Showing posts with label Julian Assange. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Julian Assange. Show all posts

Wednesday, June 24, 2020

DOJ: WikiLeaks Founder Charged in Superseding Indictment


New Allegations Assert Assange Conspired With “Anonymous” Affiliated Hackers, Among Others

A federal grand jury returned a second superseding indictment today charging Julian P. Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, with offenses that relate to Assange’s alleged role in one of the largest compromises of classified information in the history of the United States.   
The new indictment does not add additional counts to the prior 18-count superseding indictment returned against Assange in May 2019.  It does, however, broaden the scope of the conspiracy surrounding alleged computer intrusions with which Assange was previously charged.  According to the charging document, Assange and others at WikiLeaks recruited and agreed with hackers to commit computer intrusions to benefit WikiLeaks.
Since the early days of WikiLeaks, Assange has spoken at hacking conferences to tout his own history as a “famous teenage hacker in Australia” and to encourage others to hack to obtain information for WikiLeaks.  In 2009, for instance, Assange told the Hacking At Random conference that WikiLeaks had obtained nonpublic documents from the Congressional Research Service by exploiting “a small vulnerability” inside the document distribution system of the United States Congress, and then asserted that “[t]his is what any one of you would find if you were actually looking.”
In 2010, Assange gained unauthorized access to a government computer system of a NATO country.  In 2012, Assange communicated directly with a leader of the hacking group LulzSec (who by then was cooperating with the FBI), and provided a list of targets for LulzSec to hack.  With respect to one target, Assange asked the LulzSec leader to look for (and provide to WikiLeaks) mail and documents, databases and pdfs.  In another communication, Assange told the LulzSec leader that the most impactful release of hacked materials would be from the CIA, NSA, or the New York Times.  WikiLeaks obtained and published emails from a data breach committed against an American intelligence consulting company by an “Anonymous” and LulzSec-affiliated hacker.  According to that hacker, Assange indirectly asked him to spam that victim company again.
In addition, the broadened hacking conspiracy continues to allege that Assange conspired with Army Intelligence Analyst Chelsea Manning to crack a password hash to a classified U.S. Department of Defense computer. 
An indictment contains allegations that a defendant has committed a crime.  Assange is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.  If convicted, he faces a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison on each count except for conspiracy to commit computer intrusion, for which he faces a maximum penalty of five years in prison. Actual sentences for federal crimes are typically less than the maximum penalties.  A federal district court judge will determine any sentence after taking into account the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and other statutory factors.
John C. Demers, Assistant Attorney General for National Security, G. Zachary Terwilliger, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, and James A. Dawson, Special Agent in Charge, Criminal Division, FBI Washington Field Office, made the announcement. First Assistant U.S. Attorney Tracy Doherty-McCormick, Assistant U.S. Attorneys Kellen S. Dwyer, Thomas W. Traxler, Alexander P. Berrang, and Gordon D. Kromberg, and Trial Attorneys Adam L. Small and Nicholas O. Hunter of the Justice Department’s National Security Division are prosecuting the case.
Assange is currently detained in the United Kingdom on an extradition request from the United States.  Assange’s extradition to the United States is being handled by the Department of Justice’s Office of International Affairs and UK authorities, including the Home Office and the Crown Prosecution Service for England and Wales.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Friday, November 15, 2019

Yamiche Alcindor Reports On Roger Stone Wikileaks Conviction For Bearing False Witness To Congress

Yamiche Alcindor breaks all the hottest, exclusive news.


Trump associate Roger Stone found guilty of lies that protected Trump

WASHINGTON, DC - NOVEMBER 15: Former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch acknowledges audience from members of the public in the audience as she concludes her testimony before the House Intelligence Committee in the Longworth House Office Building on Capitol Hill November 15, 2019 in Washington, DC. In the second impeachment hearing held by the committee, House Democrats continue to build a case against U.S. President Donald Trump's efforts to link U.S. military aid for Ukraine to the nation's investigation of his political rivals.  (Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)
Impeachment hearing ends with fireworks and applause

Trump doubles down on tweets attacking witness
Roger Stone, former adviser to President Donald Trump, holds a bible as he arrives at the E. Barrett Prettyman United States Courthouse, on November 15, 2019 in Washington, DC.
Trump associate Roger Stone found guilty on all counts

Former Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch testifies before the House Intelligence Committee on Capitol Hill in Washington, Friday, Nov. 15, 2019, during the second public impeachment hearing of President Donald Trump's efforts to tie U.S. aid for Ukraine to investigations of his political opponents. 

Yovanovitch: Trump's attacks are 'very intimidating'
(CNN)Longtime Trump political adviser Roger Stone was found guilty on Friday of lying to and obstructing Congress in a case that has shed new light on President Donald Trump's anticipation of the release of stolen Democratic emails in 2016 by WikiLeaks.

Stone, a political operative and Trump's friend, was found guilty of all seven counts brought by the Justice Department, a victory for special counsel Robert Mueller's Russia investigation. Stone was found guilty of five counts of lying to Congress, one of witness tampering and one of obstructing a congressional committee proceeding. Among other things, he misled Congress about his communications with Trump campaign officials in 2016, the jury unanimously decided.

What Roger Stone's trial revealed about Trump and Mueller
The verdict out of Washington marks a stunning conclusion to one of the highest-profile prosecutions to emerge from the Mueller investigation -- a case that began with one of Trump's most vocal supporters arrested during a predawn raid as the special counsel's investigation wound down and since then has gradually revealed new information about the Trump campaign's positive reception to foreign interference in the 2016 US election.

Stone had no audible reaction as the courtroom deputy read the jury's verdict, but he slouched, standing, with a frown. His movements were slow and deliberate as he took a sip of water while each juror stated their position, confirming their unanimous decision, then hung behind in the corner of the courtroom, rarely speaking to others as attorneys and onlookers filed out.

His wife, too, simply looked straight ahead, though a friend of Stone's, Michael Caputo, turned his back to the jurors when all in the courtroom stood to watch them leave. As those in the courtroom dispersed, Stone kissed his wife on the cheek.

