Post Testimony Interview with Randy Credico

SOURCE: Craig Murray

Following his appearance as the main witness for the prosecution against former Trump aide Roger Stone, my good friend Randy Credico has had the entire American mainstream media chasing him for an interview. He has however decided to give only this single interview to me, which is put out here and which is free for everybody to use, with acknowledgement.

Five of the seven charges against Stone relate directly to Randy, who is the witness that Stone is accused of tampering with and attempting to intimidate. There is a tremendous irony here. The Mueller investigation was set up to reveal links between the Trump campaign, Russia and Wikileaks. There are no such links, as has already been proven in another US court. Roger Stone ends up being charged with lying to the Senate Intelligence Committee, by pretending he had links to Wikileaks when he did not. He is also charged with trying to intimidate Randy into saying there was such a link and Randy was the back channel; which I myself can attest is nonsense.

The Mueller investigation has thus ultimately ended up prosecuting people for telling the same pack of lies that Mueller himself was pushing. The Clinton media, including CNN, the Washington Post and New York Times, are baffled by this. They follow the Stone trial assiduously from delight in seeing a long term Trump hanger-on brought down, and in the hope something will come out about Wikileaks or Russia. Their reporting, as that of the BBC, has been deliberately vague on why Stone is being charged, contriving to leave their audience with the impression that Stone’s trial proves Trump connections to Wikileaks and Russia, when in fact it proves the precise opposite. A fact you will never learn from the mainstream media. Which is why I am doing this at 2am on a very cold Edinburgh night, for the small but vital audience which is interested in the truth.


Assange, Varoufakis, Brexit

I am Wayne Hall and I’m speaking from Athens. I have a message for the Unity 4j network in defence of Julian Assange and first and foremost for the Greek group. Many if not most of Julian’s defenders in Europe are on the Left. In the US the situation is different but here we are talking about Europe. Some of Julian’s Leftist defenders even criticize him for not being Left himself. If he is not a Leftist what is he?

I think he would say that the question of truth and falsehood should take priority over political identity and that this is particularly urgent because at this moment the world is approaching a situation of near total domination of either falsehood in public discussion or else of censorship. At the moment a hot issue in Europe is Britain’s relations with the European Union. It is certainly more discussed than Julian Assange, Chelsea Manning or Wikileaks.

I have proposed the idea of opening a discussion under the title “From Wikileaks to Brexit” and I have been confronted with this question “what is the connection between Wikileaks and Brexit?” The first point I would like to make in response to this is to remind people, or inform people, because most probably they will not know, that on the day of the Brexit referendum (23rd June 2016) that has led to the current situation in relations between Britain and the EU, Julian Assange organized a comprehensive debate on Brexit with a wide range of activists, scholars and other citizens, and made it available through live streaming. At that time Julian was still in the Ecuadorian Embassy and was able to receive visitors, have access to the internet and speak to the public. This was changed on 28th March 2018 and on 11th April 2019 Assange was expelled from the Embassy, tried and imprisoned. At the moment he is being held incommunicado and also prevented from preparing for the hearing on extradition to the United States, to be charged under the Espionage Act of 1917. The hearing in England is programmed for 25th February 2020.

The discussion on Brexit hosted by Julian Assange has characteristics that are not present in the Brexit debate as it is being conducted today. The Assange discussion strives for impartiality and a plurality of viewpoints, mostly sincere, unscripted viewpoints of a kind that seem today, unfortunately, to be disappearing from public discussion.

Hopefully this offers the beginning of an answer to the question “What is the connection between Wikileaks and Brexit”? The participant in the discussion that is featured in the following video is Yanis Varoufakis, former Finance Minister in the first six months of the 2015 to 2019 SYRIZA government headed by Alexis Tsipras. Varoufakis resigned from this government in protest at its surrendering to pressures from the Troika of the European Commission, the European Central Bank and the International Monetary Fund.

