worked as a diplomat at the Ecuadorian embassy in London for six out
of the seven years that Julian Assange lived there as a political
refugee, unlike others, I am privy to what actually happened there. I
am alarmed by CNN’s
June 15th 2019 story,
alleging Assange turned the Ecuadorian embassy in London into a
command post for election meddling.
story contains several substantive shortcomings and too many factual
errors. I warned CNN about them when I was approached during their
"investigation," but none of my points were included in the
article. It is clear that CNN was not looking for balance in their
publication, choosing instead to make assertions without showing
actual proof, and to use props such as irrelevant CCTV images, a
sensationalist collage and a miniature image of unreadable documents
to make it seem as though the story was based on evidence.
story is based on the wrong premise that publishing information about
an election—in this case the 2016 US presidential
election—constitutes interference. Nobody refutes the authenticity
of the material and nobody claims that the information was not in the
fact, New York Times editor Dean
had his newspaper obtained the same material, and regardless of the
source or means by which the information had been obtained, the New
York Times would have published it. Following CNN’s own logic, all
major newsrooms should also be called "election interference
centers," which is how CNN chooses to call the embassy where
Julian Assange received political asylum while he was the publisher
of WikiLeaks. CNN implies criminality in something that is a
legitimate exercise in journalism.
trend in fake stories
to CNN’s story, the best example of this type of completely
unsubstantiated reporting was the Guardian’s front page story
secret conversations with Assange in the Ecuadorian embassy”,
which was preceded by another libelous article entitled "Russia’s
secret plan to help Julian Assange escape from UK.”
of these stories were absolutely false; both were written by the same
authors and propped using the same sources: reports written by
employees of a private company in charge of security at the
Ecuadorian embassy, as well as information provided by anonymous
agents of Ecuador’s intelligence services.
months after publishing the Manafort story, neither The Guardian nor
anybody else has been able to provide any proof of Manafort visiting
what was at the time the most surveilled embassy in the world. Eight
months after publishing the Russian secret plan story, my personal
complaint to The Guardian for that article is still being judged by
the internal complaint’s procedure of the paper.
evidently did not learn from the Guardian’s catastrophic failures and
has chosen to use the same unreliable sources for their article. I
know —because I was there— that security company UC Global
produced exaggerated, misrepresented and hostile reports, loaded with
paranoia and sometimes with false information, with the purpose of
sowing suspicion about Assange and his visitors in order to justify
their own continued employment.
to CNN, “An
Ecuadorian intelligence official told CNN that the surveillance
reports are authentic”.
Even if we accept the troubling practice of quoting anonymous
intelligence officials, is it acceptable from a journalistic point of
view to take the word of an anonymous official from the current
Ecuadorian government, which is an obvious party with interests in
this story, while ignoring the former Ecuadorean Consul who question
the logs’ reliability based on specific arguments?
is in the public domain that the company carried out illegal
espionage and leaked confidential information. I know that the
company actually forged an official document, falsified the signature
of an ambassador, and presented it in a labor court in Spain when
facing legal action by one of their employees; a fact that the
ambassador himself denounced before the Foreign Ministry.
and illogical claims
claims, for example, that Assange "was even granted the power to
delete names from the visitor logs…" in an attempt to
introduce the absurd "…possibility that additional sensitive
meetings took place but are still secret."
is naive to believe that at the Ecuadorian embassy in London,
constantly surveilled by external and internal cameras video cameras,
and by undercover police during those seven years, a besieged
journalist would have been able to receive secret visitors without
the approval of the ambassador, without security personnel knowing
about it, without the visit being registered in the visitor’s log,
without a copy of the visitors’ IDs being kept on file by the
security guards, without being recorded by numerous security cameras,
both inside belonging to the embassy, as well as outside belonging to
the British secret services, some of which were pointed directly at
the only entrance to the embassy.
CNN’s rehash that Assange "smeared feces on the walls out of
anger" is a terrible smear, first uttered by Ecuadorian
authorities to draw attention away from the crime of handing over a
political refugee to his persecutors. I know for a fact that every
single moment of Julian Assange’s stay in the embassy is registered
on video. Why is it that these same agents who released short clips
of supposed embarrassing moments in an attempt to ridicule Assange
have not provided evidence for such grotesque claims?
is false that Assange ever participated in a fist fight with anyone
at the embassy. It is false that Assange "regularly"
threatened embassy employees with getting them fired. It is false
that he demanded all kinds of "privileges" and it is false
that Ecuador always provided them. Why is it that an Internet
connection or access to regular visitors considered a privilege for a
fact, there are so
many factual errors and biased speculation
CNN’s story that it is hard to believe they are caused by nothing
more than poor research and lack of rigor.
