Chelsea Manning’s Case Is Wikileaks

Chelsea Manning’s case is Wikileaks vs the United States.

That’s the Grand Jury – and the case consists of charging Wikileaks with conspiring with Russia, including in Manning’s original leak.

Tweet showing Manning partied with Mike Cernovich

Manning is right. In her press conference today, Manning astutely pointed out that Julian Assange is already indicted by the United States – and not by Mueller. Grand Juries, she said, are for the purpose of an indictment – so why does the Government want to force her to testify at a Grand Jury, if Assange is already indicted?

Answer: Because it’s a separate trial from that of Assange. It is the trial of Wikileaks, for conspiring with the GRU against the United States since Manning leaked her cables in 2010.

Patribotics hopes to expand reporting and commission other writers. If you would like to donate, there are buttons around the site, or you could make a contribution here. 

This blog has consistently argued that Mueller said Trump was not proven guilty YET, but would be proven guilty once the Wikileaks = the GRU case concludes. Manning’s self-serving pleas to camera only underscore our central thesis.

Manning’s allies – who are also Wikileaks allies – are arguing another salient point, and it’s a pity the mainstream media is not paying any attention. They say that the Government wants to relitigate her court martial. Here we have a whining tweet from Jude Fleming, who masquerades as a journalist concerned for the free press; in fact, as her twitter header shows, Fleming works for Ruptly, a state blog of the Putin government.

Chelsea Manning has been asked to answer the same questions before a Grand Jury. Spoiler alert for US Gov’t –> READ THE COURT MARTIAL TRANSCRIPT, IT’S ALL THERE. Next, look up “redundant”. RevolvingInjustice FreeChelseaManning

How Does a Ruptly Writer Know What the Grand Jury Wants?

How does Russia’s Ms. Fleming know this? Manning has refused to answer the questions, correct? So she has no idea what the Grand Jury want to ask Chelsea Manning, does she? Except, Fleming works for Russia – so of course she knows.

Jude Fleming with the Ruptly logo

As we reported, Wikileaks colluded with the GRU in the Manning case and ever since. Chelsea knows this, and so does Russia (Fleming’s employers). They know exactly what the Grand Jury wants to ask Ms. Manning. Let’s pretend for a second that this wasn’t the case, and Fleming worked for CNN instead of Ruptly. Why would ‘her court martial testimony’ be the first thing that springs to mind? It wouldn’t. Chelsea Manning has been out of prison, pardoned by President Obama, for some time. She has done all kinds of nefarious things since her release. For example, she’s partied with white nationalists and other employees of the Russian state, like Cassandra Fairbanks, who worked for Sputnik, and the alt-right’s Jack Posobiec and his Russian wife.


A Grand Jury could be asking  Manning about any of these things. But the Ruptly ‘journalist’ is certain that she is being asked about her Grand Jury testimony at her Court Martial.

And the Ruptly ‘journalist’ is dead right. Because Chelsea Manning’s case is Wikileaks, the one that will convict Trump for conspiring with Russia. 

Because Chelsea Manning – who has immunity, following her pardon, for the 2010 crime she was convicted of, and cannot take the Fifth – perjured herself at her 2010 court martial. If she repeats that lie today, she will have committed a new perjury.

I want to take the mainstream media by the scruff of their shirts and shake some sense into them. Do folks not see what is right in front of them? Let me recap:

  • The mystery witness is Rossiya Sedognya, or Sputnik, as I have reported
  • The ‘ongoing case’ listed by Mueller is Wikileaks
  • This is Manning’s Grand Jury
  • This is the Grand Jury that is ‘continuing robustly’
  • This is the Grand Jury that was SO IMPORTANT a Federal Court shut itself down so reporters could not guess the case
  • This is the Grand Jury that is SO IMPORTANT that SCOTUS granted certiorari

United States vs. Wikileaks – What’s the Big Deal?