Assange’s and Varoufakis’ stance on the Brexit issues are not the same. Assange is more or less favourable to Brexit. Varoufakis and the citizens’ movement he founded, DiEM25, campaigned against it, saying that the issue was not that Britain should withdraw from the EU but that the EU should become an entity with which British people and people in other EU member countries would wish to be associated.

Assange asked Varoufakis an important question just before the result of the referendum became known. He said, if the Remains side wins, will there be any pressure at all for the kinds of changes in the EU that DiEM25 seeks to promote? Varoufakis replied that DiEM will see to it that the pressure continues. But is this what has happened, even though it is the Leave side, not the Remain side, that won the referendum?

There has been a separation between the Assange question and the Brexit question.

A defence campaign for Julian Assange is under way but it faces a mainstream media blackout. A recent concert by Pink Floyd member Roger Waters was totally ignored by the channels that the majority of people watch. Was DiEM25 able to help get this concert into the mainstream media? And in any case, was Roger Waters’ message the same as what Julian’s message would have been if he had been able to speak for himself? Has the campaign against Brexit, against Trump and against Boris Johnson displaced the campaign for democracy? And is democracy favoured when a British Prime Minister is prevented from being able to call an election? All because of a change in the electoral law voted on the initiative of the Liberal Democrat Nick Clegg in 2011 to make it more difficult for his coalition partner the Tory David Cameron to bring down the fragile Tory-Lib Dem coalition government that was in power at that time. How much is the media talking about this factor? How much is it being mentioned by DiEM25? Doubtless it would be mentioned by Julian Assange but he is no longer a participant in public discussion. If disinformation and censorship is becoming universalized and control over it almost total, the question of right wing versus left wing politics becomes a secondary issue. Not to be ignored but not given priority over accuracy and availability of correct information. This is a basic component of Julian Assange’s world view.

On 8th September 2019 Labour members of the House of Commons sang “The Red Flag” as they supported the moves against Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s efforts to call an election. Is the symbolism of this enough to open minds?


The Brexit referendum took place on 23rd June 2016 to ask if the United Kingdom should remain a member of, or leave the European Union. Julian Assange, at that time being given political asylum in the Ecuadorian Embassy but also free from the restrictions later imposed by the successor Ecuadorian government of Lenin Moreno, was still able to receive visitors, organize meetings and use the internet. He held a marathon videorecorded discussion of Brexit with a variety of activists, journalists, public figures and supportive citizens. The referendum resulted in 51.9% of votes being in favour of leaving the EU.

One of the people interviewed was Yanis Varoufakis.

The interview

Julian Assange: This is Brexit club, live streaming at throughout the evening as we count the Brexit vote from here inside the Ecuadorian Embassy in London. I’m Julian Assange. This embassy, some of you probably know, has been under a police siege for the last four years, incredibly. Here at the centre of the siege we have Yanis Varoufakis calling in from Rome. He is the immediately former Finance Minister of Greece, who famously negotiated with Schaueuble and the European Central Bank in relation to the Greek bailout. Naomi Colvin, the London director of the Courage Foundation. She represents a number of people who are being extradited from the UK. Craig Murray,former ambassador to Usbekistan. A Scot, so he’ll have some social perspective. He’s come down…. Where in Scotland, Craig?

Craig Murray: Edinburgh.

Julian Assange: To join us. And Srecko Horvat, a Croatian philosopher, who perhaps can give us an Eastern European perspective. He’s also involved in something that Yanis Varoufakis founded, which is the DiEM25 movement, which is the movement from the Left, essentially, to create ideas and structure a unity for a new and better Europe, not the Europe we have now, which I think most people concede has an enormous democratic deficit.

Yanis, your thoughts from Rome, where you are now. He’s not from Rome. He’s Greek.

Yanis Varoufakis: Well you know we’re all pigs after all, you know. Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece, even Spain. We’re all the swine of Europe.

Well, Julian, you say that from where I’m standing it seems that the “remain” may have a small lead.