relentless Russiagate smear
Edward Snowden was trapped by the US Government at a Moscow airport
in 2013 and I personally tried to assist him on his way to Ecuador,
it was clear to me that Assange and WikiLeaks did not even have
low-level contacts in the Russian government. Snowden was practically
kidnapped at that airport, completely incommunicado for days, and
when I finally managed to see him, it was thanks to my own diplomatic
derivative report follows an obsessive line of inquiry seeking a
relationship between Julian Assange and Russia and suffers from an
embarrassing case of confirmation bias by omitting inconvenient
published thousands of documents on the Russian State spying
apparatus and the invasion of the privacy of its population in the
publication known as Spy
and WikiLeaks have publicly condemned the persecution of well-known
Russian dissidents, such as members of Pussy
CNN treats Robert Mueller’s unfounded assumptions as irrefutable
facts; a report that is the subject of enormous scrutiny
the United States and which Mueller himself seemed confused about
during his recent congressional hearing. The report lacks the basic
chronological coherence required of any investigation: on June 12th,
2016, Julian Assange publicly announced in a stellar
British television that WikiLeaks was preparing a publication of
Democratic Party materials. We can therefore conclude that by then
WikiLeaks had already received those materials.
Mueller report states that the first contacts with two alleged
sources happened on June 14th and 24th 2016. How is it possible for
Assange to announce his publication prior to being contacted by the
alleged sources? This lack of elementary logic thwarts all
speculation in CNN’s report regarding which of the supposed
"suspicious" people who visited Assange in June 2016 may
have provided WikiLeaks with the publication materials.
psychological torture of Assange
the arrest of Assange, the most relevant fact in his case is
undoubtedly the strong pronouncement of Nills Melzner, UN
Special Rapporteur on Torture,
who said that "in
20 years of work with victims of war, violence and political
persecution I have never seen a group of democratic States ganging up
to deliberately isolate, demonise and abuse a single individual for
such a long time and with so little regard for human dignity and the
rule of law."
is there is no mention of this important and damning report in CNN’s
piece? I did explain its relevance when I was contacted by the
authors of the story, while at the same time warning them of the lack
of credibility of the UC Global documents.
intends to set the stage for Julian Assange’s continued persecution
at the hands of the US Government and perhaps did learn the leason
from the Guardian’s Manafort hoax: news media are unaccountable to
the public they misinform. The words of the UN rapporteur on torture
are painfully accurate:
Assange is the victim of a relentless and unrestricted campaign of
public harassment, intimidation and defamation…which includes an
endless flow of humiliating, degrading and threatening statements in
Rebuttals to CNN’s
Assange, by Someone Who Was Actually There
attempts to shape the narrative on the subject of WikiLeaks and
Assange are not new. On March 28th 2019, the TV program Conclusiones,
claimed — without evidence — that Julian Assange had published
the famous INA
exposing the corruption of President Lenin Moreno and his family.
fact that WikiLeaks never published a single document or image of
Lenin Moreno or his family did not matter to CNN. The intentions of
the show were transparent from the pitched questions made by the
long will Julian Assange remain at the Ecuadorian embassy in London?”
you going to kick him out?”
has Julian Assange brought to Lenin Moreno’s government but
baseless accusation was used two weeks later by the Ecuadorian
government as one of the reasons to justify Assange’s expulsion
from the embassy in violation of international law.
most recent smear job equally begs the question. Any informed reader
is left to wonder why CNN is paving public opinion against Julian
Assange as he prepares to defend himself from continued political
persecution by the US.
would like to put forth 40 rebuttals to CNN’s article.
obtained exclusively by CNN reveal that WikiLeaks founder Julian
Assange received in-person deliveries, potentially of hacked
materials related to the 2016 US election, during a series of
suspicious meetings at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London."
of CNN’s speculations "reveal" that Julian Assange received
materials related to the 2016 US elections at the embassy, much less
"potentially" hacked materials. The very same word
"potentially" shows that CNN is not sure which materials
Julian Assange would have supposedly received at the embassy.
