FBI Fabrication Against Assange Falls Apart 306

On the final day of the Assange extradition hearing, magistrate Vanessa Baraitser refused to accept an affidavit from Assange’s solicitor Gareth Peirce, on the grounds it was out of time. The affidavit explained that the defence had been unable to respond to the new accusations in the United States government’s second superseding indictment, because these wholly new matters had been sprung on them just six weeks before the hearing resumed on 8 September 2020.

The defence had not only to gather evidence from Iceland, but had virtually no access to Assange to take his evidence and instructions, as he was effectively in solitary confinement in Belmarsh. The defence had requested an adjournment to give them time to address the new accusations, but this adjournment had been refused by Baraitser.

She now refused to accept Gareth Peirce’s affidavit setting out these facts.

What had happened was this. The hearings on the Assange extradition in January 2020 did not seem to be going well for the US government. The arguments that political extradition is specifically banned by the UK/US extradition treaty, and that the publisher was not responsible for Chelsea Manning’s whistleblowing on war crimes, appeared to be strong. The US Justice Department had decided that it therefore needed a new tack and to discover some “crimes” by Assange that seemed less noble than the Manning revelations.

To achieve this, the FBI turned to an informant in Iceland, Sigi Thordarson, who was willing to testify that Assange had been involved with him in, inter alia, hacking private banking information and tracking Icelandic police vehicles. This was of course much easier to portray as crime, as opposed to journalism, so the second superseding indictment was produced based on Thordarson’s story, which was elaborated with Thordarson by an FBI team.

The difficulty was that Thordarson was hardly a reliable witness. He had already been convicted in Iceland for stealing approximately $50,000 from Wikileaks and with impersonating Julian Assange online, not to mention the inconvenient fact he is a registered sex offender for online activities with under-age boys. The FBI team was in fact expelled from Iceland by the Icelandic government, who viewed what the FBI was doing with Thordarson as wholly illegitimate.

Notwithstanding all of that, in June 2020 we had the extraordinary position of the US government, 18 months since the start of extradition proceedings and six months after opening arguments had been heard by the court, being permitted completely to change the charges and alleged crimes which were the grounds for extradition, in the second superseding indictment.

On 8 September 2020 I was in court to report Mark Summers QC addressing the question of these new superseding charges:

The court resumed with a new defence application, led by Mark Summers QC, about the new charges from the US governments new superseding indictment. Summers took the court back over the history of this extradition hearing. The first indictment had been drawn up in March of 2018. In January 2019 a provisional request for extradition had been made, which had been implemented in April of 2019 on Assange’s removal from the Embassy. In June 2019 this was replaced by the full request with a new, second indictment which had been the basis of these proceedings before today. A whole series of hearings had taken place on the basis of that second indictment.

The new superseding indictment dated from 20 June 2020. In February and May 2020 the US government had allowed hearings to go ahead on the basis of the second indictment, giving no warning, even though they must by that stage have known the new superseding indictment was coming. They had given neither explanation nor apology for this.

The defence had not been properly informed of the superseding indictment, and indeed had learnt of its existence only through a US government press release on 20 June. It had not finally been officially served in these proceedings until 29 July, just six weeks ago. At first, it had not been clear how the superseding indictment would affect the charges, as the US government was briefing it made no difference but just gave additional detail. But on 21 August 2020, not before, it finally became clear in new US government submissions that the charges themselves had been changed.

There were now new charges that were standalone and did not depend on the earlier allegations. Even if the 18 Manning related charges were rejected, these new allegations could still form grounds for extradition. These new allegations included encouraging the stealing of data from a bank and from the government of Iceland, passing information on tracking police vehicles, and hacking the computers both of individuals and of a security company.

“How much of this newly alleged material is criminal is anybody’s guess”, stated Summers, going on to explain that it was not at all clear that an Australian giving advice from outwith Iceland to someone in Iceland on how to crack a code, was actually criminal if it occurred in the UK. This was even without considering the test of dual criminality in the US also, which had to be passed before the conduct was subject to extradition.

It was unthinkable that allegations of this magnitude would be the subject of a Part 2 extradition hearing within six weeks if they were submitted as a new case. Plainly that did not give the defence time to prepare, or to line up witnesses to these new charges. Among the issues relating to these new charges the defence would wish to address, were that some were not criminal, some were out of time limitation, some had already been charged in other fora (including Southwark Crown Court and courts in the USA).

There were also important questions to be asked about the origins of some of these charges and the dubious nature of the witnesses. In particular the witness identified as “teenager” was the same person identified as “Iceland 1” in the previous indictment. That indictment had contained a “health warning” over this witness given by the US Department of Justice. This new indictment removed that warning. But the fact was, this witness is Sigurdur Thordarson, who had been convicted in Iceland in relation to these events of fraud, theft, stealing Wikileaks money and material and impersonating Julian Assange.

The indictment did not state that the FBI had been “kicked out of Iceland for trying to use Thordarson to frame Assange”, stated Summers baldly.

Summers said all these matters should be ventilated in these hearings if the new charges were to be heard, but the defence simply did not have time to prepare its answers or its witnesses in the brief six weeks it had since receiving them, even setting aside the extreme problems of contact with Assange in the conditions in which he was being held in Belmarsh prison.

The defence would plainly need time to prepare answers to these new charges, but it would plainly be unfair to keep Assange in jail for the months that would take. The defence therefore suggested that these new charges should be excised from the conduct to be considered by the court, and they should go ahead with the evidence on criminal behaviour confined to what conduct had previously been alleged.

Summers argued it was “entirely unfair” to add what were in law new and separate criminal allegations, at short notice and “entirely without warning and not giving the defence time to respond to it. What is happening here is abnormal, unfair and liable to create real injustice if allowed to continue.”

The arguments submitted by the prosecution now rested on these brand new allegations. For example, the prosecution now countered the arguments on the rights of whistleblowers and the necessity of revealing war crimes by stating that there can have been no such necessity to hack into a bank in Iceland.

Summers concluded that the “case should be confined to that conduct which the American government had seen fit to allege in the eighteen months of the case” before their second new indictment.

Baraitser refused to rule out the new charges, and then did rule out the immediate defence request for an adjournment to give them time to respond to the new charges. At the end of the hearings she refused to accept the Peirce affidavit explaining why the defence was unable to respond. The court had by then spent nearly a month listening to witnesses refuting the first superseding indictment, as prepared by the defence, but nothing addressing the second superseding indictment.

Summers was absolutely furious when Baraitser refused to accept Peirce’s affidavit on the subject, to the extent he was still explosive in the street outside after the hearings had concluded.

While Baraitser’s eventual decision barred extradition on the grounds of Assange’s health and US inhumane prison conditions, the second superseding indictment and Thordarson’s accusations were accepted as a valid basis for extradition.