Thirty minutes after the jury delivered its verdict, Trump tweeted about his displeasure with it.
"So they now convict Roger Stone of lying and want to jail him for many years to come. Well, what about Crooked Hillary, Comey, Strzok, Page, McCabe, Brennan, Clapper, Shifty Schiff, Ohr & Nellie, Steele & all of the others, including even Mueller himself? Didn't they lie?" the President wrote on Twitter, citing his political foes who either worked on or contributed information to the Russia investigation. "... A double standard like never seen before in the history of our Country?"
Prosecutors asked the judge to take Stone into custody immediately, but she declined. After considering that he may have communicated with right-wing commentator Alex Jones this week -- potentially violating a gag order on his case that prevents him from speaking about it -- Judge Amy Berman Jackson said she would keep a gag order on him as he awaits sentencing. He may return home to Florida, and his sentencing is set for February 6.

Stone potentially faces prison time, but his sentence will be entirely up to the judge. For the most serious of his crimes, witness tampering, he faces a maximum sentence of 20 years.

"He has been here for every court appearance. I have no reason to believe" he won't come to his next appearance, Jackson said Friday.

After leaving the courthouse and arriving where he's been staying in Washington, Stone told CNN, "No comment," when asked if he would seek a pardon from the President.
In recent months, Trump has weighed pardoning Stone if he was convicted, multiple people familiar with his thinking say.

Several of Stone's allies have lobbied the President to do so, but multiple people also have advised the President that doing so would be a terrible idea politically and have cautioned against it, people familiar with the situation have told CNN.

These discussions were happening while a conviction was still hypothetical. Now that a federal jury has convicted Stone, it's not clear where the President stands.

The charges
According to prosecutors, Stone lied during testimony and failed to turn over documents to Congress in 2017 showing he had sought to reach WikiLeaks the previous year. He lied about five facts, obscuring his attempt to use intermediaries to get information that could help then-candidate Trump in the election against Hillary Clinton.

WikiLeaks had released emails in July 2016 that the Russians had hacked from Democratic Party servers, and followed up with drops of emails stolen from the Clinton campaign's chairman in October 2016, continuing until Election Day.

Stone's trial at a federal courthouse in Washington revealed the extent to which the longtime Trump friend was directly in touch with Trump and other campaign officials about Wikileaks' 2016 release of hacked Democratic emails.

When the House had asked Stone in September 2017 if he had discussed WikiLeaks, its founder Julian Assange or the Democratic hack with the Trump campaign, Stone had denied it under oath , saying his legal team "found nothing" of those types of communications.

Prosecutors argued that witness testimony, along with Stone's texts, emails and phone records, showed Stone's interest in reaching WikiLeaks about the hacked documents it had and speaking to the Trump campaign and even Trump himself about it. Prosecutors said Stone had lied to Congress out of a desire to protect Trump.

"It would look really bad for his longtime associate Donald Trump" if the truth had come out, prosecutor Jonathan Kravis had said in his closing argument on Wednesday.

Stone's defense team countered that Stone didn't have a motive to protect Trump when he testified to the House in 2017, because Trump already had won the election and become President.

Witnesses in the trial included a cast of Trump-world characters like former White House strategist Steve Bannon and former Trump campaign deputy chairman Rick Gates, a key cooperator in Mueller's investigation. Both emphasized the campaign's interest in hacks and leaks dating back to April 2016.

During the trial, prosecutors revealed several phone calls between Trump and Stone, including a July 2016 conversation in which, Gates testified, Trump and Stone spoke about the planned release of hacked Democratic emails.

In his written answers to Mueller, Trump said he didn't recall his conversations with Stone, nor discussions about WikiLeaks and the Democratic hack.

Prosecutors argued that Stone's alleged failure to tell Congress about the attempts to reach WikiLeaks left the House Intelligence Committee with a blind spot in its investigation -- causing the committee's final report on Russian interference in the election to be inaccurate.
Stone threatening his once-friend Randy Credico, a comedian and radio host, compounded problems for the House, prosecutors argued.

Stone had told the House that he had an intermediary, whom he later identified as Credico, trying to reach Assange during the campaign. But prosecutors alleged another man had sought to get to Assange on behalf of Stone and the campaign, making Stone's claims about Credico false.

When Credico was called before Congress following Stone's testimony, Stone sent him emails and texts directing him to lie or to refrain from sharing the truth. Credico warned him that Stone may have perjured himself already, but Stone persisted, quoting over and over again lines from the film "The Godfather: Part II," referring to a character who is pressured by the Mafia family to lie to Congress.

Inside the courthouse
The trial got off a chaotic start on November 5 -- Stone missed some of the jury selection because he felt ill -- and brought out a memorable cast of characters both as witnesses and in the audience of the courtroom. At times, the proceedings drew laughs from the courtroom, with Credico even offering to do celebrity impressions in the witness box. But as the trial went on, the mood became more somber. By Friday morning, the second day of jury deliberations, Stone carried a Bible with him into the courthouse.

Stone's wife, Nydia Bertran Stone, was by his side throughout the trial, along with a cadre of supporters, including some who have identified themselves as part of the Proud Boys, a far-right group, and a man dressed in floor-length black-and-white robes who Stone described as his "spiritual adviser" and who led Stone's wife and others in prayer.

Prosecutors hit a stirring, philosophical note just before sending the case to the jury, making a broad appeal for the truth in the final words of their closing argument. Prosecutor Michael Marando had latched onto a phrase used in the defense's closing argument, "So what?"

"So what? ... Well, if that's the state of affairs that we're in, I'm pretty shocked. Truth matters. Truth still matters, OK?" Marando said to the jury.

"I know we live in a world nowadays with Twitter, tweets, social media, where you can find any view, any political view you want. ... However, in our institutions of self-governance, courts of law or committee hearings, where people under oath have to testify, truth still matters," he added, before asking for the jury to find Stone guilty.

The jury of nine women and three men, including a former congressional candidate and a federal government lawyer, deliberated over two days. During their almost nine hours discussing Stone's charges, the jury asked the judge questions that indicated a close reading of prosecutors' wording of the charges. At 11:11 a.m. Friday, the jury wrote to the judge: "WE HAVE REACHED A VERDICT."
Stone had been arrested last January in a predawn raid at his home in Florida by armed federal agents, caught exclusively on camera by CNN. That kicked off weeks of Stone's attempts to draw support, especially on social media. But he crossed a line by posting on Instagram a photo of the judge with crosshairs behind her head -- and Jackson then limited his ability to speak publicly about the case.

