be cleared of stealing the car even if guilty so That they could be convicted of the more serious crime. There are no medieval rules of the sort you are not picking about. Or if there are, they are ignored in practice.

            In this case, The Swedish authorities have been told to reopen their case purely as an excuse to hold Assange in custody until public opinion has been manipulated against him aka Saddam or Gaddaffi in order to illegally extradite him to the US

            In May’s evil eyes he has brought the spotlight of publicity onto the crimes of the international gangsterate USUKIS EU KSA Turkey and Islamist surrogate Daesh.

            These fascists detest publicity about their criminality. So why are you assisting them with trivia about Assange’s non existent non-crimes?

  • Just a Guy

    Meanwhile, the Daily Mail informs us that Diane Abbot has ‘sparked fury’ because she dared to point out that the campaign of persecution of which Assange is victim, has nothing to do with ‘rape’ and everything to do with his exposing illegal activities of the US and UK governments.

    Their headline should have been ‘uppity black MP refuses to tow the line’.

    I think that one of the greatest indications of the imminent collapse of what we fondly term ‘our civilization’ is that most people in this country probably support Assange’s arrest, trial and conviction. Yet no one with any clout has stood up and said, ‘Hang on a second… we broke the law’.

    The only response has been to trot out the party line that Wikileaks ‘endangered agents’ lives’. Agents. Spies, in other words. Here’s a radical idea: how about we stop spying on each other? And I don’t give a s**t if ‘everyone does it’.

  • Martinned

    Unrelated: Bad news from The Hague:

    The pre-trial chamber of the ICC has declined to authorise an investigation of the situation in Afghanistan on “interest of justice” grounds, due to the substantial lapse of time, the limited scope for cooperation from relevant authorities (i.e. Trump), and the resource requirements of a proper investigation. So far, my international criminal law tweeps seem less than convinced.

  • Sharp Ears

    It’s getting darker.

    ‘U.S. immigration has banned Omar Barghouti from entering the U.S.
    Omar arrived at Ben Gurion Airport yesterday for his flight. And despite holding a valid U.S. visa, and having obtained the temporary lifting of Israel’s ongoing de facto travel ban upon him, he was told he wouldn’t even be allowed to board the plane.
    This is outrageous. Omar Barghouti is being punished for being an effective advocate for Palestinian rights and we need to speak up loudly about this NOW!’

    This is a petition to sign, for what it’s worth.

    • Charles Bostock

      Every country has the right to decide who shall be allowed to enter and who shan’t, Sharp Ears.

      • giyane

        And who shall be allowed to leave and who shan’t. Except of course travellers on US made Boeing’s who shall be re-directed by U.S. law out from this planet

      • Sharp Ears

        Suggest the commenter @ 15.26 reads the pertinent sentence and takes note.

        ‘And despite holding a valid U.S. visa, and having obtained the temporary lifting of Israel’s ongoing de facto travel ban upon him, he was told he wouldn’t even be allowed to board the plane.’

    • Geoffrey

      Yes I have heard him speak. He is very effective and a thoroughly decent and reasonable man, so it is quite obvious why the Americans don’t want him to enter.

  • johnf

    Perhaps this MSM pile on is not working.

    The “Mail” had this delightful article: “A soaring ego, vile personal habits, and after years in his squalid den, hardly a friend left.”

    The readers responses in the Comments are not what one might expect:

    “Best Rated Comments (top 7 comments)
    Seven years in what was basically solitary confinement would take a toll on anyone. 926 in favour, 55 against

    I thank this man for opening our eyes to the disgusting, malicious and greedy world our politician live in. 884 in favour, 282 against

    This man is a modern day hero, he’s sacrificed his life so we are able to learn the truth. Shame on anyone who doesn’t stand by him. This is truly disgraceful. 725 in favour, 452 against

    He looks unwell and a lot older than his 47 years. 563 in favour, 25 against

    All this man did was report what the whisteblowers told him. They csme (came [sic]) to him not the other way round. Obviously the US is embarrassed by the revelations and now want to punish him. 552 in favour, 132 against

    Yes, he has charges to answer – but I am disturbed by the way his arrest is presented in a “guilty perp display”, together with somewhat hysterical coverage in this paper . . . . vile personal habits? Hmmm. Skateboarding in the corridors? Dreadful. All seems a bit over the top. I am warming to this man. 425 in favour, 174 against

    He published true information about atrocities. We need to protect those who are brave enough to blow the whistle . . . 400 in favour, 84 against

    Worst Rated Comments (Bottom 5 comments)
    I don’t believe he has principles and he deserves to face American justice. 528 in favour, 610 against

    They’ll have to do the same with Trump, eventually. 167 in favour, 280 against

    He’s an anarchist. Plain and simple. You don’t get to choose which laws to break. And what he did reveal was very little substance anyway. 182 in favour, 274 against

    He should spend the rest of his life in jail. 95 in favour, 205 against”

    Those are copied from a poster on Moon of Alabama. Since then those in favour of the first comment have risen from 926 to over 5,000. Those against it are still only 300 – suggesting some vigorous botting was done initially and then forgotten about.