It’s not clear yet. As we know DiEM25, the Democracy in Europe movement that you were so kind as to refer to a moment ago – and which of course you have signed the Manifesto of.

Julian Assange: That’s right, which I have signed the Manifesto of I must confess and which I helped, with some words……

Yanis Varoufakis: Unlike you, as a movement, we have campaigned vigorously in favour of a radical “in” vote, not the kind of “in” votes or “remains” that Cameron has been campaigning for, which together with Hillary Clinton, Francois Hollande, Wolfgang Schaueble, Tony Blair, Jean-Claude Juncker, Barack Obama and all the other contributors to the loss of the European Union legitimately, technically and so on. We’ve been campaigning for a radical “in” and “against” the European Union approach, to struggle within the European Union institutions in order to usurp them, in a sense. A standard dialectical position about how to enter a particular set of institutions and try to change them from within through confrontation, not just mere reform.

One way or the other, my view – and I think it’s where we differ is that the British people have clearly given the ambivalence that they are displaying on the runup to the referendum and I’m sure that that ambivalence will be demonstrated today….

Julian Assange: Yanis, I’m sorry Yanis. Can you repeat that. You broke up for a second.

Yanis Varoufakis: And we’re saying that the establishment, both in London and in Brussels, has spectacularly failed with Brexit. The British people are disenchanted. They’ve had a gutful of the policies that have come from Brussels, as well as the austerian authoritarianism from the British establishment, even those who are voting for Brexit, like Boris Johnson and the rest of the Tories. The only quarrel that they have with the practice is that they want to be able to rule over the British people without any impediments from Brussels. And it is clear to us in DiEM25 that if “remain” wins, even though we campaigned for “remain”, we are not in any mood for celebration. We rejected the logic of the European Union, the creation of the Brexit. But we also reject the logic of “business as usual”, which is the establishment view in Brussels and in London. And as of today, whatever the result might be we are going to promote, continue promoting a radical agenda for confronting the Establishment in London and Brussels and Paris everywhere and to put in practice the ideas that can be linked to. . Bring together European democrats in a fight to democratize Europe. And therefore we see 24th June as the beginning of a very long campaign. We certainly don’t see it as the beginning of “business as usual” or the end of some process.

Julian Assange: Do you think there are opportunities, Yanis, in the case of a “remain” result, of course, you know the Junckers of this world, the Camerons, respectively I suppose, European federalists and Transatlanticists will be celebrating, trying to suggest that it was a landslide, for example. I think that is highly unlikely. It seems like it is going to be a very close vote, whichever way it is.

Do you think that there is an opportunity to take hold. Is there an opportunity at all if there is a “remain” outcome?

Yanis Varoufakis: Oh there is always an opportunity and we are going to make sure there is one. We will carve one out of the Establishment’s hopes for “business as usual”. We’re not going to allow them to celebrate. We’re going to make sure that the scare that they got from this referendum, and they did get a major scare, is going to be magnified. And we are going to try to utilize that fear that the popular will has instilled into their souls by coalescing around a democratic campaign from Ireland to Greece, from the Baltics all the way to Portugal. We’re not going to allow them to even imagine that they can continue doing what they have been doing all those years. And in any case the European crisis, including immigration, even though it has a gigantic human cost in terms of actual lives that are being diminished as a result of this crisis, nevertheless this crisis is going to make sure that they cannot be allowed to celebrate. They know that they are clueless. They have no idea as to stabilize this undemocratic, antidemocratic, European Union, and it is the peoples of Europe that have an opportunity to seize upon the democratic process that culminates in this referendum in order to create the space we need for an integrating democracy in Europe and for making sure that they have sleepless night after sleepless night.

Julian Assange: Tomorrow, Yanis, when the result is known and I guess the work must start, tomorrow, across the weekend, on Monday, if it’s a leave, what is the call by DiEM to heed the lessons of a Leave vote?

Yanis Varoufakis: I’d like to speak personally for a moment and then on behalf of DiEM. I can do that too but I think it is more honest and straightforward to speak personally.