Thordarson has now told Icelandic magazine Stundin that his allegations against Assange contained in the indictment are untrue, and that Assange had not solicited the hacking of bank or police details. This is hardly a shock, though Thordarson’s motives for coming clean now are obscure; he is plainly a deeply troubled and often malicious individual.
Thordarson was always the most unreliable of witnesses, and I find it impossible to believe that the FBI cooperation with him was ever any more than deliberate fabrication of evidence by the FBI.

Edward Snowden has tweeted that Thordarson recanting will end the case against Julian Assange. Most certainly it should end it, but I fear it will not.

Many things should have ended the case against Assange. The First Amendment, the ban on political extradition in the US/UK Extradition Treaty, the CIA spying on the preparations of Assange’s defence counsel, all of these should have stopped the case dead in its tracks.

It is now five months since extradition was refused, no US government appeal against that decision has yet been accepted by the High Court, and yet Julian remains confined to the UK’s highest security prison. The revelation that Thordarson’s allegations are fabricated – which everyone knew already, Baraitser just pretended she didn’t – is just one more illegality that the Establishment will shimmy over in its continued persecution of Assange.

Assange democratised information and gave real power to the people for a while, worldwide. He revealed US war crimes. For that his life is destroyed. Neither law nor truth have anything to do with it.


Forgive me for pointing out that my ability to provide this coverage is entirely dependent on your kind voluntary subscriptions which keep this blog going. This post is free for anybody to reproduce or republish, including in translation. You are still very welcome to read without subscribing.

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 every article, 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


Paypal address for one-off donations: [email protected]

Alternatively by bank transfer or standing order:

Account name
Account number 3 2 1 5 0 9 6 2
Sort code 6 0 – 4 0 – 0 5
IBAN GB98NWBK60400532150962
Bank address Natwest, PO Box 414, 38 Strand, London, WC2H 5JB

Bitcoin: bc1q3sdm60rshynxtvfnkhhqjn83vk3e3nyw78cjx9
Ethereum/ERC-20: 0x764a6054783e86C321Cb8208442477d24834861a

Subscriptions are still preferred to donations as I can’t run the blog without some certainty of future income, but I understand why some people prefer not to commit to that.

306 thoughts on “FBI Fabrication Against Assange Falls Apart

1 2 3
    • Lee

      The (Lab) signatures in that letter will I guess, not represent the party’s position. Its a step but their silence so far remains awful, like the trial proceedings we’ve just reread (thanking CM).
      Legal process aside, why is Assange not now out, on licence or bail?

    • nevermind

      Thanks again for taking up Julian’s case for freedom from Hellmarsh Craig.
      As for those who sat on their hands and ears in the Labour party and the corpo rat media, it is only political gain that matters to them, not the facts or the utter destruction of existing laws by Baraitser.
      FREE JULIAN ASSANGE! his partner and children need him far more than a polarized, split and lost-for-ideas America.

    • Stevie Boy

      Starmer is one of the CIA assets that is responsible for Julian’s predicament. The current Labour party are complicit, they will not help.

      • John O'Dowd

        Correct. But don’t forget MOSSAD asset too. Although in practical terms it amounts to the same thing.

        • Piotr+Berman

          Is a hydra a single entity, or multiple? Indeed, a question of angelology (how many of them may fit in a pinhead) or morals (mistress of one patron having a higher standing than a harlot with many customers). Starmer may be as well be faithfully married to the intelligence hydra.

    • Ian Watt

      The director of public prosecutions who kept the sexual assault case open against Assange at the request of the United States government despite a complete lack of any evidence was… Keir Starmer

    • Vivian O'Blivion

      If you’re referring to the letter sent to Joe Biden during the G7 meeting I would aver that this does not reflect the official Labour position.
      24 signatures is a pretty poor response even before the vermin in ermine are included. But let’s do some subtraction. The ALBA two, Joanna Cherry & Tommy Shepard, Caroline Lucas, David Davis and Jeremy Corbyn (remember he ain’t a “Labour” MP as preposterous as that may be).
      Of the Labour MPs that did sign, none of them will get near the Front bench while the Brylcreem Knight is in charge.

    • DunGroanin

      “Don’t you dare ” withdraw the fake rape allegations, GKH Starmer?

      Oh , I needed that laugh.

    • fonso

      The security state Labour party wants Julian Assange released. Another penetrating insight borne of a lifetime observing British politics.

    • Joseph Mellon

      The Labour Party leader – a certain Kier Starmer – has DPP when it insisted that the Swedes contiune their extradition request on trumped up grounds long after the Sweedes wanted to drop it. Starmer is also very cosy with intelligence services, including the US

      • Carolyn Zaremba

        I have always found it ludicrous that a party calling itself “labour” had someone with a title heading it. Shows you how far that party has fallen, especially after Tony Bliar “improved” it during his reign. (Bliar is not a typo.)

    • Luke Sinclair

      I dont think Labour want Assange released as Keir Stamer was head of the CPS and helped put Assange in prison didnt he? Some in Labour have always wanted Assange released but not Keir Stamer.

  • David

    Shameful, I wish I had the words to describe how disgraceful this all is. Craig, you are a shining example to us.

  • Jon

    Good post. I don’t know how much the Commons is back in (non-virtual) session, but a speech from David Davis – or any MP – would be welcome. Chipping away at this farce can be done by embarrassing people who support it.

    • Sarge

      I would like to think they could be embarrassed Jon but unfortunately they don’t respect anybody outside their tight, self referential bubble. David Davis is somebody they dismiss as a ‘maverick’, a delegitimizing label for anyone who challenges establishment orthodoxies.

      • Calgacus

        Maverick: A hopefully amusing digression having nothing to do with Murray, Assange or Scotland.

        The word and its meaning comes from the Texas cattle baron family the Mavericks, who tended to behave like uhh, mavericks! One of the scions, Maury Maverick was one of FDR’s favorite congressmen – the leader of the group of 20-30 left-wing congressmen in the 1930s called the Mavericks. Included people like Vito Marcantonio, the Pink Pachyderm – originally a Republican, so popular that he also ran simultaneously as a Democrat, an American Labor Party (Socialist offshoot) and with Communist support. US elections and laws are unique.

        Maverick was unseated after 4 years, mostly because he supported the CIO, an offshoot to the left of but then hated by the AFL. What fools Big Labor and the Left can behave like when they have power. FDR appointed him to oversee the smaller war plants in the USA during the war and for various delicate missions. Not only a hilarious character, but an intelligent and perceptive man. Was just reading a book he edited – he proved that the US Supreme Court – an obstacle to progress and sanity, then and now – had faithfully been interpreting the Constitution. The Confederate Constitution, not the US one. 🙂

        So would be interesting for a scholar of history, literature and comparative law to tell us just what laws and constitutions Baraitser & Dorrian and the British establishment are “interpreting” and enforcing. They sure don’t seem to be British or Scottish. Maybe Oceania’s or Bacteria’s?