Jackson oversaw the weeklong trial in Washington's federal district court, cementing her status as one of the most significant arbiters over Mueller's work. She previously sentenced Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort to a years-long prison term following his guilty plea in the Mueller investigation, and is set to sentence Gates on December 17.

Trump campaign and WikiLeaks
Gates' testimony in Stone's trial was an especially telling reminder of Mueller's finding that the Trump campaign had welcomed the release of hacked documents that could help them in the 2016 election.

Gates testified he had witnessed Trump take an evening phone call from Stone as they rode to New York's LaGuardia Airport from Trump Tower in late July 2016. Stone and Trump apparently discussed WikiLeaks' planned release of hacked Democratic emails.

"After Mr. Trump got off the phone with Mr. Stone, what did Mr. Trump say?" prosecutor Aaron Zelinsky asked Gates on Tuesday. "He indicated more information would be coming," Gates responded.

The call happened days after WikiLeaks' first release on July 22, 2016, of emails the Russian military had allegedly hacked from the Democratic National Committee.

Gates said WikiLeaks' announcement that it had pending information on then-presidential candidate Clinton was a "gift."

"It was in a way a gift that we had not sought," said Gates. "There were a number of us who felt it would give our campaign a leg up."

Bannon, another high-profile witness, testified that he and the Trump campaign viewed Stone as an "access point" to WikiLeaks.

Credico spent the longest time in the witness box during the trial.

He wasn't in court to hear the verdict but told CNN afterward that he was "stunned," "shell-shocked" and "not rejoicing."

"The whole thing is depressing. It started out as a fender bender that turned into a 21-car, tractor-trailer pileup," Credico said.

"It's a sad, man-made tragedy that could have been avoided."

 Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Friday, May 31, 2019

Cocktails & Popcorn: May 31st, 2019 Mueller Testimony Hints At Butina At DNC, American University, Russian Retreat

FUN FACT! DAN GELLER TEACHES URANIUM IRAN PROPAGANDA AT WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY

Daniel GellerDr. Daniel S. Geller is Professor and Chair of the Department of Political Science at Wayne State University. He conducts research and teaches in the areas of International Politics, Defense Policy, and Foreign Policy. From 2000 through 2010 he served as a consultant with the U.S. Department of State, Office of Technology and Assessments. In 2009, Dr. Geller was a member of a Senior Advisory Group to the U.S. Strategic Command for the Nuclear Posture Review. For 2001-03, he was a Principal Investigator on an National Science Foundation grant to the Correlates of War (COW) Project involving the expansion of the militarized interstate dispute database. During 2003, Professor Geller served as Program Chair for the 44th Annual Convention of the International Studies Association. He has published extensively in journals and edited collections on such subjects as nuclear weapons and the escalation of interstate crises, conventional capability balances and the outbreak of war, and the power status of states and patterns of international conflict. Professor Geller is the author of Domestic Factors in Foreign Policy: A Cross-National Statistical Analysis (Schenkman, 1985). He is coauthor with J. David Singer of Nations at War: A Scientific Study of International Conflict (Cambridge University Press, 1998) and is coeditor with John Vasquez of The Construction and Cumulation of Knowledge in International Relations (Blackwell Ltd., 2004).





Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

DEFANGO: LA Outbreak! Jussie Smollet "Electronic File" - Defango TV


Where is Rahm Emanuel?

Chicago police release hundreds of pages of documents related to Smollett investigation


Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Thursday, May 23, 2019

DOJ: WikiLeaks Founder Julian Assange Charged in 18-Count Superseding Indictment - DEFANGO

FUN FACT! I SENT WIKILEAKS DOCS ON MEDICAID FRAUD IN CHILD WELFARE WAY BACK.


Links: https://pastebin.com/Rczkh2nC
Charges Related to Illegally Obtaining, Receiving and Disclosing Classified Information

A federal grand jury returned an 18-count superseding indictment today charging Julian P. Assange, 47, the founder of WikiLeaks, with offenses that relate to Assange’s alleged role in one of the largest compromises of classified information in the history of the United States.  Assistant Attorney General for National Security John C. Demers, U.S. Attorney G. Zachary Terwilliger for the Eastern District of Virginia, Assistant Director John Brown of the FBI’s Counterintelligence Division and Acting Assistant Director in Charge Timothy Dunham of the FBI’s Washington Field Office made the announcement.
The superseding indictment alleges that Assange was complicit with Chelsea Manning, a former intelligence analyst in the U.S. Army, in unlawfully obtaining and disclosing classified documents related to the national defense.  Specifically, the superseding indictment alleges that Assange  conspired with Manning;  obtained from Manning and aided and abetted her in obtaining classified information with reason to believe that the information was to be used to the injury of the United States or the advantage of a foreign nation;  received and attempted to receive classified information having reason to believe that such materials would be obtained, taken, made, and disposed of by a person contrary to law; and  aided and abetted Manning in communicating classified documents to Assange. 
After agreeing to receive classified documents from Manning and aiding, abetting, and causing Manning to provide classified documents, the superseding indictment charges that Assange then published on WikiLeaks classified documents that contained the unredacted names of human sources who provided information to United States forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, and to U.S. State Department diplomats around the world.  These human sources included local Afghans and Iraqis, journalists, religious leaders, human rights advocates, and political dissidents from repressive regimes.  According to the superseding indictment, Assange’s actions risked serious harm to United States national security to the benefit of our adversaries and put the unredacted named human sources at a grave and imminent risk of serious physical harm and/or arbitrary detention.
The superseding indictment alleges that beginning in late 2009, Assange and WikiLeaks actively solicited United States classified information, including by publishing a list of “Most Wanted Leaks” that sought, among other things, classified documents.  Manning responded to Assange’s solicitations by using access granted to her as an intelligence analyst to search for United States classified documents, and provided to Assange and WikiLeaks databases containing approximately 90,000 Afghanistan war-related significant activity reports, 400,000 Iraq war-related significant activities reports, 800 Guantanamo Bay detainee assessment briefs, and 250,000 U.S. Department of State cables.
Many of these documents were classified at the Secret level, meaning that their unauthorized disclosure could cause serious damage to United States national security.  Manning also provided rules of engagement files for the Iraq war, most of which were also classified at the Secret level and which delineated the circumstances and limitations under which United States forces would initiate or conduct combat engagement with other forces.
The superseding indictment alleges that Manning and Assange engaged in real-time discussions regarding Manning’s transmission of classified records to Assange.  The discussions also reflect that Assange actively encouraged Manning to provide more information and agreed to crack a password hash stored on U.S. Department of Defense computers connected to the Secret Internet Protocol Network (SIPRNet), a United States government network used for classified documents and communications.  Assange is also charged with conspiracy to commit computer intrusion for agreeing to crack that password hash.
Assange is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.  If convicted, he faces a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison on each count except for conspiracy to commit computer intrusion, for which he faces a maximum penalty of five years in prison.  Actual sentences for federal crimes are typically less than the maximum penalties.  A federal district court judge will determine any sentence after taking into account the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and other statutory factors.
First Assistant U.S. Attorney Tracy Doherty-McCormick, Assistant U.S. Attorneys Kellen S. Dwyer, Thomas W. Traxler and Gordon D. Kromberg, and Trial Attorneys Matthew R. Walczewski and Nicholas O. Hunter of the Justice Department’s National Security Division are prosecuting the case.
An indictment contains allegations that a defendant has committed a crime.  Every defendant is presumed to be innocent until and unless proven guilty in court.
Topic(s): 
National Security
Press Release Number: 
19-575