Furthermore, there is not even evidence that he received any
publication material at all.
confined to the embassy while seeking safe passage to Ecuador,
Assange met with Russians and world-class hackers at critical
moments, frequently for hours at a time."
embassy is not a jail (although in the last year Lenin Moreno’s
government did convert his embassy in London into defacto prison),
therefore, there is nothing unusual for Assange to have visitors for
several hours. Assange had hundreds of visits from around the world:
intellectuals, artists, politicians, journalists, dissidents,
activists. Russian nationals, such as the famous group Pussy
archenemy of the Kremlin, were among his visitors. The people whom
CNN mistakenly refers to as "hackers" are specialists in
computer security and data protection. CNN chooses to refer to them
as "pirates", because it is more in tune with the overall
bias of its report.
also acquired powerful new computing and network hardware to
facilitate data transfers just weeks before WikiLeaks received
hacked materials from Russian operatives.”
is nothing unusual about the Wikileaks editor purchasing computer
equipment. CNN’s claim that Wikileaks received "hacked materials
from Russian operatives" is not proven with any evidence, not
even from the Mueller Prosecutor’s report, on which CNN bases its
assertions. To say that Julian Assange acquired new equipment to
“facilitate the transfer of data” contradicts the very central
premise of the CNN report that, supposedly, the materials had been
delivered personally by one of those “suspicious” visits in June
details come from hundreds of surveillance reports compiled for the
Ecuadorian government by UC Global, a private Spanish security
company, and obtained by CNN."
stunning thing is that CNN considers the reports produced by UC
Global as a reliable source. I know, personally, that many of that
company’s reports do not reflect reality. The company produced
misrepresented, exaggerated, hostile reports, loaded with paranoia
and sometimes false information. Those of us who know what was going
on inside that embassy know that UC Global’s reports are going in
only one direction: sowing suspicion about Julian Assange and his
visits, in order to justify the work of the security company.
company was spying on every Julian Assange’s movement, leaking
materials and documents from inside the embassy, either by ineptitude
or on purpose.
UC Global company even went as far as to forge a document, falsifying
the signature of an ambassador, and presented it in a labor tribunal,
a fact that the ambassador himself denounced before the Foreign
is not the first time that leaked UC Global reports generate media
reports that are far from reality, like several of The Guardian’s
publications on Julian Assange.
Ecuadorian intelligence official told CNN that the surveillance
reports are authentic."
wonder if the anonymous "Ecuadorian intelligence official"
is the same one who caused the Guardian to publish the hoax that
secret conversations with Assange in the Ecuadorian embassy”,
secret plan to help Julian Assange escape from UK”.
for Julian Assange.
"authentic" reports used by CNN have been the mockery of
embassy officials, given that they had already been leaked, since the
reports border on the ridiculous.
the reports are authentic or not is beside the point, as it does not
follow that because the reports are authentic their content must be
true. If a pathological liar signs a report containing falsehoods,
the document will be authentic, but the content will still be false.
election, the private security company prepared an assessment of
Assange’s allegiances. That report, which included open-source
information, concluded there was "no doubt that there is
evidence" that Assange had ties to Russian intelligence
the unspeakable UC Global reaches such a resounding conclusion, it
should explicitly include the alleged evidence in its "evaluation"
report, because an evaluation that affirms that "there is
evidence" while failing to include said evidence would be
nothing short of pathetic. In fact, UC Global’s reports are usually
pathetic (doesn’t the phrase "there is no doubt that there is
evidence" sound pathetic?). The reports are often written by
security guards with limited education, who will use any reference
found on the internet as a source for their reports. With such
standards, one can imagine a report that reads: "There is no
doubt that there is evidence that Manafort visited Assange",
because the author of the report read it in The Guardian, or another
that reads "There is no doubt that there is evidence that
Wikileaks published INAPAPERS ”, because he read it in CNN. How can
CNN base its stories on reports that lack all credibility?
sought refuge at the Ecuadorian Embassy in June 2012 to apply for
political asylum and avoid extradition to Sweden, where he faced
sexual assault allegations, which he denies."
did not seek refuge to avoid being extradited to Sweden. His
political asylum has always been to protect him from the persecution
of the United States,
which has had an active Grand Jury since 2010. Assange always said he
would consent to extradition to Sweden as long as it was accompanied
by a guarantee that he would not be onwardly extradited to the United
States for his journalistic activities. Ecuador offered that
possibility to Sweden from the very beginning. In May 2017, after
Sweden closed the preliminary investigation for the second time,
Julian Assange still did not leave the embassy, because the risk of
extradition to the US was still imminent, a fact that was proven to
be correct when Ecuador handed him over to the British.
outset he demanded (and was granted) high-speed internet
connectivity, phone service and regular access to professional
visitors and personal guests. "
is false that Julian Assange "demanded" anything. Moreover,
it is false that Ecuador provided Julian Assange with a telephone
connection—neither a landline nor a cellphone. Julian Assange did
not use embassy phones for his communications. In any case, when CNN
says "A guest with privileges” –Why does CNN consider
internet and telephone privileges? What internet speed does CNN
consider a “privilege”? It is thanks to the internet connection
that Julian Assange was able to give hundreds of conferences and
interviews, including to CNN. Why is receiving visitors a privilege
for a political asylee? A political refugee in not an inmate and an
embassy is not a prison.