    • John2o2o

      Unfortunately perhaps the majority just read their “newspaper” and broadly accept what they are told without question. And have no desire to comment.

  • Assangeophile

    Extradition law states no further charges may be added onto the one on which extradition is being sought (to prevent misuse of extradition law later changing to more sinister charges). It can easily be proven that the US consistently breaks this provision, and US bias is clear killary is known to have advocated Assange be missiled, but then the torys will appoint a judge with a known predilection for visits to South African orphanages, huttons similar 70 year burial of the Kelly case comes to mind.

    Apart from the Guardian all the presstitutes at the beeb and elsewhere, with large monthly mortgages, are all giving full free anal(ysis) to the deep state spin on events. Labour knows this a GE vote winner with 70% of voters backing assange and we can expect an over 10m defence fund from the public. Perhaps CM will provide a genuine link in his next post.

    • John2o2o

      The Guardian can’t be trusted either. They have not withdawn their false story about Julian and Paul Manafort. There are better sources of information.

  • Herbie

    What’s the expectation of a fair trial in the US.

    Their media and politicians are throwing about all manner of loose allegations.

    There are even threats to his life aired in media.

    They’re a country who believe in torture and the death penalty.

    And this is clearly a highly politicised case.

    Surely the UK can’t extradite in such circumstances.

        • Laguerre

          That’s the problem of ranting uncontrollably on Twitter – it’s all recorded and available for recovery later.

      • John2o2o

        Trump is not the de facto president of the United States in my opinion.

        Arch hawk John Bolton is. Pompeo is vice. Trump will do as they tell him.

        • Herbie

          Yeah he’s just the front guy. He’s clueless about world affairs. How could he make a decision about anything.

          He’s good only for for bullshitting the public, saying one thing today and the opposite the next, without ever being pinned down in anything he’s said.

          He’s so loose in language and performance that he just slips through your fingers.

          Hillary, with her lawyer’s training couldn’t get away with that so easily. She’s used to much more precision, and caught more easily.

          I’m sure that’s why Trump was chosen for the role.

  • Doug Scorgie

    John Humphrys told Diane Abbot (yesterday I think) that Sweedish law prohibits the charging of suspects in their absence. Can anyone confirm this?

    • giyane

      BBC news has just said that Assange is also facing extradition charges to the US, which is the same phrasing as Mrs May’s statement.

      She has a unique talent for regurgitating British establishment blocking garbage that is intended to non-communicate. Which is why nobody has and nobody ever will accept her withdrawal agreement.

      The use of opaque legalees to discuss important matters of interest to the public puts the law in bad repute. Humphreys has the same talent.

      I would imagine what humbug meant was that Sweden can’t charge someone who has not been given a chance to put their side of the story before being charged in their absence.
      They could have travelled to the UK if they wanted to have that evidence but they refused to do so because they knew Assange would say he had received consent and the lady in question would have agreed.

      Instead they chose to leave Assange in limbo knowing full well that they could spin that against Assange, as liar May did.
      Apparently Scandinavian law and English law are very different so I can’t comment.

      • Lisa

        “They could have travelled to the UK if they wanted to have that evidence but they refused to do so because they knew Assange would say he had received consent and the lady in question would have agreed.”

        What? Has everybody forgotten that Assange WAS interviewed by the Ecuadorian and Swedish prosecutors at the embassy in December 2016 for two days, after the Swedes had delayed this interview for years. The Swedes never published the interview conclusions, after they dragged their feet until April 2017, referring to the time it took to translate the Spanish language protocol. They informed of dropping the case only after the Ecuadorian presidential election was finished, and the candidate, who then seemed to be more favourable to Assange had been elected.
        This incident is omitted in the “timeline” of Assange case, published in MSM.

        The two Swedish “victims”, as far as I remember, never accused Assange of rape, but asked for police assistance in making Assange to take a HIV test. They told afterwards that the police had insisted in writing in the protocol about the “rape charges”.