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Friday, April 19, 2019

Cocktails & Popcorn: April 18th, 2019 Mueller Report Analysis - The First Three Hidden Gems - The Quantum Renaissance In Whistleblowing

Ok, boys and girls, for those of you who are fighting hard in refusing to grasp this, all you have to do is go to the Mueller report index, look for a name or a term, and you can search for the entire video interviews and background on his channel. 

That, my dearies, is called a chain of evidence for his SCOTUS case. 

I was the first to do it. 

My blog is evidence.

I am the original source. 

You are watching ground floor building of a blockchain, or what I prefer to call the Quantum Renaissance. 

No more secrets. 

This is our history and we are all connected in the residuals of the peculiar institution.

With this new focus, you can dive for even more precious pearls of wisdom from your own knowledge. 



#FreeMariaButina

Mueller Report by on Scribd
Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Thursday, April 11, 2019

DOJ: WikiLeaks Founder Charged in Computer Hacking Conspiracy




Julian P. Assange, 47, the founder of WikiLeaks, was arrested today in the United Kingdom pursuant to the U.S./UK Extradition Treaty, in connection with a federal charge of conspiracy to commit computer intrusion for agreeing to break a password to a classified U.S. government computer.
According to court documents unsealed today, the charge relates to Assange’s alleged role in one of the largest compromises of classified information in the history of the United States.
The indictment alleges that in March 2010, Assange engaged in a conspiracy with Chelsea Manning, a former intelligence analyst in the U.S. Army, to assist Manning in cracking a password stored on U.S. Department of Defense computers connected to the Secret Internet Protocol Network (SIPRNet), a U.S. government network used for classified documents and communications.  Manning, who had access to the computers in connection with her duties as an intelligence analyst, was using the computers to download classified records to transmit to WikiLeaks.  Cracking the password would have allowed Manning to log on to the computers under a username that did not belong to her.  Such a deceptive measure would have made it more difficult for investigators to determine the source of the illegal disclosures.
During the conspiracy, Manning and Assange engaged in real-time discussions regarding Manning’s transmission of classified records to Assange.  The discussions also reflect Assange actively encouraging Manning to provide more information.  During an exchange, Manning told Assange that “after this upload, that’s all I really have got left.”  To which Assange replied, “curious eyes never run dry in my experience.”
Assange is charged with conspiracy to commit computer intrusion and is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.  He faces a maximum penalty of five years in prison if convicted.  Actual sentences for federal crimes are typically less than the maximum penalties.  A federal district court judge will determine any sentence after taking into account the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and other statutory factors.
Assistant Attorney General for National Security John C. Demers, U.S. Attorney G. Zachary Terwilliger for the Eastern District of Virginia and Assistant Director in Charge Nancy McNamara of the FBI’s Washington Field Office made the announcement after the charges were unsealed.  First Assistant U.S. Attorney Tracy Doherty-McCormick, Assistant U.S. Attorneys Kellen S. Dwyer, Thomas W. Traxler and Gordon D. Kromberg, and Trial Attorneys Matthew R. Walczewski and Nicholas O. Hunter of the Justice Department’s National Security Division are prosecuting the case.
The extradition will be handled by the Department of Justice’s Office of International Affairs.
An indictment contains allegations that a defendant has committed a crime.  Every defendant is presumed to be innocent until and unless proven guilty in court.
Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Monday, February 18, 2019

Cocktails & Popcorn: Roger Stone Reveals Nixon's Martini Recipe For U.S. Judiciary Impeachment Hearings




U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Examines Special Counsel Under Watergate


902. 1996 AMENDMENTS TO 18 U.S.C. § 1001

The False Statements Accountability Act of 1996 (FSAA), Pub. L. No. 104-292, H.R. 3166 (October 11, 1996), made several changes that affect the work of United States Attorneys' Offices, including revisions to 18 U.S.C. §§  1001, 1505, 6005, and 28 U.S.C. 1365. This section describes the changes to section 1001.

Section 2 of the FSAA revises section 1001 of title 18, United States Code. The new 18 U.S.C. § 1001, effective October 11, 1996, reads as follows:
  1. Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully --
    1. falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
    2. makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
    3. makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry; shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
  2. Subsection (a) does not apply to a party to a judicial proceeding, or that party's counsel, for statements, representations, writings or documents submitted by such party or counsel to a judge or magistrate in that proceeding.
  3. With respect to any matter within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch, subsection (a) shall apply only in --
    1. administrative matters, including a claim for payment, a matter related to the procurement of property or services, personnel or employment practices, or support services, or a document required by law, rule, or regulation to be submitted to the Congress or any office or officer within the legislative branch; or
    2. any investigation or review, conducted pursuant to the authority of any committee, subcommittee, commission or office of the Congress, consistent with applicable rules of the House or Senate.
The new section 1001 contains several important features. First, section 2 of the FSAA restores the Department's ability to prosecute false statements made to the judicial and legislative branches. In 1995, the Supreme Court reversed long-settled precedent in Hubbard v. United States, 115 S.Ct. 1754 (1995), and held that a court is neither a "department" nor an "agency" under § 1001. Although the Court's opinion left open the possibility that a judicial or legislative entity might still be considered an "agency" under section 1001, several courts interpreted Hubbard broadly to mean that section 1001 applies only to false statements made to the executive branch. See, e.g., United States v. Dean, 55 F.3d 640 (D.C. Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 116 S.Ct. 1288 (1996); United States v. Rostenkowski, 59 F.3d 1291, 1301 (D.C. Cir. 1995). As of March 1997, there was pending in the District of Columbia Circuit an interlocutory appeal concerning whether the old version of section 1001, even after Hubbard, still applies to financial disclosure statements that Members of Congress filed, pursuant to the Ethics in Government Act, with the Clerk of the House of Representatives before October 11, 1996. See United States v. Oakar, No. 96-3084 (D.C. Cir.). Prosecutors therefore should not concede, in any pleadings or arguments presented in federal courts, that the old section 1001 does not apply to such statements, at least until the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit decides this case.