also issued a special list of people who were able to enter the
embassy without showing identification or being searched by
security. He was even granted the power to delete names from the
persons, without exception, had to register their entry and exit in
the visitor log, including Julian Assange’s closest collaborators,
who were on the list of frequent visits to which, surely, CNN refers;
the exception is that they didn’t have to show their ID to the guards
every time they entered the embassy, simply because a copy of their
ID was always at the front desk.
is false that Julian Assange could erase visitor’s names from
embassy records. Who claims such nonsense? Where is CNN’s evidence
to support this outright lie? Is it also a UC Global report? ¿Is it
the anonymous intelligence official who invented Manafort’s visit
and the Russian escape plan?
all leaves open the possibility that additional sensitive meetings
took place but are still secret."
is no possibility, not even the slightest of possibilities, that
Assange would be able to have a secret visit without the ambassador
approving it, without the security personnel knowing it, without the
visit being registered in the visitors log, without the respective
copy of the identification of the visitor stored by the security
guards, without being recorded on video, both by the internal
security cameras of the embassy, as well as by the external cameras
of the British secret services, pointing to the entrance of the
embassy–for seven years, this was perhaps the most hyper surveilled
place in the world.
absurd suggestion of the "open possibility" of unregistered
visits is neither casual nor naive. It clearly seeks to sow doubt
about fantasy visits created by the press itself, such as The
Guardian’s infamous story about Manafort and the embassy.
installed his own recording devices and used noise machines to
stymie the snooping, according to the documents obtained by CNN."
the article refers to a video camera for video editing and online
streaming, there is nothing strange about that. Julian Assange
frequently participated in online interviews and conferences and
always had and used his own recording equipment.
sound distorters were of use and are property of the embassy. We used
these distorters in our own meetings, since the embassy was subject
to surveillance from outside by the British, who had long-range
microphones. In addition, we did not want to be heard by the UC
Global company itself that handled the entire camera system inside
the embassy. Julian Assange also made use of these sound distorters,
both in his meetings with us and with his visits. He has the same
right to privacy as any other person, even though Lenin Moreno’s
government, in particular, has violated it in an unlimited way.
The task of
controlling Assange proved difficult. Fistfights broke out between
Assange and the guards."
Julian Assange never threw a fist at anyone, nor did he receive any
from anyone. In almost 2,500 days of confinement there were few and
exceptional isolated incidents that occurred with security guards. On
just two occasions there were shoves, never a "fistfight"
as CNN claims for sensationalistic effect. It is false that those
incidents were about trying to "control Assange," as CNN
suggests. On both occasions Julian Assange was subject to provocation
by guards lacking professionalism.
reports will never mention the multiple official complaints against
UC Global, presented by Julian Assange, as well as by outside
visitors such as Daniell Elsberg, French presidential candidate Eva
Joly, Baroness Helena Kennedy, or actor John Cusak, to name a few,
about the disrespectful treatment of the security guards.
the first 6 years, Julian Assange’s stay at the Ecuadorian embassy
was characterized by mutual respect between the Ecuadorian diplomatic
and administrative staff and its guest. A couple of isolated
incidents with private security guards do not change the respectful
nature of that stay.
was only in the last year, under Lenin Moreno´s government, that
things changed radically. Diplomatic personnel were replaced, and a
new security company was hired. The relationship towards Julian
Assange then became very hostile.
smeared feces on the walls out of anger"
statement is as false as it is despicable, it has been brazenly
repeated by the highest Ecuadorian authorities: mainly by President
Moreno, the Minister of the Interior, María Paula Romo, the
Secretary of the Presidency, Sebastián Roldán. These politicians
are obviously lying to try to justify the crime of having handed over
a political refugee to his executioners. Why does CNN repeat this
lie? What evidence is there for such a claim? Is it not enough with
President Moreno that has
made lying an art?
How is it possible for journalists to also stoop so low?