        A reminder: Assange had delayed his departure from Sweden in order to be interviewed by the prosecutor, who concluded that there is no basis for charging him with anything, and allowed him to leave the country. The case was re-opened by another prosecutor and Assange was requested to return to Sweden for additional interview, which he ignored.

        • giyane


          Thanks for that reminder. Did you hear the interview with Glenn Greenwald on radio 4 just before your 1800 post?

          • giyane


            I heard a bit of it on Radio 4 at about 17.50. You can register on the BBC algorhythmic profiling database. But I assumed the interview had been organised by the Wilkileaks team to counter msn prejudice. They may have a recording

    • John2o2o

      I think it worth saying that under UK law there exists a “presumption of innocence”. That is to say, a person is innocent in the eyes of the law until proven guilty.

      So Julian is guilty only of skipping bail.

      It is worth also saying that this case highlights the grave dangers of the current popular attitude that anyone making an allegation of sexual misconduct “must be believed”.

      I have never thought this a reasonable attitude and as a matter of principle I never believe allegations of sexual misconduct that cannot be evidenced other than by an accusation.

    • Martinned

      AFAIK he’s been nominated each year for the last nine years. It’s not that hard to nominate someone. President Trump has been nominated too.

      • Republicofscotland

        I know that Martinned, however unlike Kissinger and Obama, Assange really does deserve it, for putting his life on the line publishing the nefarious machinations of governments around the globe.

        You on the otherhand oppose such bravery, and by your very comments against Assange, oppose free speech and the sharing of knowledge.

        • Borncynical

          …and @Martinned, and others supporting Assange’s extradition, are clearly more than content to live the life of a mushroom, if you get my drift.

          The rest of us prefer to demonstrate that we wish to live in a moral society where corrupt, immoral, sociopathic and psychopathic individuals are identified as such and brought to book for their crimes.

    • Doug Scorgie

      Being a legal eagle, can you answer the question I asked earlier: Is it true that Sweedish law prohibits the charging of suspects in their absence ?

      • Martinned

        I am not Swedish, so I can’t read Swedish law in the original, but I can have a look at some translations of Swedish law:

        Here is the Swedish government’s official translation of the Code of Judicial Procedure:

        In Chapter 19, section 2, it says that “The suspect is bound to attend in person the main hearing in the district court and the court of appeal.” But that’s not quite the question.

        In Chapter 46, section 2, it says that “The main hearing shall be cancelled and scheduled for a new date (…) if the defendant has failed to appear”.

        In Chapter 46, section 15, it says that “If the defendant fails to appear at a main hearing (…), the court either shall direct him to appear in person under penalty of a new default fine or shall order that he be brought before the court into custody
        immediately or on a later date.
        If the matter can be satisfactorily investigated, the case may be adjudicated notwithstanding the fact that the defendant has
        appeared only by counsel on has failed to appear if:
        1. there is no grounds to impose a criminal sanction other than fine, imprisonment for a maximum of three months, conditional sentence, or probation, or such sanctions jointly,
        2. after service of the summons upon the defendant, he has fled or remains in hiding in such a manner that he cannot be brought to the main hearing, or (…)
        In the situations stated in the second paragraph, the defendant may be sentenced to imprisonment only if he previously has failed to appear at a main hearing in the case or then appeared only by counsel. (…)
        In the situations stated in paragraph 2, clause 2, the case may be adjudicated even if the defendant has not been served the notice of the hearing.

      • John2o2o

        It is irrelevant. The accusation is in my opinion a crude and malicious smear designed to prejudice public opinion against Julian.

        I think it worth saying that under UK law there exists a “presumption of innocence”. That is to say, a person is innocent in the eyes of the law until proven guilty.

        So Julian is guilty only of skipping bail.

        It is worth also saying that this case highlights the grave dangers of the current popular attitude that anyone making an allegation of sexual misconduct “must be believed”.

        I have never thought this a reasonable attitude and as a matter of principle I never believe allegations of sexual misconduct that cannot be evidenced other than by an accusation. That then includes for me ALL allegations of “historical” sexual abuse. ALL of them.

  • lysias

    The man Trump says is in charge of handling the Assange matter, Attorney General William Barr, held the same position under G.H.W. Bush. During that earlier administration, Barr was at an interdepartmental meeting of the federal government that discussed what to do with someone who had broken U.S. law and who was living in a country from which he could not be extradited. Barr supported kidnapping the man, which would have been a violation of both the law of the foreign country and of international law and said, “F### international law!” This from the top lawyer in the U.S. government and the man who is now in charge of deciding what to do with Assange.