The new statute effectively overrules Hubbard, and expressly provides that section 1001 covers false statements that are made to all three branches of the federal government, without regard to whether the entity may be categorized as a "department" or "agency."

By including certain statutory terms (e.g., "jurisdiction" and "statement") from the former section 1001 without change, Congress intended that those terms, as reenacted, continue to carry with them the body of existing judicial constructions of those terms. For example, with respect to statements made within the jurisdiction of the executive branch, prosecutors should continue to consider all statements -- whether oral or written, and whether sworn or unsworn -- as being within the scope of the new section 1001. See H.R. Rep. No. 104-680 (July 16, 1996) at 8 ("Other than establishing materiality as an element of all three offenses, the Committee does not view the offenses defined in paragraphs (1), (2) and (3) as changing already existing case law as it relates to the elements of the offenses.")(There was no Senate report concerning the Act, and the House report covers only the changes that the Act made to section 1001).

Section 2 of the FSAA, however, contains certain limitations concerning statements within the jurisdiction of the judicial and legislative branches. Subsection 2(b) of the FSAA provides that statements made to a judge or magistrate by parties or their counsel in a judicial proceeding will not be subject to prosecution under section 1001. Section 2 of the FSAA thus codifies a limited version of the "judicial function exception," which was created by the courts under the old section 1001 to avoid the chilling of advocacy that might occur if attorneys and parties were subject to prosecution for concealing facts from a court or jury. Under the codified version of the judicial function exception, parties or their counsel may be prosecuted for false submissions to other entities within the judicial branch, such as the probation office. See H.R. Rep. No. 104-680 at 9. Non-parties may be prosecuted for any false submission within the jurisdiction of the judicial branch.

In subsection (c) of amended § 1001, Congress created a "legislative function exception." Under the new provision, false statements within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch are subject to prosecution only if they relate to administrative matters or congressional investigations conducted consistent with the applicable congressional rules. Amended §  1001 will thus reach those documents that have most often been the subject of congressional false statement prosecutions, such as vouchers, payroll documents, and Ethics in Government Act (EIGA) financial disclosure forms. The exception was intended to protect, among other things, the free flow of constituent submissions to Congress. See H.R. Rep. No. 104-680 at 4-5.

Amended § 1001 also expressly includes materiality as an element under each of the three clauses in subsection (a). This resolves a conflict among the courts on that issue. See, e.g., United States v. Corsino, 812 F.2d 26 (1st Cir. 1987); United States v. Elkin, 731 F.2d 1005 (2d Cir. 1984).


Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Friday, January 25, 2019

Roger Stone Russia Collusion Indictment Of The Office Of Special Counsel, Robert Mueller - Watergate Is Back

Defango makes history being the first person in history to report the reanimation of the Watergate investigation with the Grand Jury indictment from the Office of Special Counsel for bearing false wtiness in the Trump-Russia investigation, in 3D VR.

Watergate is coming back into existence, for a reason.

Pay attention to the players coming to the stage.


"I did not bear false witness"
Yes, the Roger Stone raid was a bit over the top dramatic, but it was well coordinated, all the way down to the cell phone live stream, with the coffee and donut scrum set up a half hour before, across the street.

Mueller Reveals Link Between Trump Campaign and WikiLeaks’ Efforts to Damage Clinton


WASHINGTON — The special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, revealed on Friday the most direct link yet between the Trump campaign’s and WikiLeaks’ parallel efforts to use Democratic Party material stolen by Russians to damage the campaign of Hillary R. Clinton.

In an indictment unsealed on Friday, the special counsel disclosed evidence that a top campaign official in 2016 dispatched Roger J. Stone, a longtime adviser to President Trump, to get information from WikiLeaks about the thousands of hacked Democratic emails. The effort began well after it was widely reported that Russian intelligence operatives were behind the theft, which was part of Moscow’s broad campaign to sabotage the 2016 president election.

The indictment makes no mention of whether Mr. Trump played a role in the coordination, though Mr. Mueller did leave a curious clue about how high in the campaign the effort reached.: A senior campaign official “was directed” by an unnamed person to contact Mr. Stone about additional WikiLeaks releases that might damage the Clinton campaign, according to the court document.

Mr. Stone was charged with seven counts, including obstruction of an official proceeding, making false statements and witness tampering.

F.B.I. agents arrested him before dawn on Friday, appearing at his Fort Lauderdale, Fla. home with ballistic vests and guns drawn. Agents typically use those tactics as a precaution to secure possible evidence and protect themselves in case a suspect fights arrest. F.B.I. agents were also seen carting hard drives and other evidence from Mr. Stone’s apartment in Harlem.

Mr. Stone appeared briefly in Federal District Court in Fort Lauderdale on Friday morning, his ankles and waist shackled in front of a packed courtroom. Mr. Stone, known for his dapper wardrobe, was dressed simply in a navy blue cotton polo shirt, bluejeans and his trademark round, black-rimmed glasses, his demeanor flat.

He posted a $250,000 bond, was ordered to surrender his passport and agreed to appear in federal court in Washington later. His lawyer, Grant Smith, dismissed the charges, calling them “ridiculous,” and said, “this is all about a minor charge about lying to Congress about something that was apparently found later.”

Mr. Stone posted a photo of himself on Instagram on Friday under the banner “Who Framed Roger Stone.” Part of the caption read, “this morning’s news is deeply saddening. Robert Mueller’s early morning raid was straight out of the Gestapo’s playbook.”