I happen to be a politician who last year was crushed by Brussels, crushed by Berlin, crushed by Frankfurt, where the European Central Bank is domiciled. and vilified by the scandal press, throughout Europe, in Greece, the world over. And yet in this campaign I campaigned for remaining in the EU. Not because of any love lost between me and the European Union but because of the particular judgements that we need an internationalist agenda, we need a narrative of binding people together, within the European Union against the European Union. I believe in being honest to people like Wolfgang Schaueble, Jean-Claude Juncker, my own comrades who remain now in the European Union completely surrendered to its ways and means and the idea that there is no alternative logic, and I say to them. We radicals who opposed Brussels argue for Remain. We went, I went, personally, to Birmingham, to Ireland, to Wales, to Ireland, to London, to Scotland, and campaigning for the British people to stay in. And the British people turned it down. And they turned it down not because they didn’t want to listen to me. They turned it down because you, the Establishment of the European Union has made such a deep mess of the European Union that it was impossible to convince them to continue to accept you as the established order of Europe. So we tried to save the European Union from you, and you who are supposed to be the custodians of the European Union have failed so badly.

Julian Assange: I mean, to my mind, if there is a successful Leave vote, and I mean we have some vote counts here, but they’re very early. 146,000 England-wide Leave votes 136,000 Remain votes. I don’t think you can say very much on that. Actually, here we have some slightly updated but still very early. Remain on 49.5%. Brexit on 50.5%. The vote counts are only 150,000 so it doesn’t really mean anything statistically.

But, what was I saying? So yes, if there is a Leave or even if the vote is very close, which it surely is, it is something that calls into question the political legitimacy of the European Union in the way it has been conducted so far.

And really it’s quite incredible that it came to this. That the European Union as a political structure was so unadaptable to the political calls upon it that it was not able to hand out the appropriate concessions to show that it had political legitimacy by doing what people wanted. And regardless of what that structure is, any structure which manages a nation state or collection of nation states has to be able to keep political legitimacy. So I think that there is a very strong argument that the structure is a failure. Regardless of what side of politics you are on. A structure that cannot dynamically adapt to the political expediencies around it to regain political legitimacy when it is eroding is a failed structure.

Yanis Varoufakis: It is very much so. Indeed I dedicated a whole book recently on precisely that. And I’ve described the European Union as a postwar cartel of heavy industry which was pretty adept at creating consensus around it throughout Europe. Think of the period of growth when it was distributing monopoly profits throughout Europe and in a way which was very unequal but nevertheless it created alliances between different social groups for instance there was a Greek monopoly that gave the profits to farmers through the Common Agricultural Policy. Cartels that could be good at distributing the goodies during the good times but they are pretty appalling and inefficient when it comes to distributing burdens in periods of crisis and particularly when it comes to arresting the crisis through macroeconomic adjustment policies which recycle surpluses and deficits in a way that is macroeconomically sustainable. And Europe has really failed in this task especially since 2008. And you don’t have to wait for today’s result, or tonight’s result to be given. Just look at the Eurobarometers. The Eurobarometer is an official European Union opinion poll which is controlling over time. …..

Julian Assange: And what is the result?

Yanis Varoufakis: The vast majority of Europeans declared that they have confidence in the institutions of the European Union. Percentages above 65-70%. In some countries more than 80%. If you look at the same data today on the same questions. “Do you trust the institutions of the European Union?” in most countries you get below 50%. In some countries you get below 35%. So there is no doubt about it.

Judge Dismisses DNC Suit Against Trump Campaign and Others

Judge John G. Koeltl of the U.S. District Court for the U.S. District of New York has dismissed a lawsuit by the Democratic National Committee (DNC) against the Trump campaign, President Trump and other associates and high-level members of his campaign, Wikileaks, the Russian government, and others associated with Russian election interference efforts. The ruling is available here and here (source).