    I was told about the meeting by someone who was present at it.

    • Antonym

      Good 😀
      Barr is an avid bagpiper. He began playing the bagpipes at age 8 and has played competitively in Scotland with a major American pipe band. At one time, Barr was a member of the City of Washington Pipe Band.

      Barr and Robert Mueller have known each other since the 1980s and are said to be good friends. Mueller attended the weddings of two of Barr’s daughters, and their wives attend Bible study together.
      Bad 🙁

    • Jo1

      ‘Barr supported kidnapping the man, which would have been a violation of both the law of the foreign country and of international law and said, “F### international law!”’

      Pretty much the norm for the US, surely? And its little poodle across here.

      • lysias

        They used to avoid saying such things out in the open, and only said them behind closed doors, so as to preserve the illusions of the public. But increasingly they’re more and more open about it.

        • Jo1

          Sorry Lysias, no offence intended. I was thinking more of Blair and Bush and their collective, “F*** the Security Council!” before the invasion of Iraq.

    • Charles Bostock

      At best this is hearsay and not proof, and anyway, how do we know you’re not spinning a line to discredit Barr and US justice?

      • Iain Stewart

        Frankly, the merest suspicion of playing bagpipes should be enough. This Barr fellow is clearly a bounder.

    • lysias

      Barr’s father was an OSS officer during WWII. Barr himself, after leaving university, was a CIA officer as his first job before he went to law school. He may well have inherited a contempt for law, especially international law.

  • Bryan Hemming

    Judge Michael Snow condemned Assange as “narcissistic”. What could be more narcissistic than a judge – in full knowledge the eyes and ears of the entire world’s media are upon him – exploiting a fifteen minute pre-trial hearing to remand someone in custody? Obviously Snow seized the only opportunity he will ever have to go down in history. As Andy Warhol’s predicted back in 1968, “In the future, everyone will be world-famous for 15 minutes”.

      • giyane


        The term political asylum has been used for the sole purpose of admitting potential agents for the USUKIS mafiarate’ nest of spies in London .

        Assange is definitely not one of them. Maybe prisoner of concience might be a better term. The PTB have historically wrought their murderous malice against conscience , which they hate even though they posthumously sometimes forgive this ” crime”

  • Tom

    Great work, Craig. Meanwhile in the mainstream media, the BBC are in full fake-news mode, the Guardian comments in lockdown and the arrow fairies in overdrive at the Mail. I think someting might be ‘up’.

    • Charles Bostock

      One man’s troll is another man’s commenter, Jack. Always dangerous to call for censorship, wouldn’t you agree?

  • Gary Weglarz

    Just when I thought I’d seen the most extreme examples of the complete corruption and amorality of Western institutions – we get this. An openly contrived assault on free speech aimed at preventing we the public from knowing the depth of amoral psychopathic criminality that inhabits our military and political structures. No doubt the Western MSM, pundits, and politicians will all be yapping and howling their approval like the despicable jackals of oligarchic power they quite clearly are!

  • Jay

    Srange moral universe you inhabit if you regard the murder of innocents by foreign invaders as a lesser evil than being a narcissistic womanizer.

    • John2o2o

      “narcissistic womaniser”

      Please provide proof for this smear or withdraw it.

      • Borncynical


        I think you’ll find that @Jay is rhetorically using the description employed by @Grouse Beater to make his (Jay’s) valid point.

        • Grouse Beater

          The Grouse Beater you guys are responding to is a half-wit imposter. Craig is alerted.

          My thoughts on Assange here:

          PS: I am not know to comment on Craig’s site because we agree so much about most things!

  • Casual Observer

    Clearly Mr Assange enjoys intimate liaisons with what we assume to be handsome women, he’s a single chap so why not ? Whats more interesting is your assertion that what seems to be a healthy interest in the opposite sex would make one, as you suggest, a failed human being ?

    • Casual Observer

      Your implication was that his failings were so great as to render him failed to the extent that he does not enjoy the support he obviously has ?

      Other than that, and as alluded to earlier, you seem to be confirming that should support for Assange seem too great, then recourse will be made to the sexual predator angle ?

    • John2o2o


      You know Julian? Please provide proof for your assertion or withdraw it. Hearsay is not proof.