The indictment is the first in months by Mr. Mueller, who is investigating Russia’s interference in the 2016 election and possible coordination with Trump campaign associates. Citing details in emails and other forms of communications, the indictment suggested that Mr. Trump’s campaign knew about additional stolen emails before they were released and asked Mr. Stone to find out about them.

According to the indictment, between June and July of 2016, Mr. Stone told “senior Trump campaign officials” about the stolen emails in WikiLeaks’ possession that could be damaging to Mrs. Clinton. On July 22, WikiLeaks released its first batch of Democratic emails. After that, according to the indictment, the Trump campaign sought more.

“A senior Trump campaign official was directed to contact Stone about any additional releases and what other damaging information Organization 1 had regarding the Clinton campaign,” the indictment said, referring to WikiLeaks.

The White House press secretary, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, sought to broadly distance Mr. Trump from the charges. “The charges brought against Mr. Stone have nothing to do with the president,” she told CNN. Asked whether he directed a campaign aide to contact Mr. Stone about the WikiLeaks emails, she repeated that the charges did not involve the president.

The indictment does not mention whether Mr. Stone or any other Trump associate knew about the Russian operatives’ plans before they hacked the Democrats. As Mr. Mueller’s investigators interviewed witnesses and reviewed documents, they sought to answer that question, according to two people briefed on the inquiry. To make a case that Mr. Trump’s associates conspired with the Russians, the investigators indicated, they needed to show that the associates knew about the hacks in advance — knowing about the fruits of what Russia stole was not enough, the people said.

A self-described dirty trickster, Mr. Stone began his career as a campaign aide for Richard M. Nixon and has a tattoo of Nixon on his back. He has spent decades plying the political dark arts — including scandal-mongering — to help influence American election campaigns, and has long maintained that he had no connection to Russia’s attempts to disrupt the 2016 presidential election.

He sometimes seemed to taunt American law enforcement agencies, daring them to find hard evidence to link him to the Russian election interference. His brash behavior made him less of a subject of news media scrutiny than other current and former aides to President Trump — like the character in a whodunit whom readers immediately dismiss as too obvious to have committed the crime.
In June of 2016, days before Russia was publicly identified as having stolen the emails, senior Trump campaign officials and Mr. Trump’s son Donald Trump Jr. had a meeting with a Kremlin-linked attorney about getting information that could be damaging to Mrs. Clinton.









It is illegal for a political campaign to accept foreign aid, and Mr. Trump and his son have said they did nothing wrong because they did not receive any damaging materials because of that meeting.


Mr. Stone has said publicly that he was in contact with WikiLeaks and suggested on Twitter that additional damaging information would be coming.

But the special counsel’s investigators spent months encircling Mr. Stone, renewing scrutiny about his role during the 2016 presidential race. Investigators interviewed former Trump campaign advisers and several of his associates about Mr. Stone’s fund-raising during the campaign and his contacts with WikiLeaks.

Three senior Trump campaign officials have told Mr. Mueller’s team that Mr. Stone created the impression that he was a conduit for inside information from WikiLeaks, according to people familiar with their witness interviews. One of them told investigators that Mr. Stone not only seemed to predict WikiLeaks’ actions, but also that he took credit afterward for the timing of its disclosures that damaged Hillary Clinton’s candidacy.

In October, Mr. Stone exchanged emails with Stephen K. Bannon, then the chief executive of Mr. Trump’s campaign. In one exchange, Mr. Stone wrote that more WikiLeaks disclosures were forthcoming, “a load every week going forward,” according to the indictment. Mr. Bannon appears to be the official described in the court document as “the high-ranking Trump Campaign official,” based on previous disclosures about the email exchange.
Tuesday, October 4, 2016
FROM: Steve Bannon
TO: Roger Stone
EMAIL:
What was that this morning???
Tuesday, October 4, 2016
FROM: Roger Stone
TO: Steve Bannon
EMAIL:
Fear. Serious security concern. He thinks they are going to kill him and the London police are standing done.
However —a load every week going forward.
Roger stone
Tuesday, October 4, 2016
FROM: Steve Bannon
TO: Roger Stone
EMAIL:
He didn’t cut deal w/ clintons???
A day before Mr. Stone and Mr. Bannon emailed about WikiLeaks, Donald Trump Jr. exchanged Twitter messages with the WikiLeaks Twitter account and asked, “What’s behind this Wednesday leak I keep reading about.”

At the end of that week, on Oct. 7, WikiLeaks released more than 6,000 emails related to John D. Podesta, the chairman of the Clinton campaign. The release came 30 minutes after The Washington Post published a recording of Mr. Trump bragging on the set of “Access Hollywood” about assaulting women. The timing has raised questions about whether the WikiLeaks release was an attempt to distract the public from the tape and redirect negative attention from Mr. Trump to the Clinton campaign.

In social media posts and numerous interviews before the 2016 election, Mr. Stone indicated that he had advance knowledge that a trove of information damaging to Mrs. Clinton’s campaign might be about to spill into public view, and even suggested that he had personally spoken to the WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange.

Mr. Stone has changed his story in the months since, saying that he was not actually speaking to Mr. Assange and that he had no direct knowledge that Russians were responsible for the Democratic hacking. Still, it was revealed last year that, in the weeks before the election, Mr. Stone was messaging on Twitter with Guccifer 2.0, a pseudonym used by one or more operatives in the Russian intelligence scheme to steal the emails and funnel them to WikiLeaks.

Mr. Stone himself has said publicly that he was prepared for the possibility that he could be indicted, but he has long maintained that he is innocent and has often echoed Mr. Trump’s claims that Mr. Mueller’s investigation is a politically motivated witch hunt.

“This was supposed to be about Russian collusion, and it appears to be an effort to silence or punish the president’s supporters and his advocates,” he said last May on “Meet the Press.”

“It is not inconceivable now that Mr. Mueller and his team may seek to conjure up some extraneous crime pertaining to my business, or maybe not even pertaining to the 2016 election,” he said.

The tumultuous relationship between Mr. Stone and Mr. Trump goes back decades, with Mr. Stone acting as an informal adviser to Mr. Trump as he considered running for president several times. When Mr. Trump formally announced during the spring of 2015 that he was running for president, Mr. Stone was one of the first members of the team, but within months, he had a public dispute with Mr. Trump and left the campaign.