        • Thom Williams

          Your digression was both amusing and informative….Thanks…perfect timing!
          Below is a C&P of a comment posted to a reprint of Craig’s article on the Consortiumnews site earlier.

          Larry McGovern
          June 28, 2021 at 10:14
          We should all now be deluging Attorney General Garland and the DOJ – EVERY DAY – with calls/emails to finally end this travesty. Abandon the extradition, dismiss the indictment, release JA from prison.
          DOJ Comment Line: 202-353-1555
          DOJ Switchboard: 202-514-2000
          If can’t get to AG’s office, does anyone know the name of a DOJ person involved with the extradition case?
          Write/call the White House, as well.

  • SA

    This and other recent trials discussed here qualify as ‘Political Show Trials”. The whole force of government combined with the judiciary and supposedly independent information media conspire to produce what is outwardly a fair trial but which is so rigged that it is clear to anyone with knowledge that this is the case. A defendant held in high security prison for expired charges and awaiting at leisure for his accusers to decide when to appeal without any time limitations and with the ability to concoct any new charges which can then be tried at the whim of a judge at short notice without giving time to the defendant to prepare their case. Imagine if this happened in Russia!

    • Margaret O'Brien

      Nobody taking a passing glance at this would think it a fair trial. One of the main problems I think is most of the public just don’t care and some just respond with “oh he’s a rapist who fled from Sweden to escape justice”.

      • Bramble

        And that is the other sinister aspect of the affair – the way that people who are inconvenient to the Establishment are cancelled out in public opinion by being smeared with false accusations. Assange was; Jeremy Corbyn was. Not only were the media complicit in this, but so were the public, lapping up all the sordid accusations and (at least pretending to: I think Red Wall voters pretended to believe Mr Corbyn was a racist because they knew he wasn’t, and that is why they hated him) believe them. Now Johnson pleads his popularity to get him off the hook of his constant deceit and bad faith. It seems politics has descended to TV reality show values, where only appearances, “charisma” and appeal matter. That’s what we call democracy today.

        • S

          Interesting point about Corbyn. But my theory is that some xenophobic people were happy to think that “Corbyn is what a racist looks like” because then they could deduce that they were not racists.

        • Peter M

          Frank Zappa: ‘Politics is the entertainment division of industry’. Nothing to do with democracy.

        • Allan Howard

          Bramble, I very much doubt that the ‘public’ were complicit, or ‘lapped up’ all the sordid accusations, or that they ‘hated’ Jeremy Corbyn, as if to say there were all these millions of people going about their daily business and seething with hate towards him. Of course they weren’t! I mean for starters more than ten million people voted Labour despite all the demonisation and character assassination (and not just of JC, but the left-wing membership also).

          BUT, I realised something just recently – ie that there are the people who believe the Big Lies, and then there are those who realise that the Big Lie (about whatever or whoever) IS a Big Lie and, as such, that fascist forces are churning them out. And No, I’m not referring to the left (who of course know that the MSM is in effect the Establishment’s propaganda machine), I’m referring to the right, who are endlessly amused by it all. And my realisation was that the fascist forces who control the MSM can – with their Big Lies – ‘germinate’ the fascist in people if the seed is there to be ‘germinated’.

          The vast majority of propaganda is concocted to target the emotions – ie to emotionalise people – because once in emotion mode, reason and critical thinking disappear out the window. But there is a whole section of society that are more-or-less devoid of emotions, and quite possibly amount to about 20% of the population (above a certain age).

          The Panorama program epitomised this targeting of the emotions, and did so from the very start (just as newspaper headlines are designed to do).

          • Giyane

            Allan Howard

            When you use the word Right wing, I think you mean those who have swallowed the lie that there is a finite supply of resources so that their personal prosperity necessitates the expectation management of the less well off than them.

            Theresa May epitomized the attitude with her just about managing slogan. Then comes Boris and his magic money tree and suddenly vast commercial structures mushroom over our soon to be de- regulated country, but the little person is still living under the expectation management of the old bitch who came before him.

            I am a survivor of Thatcherism so Tory desperate greed and desperate lying is now amusing to me. Her evil legacy continues to find ever more devious re-incarnations, the latest one being Keir Starmer.

            Apologies to anyone whose mental health is struggling with the sheer inventiveness of capitalist lies.
            There is life after expectation management. It’s called humour.
            The last laugh will be on them, stacked up hundreds of metres high in the fire of Hell where they belong.

          • MI0

            Yes. I don’t know if it’s 20% but I have come to believe the worst issues in our society and our lives are caused by a powerful minority of sociopaths/ psychopaths.

            They don’t do empathy but they do do deception ( and violence). And they know what triggers most ordinary folk who aren’t wired the way they are. They use this as a tool for social advancement.

            “Controlling the narrative” handles most situations for them but occasionally they require a few thugs (who may also be sociopaths) to get physical, and enforce their power and privilege.

            Our challenge is to somehow subvert and disrupt their narrative so that enough of us, the many, can use our numbers against them.

            A big ask when they are so much better at these power games than we are.

            My biggest disappointment since Corbyn was defeated is to realise just how many middle class narrative controllers there are on the side of these psychos.

            You’d think they’d know better, but seemingly not.

          • Squeeth

            Bramble was smearing the working class in the north of England. They abandoned Liarbour because Liarbour abandoned them (in the early 70s) and they abandoned Corbyn because of his craven poltroonery.

          • Allan Howard

            Thankyou for such an intelligent and thoughtful contribution Squeeth.

            PS Nothing to do with all the incessant lies and smears then!

          • Allan Howard

            Here’s a link to the latest edition of Renegade Inc (on RT) which is well worth checking out:

            The rise of hyper-individualism and an I, Me, Mine culture has encouraged two personality types to dominate business and politics. Where money, power, and status lie, the corporate psychopath and the narcissist can reliably be found relentlessly chasing so-called success at the expense of everyone else.

            Ross Ashcroft is joined by journalist & social philosopher Anne Manne, and professor of management and author Clive Boddy, to discuss corporate psychopaths and the rise of narcissism in society.


            PS My own conclusion is that we have always lived in a Psychopathocracy since pretty much the beginning of civilisation.

          • Giyane

            Allan Howard

            Psychopathocracy meaning Tory, with occasional colour theme changes to confuse us after they have escaped from their cells, like Thatcher, and are living in the belfry of Victoria Tower.

            The present incumbent , BoJo, calculates that keeping a socialist lookalike with oodles of free cash to give to their followers will keep that moment they have to change colour from Blue to Red away indefinitely.

            But there are other types of psychopaths who are waiting for a chance to run the show. As with the Celts and Saxons when the Normans took over 955 years ago.

