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.
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’.
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.
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.
Because Assange’s co-conspirators in 2010 were the GRU and the Russian state. And because conduct with the same factual basis – conspiracy 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.
- Wikileaks is Connected to Russia – Despite Their Claims
- Wikileaks Hands “Keys” to Putin’s Russian Hacker – Readers, Leakers Tracked
- Putin’s Wikileaks Host: “Mob Laundromat” Funded GOP
- UPDATED: Stone ‘Backchannel’ Hosted Schneiderman Accuser in 2016
- Sanders Hire David Sirota Deletes His Russia Tweets
- Barr Barr Black Hat?
- Is the Mystery Witness Sputnik?
- Mulling Mueller: Sealed Indictments Are Coming
- Mueller Protected His Investigation From Barr