Suzie Dawson



Η μεγάλη εικόνα

Με εκατομμύρια λέξεις να έχουν γραφτεί για τον Τζούλιαν Άσανζ, το WikiLeaks και τους συνεργάτες του να στροβιλίζονται γύρω μας καθημερινά, είναι εύκολο να δούμε το δέντρο και όχι το δάσος.

Το πρώτο σημείο εκκίνησης για όσους υπερασπίζονται τον πιο εκτεθειμένο σε κίνδυνο εκδοτικό οργανισμό στον κόσμο και το προσωπικό του ήταν η αντιμετώπιση των ατομικών αφηγημάτων των καταπιεστών του. Να εστιάσουμε στη Σουηδία, ή στον Ισημερινό ή στο Υπουργείο Δικαιοσύνης των ΗΠΑ, στις Μεγάλες Δικαστικές Επιτροπές ή στο Ηνωμένο Βασίλειο και στην απομυθοποίηση των αφηγημάτων τους είναι ένα απαραίτητο έργο. Αλλά πρέπει να αντιμετωπίσουμε την πραγματικότητα: Χρόνια έντονης υποστήριξης του επιχειρήματος ότι όλες οι ποικίλες πτυχές των προαναφερθέντων είναι διαπλεκόμενες – σε πολλές από τις οποίες έχω εμπλακεί η ίδια – δεν έφεραν τη νίκη. Δεν είμαστε καλύτεροι, ή ισχυρότεροι από αυτό. Τα πράγματα φεύγουν από τον έλεγχο και φεύγουν γρήγορα.

Μετά από μια δεκαετία σε αυτή τη μάχη, ήρθε η ώρα να αναλογιστούμε το συνολικό άθροισμα των επιμέρους τμημάτων.   Πρέπει να αναγνωρίσουμε τι συνέβη όχι μόνο στον Τζούλιαν – αλλά στην οργάνωσή του στο σύνολό της. Πρέπει να εξετάσουμε το WikiLeaks σε επίπεδο αρχιτεκτονικής του, όπως έκαναν και οι αντίπαλοί του. Με αυτόν τον τρόπο βλέπουμε ότι η βεβήλωση της φήμης του Τζούλιαν και οι επιθέσεις κατά του έργου του, των σχέσεών του και του φυσικού του προσώπου δεν αφορούσαν στην πραγματικότητα ποτέ αυτόν – αφορούσαν πάντα την οργάνωση του, το τι είναι και το τι κάνει.

Αυτό που φανερώνει αυτό το ψηλό πλεονεκτικό σημείο παρατήρησης είναι μια προφανής και παρατεταμένη συστηματική αποσταθεροποίηση των βασικών πυλώνων της οργάνωσης . Ο κοινωνικός αποκεφαλισμός των πιο αποτελεσματικών μελών της. Η υπονόμευση της ικανότητάς τους να συνεχίζουν να υπηρετούν και να προσθέτουν αξία σε αυτό.

Αυτοί είναι οι σάπιοι καρποί της διακρατικής ατζέντας για την εξάλειψη του WikiLeaks. Μια κρατική, διεθνής συνωμοσία  η οποία χρονολογείται από τη διακήρυξη πολέμου εναντίον του WikiLeaks το 2017 από το διευθυντή της CIA, Μάικ Πομπέο. Οι ανοιχτές απειλές του ήταν ουσιαστικά ένα κάλυμμα για κρυφές επιχειρήσεις που εντοπίζονται πίσω στο 2009 τουλάχιστον.

Εκείνοι που αντιτίθενται στο WikiLeaks είναι πιο κοντά από ποτέ στο στόχο τους να το καταστρέψουν. Αν θέλουμε να εμποδίσουμε αυτό το παλιρρο’ι΄κό κύμα, πρέπει να εξετάσουμε τι έκανε το WikiLeaks καλό κατά την καλύτερή του φάση, να βρούμε τα κομμάτια που λείπουν μεταξύ του τότε και του τώρα και να σπεύσουμε να τα επαναφέρουμε .