  • Mueller found Trump’s campaign colluded with Wikileaks
  • Bill Barr’s redactions cover up Wikileaks collaboration with the GRU
  • Once proven, Wikileaks and Russia become one entity in law
  • And Mueller’s Report says at that point, Trump’s conspiracy with Russia is proven

Chelsea Manning is not refusing to testify because of any feeling about Grand Juries. She lied at her court martial. She knows Russia was involved. The FBI have the goods. Chelsea would face far worse charges than merely perjury, and she’d face them under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Jude Fleming of Ruptly knows that, because her Russian bosses told her so. It’s why she knows, in advance, what questions the Grand Jury want to ask Manning. Fleming’s Russian bosses know that Wikileaks didn’t receive ‘whistleblower’ info and publish it. They were working, all the time, from the beginning, for the Russian state.

Wikileaks IS Russia. And Trump’s campaign was found to have conspired with Wikileaks. If Chelsea Manning’s case is Wikileaks, and it definitely is, then her fear is of revealing just how long she, exactly like Assange, has been working for the Kremlin. 

As I wrote in my first post on this blog, ‘Dear Mr. Putin, Let’s Play Chess’, a long essay I wrote in December 2016 and published here in January 2017:

I have an overarching theory of Russia’s attack on America and the West. Here it is.

There have not been a series of attacks on America and Europe by Vladimir Putin. There has been one single operation; it is the same operation.

This afternoon, Chelsea Manning went one step further in proving me right.

Patribotics is grateful to you for making this site possible. Your support enables us to report on Putin and Donald Trump. Please consider a donation here


Did Mueller Report Trump Will Be Found Guilty?

Did Mueller say Trump is guilty? More specifically, does the Mueller Report say Trump knew Wikileaks was conspiring with Russian intelligence when he worked with them?

The newly uncovered FOIA redactions suggest that’s exactly what the report says; Trump knew Wikileaks was working with the GRU. Mueller refers to an ongoing FBI case which will prove it.

That case is ongoing. We know, thanks to FOIA, that there are no charges yet. The case is part of the main Russia conspiracy investigation, and it comes after ‘Roger Stone’ in the dictionary – just like ‘Wikileaks.

Patribotics hopes to expand reporting and commission other writers. If you would like to donate, there are buttons around the site, or you could make a contribution here. 

Mueller sticks all this in his thinking on obstruction. He can’t prove Trump conspired in the Russian hacking he charged so far. He also can’t prove Trump conspired directly with Russian government officials. But, he says – an important but – evidence indicates the FBI will be able to prove Trump knew what he was doing was illegal.

Mueller says there is evidence that Trump knew [redacted] when Russia was being blamed for the hacks and Trump sought out Wikileaks releases.

What Did Trump Know That Could Be Illegal?

This article will lay out the evidence that this ‘redacted’ must mean ‘Wikileaks was conspiring with the GRU’ – as in, ‘Trump knew Wikileaks was conspiring with the GRU’

Well, as Bill Barr told us all triumphantly, it’s only illegal to work with Wikileaks if Wikileaks conspired in the GRU hacks. But Mueller hasn’t proven this yet. Barr wanted to cut Mueller off before he could get there. This piece will argue that Mueller is talking about not just any old FBI investigation, but the one he lists in Appendix D (A) 11 – which, I believe, is Wikileaks.

Mueller first had to prove Trump knew Wikileaks was conspiring with the GRU. Next, the FBI must prove Wikileaks did conspire with the GRU.

Mueller tells us he’s got evidence of the first – and is waiting for the FBI to prove the second. That evidence would show Trump committed obstruction by firing Comey – because there was an underlying crime.

If I’m right, no wonder Barr begged Trump to invoke executive privilege. If that’s what’s under the redactions, Barr is in line for obstruction of justice charges, and an historical level of infamy that will rival Nixon.