            It would be very foolish to think that there are no other types of sociopaths around if the traditional Parties lost their guard.

          • Allan Howard

            Giyane: When I referred to the right-wing, I was referring to those who subvert democracy with their lies and smears and character assassination of anyone who poses a threat to the status quo, as in the case of Jeremy Corbyn, for example. AND the many on the right who are well aware of the fact, and are endlessly amused by it all. As for ‘resources’, they ARE finite to a large degree, so I’m not sure why you refer to it as a lie. Could you elaborate?

            But talking of ‘resources’, they are of course the reason for practically every war throughout history, because resources (the accumulation of) equals wealth, and wealth equals power, and power equals the accumulation of resources (to maintain and/or increase that wealth), and so on. In a recent program Brian Cox said as much when he said that if there WAS an infinite supply of resources – from meteorites and other planets – there would be no need for wars, or something to that effect.

            As for ‘other types’ of psychopaths/sociopaths, what do you mean by ‘other types’? They are all the same, but assuming that all you really meant was that there are ‘other’ psychopaths waiting for a chance to run the show, as you put it, then you do in fact indirectly make a very pertinent point – ie that what the ruling elite of any country fear most is the ruling elites of other countries, but much less so if they align themselves with the most powerful and play ball, which at present is the US of course.

            But the irony is that the ruling elites – and especially the wealthiest – pose the biggest threat to themselves AND the existence of life on the planet that sustains us, as their wealth, and the power it begets, necessitates the ongoing plunder and poisoning of the Earth, and they can’t stop with their destruction even if they wanted to, but they DON’T, because they CAN’T.

          • Giyane

            Allan Howard

            I agree with all of that. As to the finiteness of resources, I was referring to the extraordinary wealth of spiritual resources that allows small Somali boys in African deserts become learned scholars, families in Syria and Iraq continue to function peacefully in spite of the violence wrought on their country, or the capacity of Muslim communities under Communist regimes to continue their beliefs in extraordinarily hostile circumstances.

            Worldy time is finite, while spiritual time is infinite. What’s the big rush to acquire that which will last no longer than death? The biggest con EVER, that we must exhaust ourselves endlessly worrying about private property and individual power!

          • Pooh

            Allan Howard July 1, 2021 at 01:25: “My own conclusion is that we have always lived in a Psychopathocracy since pretty much the beginning of civilisation.”

            Allan Howard July 1, 2021 at 17:05: “When I referred to the right-wing, I was referring to those who subvert democracy with their lies and smears and character assassination of anyone who poses a threat to the status quo, as in the case of Jeremy Corbyn, for example.”

            I am having difficulties with reconciling your two above statements. Would you be so kind as to clarify what you believe. From what you said, it might appear that there’s no Democracy to subvert, for it’s your “own conclusion that we have always lived in a Psychopathocracy since pretty much the beginning of civilisation.”

            Thank you kindly, Alan.

            Good wishes.

            Edward Bear

          • Pooh

            Giyane July 2, 2021 at 00:56

            Thank you, Giyane

            There must be truth in what you say: Christopher Robin often says that in the life of the Spirit one is always in the beginning. That notion is too large for this bear’s little brain, but you should be able to comprehend it in its fullness. Btw, I am very appreciative of your sense of humour and seemingly inexhaustible capacity for using interesting figures of speech.

            Good wishes. May peace be upon you.

            Edward Bear

          • Allan Howard

            Edward: What I’m saying is that psychopaths run and control the show, and always have, and they’re not gonna let the likes of Jeremy Corbyn (and the left) ever take it away from them. In other words, democracy is just an illusion.

            Yes, it sounds like the two points I made are contradictory, but given that the Deep State wants the general public to believe that they live in a democracy – although on occasion it does slip out of their control, but only temporarily* – they are in effect continually and constantly subverting democracy whenever there’s a threat to their power and control – ie to the status quo. So no, there isn’t REALLY any democracy in the final analysis, because the psychopaths own and/or control the mass media and, as such, can smear and demonise anyone or anything that could use that illusion of democracy to threaten their power.

            * Thatcher and Co abolished the GLC and the six Metropolitan County Councils because they all had left wing administrations, and needless to say they WOULDN’T have done so if they had been Labour right or Tory administrations, but obviously didn’t publicly say that that is why they were being abolished, .and proclaimed it was being done to save money on the one hand, and give the GLCs powers to the London Borough Councils. It temporarily got away from them, but they soon fixed it. And they have of course been rolling back the welfare state and slowly privatising the NHS that the post-war Labour Government gave us for the past forty years. And I believe that about 40% of former council housing is now in the private rented sector, and growing by around 10% a decade.

        • Carolyn Zaremba

          Alex Salmond was, too, don’t forget. The sexual smear has a long and infamous history.

      • Nally Anders

        Agree Margaret.
        We’re still seeing comments from various ill-informed members of the public referring to Alex Salmond as a ‘sex pest’, who got off with it. Ms Sturgeon herself chief amongst the mudslingers.

        • Tatyana

          I apologize to anyone who may feel offended, beforehand.
          Looking at Mr. Salmond it’s errr… Incredibly hard to believe he might ever be called a ‘sex pest’. But looking at Ms.Sturgeon, I understand why she may see Mr.Salmond err.. in that way.

  • John Edwards

    Baraitser and the prosecution team should be disbarred, if not charged, after this appalling miscarriage of justice. Their continued abuse of process to persecute Assange has brought the entire British judicial system into disrepute. Just disgusting.

      • Tom Welsh

        I am not a lawyer, Tony, but I believe that Habeas Corpus applies only when a person is being detained arbitrarily before legal proceedings are begun. In the case of Mr Assange, he has been in the grip of the legal machine for many years. I don’t think Habeas Corpus can be used to free someone who is charged with a crime or pending extradition.

        That said, morally the case if utterly disgusting and has brought the British “justice system” into serious disrepute. It has been made crystal clear that if the government has it in for you, it can always find ways to punish you – law or no law, crime or no crime.

        Whereas if you happen to have shot a perfectly innocent man in the head a dozen times at point-blank range, simply because you were ordered to, you face no charges at all.

    • Carolyn Zaremba

      But . . . but . . . they were just following orders from their Ubermeisters across the pond!

    • Jimmeh

      “Baraitser and the prosecution team should be disbarred”

      It’s a problem; nobody should be able to remove a judge just because they’ve made a (subjectively) dubious judgement. That’s why we have appeals (although in Assange’s case, the first appeal has been delayed interminably, and I have no idea why).

      If judges can be second-guessed by authorities that are not courts, then the independence of the judiciary has gone. That is not a desirable outcome. The correct conclusion is that we should not appoint judges with biases and prejudices.

      The prosecution team are there to prosecute. That’s what they did. They have a few obligations to the defendant (e.g. disclosure), but being even-handed isn’t one of them. It’s the judge that’s supposed to be even-handed.