    • Borncynical

      @Grouse Beater

      No one is arguing that Assange should be exempt from any ongoing investigation into the allegations made by the two women in Sweden. Assange himself has never suggested or acted in a way to suggest that he wasn’t prepared to be a willing participant in those investigations. What he has said all along is that the allegations were part of a conspiracy dreamed up by the US to get him into custody in Sweden so they could then request his extradition by the Swedish authorities to the US to face whatever charges they choose to dream up, and with whatever dire consequences might ensue for him. That is why he took sanctuary in the Ecuadorean Embassy.

      • Grouse Beater

        You’re answering some half-wit unionist, not me. Craig is alerted.

        My thoughts on Assange here:

        PS: I am not known to post on Craig’s site for the simple reason he and I agree on so much!

  • Arioch

    Many voices over the internets, riding on the luxury of after-knowledge, now repeat how smart was Snowden, who by chance ended in Russia, and how naïve and non-savvy was Assange with his embassy.
    But it is all afterthought. Imagine that Putin would NOT decide suddenly to save Snowden and would let him rot in airport until him dehydrated and hungry and unconscious would be loaded on board of some US plane. And then we would have made serious faces and discuss at length how street-smart was Assange to secure himself a shelter in the embassy, and how inept and naïve was Snowden.
    Almost 10 years ago they made different bets and for a while it seems their bets are equally good. While Snowden, in theory, had some flexibility in choosing himself “lord-protector” in practice that was a flexibility of hungry stray cats running after strangers in the street hoping some one would take it home. Assange instead had a certain accommodation that just worked, even if totally lacked flexibility and emergency exits.
    But practically speaking both approaches worked well, until recent.

    What changed then?
    Maybe one thing is that WikiLeaks became needing a “sacred victim”, a “martyr”, just like EuroMaidan, etc.
    Well, I hope you would not tell me, that a man confined into a cage in the embassy for 7 years still was ruling WikiLeaks with iron grip? Just remember Timoshenko in her “jail” – and how her party behaved in her absence. And she was in the same state, almost in the same city, she was quite adept in all the intrigues – still nominally “her” party was very content with Lady Yu becoming an impotent hyped symbol rather than queen.
    Then, Snowden. I remember Snowden tried to leak something about Russia. “Grim non-smiling men” quickly came to him and took his whistle away. He was clearly told that Russia does not care about his crusade for abstract good and fairness, that he would keep silent about any Russian transgression he learns of. If that makes him feel accomplice – he better come to terms with his conscience, or else.
    Snowden got the message and learnt to be humble.
    WikiLeaks did not pushed brakes. WikiLeaks rushed to expose things about Moreno, while Assange was dependent on Moreno’s benevolence.
    Dementia and bravery?
    Or a plan?
    What would WikiLeaks loose with demise of Assange? Nothing, but maybe someone’s hurt feelings.
    Could WikiLeaks bargain with Moreno and cease blowing their whistles on him? Sure.
    Did they know breaking pots with Moreno endangers Assange? They should had know.
    And they did it.
    Now they have a holy martyr, they reinforced the image of organization true to the core principles even when it endangers them, plus like in USSR after Lenin demise now WikiLeaks bosses would be free to delve into “Assange’s best student” competition.
    Qui prodest?

    • Northern

      I don’t agree with Arioch’s suggestion given they have literally nothing to substantiate it, but that being said, what does his or her quality of English have to do with the point Grouse?

    • Charles Bostock

      He may well be an atheist, Grouse Beater, but there are those who – judging by their references to Judas and Pontius Pilate – seem to think that he is Christ.

  • Agent Green

    Agree with everything you say on this matter, Craig. Keep up the good work. You are one of the few people getting the truth out there these days.

  • N_

    Managers of the British state brand must think they are so clever, putting up stories about a speedboat killer jailed for jumping bail and a man guilty of raping a sleeping woman at this time. And now in our next item, folks, something you may have seen in the Sun associated with poo…

    • N_

      And a third story too: someone’s been done for Silk Road 2.0, the notorious dark web network that replaced one shut down by the valiant FBI.

      (Was it all that long ago that the world’s financial media encouraged investors to buy Bitcoin, or “BTC” as they called it, as if it were on a par with “GBP”, “USD, “EUR”, and “CHF”?)

      • Charles Bostock

        Well, commenter Glenn_nl did buy Bitcoins and has told us he’s done very well indeed out of it.

  • Mary Pau!

