The extradition trial of WikiLeaks’ founder, Julian Assange, continues via video-link (due to the coronavirus pandemic) in London with little press coverage in the U.S., ostensibly because there is a plethora of more important gaslighting for the American press to entertain.
One can, however, get regular and detailed reports from Consortium News, as well as blog updates via RSS from Craig Murray, a former diplomat turned political activist, and whistleblower, beginning with Day One of the resumed trial on September 7th, here. Australian media obviously documents their citizen’s plight. Al Jazeera and RT News are covering the story, as well, often with syndicated opinion pieces penned by U.K.-based Australian journalist and documentary filmmaker, John Pilger.
Assange’s extradition hearing was originally expected to continue for another three weeks, but it got off to such a slow start, that timetable seems doubtful. Furthermore, neither party is likely to accept this judge’s ruling — the case will surely be appealed. Too much is at stake.
One of the most interesting developments in the case is a statement, admitted into evidence, from Jennifer Robinson, Assange’s barrister, claiming then-congressman Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) and Trump associate Charles Johnson offered Assange a pardon from the new president if Assange would disclose the name(s) of who leaked Democratic Party emails to WikiLeaks. These leaks were damaging to political opponent Hillary Clinton, and Rohrabacher allegedly wanted to clarify once and for all that they did not come from Russia or Russian hackers to help Trump win the 2016 election.
The offer, Robinson said, was made at a meeting on August 15, 2017 at the Ecuadorean embassy in London where Assange had sought and received asylum. Unbeknownst to Assange, he was under investigation by a grand jury in the United States. Robinson said Rohrabacher claimed he was presenting Assange a “win-win situation.” Robinson added Assange did not name his source.
A White House spokesman responded to Robinson’s statement by denying the president even knew Rohrabacher beyond his name, and stating Trump had never spoken to him about the subject of WikiLeaks or Assange, adding it was probably just another “never-ending hoax and total lie from the D.N.C.” U.S. intelligence agencies have steadfastly adhered to the notion that Russians were behind the D.N.C. leak in a puzzling effort to foil Clinton’s ambitions for 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, though it never really made much sense to anyone who gave the idea even a modicum of thought.
Presumably, because of Assange’s unwillingness to participate in the “win-win situation,” the full force of the U.S. government was marshaled against the publisher of some of the world’s — and America’s — most embarrassing secrets. Assange now faces extradition to face an 18-count indictment across the hostile pond in a high-stakes federal district court trial.
For his part, Trump faced immediate and intense scrutiny for alleged “collusion” with Russia to win the presidency, though he, his campaign, and administration, along with Russia itself, denied any such relationship. Even after a lengthy investigation by special counsel Robert Mueller, such “collusion” was never found, and the whole notion has been debunked in all quarters, except for those Deep Staters pathologically and perpetually hostile to the president for whatever reason(s).
If this statement by Robinson was true, it would mean Trump had Rohrabacher approach Assange four months after Mueller’s appointment (and almost a year before the sealed indictment issued), unless, of course, the congressman was acting on his own initiative and without the president’s knowledge or consent.
As Robinson said, Rohrabacher and Johnson wanted them “to believe they were acting on behalf of the president,” and that they would have an audience with him upon their return to discuss the prevention of Assange’s indictment and extradition with him. Apparently the two men claimed the situation was souring Russo-American relations and it would be in the best interests of both states, as well as the president’s, if the matter could be clarified once and for all.
James Lewis Q.C. for the U.S. government neither confirmed nor denied such an approach was made. Rohrabacher, in a statement back in February, admitted to meeting Assange, but denied offering Assange anything or ever speaking to the president about it. He said he simply said he’d pass along any information to Trump that Assange was willing to provide and ask about a pardon at that point.
The extradition trial continues while Assange gambles on his fate in high-security Belmarsh prison in London and Trump holds the cards, awaiting election results in the high-luxe White House in Washington, D.C.
Just where freedom of the press and truthful reporting fits into the story is anyone’s guess.
sua sponte 