      I don’t see any solution to these problems, other than appeals to higher courts. Sacking judges won’t help (and anyway, that’s the way they carry on in Belarus).

      • pretzelattack

        i don’t think this is a subjectively dubious judgement. sacking corrupt and incompetent judges should be possible in any legal system.

  • Sam Ursu

    I truly don’t know how many times I’ve got to say it until it sinks in – Belarus is a far more democratic and law-abiding country than is Britain.

    Yeah, I know you desperately do not want to believe it is true. Nonetheless, in Belarus, they put troublesome journalists on house arrest, not inside maximum security prisons.

    • nevermind

      If they are journalists they might. Protafascist is no journalist, sadly he whipped up a lot of grief and I think he got house attest because he is a supporter of the Asov brigade
      Belarus does not want to fight fascists, or do they?

      To mention Protasevich and with the same breath compare him to Julian Assange is comparing horses with doormats.
      Poor post Samuel.

    • M.J.

      Belarus is a Soviet-style dictatorship complete with KGB. They actually still call it that! That is why this is rubbish. Assange is in the slammer because he tried to flee British justice to Ecuador, and failed. Now they’ll never let him out unless all charges are dropped.

      • Paul Mc

        MJ thinks Assange got LWOP for bail jumping. I don’t even think Belarus has such a punishment.

      • Carolyn Zaremba

        You are singularly misinformed. “British justice”? Who are you trying to kid? Julian Assange sought asylum because he knew he was being framed up, and he had every right to do so. The frameup has continued for 11 years, as one sordid accusation after another has been promoted by the mainstream media at the behest of the United States government. The British lackeys have hastened to obey orders, meanwhile committing judicial crimes against Assange, crimes that should have had the case thrown out of court years ago.

        The case against one Daniel Ellsberg (you may have heard of him) for releasing the Pentagon Papers was thrown out due to the fact that the Nixon administration broke into his psychiatrist’s office in an attempt to get something on him. In Julian’s case, the CIA hired a “security” firm to spy on Julian, including on confidential meetings with his attorneys, which should have resulted in his case likewise being thrown out. And don’t even get me started on the violations of judicial procedure that have occurred throughout by both prosecutors and bought and paid for judges!

        • M.J.

          Assange was facing charges in Sweden and would have had a fair trial there. He jumped bail and Brtish justice caught up with him. British judges, unlike those in other countries, cannot be bought. Personally I think that if American prosecutors know that their case couldn’t stand in a fair trial in America, it would save all concerned much time and money simply to drop the charges. Who knows, perhaps they will in the end.

          • Annie McStravick

            M.J.: Assange was not “facing charges” in Sweden, he was never charged with anything at all in that country.

          • Bayard

            Thank you for stating the story we are all supposed to believe. It’s good to see that at least one person believes it; it would be a shame if all that effort went completely to waste.

      • Piotr+Berman

        I am truly confused by your string of statements. Belarus may be a dictatorship with some style or another, but the fact remains that the legal authorities there are not afraid of exhibiting a humane approach, while Anglo-American justice system can commit legal orgies.

        The unappealing conclusion is that UK is inferior to a “Soviet-style dictatorship”.

        • M.J.

          Humaneness is characteristic of this country, not Belarus. Belarusian authorities have an excellent incentive to not be humane: Lukashenko could have them given the works unless they do exactly as he wishes. That is what dictatorship means. That is why the conclusion is false. The UK is the sort of country to which people would wish to escape from countries like Belarus, not the other way round.

          • slammo

            This post is laughable – you may like to think that the uk is the sort of country that people want to escape to but the uk is not the sort of country that is interested in those people coming here.

  • Ex Pat


    “This is huge: The key witness in the US government’s case against Julian Assange admitted to fabricating key accusations in the indictment against the Wikileaks founder. He was recruited by US authorities to build a case against Assange, but lied.”
    -– Ben Norton – Twitter –

    Direct – Story by Bjartmar Oddur Þeyr Alexandersson and Gunnar Hrafn Jónsson, 26 th June 2021 – Stundin.is –

    Found via Mark Sleboda who is a regular on RT’s main show CrossTalk. He has a twitter account of relentlessly anti-USUK stories. Catnip for anti-fascists.

    Dmitry Babich is another regular on Crosstalk – very likeable and good but sadly he doesn’t seem to have an active social media presence. If he did it would be essential reading.

    Just say “Up yours” to USUK Neo-Con Nazi Empire fascism!

    • Ex Pat


      The brazen illegality of the US and UK continues unabated but it is no longer unrecognised and unopposed. Mostly utterly invisible in the US and UK media, truth is mostly found in ‘a curious Samizdat’ (Noam Chomsky).

      Individuals telling the truth are key. People and sites like British journalist Jonathan Cook in Gaza, Mark Curtis, Media Lens, Consortium News, Isabel Hilton wife of Neal Ascherson, retired Indian ambassador MK Bhradrakumar, the redoubtable if infrequent John Pilger and Anthony Barnett of openDemocracy.

      But critical comments to openDemocracy have been deleted instantly, so their comment system is under the control of some UK anti-truth (Lack of) Integrity Intitiative, if not the entire web site. (Ditto Bella Caledonia).

      Jonathan Cook (@Jonathan_K_Cook) | Twitter – https://twitter.com/Jonathan_K_Cook

      Mark Curtis (@markcurtis30) | Twitter – https://twitter.com/markcurtis30

      Media Lens (@medialens) | Twitter – https://twitter.com/medialens

      Consortium News (@Consortiumnews) / Twitter – https://twitter.com/Consortiumnews

      Isabel Hilton (@isabelhilton) wife of Neal Ascherson – Twitter – https://twitter.com/isabelhilton

      M. K. Bhadrakumar (@BhadraPunchline) Twitter – https://twitter.com/BhadraPunchline

      John Pilger (@johnpilger) | Twitter – https://twitter.com/johnpilger

      Anthony Barnett @AnthonyBarnett Twitter – https://twitter.com/anthonybarnett

      Admittedly Noam Chomsky did say “Even if I could tell you who to listen to you shouldn’t take my word for it. You have to discover your own sources.” Paraphrased. But still, they’re a starting point as there’s so much dross and the above are the gold from decades of panning for truth in the sands of USUK lies. ; )

      Just say “Up yours” to USUK Neo-Con Nazi Empire fascism!

      Just say “Up yours” to USUK Neo-Con Nazi Empire fascism! Sadly, Biggus Dickus and his stolen heart are still ticking in Wome on the Potomac – Biggus Dickus – Monty Python –


      • Wikikettle

        Julian’s father, a soft spoken man, on touring the US must be heartened like us all.