Despite the years
of strife, Assange was allowed to stay and prepared to wield his
power when the moment was right."
granted Julian Assange asylum to protect him from the threats to his
life and freedom, threats that remain until now. It is obvious that
he should be allowed to stay at the embassy, until full protection of
his rights can be guaranteed. The claim that Assange’s stay was
maintained so that he could "prepare"
who knows what "right
also maintained direct contact with senior officials in Ecuador,
including former Foreign Minister Ricardo Patiño, and regularly
used those connections to threaten embassy staff… He claimed he
could get people fired, even the sitting ambassador".
is not true that Assange “regularly" threatened embassy
employees with having them dismissed. Save for an exceptional
discussion, no diplomat received a threat of any kind. Security
guards are a separate issue, and even there, incidents were isolated.
is incorrect to say that Assange maintained direct contact with
senior officials, unless it is understood by senior officials the
advisers of the Foreign Minister’s office, and still, sporadically
and exceptionally. What is extraordinary about that?
7 years of asylum, Assange never spoke or had contact with President
Correa. His direct contacts with Minister Patiño are counted on the
fingers of one hand.
Assange was busy
back at the embassy. That month, members of the security team worked
overtime to handle at least 75 visits to Assange, nearly double the
monthly average of visits logged by the security company that year."
Assange was always busy. He was never inactive. A political asylee
does not lose any rights and he was always working. Indeed, in the
month of June 2016, a period of special interest in the CNN
investigation, Assange was busy, not in the way as CNN suggests, but
rather with a series of specific events that, curiously, the CNN
investigation is unaware of, or deliberately omits:
June 19, 2016, on the occasion of the fourth anniversary of his
entry to the embassy, “First
they came for Assange”
takes place, a series of simultaneous events held in several cities
around the world: Berlin, Paris, New York, Brussels, Madrid, Milan,
Athens, Belgrade, Buenos Aires, Montevideo, among others, with
audiences present in different scenarios and the face-to-face
participation, or via video, of dozens of personalities, including:
Noam Chomsky, Slavoj Žižek, Yanis Varoufakis, Vivienne Westwood
Michael Moore, Ken Loach, Amy Goodman, PJ Harvey, Bernard Stiegler,
Brian Eno, Baltasar Garzón, Sarah Harisson, Srećko Horvat, Angela
Richter, Chris Hedges, Renata Avila. The central element of that
mega event consisted of a live, online broadcast from the embassy.
Assange: four years of freedom denied”,
a 5-day day event (June 20 – 24, 2016), held at the International
Center for Higher Communication Studies for Latin America, CIESPAL,
in Quito, on the occasion of the fourth anniversary of the embassy
stay. The program consisted of several days of conferences with the
participation of international exhibitors, screenings of
documentaries, visual arts exhibitions and online broadcasts, live,
from the embassy.
a live broadcast with analysis and discussion on the Brexit
referendum which was streamed the night of the referendum until
dawn, June 23-24 2016 streamed online from inside the embassy,
with face-to-face and remote video participation of at least
a dozen panelists from different parts of the world.
the visit of Foreign Minister Guillaume Long between June 17 and 21,
2016, implied a very intense agenda of meetings and press media at
the embassy, including an expanded meeting with the legal team of
Julian Assange, with the participation of lawyers from outside the
is obvious, therefore, that an accumulation of public events,
meetings and interviews in the same month will significantly increase
the regular number of visits to the embassy, many of which are not
visits to Julian Assange, but of the embassy, and it is
understandable, therefore, that the guards would have to do
suggestion that the embassy had a lot going on in June 2016 because
Julian Assange, supposedly, was preparing to receive material to
publish is therefore misplaced.
Assange took at
least seven meetings that month with Russians and others with
Kremlin ties, according to the visitor logs."
meeting Russian citizens suspicious in itself? Does every Russian
citizen have, according to CNN, "Kremlin ties"? Why does
CNN not name all those people, supposedly, with Kremlin ties?
Wouldn’t that be of public interest?
encounters were with a Russian national named Yana Maximova, who
could not be reached for comment. Almost nothing is known about
Maximova, making it difficult to discern why she visited the embassy
at key moments in June 2016."
admits not knowing anything about Maximova, but, since she is
Russian, then she is suspicious of something. If you don’t know
anything about her, why suggest she could be linked with the Kremlin?
Wouldn’t it have been helpful to search her name on Google to find
that The Guardian describes her as a journalist who worked on a radio
in the United States? Although, after all, when it comes to Assange,
The Guardian is not exactly trustworthy.
also had five meetings that month with senior staffers from RT, the
Kremlin-controlled news organization."
of the editorial line of a state broadcaster, in this case RT, does
that make every journalist working at the state television station a
suspected agent? Are BBC employees also suspected of being MI5
agents? Ecuadorian public media have no editorial independence, but,
are their journalists also intelligence agents? RT has many British
journalists in London, such as British journalist Afshin Rattansi who
has visited and interviewed Assange at the embassy on several
occasions including "at
key moments of the US presidential election".
