
Prosecutors Have Prepared Indictment of Julian Assange, a Filing Reveals - jbegley
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/16/us/politics/julian-assange-indictment-wikileaks.html
======
sctb
Previous discussion:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18464358](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18464358).

------
edoo
A lot of people don't realize wikileaks had tons of dumps on Russia and
conservative US politicians and refuse to accept the information in the
progressive leaks due to supposed Russian or conservative involvement.

Also as far as I know people don't realize anything wikileaks ever released
has been refuted or proven false. There are google DKIM keys on all the
legally and morally incriminating emails.

~~~
richardknop
Just to repeat myself one more time here for those not aware of this since
this is the top comment.

Wikileaks has almost definitely influenced the result of Kenyan election in
2007 by releasing the Kroll report about vast corruption.

Assange even got an Amnesty International award for leaking information then.
He was a hero back then but suddenly when the shoe is on the other foot, he's
a villain.

~~~
thomasz
He became the villain when he became highly selective with the material he
releases, which turned him from being a provider for whistle-blowers to a
propagandist.

~~~
ryanlol
>he became highly selective with the material he releases

That’s a pretty big accusation! Do you have _any_ evidence to support this
claim?

Why have there never been any leaks with an attached note calling out WL for
failure to release?

~~~
pupppet
Why don't you point everyone to the non-existent leaks on the GOP.

~~~
tomjen3
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

~~~
objektif
That logic applies to leaks abkut you too? What have you been up to all your
life?

------
mrleiter
The government filed a motion to seal a criminal complaint in the Eastern
District of Virginia. [1] Such a motion, according to Local Rule 49B in this
district [2] lays forth that such a motion shall include

(1) A statement as to why sealing is necessary, and why another procedure will
not suffice;

(2) References to governing case law; and

(3) A statement as to the period of time the government seeks to have the
matter maintained under seal and as to how the matter is to be handled upon
unsealing.

The slip-up happened in the third condition: the period of time the government
seeks to have the matter maintained under seal. In the motion, paragraph 5,
they argue it "would need to remain sealed until Assange is arrested in
connection with the charges in the criminal complaint", which implies that, at
the least, the government has prepared an indictment against Julian Assange.

Could they have filed this motion without referencing Assange? Possibly - if
another suspect is sought in connection. If they could have referenced another
sealed criminal complaint? That I don't know, frankly.

[1] [https://pacer-
documents.s3.amazonaws.com/179/399086/18919235...](https://pacer-
documents.s3.amazonaws.com/179/399086/18919235200.pdf)

[2]
[http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/localrules/localrulesedva.pdf](http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/localrules/localrulesedva.pdf)

edit: The motion was filed on 22nd of August this year.

edit 2: Could also be that they have made a copy-paste error. At that point
you possibly cannot tell IMO if that is the case. There is the prosecution
that says this was made in error.

------
rando444
To everyone leaving comments, please read the article.

> _... suggesting that prosecutors had inadvertently pasted text from a
> similar court filing into the wrong document and then filed it._

This was a copy-paste error from another filing.

Somehow it seems everyone is missing this fact in their armchair analysis.

~~~
dragonwriter
If it was a copy-paste error from another filing, that means that there is
another filing (sealed, as no previous public filing has) which relates to
charges against Assange.

Either way, the same basic information is revealed by the error; the only way
a copy-paste error changes the basic import is if it's from a dummy document,
but then you have to believe the Justice Department uses “Julian Assange” as
the name of the generic defendant in dummy documents.

~~~
rando444
Correct.

At the time that I posted this 100% of the initial 20+ comments were under the
impression that this particular indictment was related to Assange.

------
altmind
if the NSA position is "you dont have to hide anything if you are innocent"
why the DoS are pursuing the wistleblower who expose goverment secrets? wait,
I think it works only one way.

~~~
metildaa
Something to this effect is accurate. Assange aired war crimes commited by my
country to the world that were purposefully and fraudulently classified.
Rather than own up to the crimes commited, the politicans at the time chose to
shoot the messenger and created an international incident.

------
moomin
Obviously we don’t know all the facts here, but since this is linked to the
Mueller investigation, we can make an educated guess that this is not to do
with anything that occurred before Assange entered Ecuador.

Whilst we know a fair bit about his actions before (for which he was never
charged), afterwards gets significantly more obscure but certainly he’s been
hanging out with some dodgy characters (including the one mentioned in the
article) and appears to have been a sitting accomplice in a plot to
destabilise the US.

So, whilst this disclosure is a huge cock-up, there’s no reason to believe any
of this has free press or free speech implications.