Mueller Uses Definite Language

The evidence does indicate that a thorough FBI investigation would uncover facts about the campaign and the President personally that the President could have understood to be crimes or that would give rise to personal and political concerns

As Mueller describes his “choice” not to make a prosecutorial judgement on obstruction, we find the words above. He states that ‘the evidence does indicate’ affirmatively, as a finding. Next he says ‘that a thorough FBI investigation WOULD find’ – emphasis mine – ‘facts about the campaign and the President personally that the President could have understood to be crimes [and other things that would rise to the corrupt intent standard].

This is absolutely vital to understand, so let us take it slowly. Is Mueller speculating? That cannot, if we read the rest of his report, be the case. To speculate would be to breach Special Counsel regulations. Mueller is here to deliver findings, and to describe why he chose to prosecute, or not to prosecute, offenders. He is not here to guess, to hope or to use a crystal ball. He is not ‘Mystic Mueller’ or ‘Sideshow Bob’. When he says ‘would find’, he means that he has established ‘the evidence does indicate’ that the FBI will find something. Why, then, does Mueller say ‘would’, the conditional, and not ‘will’, the future tense? Because of the qualifier; ‘a thorough FBI investigation’.

Mueller Warns Congress Barr May Try to Impede The FBI

Is Mueller suggesting that the FBI have not been thorough? That would be a ludicrous reading of the text here. At no other point in the report does he criticize the FBI or suggest their investigations were not up to scratch.

Mueller can’t be saying “If only the FBI had done their gosh-darn jobs on the evidence which I’ve said does indicate the President had a corrupt motive – if only they’d investigate thoroughly, gosh-darn it – why, then I coulda charged this sumbitch!”

Nope. Mueller is saying that he has evidence which, after the FBI has done its work, will show the President has the corrupt motives needed to charge on obstruction.

The Ongoing FBI Investigation Listed In Mueller’s Report is On the Substance

The report lists unresolved matters and referrals in Appendix D. It’s got two halves; matters directly related to Mueller’s main mission – collusion and conspiracy – and criminal matters not directly related that arose from that. Mueller says he definitely has evidence; Chris Wray and the FBI will be able to uncover crimes that implicate Trump.

It’s a bold claim, once we understand it, and can only refer to his main investigation. There is only one way to square this claim with the statements Barr made in his first letter. Let’s look at Mueller’s “ongoing case” listed here.

The Recent FOIA Judgement Supports This Theory

A FOIA judgement recently specified that Bill Barr must do better than ‘Harm to Ongoing Matter’ when redacting the report. Here is the ‘newly redacted‘ report at Buzzfeed, and it answers a lot of questions. Let’s do a quick before and after:

New FOIA ruling confirms this matter is under investigation and has not been charged

OK. Now, 7 (A) is an exception for interference with law enforcement proceedings. 7 (B) is ‘deprivation of the right to a fair trial’, and it’s absent. In other words, the FBI has the case. It’s not clear if the second line in no. 11 refers to a prosecutor’s office or a Grand Jury location, but it might do.

Why Does Mueller Say ‘*Charged* Russian Hacking’?

This sentence precedes our target passage ‘the evidence does indicate’ . It’s just as important.

evidence uncovered in the investigation did not establish that the President or those close to him were involved in the charged Russian computer-hacking or active-measure conspiracies, or that the President otherwise had an unlawful relationship with any Russian official. But ………

Why not “did not establish the President or his team were involved in the Russian hacking … conspiracies’?

That’s clear. That’s straightforward. They weren’t involved. Instead, Mueller qualifies it, doesn’t he? Mueller says Team Trump weren’t involved in the cases he’s charged.

Here’s the report:

the evidence uncovered in the investigation did not establish that the President or those close to him were involved in the charged Russian computer-hacking or active-measure conspiracies, or that the President otherwise had an unlawful relationship with any Russian official. But the evidence does indicate that a thorough FBI investigation would uncover facts about the campaign and the President personally that the President could have understood to be crimes or that would give rise to personal and political concerns. 

Ok, now I’m going to strip this down to plain sense, the way I think Mueller meant it:

‘The evidence didn’t prove Trump’s campaign were part of the DNC hacks and active measures we’ve charged so far. But our evidence does show that the FBI investigation [which I list in Appendix D where ‘Wikileaks’ comes in the alphabet] is going to prove facts about Trump and the campaign that will show they knew they were committing crimes.’