The two men have remained close, though, speaking often by telephone.
Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Tuesday, November 27, 2018

Welcome To The Brilliance Of Emoluments - Impeachment Through Wikileaks CryptoKitties

This is a great piece on what is going on in the legal background of the Julian Assange situation.

Defango was the first to report on Wikileaks CryptoKitties.

In short, Wikileaks donated CryptoKitties to the Trump and Clinton 2018 Campaigns.

Cryptocurrency contains data and there is a possibility the CryptoKitties contained data, like the emails putting Trump and Clinton in similar legal quagmires as Julian Assange.

Brilliant.

Cryptocurrency is also considered foreign money, making it an instant emolument and grounds for impeachment for Trump and criminal prosecution for all players in the 2018 Presidential Campaigns, including Hillary Clinton and her team.


Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Sunday, November 18, 2018

DCNF Has A Wikileaks SIGTARP Leaking Propaganda Issue With Jeannie Rhee

The one reason I just adore The Daily Caller New Foundation is because it was captured as a leaking tool for the DOJ.

Suckers.

Yes, you can construct a distractive narrative through controlled leaking.

FUN FACT! JEANNIE RHEE, FORMER ATTORNEY OF WILMER HALE, THE LAW FIRM OF BOB MUELLER, WAS HIRED TO REPRESENT THE DETROIT LAND BANK AUTHORITY AND PAID WITH TARP.

Brett M. Kavanaugh argued the cause for the United States. With him on the brief were Kenneth W. Starr and Craig S. Lerner.[*]The Independent Counsel argues that the attorney-client privilege should not prevent disclosure of confidential communications where the client has died and the information is relevant to a criminal proceeding.
Now, let us just see how long it takes the DCNF to report on the fact that Jeannie Rhee was hired to represent the Detroit Land Bank Authority in SIGTARP matters, considering the fact that I was nice enough to provide all the links and it was found in Wikileaks.

MUELLER GRAND JURY WITNESS ACCUSES CLINTON-LINKED PROSECUTOR OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST

  • An associate of Roger Stone who appeared before the Mueller grand jury on Nov. 2 is accusing the special counsel of a conflict of interest.
  • Tyler Nixon says that he was questioned prior to his testimony by Jeannie Rhee, a prosecutor who previously represented the Clinton Foundation.
  • Nixon says he finds it “deeply troubling” that Rhee is involved in the investigation, which has recently focused on Stone.
An attorney who appeared as a witness before the Mueller grand jury is accusing the special counsel’s office of a conflict of interest because one of the prosecutors involved in the special counsel’s case has worked for Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation.

The prosecutor, Jeannie Rhee, has questioned witnesses about Roger Stone, the Trump confidant who is one of the targets of the investigation, numerous sources tell The Daily Caller News Foundation. Rhee questioned Tyler Nixon, an attorney for Stone, just before his grand jury appearance on Nov. 2.

“[Rhee’s involvement] was not disclosed to me prior to my testimony, and I find this to be deeply troubling and certainly Ms. Rhee should be recused or removed from the investigation,” Nixon told TheDCNF.

Recusals related to special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe became an issue after the appointment of Matthew Whitaker as acting attorney general on Nov. 7.

Among the reasons that Democrats have called for Whitaker’s recusal are his comments criticizing the Trump-Russia probe as well as his work in 2014 on a political campaign for Sam Clovis, a former Trump campaign official who testified before the Mueller grand jury as a witness in 2017.

Seven top congressional Democrats, including House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and California Rep. Adam Schiff, cited Whitaker’s work with Clovis in a letter Sunday to the Justice Department’s top ethics official. The Democrats asked DOJ whether Whitaker has been advised on whether he should recuse himself from the probe.

Rhee’s work on the special counsel’s team poses a larger conflict of interest than Whitaker’s links to Clovis, Nixon asserts.

“I find it astonishing that there are cries for the recusal for Mr. Whitaker when I know that I was personally interviewed on behalf of the special counsel by an attorney, Jeannie Rhee, who was Hillary Clinton’s and the Clinton Foundation’s personal attorney not one or two years prior to her joining the special counsel,” Nixon told TheDCNF.

As a partner at Wilmer Hale, Rhee represented the Clinton Foundation in a 2015 racketeering lawsuit filed by the conservative watchdog group Freedom Watch. That lawsuit sought access to the private email account that Clinton used as secretary of state. Rhee, who did not represent Clinton herself, also donated the maximum allowed under federal law to Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign.

 (RELATED: Not A Single Lawyer Working On The Mueller Team Is A Republican)

Nixon said that while Rhee was friendly, even “jovial,” during his interaction with her, he takes issue with Rhee investigating people like Stone who investigated the Clintons and Clinton Foundation during the campaign.

Stone, a longtime confidant of President Donald Trump, is also critical of Rhee’s involvement in the investigation.

“It seems somewhat incredible that Democrats are calling for Acting Attorney General Whitaker to recuse himself from the Mueller investigation based on his prior political activities, but they think it’s perfectly alright for Hillary Clinton’s personal attorney and campaign donor to lead a potential prosecution of Roger Stone,” Stone told TheDCNF.

A spokesman for the special counsel’s office told TheDCNF that Rhee was cleared by Justice Department ethics experts to work on the Mueller team.

“Department ethics experts reviewed the matters to which the Special Counsel was appointed and determined that Ms. Rhee is authorized to participate,” said Peter Carr, a spokesman for Mueller.

Nixon testified in favor of Stone during his grand jury appearance regarding a conversation he witnessed between Stone and Randy Credico, a comedian and longtime acquaintance.

Stone has claimed that Credico was a confirming source for him during the 2016 campaign about WikiLeaks’ plans to release information damaging to the Clinton campaign. Stone has insisted that he did not know the content, source or timing of WikiLeaks’ releases.

Credico, who was in contact with WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange during the campaign, has denied being Stone’s source. But Nixon testified to the grand jury about a dinner he attended with Stone and Credico in mid-November 2017 in which Credico indicated that he was the link between Stone and WikiLeaks.

David Lugo, a filmmaker who knows both Stone and Credico, also testified to the grand jury on Oct. 19 that Credico told him that he was a source for Stone.

Credico has contradicted his denials in various public comments. He filmed himself on April 28 at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner describing himself as “the guy that was the in-between guy between Assange and Roger Stone.”