Does that make him a suspect of working for the Kremlin and handing
over compromising materials?
intelligence agencies have concluded that RT had "actively
collaborated with WikiLeaks" in the past… For several months
in 2012, Assange hosted a television show on RT.”
presented by Assange, was an independent British production, whose
international rights were purchased by RT
suggest that, because someone has an opinion program in RT, there
would necessarily be a dependency with the Kremlin, is clearly wrong.
Under that logic, former Prime Minister of Scotland Alex
Salmond; legendary American presenter Larry King; American journalist
and Pulitzer Prize winner Chris Hedges; the American broadcaster Max
Keizer; former Commissioner at the US Commodity Futures Trading
Commission, Bart Chilton; former President of Ecuador Rafael Correa;
and even the famous soccer coach José Mourihno are all also
unconditionally linked to the Kremlin.
after WikiLeaks established contact with the Russian online
personas, Assange asked his hosts to beef up his internet
connection. The embassy granted his request on June 19, providing
him with technical support "for data transmission" and
helping install new equipment… This was the same day Assange and
his lawyers met with then-Ecuadorian Foreign Minister Guillaume
Long, according to surveillance reports"
installation of higher speed internet is clearly done on the same day
of an international mega event, First
they came for Assange,
online to around 10 cities simultaneously, with thousands of
attendees and spectators. What data transmission operation is CNN
talking about? Any new technical upgrades/changes within the embassy
must be made by embassy personnel or hired by the embassy. What
technical support provisions for Assange is CNN talking about? The
faster internet speed responds to a long-standing need by the embassy
itself, and not necessarily or exclusively because it had been
requested by Assange, after he allegedly established virtual contact
with who knows who, as suggested by CNN. Moreover, the hiring of a
new internet connection cannot occur overnight, because regulations
of the Ecuadorian bureaucracy involve requesting a modification of
budgets and their approval, something which takes at least several
unclear whether Assange told the Ecuadorians that WikiLeaks was
working behind the scenes to acquire documents related to the US
journalist is obliged to inform a government in advance what he is
working on. The same goes for Julian Assange.
is absurd to say that by that date (19th
2016) Julian Assange was working “behind the scenes”, in
obtaining information that, clearly, he already possessed, given that
he had already announced it publicly a week before.
the election approached, security officials at the embassy noted
that Assange released some of the hacked emails "directly from
the embassy," according to the surveillance documents."
Where’s the evidence? Only the opinion of a UC Global guard, forced
to write daily reports? Did he find out on the Wikileaks website,
like millions of people did? How does he know the emails were hacked?
Why could it not be leaked emails?
Mueller report explicitly referenced that "Assange had access
to the internet from the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, England. "
an extraordinary discovery!
is unclear whether Mueller ever obtained these surveillance reports
as part of his investigation."
is very likely that he has given the fact that, with the Lenin Moreno
government, Ecuador completely lost its sovereignty and has given the
US everything the US has requested, culminating with Assange’s head.
In January 2019, Ecuador allowed more than a dozen diplomats and
officials who worked at the Ecuadorian embassy in London to be
questioned by US prosecutors. If the Americans have requested
documents from the embassy, which is very likely, Lenin Moreno will
most certainly have handed them over. Although, if Mueller came to
read the UC Global reports, he must surely have concluded that there
is no doubt that there is evidence
these are the most ridiculous documents he must have come across
throughout his career as an investigator.
that hackers from Russia’s military intelligence agency, known as
the GRU, attacked Democratic targets in spring 2016 and removed
hundreds of gigabytes of information. They created online personas
— Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks — to transfer some of the files to
WikiLeaks and publicly claim responsibility for the hacks, falsely
disavowing any Russian ties."
states that the sources of various materials of the Democratic Party
are diverse, and these were circulated by different actors. The
Democratic Party itself recognizes that its servers were attacked for
two years before the election. Wikileaks has said that its source is
not the Russian state, nor any state agent.
forensic report that attributes the alleged extraction of information
to “Russian state hackers” was written by a private company hired
by the Democratic Party itself, that is, judge and party. The
Department of Justice did not make its own independent expert
the other hand, Wikileaks was not the initial medium that published
materials obtained from the Democratic Party. Numerous organizations
and media in the US published material, allegedly, coming from
Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks. This includes the Washington Post, New York
Times, Wall Street Journal, Forbes, Politico, Buzzfeed, The Intercept
and The Hill.
materials published by WikiLeaks were reprinted and / or reported in
many media outlets, including the BBC, NBC, ABC, The Guardian, Fox
News and USA Today. However, only WikiLeaks is persecuted for
publishing such information, which is furthermore truthful and of
team noted that it "cannot rule out that stolen documents were
transferred to WikiLeaks through intermediaries who visited during
the summer of 2016.”
this discrepancy in the conclusions of Prosecutor Muller, among the
claims that the materials would have been transferred over the
internet, but then that “it
cannot be ruled out that by visiting intermediaries,”
that the Prosecutor does not have evidence to support his conclusions
. Even worse, if it is considered, as said before, that all the dates
suggested by Muller, either for electronic transmission or retrieval
through a visit, are later than when Julian Assange had already
announced that he had information on the Democratic Party.
special counsel named one of those associates, German hacker Andrew
Müller-Maguhn, and said he "may have assisted with the
transfer of these stolen documents to WikiLeaks… According to the
surveillance reports, Müller-Maguhn visited Assange at the London
embassy at least 12 times before the 2016 election."
Müller-Maguhn, whom CNN refers to as a hacker, is an information
protection specialist. His activism focuses on the human right to
privacy in the digital age, that is, quite the opposite of the
negative connotation of "hacker," attributed to him. In his
professional activity he organizes workshops that train system
administrators in policies and structures that facilitate data
protection; In addition, he works as a freelance journalist in
cybersecurity research. As in the case of computer expert Ola Bini,
jailed without reason in Ecuador by Lenin Moreno´s government,
Andrew Müller-Maguhn is suddenly suspicious because he has 2
problems: he is too smart with computers, therefore dangerous, and he
is friends with Julian Assange!
report says that on July 6, WikiLeaks reached out to the Russian
online personas with a request to send anything "hillary
related" as soon as possible, "because the (Democratic
National Convention) is approaching and she will solidify Bernie
supporters behind her after," referring to her opponent in the
Democratic primaries, Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont. "
that "request" is true, the intention would be to support
the most progressive candidate in the race, Bernie Sanders; but …
wasn’t Assange supposed to be supporting Trump?
the way, Wikileaks had made public calls for information on Donald
Trump and declared that they would accept leaks from any political
later, on July 18, while the Republican National Convention kicked
off in Cleveland, an embassy security guard broke protocol by
abandoning his post to receive a package outside the embassy from a
man in disguise."
security guard did not break the protocol. In the case of a strange
package, of a mysterious individual, that was precisely the protocol:
to receive the package outside the embassy, in the lobby of the
building and make sure that it does not represent a danger.
seven years of Julian Assange’s stay, countless strange packages
arrived at the embassy. The vast majority were gifts from those who
idolize Assange, but also threats from those who demonize him.
posing as DCLeaks, had reached out again to WikiLeaks and offered
more materials, writing that "you won’t be disappointed, I
promise," according to the Mueller report.
it not the case that according to CNN’s own account, previously
Russian hackers had already successfully established a communication
channel with Wikileaks, they had sent materials online, or through
suspicious visits? Why, suddenly, would they change their pseudonym
to start a new relationship and try to interest Assange with new
material? Why would they not use the same previous modality?
at least two occasions, RT even published articles detailing the new
batches of emails before WikiLeaks officially released them,
suggesting that they were coordinating behind the scenes, which they
statement has already been categorically refuted in the past.
Announcements on Twitter by Wikileaks are not necessarily made
immediately as soon as the information is uploaded to their website.
Put simply, all RT had to do is monitor the Wikileaks website,
discover a new publication and immediately do what any media aims
for: being the first to publish it.
ultimatum, Ecuadorian officials in the capital city of Quito decided
on October 15 to cut Assange off from the outside world, shutting
down his internet access and telephone service. Even this didn’t
stop the deluge of email releases, which WikiLeaks continued pumping
out every day until the election."
is it possible that Assange kept publishing if he had no
communications at the embassy? Well, in the same way that Wikileaks
continued publishing in 2018, when Lenin Moreno’s government, in a
flagrant violation of human rights, completely isolated Assange for 8
whole months. Simply, Wikileaks can publish from anywhere else, be it
from London, Reykjavik, Berlin or from the United States itself. The
geographical location from which information is uploaded to the web
is inconsequential. Therefore, this obsession to discover if Julian
Assange published or not information from the embassy is a sterile
and irrelevant exercise. The only relevant thing is to know if that
information is true and if it is of public interest.
the other hand, the fact that Assange was inside the embassy does not
mean that the Wikileaks publications were made by him, personally,
from the embassy. The editor in chief of a media makes editorial
decisions, it is not necessarily
performs the operational and technical task of editing and uploading
information on a computer. Does CNN’s editor-in-chief also act as
designer, programmer, proofreader, and do they personally take care
of uploading the news to the web?