That’s my translation. I’m going to add this context. Mueller doesn’t stop there. His next words are talking about Trump possibly lying that he was connected to Russia, so that’s the context of the FBI investigation:

Although the President publicly stated during and after the election that he had no connection to Russia, the Trump Organization, through Michael Cohen, was pursuing the proposed Trump Tower Moscow project through June 2016 and candidate Trump was repeatedly briefed on the progress of those efforts. In addition, some witnesses said that Trump was aware that (b) (6), (b) (7)(A), (b) (7)(B), (b) (7)(C)
at a time when public reports stated that Russian intelligence officials were behind the hacks, and that Trump privately sought information about future WikiLeaks releases.

Reporters overlooked this context when they analyzed “FBI would uncover”. To my mind, it’s really clear.

  • Mueller says he can’t connect Trump directly to Russian government hacking
  • ‘charged so far’
  • ‘BUT, evidence indicates an FBI investigation will show evidence he knew what he was doing was illegal
  • ‘Although he said he had no connection to Russia’
  • that’s only possible if Wikileaks was working with the GRU AND TRUMP KNEW IT
  • Mueller goes on “witnesses said that Trump was aware that [REDACTED]
  • Mueller finishes “…… at a time when public reports said Russian intelligence did the hacks and that Trump privately sought information about future Wikileaks releases’

Patribotics is grateful to you for making this site work. To help us hold Trump and Barr to account, please  donate, if you can. There are buttons around the site, or you could make a contribution here. 

There is, literally, only one way that what Mueller describes here can be the evidence of criminal intent he speaks of in the previous paragraph. There is only one possible way that this paragraph makes sense with the previous one saying ‘would uncover evidence that Trump knew it was a crime’. While I clearly have no knowledge of what the redaction in this paragraph actually is, logically, it has to assert that Trump knew that Wikileaks was partnering with the GRU.

‘In addition, some witnesses said that Trump was aware that [Wikileaks was conspiring with Russian intelligence] at a time when public reports stated that Russian intelligence officials were behind the hacks, and that Trump privately sought information about future WikiLeaks releases.’

We will cover this story, and more on the ongoing Wikileaks case, further on Patribotics.

The White House Letter to Barr Shows Trump’s Fear

The day after Mueller’s Report was released to the public, Emmet Flood, Trump’s personal lawyer, sent a remarkable letter to Bill Barr.

Here it is in full:

As Ted Lieu pointed out, this letter was released to distract from the terrible press Bill Barr had received from his disastrous appearance before the Senate Judiciary committee, and from Speaker Pelosi calling Barr a criminal who had lied to Congress.

However, this reporter found the content of the letter more interesting. On the face of it, Mueller deciding not to call for a prosecution of Trump one way or the other was a ‘get out of jail free’ card. Why on earth would Trump be unhappy about it?

The letter offers us some interesting clues. It shows that Trump’s legal team perceived a great deal of danger to him in Mueller’s call on obstruction. First, had he simply indicted the President, it is not at all clear that AG Barr could not simply have prevented this. The ‘titanic row’ that several reporters with good sources, including this one, said went down at Justice was over indicting the President. Mueller wanted to do so, some sources said; Barr said ‘no’. In fact, Mueller makes reference to the Special Counsel regulations, per se, in the report in explaining his decision.

Before Barr was confirmed, Neal Katyal, the former Acting US Solicitor General, who drew up the Special Counsel regulations that Mueller had to work under, explained on MSNBC that Mueller would have to seek permission to depart from a Justice Department norm or policy, in this case, indicting the President. Mueller could not indict the President without the Acting AG (now the AG) granting him an exception.