Πώς μοιάζει ένα ισχυρό WikiLeaks

Η οργάνωση που σχεδίασε ο Τζούλιαν ήταν συμπαγής. Αυτό είναι αυτονόητο: μπόρεσε να αντέξει 10 χρόνια αδιάκοπων επιθέσεων από κρατικές υπηρεσίες πληροφοριών μέσα από πολλαπλές αρμοδιότητες. Το ότι μέχρι στιγμής επέζησε είναι ένα ιστορικό επίτευγμα.

‘Ετσι  ήταν το WikiLeaks όταν ήταν στην κορυφή: μια εκδοτική πτέρυγα, μια πτέρυγα ακτιβισμού και μια πτέρυγα μέσων ενημέρωσης / δημοσίων σχέσεων.


Κάθε ένας από αυτούς τους τρεις πυλώνες προασπίστηκε από άτομα που είχαν σημαντικούς δημόσιους ρόλους. Ειδικοί στον τομέα τους. Αναλαμβάνοντας τεράστιες ηγετικές δυνάμεις, και τεράστια ρίσκα.

Στα ικανά τους χέρια, το WikiLeaks ήταν ο πιο πρωτοπόρος εκδοτικός οίκος στον κόσμο. Το μαργαριτάρι της σφαίρας του τεχνολογικού ακτιβισμού, φτιαγμένο πάνω σε μια πλατφόρμα σημαντικών καλωδιακών ειδησεογραφικών δικτύων, με συντακτικά άρθρα στα κύρια μέσα ενημέρωσηςμε στήλες άποψης. Το WikiLeaks έλεγχε το αφήγημα. Το WikiLeaks ήταν πάντα ένα βήμα μπροστά. Οι κριτικοί του WikiLeaks αναγκάστηκαν να κρατούν αμυντική στάση, πάντα να πρέπει να ανταποκριθούν σε ό,τι έκανε το WikiLeaks στη συνέχεια.

Το WikiLeaks έκανε μαγικά. Γνωρίζαμε πάντα να περιμένουμε το απροσδόκητο. Όποτε φαινόταν ότι έπεσε ο ρυθμός του, επανέρχονταν καλύτερο από ποτέ.

Ήταν μια χρυσή εποχή και αναφέρομαι στα τρία βασικά συστατικά της ως ιδανική ομάδα. Πολύ ειλικρινά, τα έσπαγαν.

Η ιδανική ομάδα

Ο Τζούλιαν Ασανζ έλεγχε την πολιτική, τη διαδικασία, τη δημοσίευση και τις προστατευόμενες πηγές. Ξεκίνησε δορυφορικές οργανώσεις και ήταν ο διευθύνων σύμβουλος της αυτοκρατορίας του WikiLeaks. Ο Τζέικομπ Άππελμπαουμ πήγε σε εξέδρες σε όλο τον κόσμο, μιλώντας σε εκατοντάδες χιλιάδες ανθρώπους για την αξία και τη σημασία της αξιοποίησης και υποστήριξης του WikiLeaks. Ήταν ένας σημαντικός καθοδηγήτης για το τεχνολογικό κοινό και μια συνεχής παρουσία σε συνέδρια προγραμματιστών, ιδιωτικότητας και δημοσιογραφίας. Ο Τρέβορ Φίτζγκίμπον έρχονταν σε επαφή με σπουδαία πρόσωπα των μέσων ενημέρωσης, μουσικούς και διάσημους, στρατολογώντας τους επιτυχώς και αξιοποιώντας τους για να ενισχύσει το δημόσιο προφίλ του WikiLeaks. Διαχειριζόταν τις σχέσεις με τα μέσα ενημέρωσης, επεξεργάζονταν και προωθούσε  πρωτοποριακές αφηγήσεις.


Αυτοί οι τρεις άντρες υπερασπίζονταν ασταμάτητα το WikiLeaks.

Αυτοί οι τρεις άνδρες έχτισαν την αρχική εκστρατεία για να σώσουν την Τσέλσι Μάννινγκ.