~~~
mrleiter
The motion itself [1] has zero reference to the Mueller investigation. It is
in fact about Title 18 U.S.C. Section 2242b, which is states that

"Whoever [...] knowingly persuades, induces, entices, or coerces any
individual who has not attained the age of 18 years, to engage in prostitution
or any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal
offense, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title and imprisoned
not less than 10 years or for life."

The defendant in this case is not Assange, but obviously someone who has some
sort of connection with Assange in this matter, as stated in paragraph 5 of
the motion. Could it be that it is something just the get him and then slap
some additional charges onto him? Sure. But this motion does not tell us that.

[1] [https://pacer-
documents.s3.amazonaws.com/179/399086/18919235...](https://pacer-
documents.s3.amazonaws.com/179/399086/18919235200.pdf)

~~~
fi358
This brings to my mind the suspicuous dating site approced by UN that was used
to attack Assange and UN declaration that defended Assange:

[https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-
government/electio...](https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-
government/election/article110904727.html)

------
walru
And because a journalist wants to protect his source (aka. Seth Rich/his
family) we have people calling him a traitor and worse. Sadly, this is one
time I wish he'd put down his integrity and finally unveil who delivered him
Hilary's emails.

~~~
fastball
In the "Collateral Murder" era, Assange seemed to be nothing more than a
whistleblowing journalist with good intentions.

At this point though, it's very clear that Assange is a partisaned actor with
a very clear and very biased agenda (the fall of America). Whether or not you
agree with that agenda does not change the fact that it is anything but
impartial and he can't be trusted to deliver fair or balanced reporting.

~~~
Tepix
Being a biased journalist wasn't illegal last time i checked.

It's not "very clear" to me that Assange's agenda is the "fall of America".

~~~
fastball
Where did I say or imply it was?

It's very clear that his agenda is a destabilization of America rather than a
unilateral revealing of the truth.

The former is not an agenda I align with, but the latter is (even if it causes
the destabilization of America as a side-effect).

If you haven't seen how these leaks are very targeted in both timing and
scope, you haven't been paying attention.

------
melling
“WikiLeaks published thousands of emails that year from Democrats during the
presidential race that were stolen by Russian intelligence officers. The
hackings were a major part of Moscow’s campaign of disruption.“

So, his indictment, if it’s happening, is related to the investigation of
Russian interference in the 2016 election?

It also doesn’t sound like we have clarity if Assange is going to be indicted:
“It was not clear if prosecutors have filed charges against Mr. Assange.”

------
fuscy
The message being sent seems to be that shining light on government things, a
hero makes not.

I'm not going to compare Assange with Superman, but remember that Superman was
Clark Kent and he would have also shown the world if someone did nasty things
while publicly wearing a halo of virtue (government).

------
harry8
Does anyone happen to know why the NYT are reporting Russia as a source of the
democrat emails as a fact without any caveats? Is there any actual evidence
for it at all?

~~~
lawlessone
[https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/15/us/politics/guccifer-
russ...](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/15/us/politics/guccifer-russia-
mueller.html)

~~~
harry8
Which is the part of that considered to be "evidence"?

The diagram in that story is just comical, right?

------
olh
Where in the USA is Julian Assange?

~~~
onetimemanytime
Supermax in a few years. USA does not forget or forgive these things. The
later moves to help Russia distribute emails that moved a US election are just
the icing on the cake.

~~~
walru
I've still yet to see any quantifiable data points which say how exactly the
elections were swayed due to anything Assange was a part of.

~~~
lawlessone
There's loads.

Trump standing up on a podium and asking Russia for help and then retweeting
the leaks.

It had such an impact one lunatic entered a pizza parlour with a gun and
another posted pipe bombs to the clintons , Obama , Soros etc.

~~~
walru
I suppose you're referring to pizza-gate. I'm also assuming you did zero
digging into that narrative on your own. Keep eating that gov't cereal from
the MSM.

------
sschueller
So sad to see all this effort to "kill the messenger" instead of first
prosecuting the ones that committed murders and war crimes.

~~~
salimmadjd
It saddens me to see so many people I consider “progressives” who are cheering
this on like a crowd of mobs about to burn a witch.