Bill Barr’s testimony made it painfully clear that Barr was determined not to grant an exception. Barr was determined to squash any obstruction charge. Under the regulations, a Mueller decision to indict would have been stymied, simply overruled, by Bill Barr. Reporting of the non-decision has, I believe in retrospect, been grounded in a fallacy – that Bob Mueller effectively had the power to charge Trump.

While other prosecutors could choose to charge the President – Barr made it very clear that Trump could have been charged, could have been indicted – as a Special Counsel, Mueller was subject to an additional restriction. He had to follow the guidance and ask permission, seek an exception. And Bill Barr was not going to grant that exception.

Emmet Flood’s letter makes it clear how frustrated Trump is with Mueller’s savvy next move. Having been told “no” in advance by Barr on March 5th – or words to that effect – Barr must have expected the rewritten Report to give Mueller’s reasons for charging that he, Barr, could then say were insufficient. And that would be the end of it. Mueller, instead, made a beautiful feint. He punted on the obstruction issue to Congress. He declared in writing that Trump was not exonerated. He declared, in writing, that criminal prosecutors could use his materials after Trump has left office to charge Trump criminally, just as Congress could use them for impeachment. Emmet Flood’s letter reeks of fear at what Mueller has done: preserve evidence that, because Mueller states as much, can be used in future criminal proceedings against Trump.

Had Mueller simply asked for an exception, and perhaps he even did so on March 5th and was told ‘no’, Barr’s bias meant this evidence against Trump would have been lost to future prosecutors.

In fact, since Barr admitted to the Democrats at his hearing that he and Rosenstein made the decision not to charge in two days flat after receiving the report, what it suggests to this reporter is that Barr was shocked by Mueller’s clever means of ensuring future prosecutors kept the ability to charge Trump himself in Russia’s attack on America. Given that Mueller did not bow to Barr’s wishes to request an exception to the rules which Barr could deny, Barr simply declared (falsely) that it was his choice anyway, and said that Trump was innocent. This will likely not stand up in court under a new Attorney General. Trump and Flood are right to be scared.

Patribotics is grateful to you for making this site possible. Your support enables us to report on Putin and Donald Trump. Please consider a donation here

Exit, Pursued by a Barr

Bob Mueller was ‘snitty’. That contemptible closing comment may come to haunt Bill Barr. His testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee made it clear that he wished to chase Bob Mueller from the scene, and cover-up and misrepresent Mueller’s findings. Mueller’s investigation, as the report told us, is ongoing, because case Appendix D (A) (11), Wikileaks, is still ongoing. When Wikileaks and the GRU are proven to have been one conspiracy since 2010, the Trump Team’s actions become crimes.

The sartorial question for the Attorney General is no longer ‘is he a black hat’ but ‘when does he get his orange jumpsuit?’

Mr. Barr hestitated in saying that, if North Korean agents offered information on a Presidential candidate to their opponent, that opponent should report it to the FBI.

Pressed by the Democrats on the Senate judiciary Committee, Barr appeared either openly to confess, or to hint at, several crimes that he had personally committed.

Crimes to Which Barr Openly Confessed

‘I Don’t Recall’

Under brilliant questioning by Blumenthal, undoubtedly the star of the hearing, Barr was forced into the classic criminal’s defense – ‘I don’t recall’ – when asked if he leaked information about ongoing criminal investigations to the White House.

Barr here confessed to having leaked information about ongoing cases to the White House.

‘It’s possible that the name of a case was mentioned,’ Barr admitted. He then said he ‘did not recall’ whether or not he had given substantial or other information about the ongoing investigations to the White House.

I report that Mueller’s referred cases include Donald J Trump Jr, Ivanka Trump, Eric Trump, and Jared Kushner, for money laundering with the Trump Organization.

It is a crime for the Attorney General, or any other person, to leak the details of an ongoing criminal investigation. If ‘the name of the case may have been mentioned’ and the name of that case was ‘United States vs the Trump Organization’ ‘United States vs Ivanka Trump, Jared Kushner, Eric Trump, and Donald J Trump Jr’ then Bill Barr just confessed to obstruction of justice on the floor of the Senate.