Αυτοί οι τρεις άντρες βοήθησαν να σωθεί ο Έντουαρντ Σνόουντεν.

Η δημόσια φήμη αυτών των τριών αντρών καταστράφηκε.  

Δεν χρειάζεται να ψάξετε πολύ στα μέσα κοινωνικής δικτύωσης ή στο διαδίκτυο για να δείτε πόσο συχνά ο Τζούλιαν Άσανζ περιγράφεται ως ένας κατά συρροή βιαστής

Ούτε για να ανακαλύψετε ότι ο Τζέικομπ Άππελμπάουμ περιγράφεται ως ένας κατά συρροή βιαστής.

Και ο Τρέβορ Φιτζγκίμπον? Ναι, αποκαλείται επίσης κατά συρροή βιαστής.


Ποια είναι η πιθανότητα και οι τρεις δημόσιες προσωπικότητες που αντιπροσωπεύουν τους βασικούς πυλώνες του WikiLeaks, να είναι κατά συρροή βιαστές;

Εκ των υστέρων,  ξεπερνά τη λογική.

Επιπρόσθετα, το τέχνασμα είναι τόσο προφανές που καταντά γελοίο.

Αλλά όταν η CIA σε στοχοποιεί, να περιμένεις πάντα πολλά και διάφορα.

Ένας βιαστής, δύο βιαστές, τρεις βιαστές, τέσσερις.

Βιαστές! Βιαστές Παντού!

Όταν ο περίφημος Ισλανδός δημοσιογράφος Κριστίν Χράφνσον διορίστηκε αρχισυντάκτης του WikiLeaks τον Οκτώβριο του 2018, η επιλογή εγκωμιάστηκε στους διαδρόμους.

Τα εγκώμια ωστόσο θα ήταν βραχύβια, καθώς μέσα σε μια εβδομάδα από τους επαίνους που δέχθηκε, συκοφαντήθηκε ως «ένα εχθρικό άτομο που κακοποιεί γυναίκες “και ως ένας “βίαιος μέθυσος με ιστορικό σωματικής και συναισθηματικής κακοποίησης γυναικών “.  

Η διατύπωση του  δυσφημιστικού άρθρου είναι τόσο θωλή όσο και οι κατηγορίες – ” Ισχυρισμοί στον αέρα… Μπορεί τώρα να αντιμετωπίσει ισχυρισμούς … ανίκανος να επιβεβαιώσει ανεξάρτητα την αλήθεια αυτών των ισχυρισμών …”

Δεν εμφανίστηκαν θύματα. Δεν καταχωρήθηκαν κατηγορίες. Δεν ξεκίνησε καμία έρευνα. Απλώς έριξαν τη λάσπη τους στον νέο επικεφαλής του εκδοτικού πυλώνα του WikiLeaks και έλπιζαν ότι θα πετύχει, όπως συνέβη και με τους άλλους.

Αυτή είναι μια τακτική που εφαρμόζεται συχνά στα μέσα κοινωνικής δικτύωσης καθώς και στα έντυπα μέσα. Και άλλες εμβληματικές προσωπικότητες του ακτιβισμού και των πληροφοριοδοτών έχουν αλειφθεί με την ίδια πίσσα. Ο Ματ ΝτεΧάρτ αντιμετώπισε εξαιρετικά αμφισβητούμενες κατηγορίες παιδικής πορνογραφίας που κατασκευάστηκαν εναντίον του. Το ίδιο και υποτιθέμενος πληροφοριοδότης Vault7. Ακόμη και ο Έντουαρντ Σνόουντεν αντιμετωπίζει διαδικτυακά τρολ που του επιτίθενται αβάσιμα στην ίδια γραμμή, παρόλο που δεν υπάρχει κανένας υπαινιγμός ότι έχει συμβεί ποτέ κάτι τέτοιο.

Γιατί χρησιμοποιείται αυτή η τακτική ξανά και ξανά; Επειδή λειτουργεί. