A decision will be issued tomorrow by the lower-court British judge in the Assange extradition case. It's virtually certain that Judge Vanessa Baraitser -- who has been openly hostile to Assange, barely even pretending to extend basic due process -- will rule for the USG. But...
On some level, it doesn't matter who wins tomorrow. Either way, Assange stays in prison: if he wins, the USG appeals, and if the US wins, Assange appeals.
That means the US & UK get to disappear Assange *for years* without proving his guilt: just refuse to release him on bail.
The indifference, if not outright support, of most of the US media for the Trump DOJ's attempt to extradite and prosecute Assange -- despite the grave threats it poses to their own press freedom -- is repellent but predictable. I explained here this week:
Despite how consequential the Assange hearing is for press freedoms and basic transparency -- the things the US media claims to care about so much -- so few have covered the proceedings.
Absent a pardon by Trump or, failing that, the Biden DOJ's adherence to Obama DOJ's refusal to prosecute Assange, the WikiLeaks founder -- who broke more major stories than most journalists could in 100 lifetimes -- will die in Belmarsh prison in London, convicted of nothing.
There have been some journalists with mainstream news outlets -- way too few -- who have been very vocal about the dangers of the Assange prosecution. WashPost's @Sulliview is one. @jaketapper, too. And here's NYT's @ScottShaneNYT as clear as can be:
Mexico's President AMLO announces that Mexico is offering political asylum to Julian Assange, citing not only Mexico's tradition of protecting people from political persecution but also its "responsibility" to do so.
The reaction in the US/UK is predictable. The rules:
* When US or UK grants asylum against political persecution, it's noble and uplifting.
* When a country grants asylum to protect against persecution *by* the US/UK (like Ecuador & Russia did), it's villainous and malicious.
Recall that both of Brazil's center-left presidents, @LulaOficial and @dilmabr, have been outspoken in their opposition to prosecution & extradition of Assange.
It's hard to put into words how rogue & isolated anti-Assange US/UK neoliberals are on this:
The rejection by the UK court of the US Govt's request to extradite Julian Assange to stand trial on espionage charges is obviously great news. But the judge endorsed most of the USG's theories, but ultimately found the US prison system too inhumane to permit extradition.
The US DOJ has already said it intends to appeal. The question -- and I'm hearing different things on this -- is whether the courts will keep Assange imprisoned while that appeal is pending. The court ordered him released, but it's unclear if the DOJ appeal will keep him in jail.
This wasn't a victory for press freedom. Quite the contrary: the judge made clear she believed there are grounds to prosecute Assange in connection with the 2010 publication.
It was, instead, an indictment of the insanely oppressive US prison system for security "threats."
This is honestly one of the most hilarious mega-viral tweets I've ever seen on Twitter.
As an undercover CIA operative, @HurdOnTheHill "saw firsthand how our enemies" -- who? "our enemies" -- "steal elections and try to interfere in ours." That's what he saw at CIA.
The major reason that tweet from Rep. Hurd went so viral is it's a GOP politician condemning claims of voter fraud.
But a subsidiary reason is that Americans love to hear how it's **other countries** -- the Bad Ones -- that "steal elections and interfere" in others' politics. 🇺🇸
Sorry, just have to repeat this in what I'm sure is a futile effort to get it out of my system and stop laughing so I can do other things today:
"When I was undercover at the CIA, I saw firsthand how our enemies steal elections and try to interfere in ours."
Democrats — including numerous Dem Party-aligned journalists — have spent all day smearing 2 Politico reporters as misogynistic because they had the sexist audacity to report on the very lucrative relationship between Janet Yellen & Wall St., the industry she’s about to regulate:
There are so many remarkably dumb and bad faith components to this accusation, beginning with their central claim — that only women (like Yellen & Hillary) have their Wall St largesse scrutinized when they’re about to assume large amounts of political power. Here’s 2 examples:
What’s wrong with this misogyny accusation? Everything.
The most glaring and inexcusable: their smear relies on the assertion that only women get this kind of media scrutiny even though **the very same article** extensively scrutinizes the Wall St ties of Antony Blinken, a man.
"The real measure of how free is a society is not how its mainstream, well-behaved ruling class servants are treated, but the fate of its actual dissidents....Royal court vassals always end up fine: rewarded for their subservience and thus convinced that freedoms abound."
How you determine whether a society is *truly* free, whether it truly guarantees basic civic rights and civil liberties -- or whether it's just an illusory tool of propaganda:
The smug football-spiking glee over Luke Letlow's death at 41 is one of the most repulsive things I've seen on this site.
Celebrating death is repugnant in all cases but he wasn't a COVID denier. Urging that the costs of isolation & economic ruin be considered isn't denialism:
Many deaths are caused by careless choices: people don't eat well; they don't exercise; they smoke, drink or take drugs; they don't have safe sex; they drive when tired.
But we still mourn their deaths as tragic, not giggle that they got what they deserved -- except sociopaths.
A top Biden WH aide, Rep. Cedric Richmond, just tested positive for COVID after he traveled to an Atlanta political rally for Ossoff and Warnock, rather than staying isolated at home. Do you think that's karmic justice, that if he dies it's just deserts?