Lying to Congress

Under questioning from Senator Leahy, Barr openly confessed to lying to Congress. He admitted that he had spoken to Mueller when he denied speaking to ‘ members of Mueller’s team’. Therefore, he admitted lying to Congress, as Bob Mueller is a member of Mueller’s team.

Barr also admitted lying to Congress when he said that Mueller had not wished to redact all the many things that he himself redacted. In his prior testimony, he had stated that he was not making the redactions personally. Clearly, he perjured himself.

If you enjoy Patribotics, please consider a donation here . We need your help to keep going!

Crimes to which Barr Almost Confessed

Some of the best questioning came towards the end of the session. It is very unfortunate that the democrats ran out of time just at this moment, but it leaves the door open to the House, who will control the session.

Conspiracy to Obstruct Justice

Readers should burn the phrase ‘brown bag lunch’ in their memory. Senator Harris pinned Barr down beautifully: ‘Has the President or anyone at the White House asked or suggested that you open an investigation?” The answer was clearly ‘yes’. ‘I am grappling with the word ‘suggested’, Barr replied. He then refused to answer when Harris said ‘hinted, inferred’ .

Barr also almost admitted under sharp questions from Senator Sheldon Whitehouse that he and the Office of Legal Counsel’s did indeed discuss obstruction of justice in advance. This looks very much like Barr agreeing to stop charges in exchange for the nomination.

Whitehouse: And lastly, can you assure me that nothing related to obstruction or the Mueller Report was discussed at your Office of Legal Counsel “brown bag lunch” on June 27th?

The photograph above is a still from the exact second after Senator Whitehouse asked Barr this question.

Barr: Uh – uh – nothing about what?

Whitehouse: Nothing about the obstruction issue, and nothing about the Mueller Report itself was discussed when you had a ‘brown bag lunch’ on June 27th with OLC?

Barr: Uhm – Yeah I mean it – uh – we didn’t discuss anything having to do with the Mueller Report or Mueller – Mueller’s eventual position on obstruction

Whitehouse: Did you discuss your obstruction memo?

Barr: I – I forgot if it was then, but I think I’ve already said that uh, uh, I mentioned I had a memo and was sending it to uh, to uh, the head of OLC…..

Whitehouse: You have not yet said that it was mentioned at this OLC ‘brown bag lunch’

Barr: Well – well – uh – I don’t think it was mentioned at the brown bag lunch, no

[Barr emphasized the word ‘at’ in the last sentence, admitting that he and OLC had discussed his obstruction memo before]

This then is almost a concession that the OLC and Barr conspired in advance for him to clear the President of obstruction of justice. It is something that, along with leaking the names of the Trump family and others under criminal investigation, we can expect not only House Democrats, but also the FBI, to pursue against Bill Barr. It is no surprise that Democrats are now demanding his resignation.

Patribotics hopes to expand reporting and commission other writers. If you would like to donate, there are buttons around the site, or you could make a contribution here. 

Julian Assange’s Extradition is Key to Convicting Trump

Julian Assange’s extradition to America was the reason he ran in to the Embassy; and it looks like the reason police dragged him out of it. The misogynist, liar and narcissist looked like a bearded troll, or perhaps a malignant garden gnome,as he exited the embassy with a little help from UK police. The Mueller Report was due shortly afterwards.

Policemen grinned. Feminists rejoiced. Despair trolls on Twitter desperately proclaimed Trump wouldn’t prosecute Assange.

Julian Assange as a garden gnome
Created by Jim Whitelaw.

Shortly after that, many journalists started to lobby for Julian Assange. Britain should not extradite him, they said. Carole Cadwalladr, who sued Channel Four journalists over their expose of Alexander Nix of Cambridge Analytica, agreed. Cadwalladr spent a year promoting Chris Wylie, who the FBI interviewed under compulsion, as a ‘whistleblower’.

Thanks for that Carole

As soon as police took Assange into custody, Cadwalladr and her writing partner Peter Jukes both started lobbying the UK not to extradite.