By 1 a.m., two
WikiLeaks personnel arrived at the embassy and started removing
computer equipment as well as a large box containing "about 100
hard drives," according to the documents."
is not surprising that Julian Assange takes a precautionary measure,
to protect his information, in the face of a serious crisis with the
Ecuadorian government at that time, unleashed the night of October
18, 2016. The internet had been suspended and, at the risk of an
asylum termination, no matter how small, the journalist has full
right to protect his information. Like CNN, it would be your right to
protect yours, if there is a risk that the government can appropriate
it. In fact, that was exactly what happened with the Lenin Moreno
government, when Moreno put a cowardly end to the asylum. The
government illegally seized Julian Assange’s belongings. As if that
was not bad enough already, Moreno then handed Julian Assange’s
belongings over to his persecutors.
UC Global could not inspect the equipment, how do they know it
contained "about 100 hard drives"?
Department lawyers secretly prepared a criminal case against Assange
for the Chelsea Manning leaks."
“secret” investigation and preparation of the case against
Assange did not begin in 2016. It began in 2010, before Julian
Assange applied for asylum in 2012. It was not so secret, as it was
always evident and was the fundamental reason for the granting of
asylum. The accusations of a Grand Jury are normally kept secret and
only made public when the defendant is arrested. It is proven that
Julian Assange was always right to request that asylum and Ecuador to
grant it. Lenin Moreno violated every asylum rule when it let British
police enter to take force Assange out by force.
prosecutors even turned to a controversial law to target Assange for
actively soliciting and publishing classified materials, which is
typically protected under the First Amendment."
is good that CNN recognizes that the publication of classified
materials is protected by the first amendment. How sad, however,
that CNN dedicates such a long report attempting to impute some
form of criminality in relation to a publication of material that is
not even classified, and that CNN insists on demonizing a fellow
journalist, who cannot defend himself and who is at risk of a
lifelong sentence for the "crime" of publishing war crimes.
April of this year, Moreno revoked Assange’s asylum and said Assange
had "violated the norm of not intervening in internal affairs
of other states."
has not violated any rules. Firstly, because when journalists publish
information in an electoral campaign about a candidate from any
country, this does not intervention in the internal affairs of
anyone. That is called journalism and that is what journalists do
every day. Secondly, because no international treaty suppresses the
right of an asylee to work, nor to freedom of expression. There is no
precedent in history in which a political asylum is removed from an
asylee for publishing, commenting, or reporting on other countries.
This cleared the
way for British police to forcibly remove Assange from the embassy
when the first US charges were unsealed."
was not from Lenin Moreno’s decision of April 11, 2019 that the road
was paved for the humiliating entry of a foreign power into our
embassy, to kidnap a political refugee. The road for this crime was
paved months in advance, in coordination with the British and
directly with the Americans, who are the ones who moved the strings.
reported by ABC,
at least 6 months before the termination of asylum, the Ecuadorian
ambassador to Berlin was the one who offered Assange’s head to the
Americans; and according to the magazine Proceso,
from inside the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, in London, for
months before the expulsion "British
and Ecuadorian officials held secret teleconferences with the
headquarters of the State Department in Washington to discuss the
future of Assange."
been accused of any crimes related to his actions in 2016."
a fierce investigation by the Department of Justice that lasted about
two years, cost about 25 million dollars, interviewed about 500
people and in front of which Assange was always willing to appear if
required, he has not been charged of any crime because, simply,
publishing is not a crime.
has just been ratified by a Federal
Judge in New York,
the lawsuit filed by the National Democratic Committee against
Wikileaks. The judge has basically ruled that the First Amendment of
the US Constitution protects the media that publish materials of
public interest despite defects in the way the materials were
obtained, as long as the diffuser did not participate in any crime in
obtaining the materials first.
still has allies in Russia. Within hours of Assange’s arrest, senior
officials from President Vladimir Putin’s government rushed to
Assange’s defense and slammed the US for infringing his rights,
declaring that, "The hand of ‘democracy’ squeezes the throat of
the fact that someone condemns the arrest and possible extradition of
Assange, mean that they are his allies? Within a few hours of that
arrest, virtually all human rights and press freedom organizations
had condemned it, warning that his extradition to the US would be a
violation of Assange’s human rights, including Amnesty
Rights Watch (HRW),
Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ),
Civil Liberties Union (ACLU),
of the Press Foundation,
for Constitutional Rights,
and countless civil
organizations and personalities
the world. Would CNN also refer to any of them as "allies"?