    I am no legal eagle but Julian Assange has not been charged with publishing US state Secret information as a journalist. He has been charged as a hacker and receiver of classified information. I imagine US journalists have better protection under US freedom of speech times than in most other countries including the UK. As a result he is not being charged as a journalist but as a hacker so I think it will be difficult for him to advance what you might call the journalist’s defence of protecting his or her sources.

    • Jack

      So much of what has been reported about Julian Assange’s indictment has been false.

      “The other key fact being widely misreported is that the indictment accuses Assange of trying to help Manning obtain access to document databases to which she had no valid access: i.e., hacking rather than journalism. But the indictment alleges no such thing. Rather, it simply accuses Assange of trying to help Manning log into the Defense Department’s computers using a different username so that she could maintain her anonymity while downloading documents in the public interest and then furnish them to WikiLeaks to publish.

      In other words, the indictment seeks to criminalize what journalists are not only permitted but ethically required to do: take steps to help their sources maintain their anonymity. ”
      Follow link @

      • Mary Pau!

        The indictment refers to cracking a password to help someone gain access to password protected state databases/files and to accessing files he was not authorised to view. Is cracking government passwords really a legitimate defence for a journalist? They usually claim to have been passed classified files by a third party whose name they cannot reveal to protect their sources. I think cracking government passwords would equally be an offence in the UK.

        I am not saying the information should not have been made public only that in obtaining it by illegal access to US government databases is bound to cause trouble for those directly involved in obtaining it. I do not think they can necessarily advance the claim that by making it public they were acting as journalists. I have not heard Anonymous for example, claim to be journalists.

        • Jack

          No. “Journalists” itself are not a protected group, the means they use are, and again, Assange did not hack.

          If you read the article I found for you , you would understand that US tried to indict Assange under Obama but they found no evidence to do that, judging his actions in principle as that of a journalist.. What have happend since is purely political.

    • N_

      What next? Will they indict intelligence officers from Russia, China, North Korea, etc., for hacking into US government computers too? When will these damned burger-munching cowboys realise that the US may sail its warships, fly its bomber planes and maintain military and spy bases around the world but that doesn’t cause a single foreigner acting outside of US territory to become subject to that country’s legal jurisdiction.

      The position taken by the New York Times is going to be fascinating…

  • Karen

    We are turning into a fascist country with a corrupt justice system. This is frightening.

    • Charles Bostock

      These shouts of “fascist” to describe the UK are typical of those who (1) hardly know what the word means, and (2) have obviously never themselves lived under an oppressive régime. But personally I don’t mind because it is clear that the indiscriminate use of silly insults like that merely devalues whatever message the shouters are trying to get across.

      • Goose

        It’s not fascist, but there are certainly people in authority with fascist tendencies.

        People who can’t stand dissent and hide behind unjustifiable walls of secrecy and operate by the doctrine of utilitarianism – no moral right or wrong only whether the effects are for the ‘greater good’. This is dangerous path that leads to seriously warped deluded thinking and actions.

        People aren’t being disappeared or anything, like say in China. But if it came to that would the compliant press even bother reporting it ?

        • Harry Law

          “People aren’t being disappeared or anything”…… When did you last see the Skripals?

      • Garth Carthy

        Well, Charles, the US and UK may not be fascist states in the absolute sense but I don’t know why you’re nit picking.
        The fact is that State secrecy, lying propaganda, manipulation and ignoring of international laws have all the hallmarks of fascism.
        You can call that something else if you must but these issues can only worsen as instability in the major nations increase.
        We are not ruled by rational or benevolent political leaders. I hope you don’t even begin to have such silly fantasies.
        There are a fair number of political leaders or political movers and shakers who are psychopathic or at least have psychopathic tendencies and even a relatively small but influential elite of such people can wreak havoc across the world – and indeed, they are wreaking havoc.

      • Republicofscotland

        “have obviously never themselves lived under an oppressive régime. ”

        You mean like the one of Yehudit and Netanyahu? The former one with links to the old Kach party and the infamous Kahane.

    • Jack


      In this case it is very fascist-like:

      1 Hardly any politician or western leader have condemned the assault
      2 Media=Corrupt – that support the arrest and spread their disinformation and propaganda
      3 Judiciary=Corrupt, Snow’s comments but in general by even thinking of putting a whistle blower on trial!
      4 Police=Corrupt by being part of arresting a whistle blower
      5 International law ignored and along that, the lies of state authorities in US, UK; Sweden that Assange had nothing to fear.

      Orwell was right on the cue.

1 2 3 4 5 11

Comments are closed.