Assange is a key witness and a target of Mueller’s investigation. I have argued on this blog that Mueller’s unfinished major prosecution is that of Wikileaks; that Sputnik is the ‘mystery witness’; and that indictments of the GRU and Assange show US prosecutors intend to prove that the two conspired in the election hacking, and conspired since 2010.

The ‘Rule of Specialty’ Applies to Assange

The text of the 2003 Extradition Treaty between the UK and America is here. It contains reference to a ‘Rule of Specialty’.

1. A person extradited under this Treaty may not be detained, tried, or punished in the Requesting State except for:

(a)  any offense for which extradition was granted, or a differently denominated offense based on the same facts as the offense on which extradition was granted, provided such offense is extraditable, or is a lesser included offense;

(b)  any offense committed after the extradition of the person; or

(c)  any offense for which the executive authority of the Requested State waives the rule of specialty and thereby consents to the person’s detention, trial, or punishment. For the purpose ofthis subparagraph:

(i)  the executive authority of the Requested State may require the submission of the documentation called for in Article 8; and

(ii)  the person extradited may be detained by the Requesting State for 90 days, or for such longer period of time as the Requested State may authorize, while the request for consent is being processed.

This Rule Doesn’t Stop a Trial For 2016 Hacking

Wikileaks shills attacked Julian Assange’s extradition. Many asserted America could only try Assange for the limited offense they initially charged; computer intrusion, with a maximum penalty of five years.

However, they missed two glaring exceptions in the text. First, the UK could ship Assange to the US, and then the US could ask the UK for an exception ‘can we also try him for this’?

any offense for which the executive authority of [Britain] waives the rule of specialty and thereby consents to the person’s detention, trial, or punishment.

Britannia Rules the Waves – and she can waive the rules. Julian Assange could not himself appeal against being tried on a different offense once he reached America; Britain would have to appeal. Not likely.

Second, the treaty’s text actually says that the United States can try him on any offense arising from “the same facts” on which the first offense was based.

If Assange Conspired with Russia in 2010, the Rule Allows Trial For 2016

My last piece argued that Julian Assange’s extradition would help the US prosecute Wikileaks as a co-conspirator in the GRU’s hacking case. Making the two one entity – “The Conspirators” – would mean that Wikileaks legally became the GRU. In turn, that would mean that Team Trump’s collusion with Wikileaks was, indeed, criminal.

So it’s pretty important.

Patribotics is grateful to you for making this site work. To help us hold Trump and Barr to account, please  donate, if you can. There are buttons around the site, or you could make a contribution here. 

America didn’t indict Assange with computer intrusion at all, in fact. They indicted him for conspiracy to commit computer intrusion.

Furthermore, the indictment’s reference to conspiracy does not mean ‘with Manning’. The indictment states very plainly that Assange conspired to do this with more people than Chelsea Manning.

Passage from Assange indictment speaking of co-conspirators

Because Assange’s co-conspirators in 2010 were the GRU and the Russian state. And because conduct with the same factual basisconspiracy with Russia – forms the offense of hacking the US election in 2016 – America won’t need to get Britain’s permission, after it extradites Assange, to re-try him. The 2016 offense is expressly covered by the 2010 one. The only thing Mr. Assange will get for his trouble is America’s assurance that they will not execute him.

A Key National Security Attorney Has Been Assigned to Assange’s Case

Just today we learned that a “key national security attorney”, Zachary Terwilliger, is to prosecute Julian Assange’s ostensibly unimportant case. Wonder why that could be?

Well, because Assange’s case is important. In fact, it’s one of the most important cases in the history of the Republic. Julian Assange’s extradition will be a key moment in the pursuit of justice, and of the conviction of Donald Trump for colluding with the Russian government. There’s a reason he was kicked out of the Ecuadorean Embassy when he was; it was that US intelligence is getting ready for showtime.

Patribotics hopes to expand reporting and commission other writers. If you would like to donate, there are buttons around the site, or you could make a contribution here.