~~~
__Joker
At the end of the day,I think everybody knew or had an idea that how this is
going to end.

Unfortunately, Assange and in effect WikiLeaks took a political and partisan
position, and gave the moral footing for the authorities to that end.

~~~
colordrops
What moral footing is that?

* There is no unbiased media outlet

* There are no laws against partisan media outlets

* It's not even clear that Wikileaks is partisan, despite rantings to the opposite effect

* Nothing wikileaks has released has ever been proven to be false.

~~~
bayesian_horse
I think it's pretty clear wikileaks has been used in a partisan manner in the
2016 presidential elections. I don't believe most serious journalists would
have published most of Podesta's emails, if any. Especially considering the
probable sources.

~~~
colordrops
Why would they not publish these emails?

~~~
bayesian_horse
Because most of them are completely irrelevant and there is very little
informational benefit to warrant this privacy violation. I mean... risotto
recipes?

After wikileaks published the material journalists did cover some of it. And
even so, they partly regret that, in light of what we know now.

------
jamespo
I thought he was already in the US, he promised he'd go there if Chelsea
Manning was released?

------
chvid
I remember when Wikileaks came out and Assange was cool; how they were the
first (at least for a wide audience) to do secure drops for whistleblowers.

Funny thing; I can’t seem to place when things changed for Wikileaks. The rape
case in Sweden maybe or the manning leaks.

Now they appear to be outright operates for the Russian state.

------
dominicr
If the US wanted to punish Assange maybe the best way is to massively ignore
him and get everyone else to do the same. He's an attention freak, so walking
out of his self-imposed imprisonment to resounding silence would hit him where
it hurts.

(Personally I think whistle blowers are an important part of applying
transparency and checks to companies & governments, just some of the
information merchants aren't the nicest of people.)

------
sneak
NYT:

> _Mr. Assange has lived for years in the Ecuadorean Embassy in London and
> would have to be arrested and extradited if he were to face charges in
> federal court, altogether a multistep diplomatic and legal process._

Meanwhile, The Guardian:

[https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/feb/04/julian-
assange...](https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/feb/04/julian-assange-
wikileaks-arrest-friday-un-investigation)

> _Julian Assange is in arbitrary detention, UN panel finds_

Also from The Guardian:

[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/mar/12/bradley-
mannin...](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/mar/12/bradley-manning-
cruel-inhuman-treatment-un)

> _Bradley Manning 's treatment was cruel and inhuman, UN torture chief rules_

So, yes, simply "living" in the embassy. Nice dodge, NYT.

The USA are the bad guys here, and no amount of deliberate obfuscation by the
CIA is going to be able to ultimately hide that. This whole thing is a
national shame.

~~~
C1sc0cat
He can leave at any time how can it be arbitrary - trouble is Mr Assange fled
bail which is an offence in all countries.

~~~
sneak
When he leaves he will be transferred to the US and tortured, just like
Manning was. His trial will be a farce, just like Manning's (did you know
POTUS—Obama at the time—declared Manning guilty prior to trial?). You, or I,
or anyone would skip out on bail if appearing means you get given to torturers
who will torture you without a trial. That's not his choice, it's the choice
of the people out to physically harm him.

If he stays he will never receive a trial or be allowed to face his accusers.

Either way his human rights are violated. That's why it's arbitrary detention.

It's why his indictment has been kept secret; they want to physically grab him
before they have to justify, legally, the charges against a journalist who
published things in the public interest. If they weren't being shady about the
whole thing, he could have been charged by now - but doing so would require
them to be subject to legal scrutiny. They don't want that, because they don't
have a leg to stand on. They won't tip their hand officially until he's
already physically in their (or their allies') custody.

~~~
ben_w
> When he leaves he will be transferred to the US and tortured

If that was the real concern and not merely the excuse, _why bother with
Sweden_? The UK has an extradition treaty with the USA. Sweden’s extradition
treaty with the USA “”“prohibits extradition on the basis of "a political
offense" or "an offense connected with a political offense."”””

~~~
fi358
In theory the treaty might prohibt that or torture, but in practice Sweden has
extradited persons to USA who have been then tortured:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repatriation_of_Ahmed_Agiza_an...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repatriation_of_Ahmed_Agiza_and_Muhammad_al-
Zery)

~~~
ben_w
Missing the point _that if the USA wanted him they didn’t need to go via
Sweden_.