        • Carolyn Zaremba

          Yes. I met him on Saturday in Oakland, California and chatted briefly. He gave me a hug. Such a gentle yet determined man, working hard in support of his son. I admire him greatly. The news about the Stundin article was like a bomb at that meeting, I can tell you!

      • Chris

        Thanks for the list, Ex Pat, but please be sure to log these sources’ websites as well. Twitter can be quick to censor if there’s news they disapprove of.

    • DunGroanin

      MoonOfAlabama, a one man super analyst, Bernhard, on a range of developing ‘news’.

      ElijahJMagnier great on ME.

      There are some twitter accounts which get frontline reports from the various undeclared war zones WE are daily killing civilians in. But they get smacked down regularly. Geroman is good on Syria.

      We may yet get to a real indy conglomerated news, that rivals the ersatz one that the Groaniad and the msm, with its 5+1 eyed gollumn, rolling 24 hour neoliberal agenda propagandising ‘presence’ seems to have been rolling out across the planet, like some demented Vogon, ‘resistance is futile’ spouting, initiative, without a shred of integrity let alone facts and free comment. A DS has man munching shill.

      Add a real satirical cartoonist – come on Steve Bell, stop mopping and heading off to retirement pastures and posterity with a sullen whimper – blast out a few NEW truths on your own belltoons site.

      Remember the msm are the Goliath now.

      As for wikieaks – lets be having the full facts on the dodgy ‘Judge Jeffries’ of our day. I still do not know a single thing about Baraitser and her qualifications on being in charge of such a case. Or indeed how the self-proclaimed greatest judiciary in the world, actually fails to deal with such illegal and egregious actions by proven unsuitable judges and prosecutors and what punishments are available to stop them in their tracks.

    • Wikikettle

      But you’ve got the whole MSM in US, UK, EU and Navalny reporting on Russia.

      • Wikikettle

        An Armada of thirty western countries in Black Sea taking in the ‘Sea Breeze’, what could possibly go wrong ?

    • vin_ot

      Why should it anger you that elites have their crimes, corruption and two-facedness exposed? You would be banged up for a fraction of what they’re guilty of and they would say quite right.

    • Carolyn Zaremba

      You are just parrotting the lies promoted by the mainstream media on the orders of the U.S. government. You should really be ashamed of yourself. One of the reasons that Wikileaks reported so much on the U.S. is because all of the crimes of imperialism are committed by the United States.

  • Jamie

    Thank you Craig for you courage, reporting and activism for human rights and justice. Thanks to you we have been able to see the disgraceful abuses and lies by the US/UK in their pursuit of Julian Assange. It is utterly repulsive the cruelty they inflict on an individual who has embarrassed them by telling the truth of their crimes. Everyone should be doing something (anything) to support Julian’s case and those of other imprisoned whistle-blowers and journalists. Without Julian we have no freedom.

    • Wikikettle

      I hope the young Captains of the Western Naval Armada in the Black Sea are proficient in traditional Chartwork and Navigation and not spoilt lazy on reliance on GPS.

      • Wikikettle

        I love Lavrov’s coinage of the term ” The Collective West ” the new USSR

  • ronan1882

    Lead witness in US case against Julian Assange admits to fabricating evidence at the behest of the FBI .. and it is still to be reported by one US or UK newspaper. This must be “the world’s freest press” we keep getting told about.

    • arby

      “This must be “the world’s freest press” we keep getting told about.”

      Indeed, its own publicity seems to filter through without difficulty.

      Meanwhile JA is planning to marry his partner, in Belmarsh.
      It remains to be seen whether the oxygen of publicity will be afforded to their declaration by said bunch of organs.

  • Robyn

    So many discussions of Julian’s plight fail to mention the disgraceful conduct of the Australian Government. They have done SFA for him and, in my (admittedly limited) experience, the PM, Foreign Minister, Shadows and MPs don’t even bother to answer emails about him. I have heard various commenters on geopolitics say that one phone call from the Australian PM to the US President would see Julian free. This is just another instance of Australia being nothing but a US outpost whose foreign policy is written in Washington.

  • Carolyn Zaremba

    The fact that the western “mainstream” media has been totally silent since the Stundin revelations speaks volumes on the subject of judicial malpractice and malfeasance in the Julian Assange case. Judge Vanessa Baraitser is a complete tool, receiving her instructions from the CIA. The violations of due process in Julian’s case is monumental. I am wondering what the U.S. response is going to be as this story spreads, despite the blackout in the “mainstream”. The story is being spread by every alternative news site and by individuals all around the world. A decision is going to have to be made.

  • pnyx

    Is there actually no way, national or international, to hold British judges accountable for deliberate misperformance of their function? I think there is enough evidence in the Baraitser case.

    • Jimmeh

      Yes, there is: appeals. Unfortunately, they’re expensive and time-consuming.

      I would be deeply suspicious of any system for holding judges to account that didn’t involve more judges. I mean, who? Politicians? But if even appeals doesn’t work, and you have a judiciary that’s crooked all through, then the only proper solution is revolution. If the judiciary is crooked, then there’s no law, and everything has to be replaced – judiciary, legislature, the lot.

      For most of my life I’ve been deeply suspicious of revolutions. But I’m more and more inclined to the view that the system we have in GB is not capable of being reformed, and will have to be torn down.

  • Joseph Mellon

    Is the UK a state in which the rule of law applies?
    I think both Julian Assange and Craig would say ‘No!’

  • Joseph Mellon

    One wonders at what point the US and UK public rewalize that their country is the ‘bad guy.
    Much is made of the culpability of the German populace in allowing the Nazis to come to unlimited power while it still had agency.
    I think the point at which the UK populace will no longer have agency is close: the courts are corrupt, the ‘intelligence services’ murder at will, and the government in the ‘proroging’ scandal showed that it knows no limits.

    • Squeeth

      The German people didn’t allow the Nazis into power, they voted against the Nazi Partei at every free and half-free election the Nazis stood in. It was the cabal around Hindenburg who put the Nazis into the Reich government.

  • Courtenay Barnett

    Judicial compromise and being a suppliant to the interest of the state is not a new phenomenon..

    Professor J.A.G. Griffith of the LSE in or about the 1970s published his best selling book, entitled ‘The politics of the judiciary’.

    His analysis is as pertinent to Assange’s (mis) treatment from the Bench today as it was when he exposed Lord Denning ( amongst others) – for being no more or less than – what I term ‘System Judges’.

    • Joseph Mellon

      Denning – already somewhat in his dotage – actually told the truth in a formal, written judgement in the case of inoccent Irish people who had been ‘fitted up’ for a bombing because the police were under pressure to find some – any – ‘cuplrit’.
      He actually said that while recognizing the prosecution was flawed and they were almost certainly inoccent, this meant the police and the prosecution were incompetent and corrupt. As admitting this was not in the public interest the appeal was not allowed.
      Hiho: the jurisprudence of a dictatorship: Kafka understtod.