Rhee also took part in the questioning of Jerome Corsi, an associate of Stone who said Monday that he expects to be indicted for lying to prosecutors.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Cocktails & Popcorn: Wikileaks Meets Detroit - Barbara McQuade, Julian Assange & Election Interference

Image may contain: one or more people, people standing and suit
Barbara McQuade
Welcome to Detroit, Julian!

FUN FACT! Barbara McQuade is on the Michigan Governor's transition team for Gretchen Whitmer.

ANOTHER FUN FACT! The Michigan 2018 Primary was never certified by the Michigan Board of Canvassers nor was it recorded by the Secretary of State, which means the 2018 General Election can not be certified nor recorded.

ONE LAST FUN FACT! Barbara McQuade was the U.S. Michigan Eastern District Attorney for the 2016 election interference investigations, which are ongoing.

Surprise disclosure puts Assange in US spotlight

Time may be up for Julian Assange.

The WikiLeaks founder, who played a central role in leaking hacked emails during the 2016 election, has spent the past six years avoiding prosecution in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London. But a recently revealed court filing points to U.S. prosecutors having already pressed sealed charges against him, even as he's avoided arrest.

And with Ecuadorian leaders publicly growing frustrated over their longtime tenant, it could be just a matter of time until Assange faces extradition to the United States.

Assange’s prosecution would be a win for the U.S. federal government, including special counsel Robert Mueller, who has eyed WikiLeaks over the distribution of Democratic emails ahead of the 2016 election that he alleges were hacked by Russian military officers.

The court document, filed in August of this year, was first flagged Thursday on Twitter by Seamus Hughes, a researcher at the George Washington University’s Program on Extremism, hours after The Wall Street Journal first reported that the U.S. was preparing to bring charges against Assange.

Legal experts told The Hill that the mistaken filing is a clear sign that an indictment against Assange is at least in the works, if not already filed against him.

This filing, written by Assistant U.S. Attorney Kellen Dwyer — who is also working on the WikiLeaks case — argues in the unrelated case that it’s necessary to seal the charges in the case in order “to protect this investigation.”

“Another procedure short of sealing will not adequately protect the needs of law enforcement at this time because, due to the sophistication of the defendant and the publicity surrounding the case, no other procedure is likely to keep confidential the fact that Assange has been charged,” the filing reads.

Assange is mentioned again later in the document, in a statement asserting that all documents related to the charges in the unrelated case “would need to remain sealed until Assange is arrested in connection with the charges in the criminal complaint and can therefore no longer evade or avoid arrest and extradition in this matter.”

“So it seems likely that Assange has been charged and the sealing motion was filed in that case, and then somebody made this cut and paste error in this new case,” said former U.S. Attorney Barbara McQuade.

It’s unclear what charges Assange may be facing.

But the U.S. has sought to prosecute him since WikiLeaks distributed classified U.S. cables obtained from former U.S. Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning in 2010.

Assange is also facing an arrest warrant in Sweden over an accusation of rape, which he has denied.

Assange’s attorney Jennifer Robinson said Friday that the report is “confirmation of what we’ve been concerned about and been talking about since 2010.”

“There is a very real risk that the United States is going to seek to prosecute him for his publishing activities and potentially seek to extradite him, and that if there was to be an indictment, it would be sealed, it would be secret, and we wouldn’t know that it existed until such time as he was in custody,” she told the progressive show "Democracy Now!"

Prosecutors generally keep charges sealed to prevent from showing their hand as they come closer to apprehending a suspect, over fears that an individual at the center of a case may attempt to escape law enforcement’s jurisdiction or cause harm to others.

Former federal prosecutor Bob Mintz said that while the U.S. will likely still have to follow the standard procedure for extraditing and charging Assange, the inadvertent disclosure of the possible indictment “does inject some additional urgency into the process.”

“I think there will be some desire on the part of the DOJ to expedite this process if they intend to go forward with it,” Mintz said.

McQuade, currently a professor at Michigan Law School, said the filing to seal charges in an indictment is one of the last steps in a case. And considering that this document was filed in August, she predicted that the Assange charges may have been handled before then.

The U.S. has been wary of bringing charges against WikiLeaks in the past, as free speech and First Amendment groups claim that it would be an attack on freedom of speech. WikiLeaks has argued that it is a media outlet and has a right to share the classified documents that it obtains, just as traditional press outlets often do.

Free speech groups have quickly spoken out in defense of Assange since news of the possible indictment broke. The American Civil Liberties Union said in a statement Friday that any prosecution of Assange over WikiLeaks’s actions “would be unprecedented and unconstitutional, and would open the door to criminal investigations of other news organizations.”

McQuade said that in the course of Mueller’s investigation, the special counsel's team may have uncovered evidence that shows WikiLeaks working in coordination with Russian intelligence that causes federal prosecutors to view the group “in a different light.”

She also noted that Assange likely has information that could be valuable to the special counsel's probe, referring to Mueller’s focus on former informal Trump campaign adviser Roger Stone and his interactions with WikiLeaks, as well as the release of the Democratic National Committee emails.
Mueller has been questioning associates of Stone’s for months to determine whether the president’s longtime confidant had prior knowledge of the WikiLeaks email dump. Stone has denied knowing that the group would release the emails, instead claiming that a source gave him an inside tip that WikiLeaks would soon release damaging information that would “roil” the 2016 presidential election.

McQuade added that Assange might want to strike a plea deal with the U.S. if only to get out of the Ecuadorian embassy.

Ecuador has allowed Assange to stay in its embassy in London since 2012. But the country has shown signs that it is growing fed up with Assange’s presence, warning him that he will be evicted from the premises if he doesn’t start cleaning up after himself and his cat.

The nation also said earlier this year that it had granted Assange citizenship, thinking that he may then be able to leave the facility without facing arrest. However, those hopes were dashed when authorities in the United Kingdom said they couldn’t guarantee that Assange wouldn’t be arrested as soon as he left the premises.

Elie Honig, a former federal prosecutor, said the U.S. and Ecuador do have an extradition treaty in place, but that it allows exemptions in cases of political charges. He said that while he’s not sure that Assange’s indictment would be considered a political one — the charges remain unknown — his lawyers could make the argument in court that it does.

Still, he said an indictment against Assange would be significant, considering the bevy of potential charges that the U.S. could be weighing. But just charging Assange would only be the start of the battle.

“I think they would have a hotly contested case in court and likely a trial,” Honig said. “I think that would be the real test.”

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©