      • Joseph Mellon

        …or in Craig’s case:
        The parts of the Scottish justice system close to the Scottish government are in disrepute. The Lord Advocate had admitted to ‘malicious prosecution’ and had not resigned. It looks like the COPFS had organized a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice in close co-operation with ministers, the SNP leadership and the highest ranks of the civil service. If admitted those responsible would have to go to jail. But that would lead to mistrust of the political and justice system.
        The government’s interest is very close to the judiciary’s interest (they appoint us!). Clearly the government’s and judiciary’s interest is identical with the public interest. So any one pointing out this scandalous situation is underming the public interest and must be silenced. “‘Off with his head!’ said the red queen.”
        But we note that – unlike the BBC, the Scotsman, Herald et al – Craig is *not* silent, and members of the judiciary have set themselves up for what will be a very enjoyable and career ending judicial kicking.

        • John O'Dowd

          Wishful thinking Joseph Mellon, I fear.

          I do not share your faith in the Supreme Court. The entire legal-judicial racket that we have here in Scotland is designed to subdue the natives on behalf of the colonial power.

          I fear that in doing Ukania’s bidding, the will receive no sanctions from that quarter. Europe may be a different matter, but will take some time.

          The Brits will do whatever it takes to subdue “dissent”.

          We urgently need national liberation.

          • bevin

            You are not dealing with the ‘colonial power’ but with a ruling class. If the current judicial situation in Scotland reveals nothing more it surely shows that the elites organised around the SNP need no prompting from London to crack down on dissent.
            ‘National liberation’ without social revolution will only serve to consolidate the current agents of imperialism in power.

          • John O'Dowd

            I’m not going to disagree with one word of that, Bevin. But in Scotland the ruling class operates through the Colonial administration now being operated by a captured SNP.

            We in Scotland must first extricate ourselves from Ukania before we will have the slightest chance of tackling the Ruling Class. No signs whatsoever of any revolutionary ferment in Feudal Engerland, where the natives delight in being ruled by the Hanovarian dregs, that they sing about it at football matches:
            “Long to reign over us”.

            A perfect example of colonisation of the mind. Nothing will change them!

      • Tom Welsh

        Lord Denning was fundamentally wrong about that. It is always in the public interest for corruption to be revealed and severely punished.

        • DunGroanin


          What even the Royal household ?

          Pull the other one, it’s got bells on it.

    • Wikikettle

      Courtenay Barnett. Promotion is dependant on being a safe pair of hands to conduct Inquests and Judge. Any skeletons and dirt prior or after being accepted into the club will be ignored. Jury’s are the only problem. They are working on that…

      • Courtenay Barnett


        So true.

        And unless the people stand up and demand better – they shall lose the jury system and then be delivered what the system thinks is a safe way to obtain any desired pre-determined verdict.

        • Wikikettle

          As DunGroanin said, it would be good to see Steve Bell do a portrait of Lady Justice … her blindfold removed, with a pop out manic eyeball of Blair, her sward broken and her scales lobsided heavy with cocaine.

  • Ian Kiddle

    It is becoming increasingly clear that it is Britain that is the driver of the illegal detention of Assange. Other illegalities such as the warship transgressing Russian territorial waters are another example of Britain driving International discord. Britain likes to hide as though it is just an ally of the all powerful USA. but the real power is in the Financial/Military/Intelligence complex that bridges both countries and is desperately trying to hold onto its power in the face of a resurgent China and Russia.
    More power to the multipolar world.

    • Courtenay Barnett

      Ian Kiddle,

      Simply call it ‘systemic imperialism’.

      End of story!

      • BrianFujisan

        Nice Haiku Courtenay…

        One of mine from last week –

        Vile Venomous Things
        Fake Judges Warped Scowling
        At tellers of Truth

  • Johny Conspiranoid

    Its a deliberately blatant fit up so as to warn others not to expose USUK war crimes.

  • Anthony

    The most sinister thing is the complete mass media blackout on this sensational revelation. As Caitlin Johnstone points out, only last weekend the Mail and London Evening Standard were carrying stories about Julian marrying Stella Morris. Suddenly it breaks that the FBI coached the lead prosecution witness to lie and for days and days there has been TOTAL MSM silence. Virtually the entire population of the UK and USA will never know of this development and if they ever think of julian at all think primarily of a fugitive rapist. One more example of the control of information by billionaires and the imperialist state.

  • Martinned

    It is now five months since extradition was refused, no US government appeal against that decision has yet been accepted by the High Court, and yet Julian remains confined to the UK’s highest security prison.

    That is definitely odd. Under s. 105(5) Extradition Act 2002, notice of application for leave to appeal against a discharge order must be given within 14 days. So what gives? Has the discharge order not formally been given, or has the appeal period been extended somehow?

    For the record, the Great Writ of Habeas Corpus is still available to all those present within the Kingdom. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Cha2/31/2

    • Bayard

      “For the record, the Great Writ of Habeas Corpus is still available to all those present within the Kingdom. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Cha2/31/2

      Looks like it no longer applies to Julian Assange, to wit:

      III Habeas Corpus not granted in Vacation to Prisoners who have neglected to pray the same.
      [X12 Provided alwayes if any person shall have wilfully neglected by the space of two whole Termes after his Imprisonment to pray a Habeas Corpus for his Enlargement such person soe wilfully neglecting shall not have any Habeas Corpus to be granted in Vacation time in pursuance of this Act.]

      • Jimmeh

        Nearly all of Habeas Corpus is now superseded by judge-made law. Much of it doesn’t even make sense nowadays. We Brits like to appeal to Habeas Corpus as if a law made for the protection of Barons from the King were some kind of protection for “the common people”. It isn’t.

        We could do with a new law, to protect the common people from abuse by the government. Unfortunately (but not unexpectedly), no government is keen to pass such legislation.

        • Bayard

          “We Brits like to appeal to Habeas Corpus as if a law made for the protection of Barons from the King were some kind of protection for “the common people”. It isn’t.”

          I think you are confusing Habeas Corpus with Magna Carta.

  • Dr. William Fusfield

    And so this horror story of the completely prejudiced and profoundly malevolent attempt of the politically suborned and increasingly tyrannical UK system of justice to finish off Julian Assange continues apace. My own feeling is that someone who knows the details of the case better than I do myself should write up AN ENUMERATED SUMMARY of all the gross INDISCRETIONS, even quite criminal actions, of both the Crown and the prosecution, each one of which constitutes grounds that have generally been considered by the UK system of justice sufficient for the declaration of a “MISTRIAL.”

    Wide dissemination of such a list would, I believe, make it glaringly obvious to most who read it that we are indeed dealing in the Assange case with a thoroughly and recklessly unjust attempt of the government to utilize Orwellian pseudo-legal court procedures to “Get Assange no matter what we need to do.” [One could, of course, say the same thing about the political machinations of the Crown to prosecute and convict you, Craig, on the imaginary, nowhere codified into law, “jigsaw identification” charges.]

    I can myself think of at least eight procedures inflicted upon Julian’s hearings that, at least in the US, would each be considered legitimate grounds for declaring a mistrial. Things may be more difficult in the UK, especially considering who the currently residing judge in the case is. Thus it might need to be appealed to a higher court, which, if it is to avoid looking as ridiculous as the lower court, will be under pressure to dismiss such a criminally bungled verdict as a mistrial tout court.

    Anyway, these are just some quick thoughts on this urgent and crucial matter. I send them only to stimulate thought on how we might precipitate a mistrial in Julian’s sorry case. Best regards to all from Pittsburgh!

    • Stevie Boy

      I think the whole point is that if there was any justice left in the UK then Julian would already be free, he’s not. Therefore, the only logical conclusion is that the UK justice system is corrupt. So IMO, putting faith in a mistrial is doomed to failure. Although we must continue to fight and support Julian (and Craig and others) all we can hope for is a change of direction in the political establishment – which is also corrupt !
      This brave new world we now inhabit uses hostage taking and sanctions to quash dissent all aided by a totally corrupt MSM. And the electorate think that’s just fine …

    • michael norton

      I don’t think there can be mistrial as he has not been convicted of any offence other than bail-jumping for not committing an offence.

      • Jimmeh

        I’m not convinced that applying for political asylum (and getting it) counts as bail-jumping. But of course, the state from which you are seeking protection is unlikely to agree with me on that.

    • mark golding

      We must turn thoughts into action, Bill, to accelerate a mistrial. Will you research a comprehensive list of procedures inflicted upon Julian’s hearings and publish here and I will print and arrange delivery in UK counties south of the Thames river through to Hampshire.

      • nevermind

        Good plan, Mark, if we all deliver such a list, written in simple, easy to understand, terms, to other sites we frequent, something I did with all of Craig’s court reporting, then that will at least inform some readers of this arrogance at the heart of western Alliances, the crumbling judiciary and Julian’s case for freedom.

        Every newspaper and radio station should get a copy and we should make ourselves available to comment whence they ‘want to know more’.

        • Anthony

          If only they knew of all the injustices in this case they would surely report them. These are good people.

          • On the train

            But why don’t they know? They are professionals paid to find such information out. If we all know about what is going on why don’t they? I want to think they are good people too….but this feels like wilful ignorance.

          • Anthony

            Ah, I was joking. Suppressing or ignoring inconvenient stories and omitting key facts is central to mass media journalism, a cynical propaganda regime undeserving of trust.

      • Bill Fusfield

        I would indeed be willing to do more research, but I am hardly the proper person to do so since what can trigger a mistrial in the UK is quite different from what can do so in the US. And I know very little about the latter and almost nothing at all about the former. Thus it makes more sense for some one who has some real familiarity with the British justice system to come with the enumeration of serious violations in the Assange case since they would also be able to compare his case with important legal precedents in the UK showing just how skewed the current case with respect to standard practice.

    • DunGroanin

      Well it would help a lot if self-proclaimed progressives who believe the only evil Americans ever did was named Trump –
      And their saints Clinton’s, Obama, Biden, state Department and NATIONAL INTERESTS as defined by the same old robber barons and hell yes their GOP grandees – were and are the ones actually driven this, are just as EVIL.

      Truth to Power speaking requires that Democrats have their feet held to that fire first before the bent British judiciary.

      A FBI and others that conspired against a president elect ain’t about to let you do that easily.

  • Jan Holbrook

    Investigative historian Gareth Porter was clear about the significance of the developments saying on Twitter “It’s now clearer than ever before that the U.S. indictment of #Assange is based on fraud. A key accuser admits he lied to help set up Assange. How much evidence does the Justice Department need to stop this criminal abuse of power?
    However, there has been no sign of any change of heart by the US government, nor of any UK government intent to release him – and the UK media appears to be abetting in that intransigence by simply refusing to acknowledge the development. Searches for the news reveals only mentions by foreign outlets – and silence from the BBC and others

  • Jm

    Thank God for Craig Murray and New Media.

    Yet another example of the dinosaur MSM not even near a vital story.

    Lady Dorrian’s distinction between old and new media looks even more arcane and completely out of touch with the times.

    • michael norton

      I just watched Prime Minister’s Questions, on IPlayer, not one of the craven asked about Julian Assange?

  • Douglas Scorgie

    June 29, 2021 at 15:13

    “Assange is in the slammer because he tried to flee British justice to Ecuador, and failed.”

    You have that wrong:
    Assange is in the slammer because he tried to flee British (and US) INJUSTICE. He failed because of a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice at the highest levels of the UK; Sweden and Ecuador led by the USA.

  • Douglas Scorgie

    June 29, 2021 at 22:20

    “Assange was facing charges in Sweden and would have had a fair trial there. He jumped bail and British justice caught up with him.”

    That M.J. Is a complete lie. Who pays you to come to this blog?

    • BrianFujisan

      M.J. Knows it’s a lie Dougie
      He / She is just Heartless.. on the wind-up as usual. Sad.

      • nevermind

        thanks for explaining Brian, good to hear from you. MJ needs some help it seems, pandemically challenged like so many.
        Your Haikus still hit the spot.

    • Courtenay Barnett

      So why did the Swedish prosecutor drop the charges?

      The Swedish establishment was working for a ‘fit up’ extradition with the US. The woman was a fan and chasing Assange and he did a thing with her. All consensual in my book – if I can recall for a moment how human beings operate when they desire a bit of sex.

      Anyway – some people get paid to be propagandists; such is life.

      • DunGroanin

        CB, They were concocted allegations. There were no charges. You know that, right?

  • writeon

    “… no US government appeal has been accepted by the High Court…”

    What does that mean exactly, please? Does that mean they haven’t officially, legally, made an appeal against losing their case to have Assange extradited, or what? Isn’t there supposed to be a time-limit on that kind of stuff? Surely five months exceeds this? Thanks. Michael

    • Bayard

      “Isn’t there supposed to be a time-limit on that kind of stuff? Surely five months exceeds this? “

      Not for the US. For them we always make an exception.

    • Peter Mo

      There are a lot of questions being asked so where are Assange’s lawyers. Quite frankly because JA still sits in prison his lawyers have done an abysmal job. They should be engaging with public’s concerns and putting forward reasonings for discussion. How anyone can be in prison for two years and 8 years of forced exile without any credible charges can only be associated with the worsts of fascist dictatorial states.
      So where legally do things stand now? Do we wait 10 years to find out if US appeals? Please…. Mr Assange lawyers start engaging.

1 2 3

Comments are closed.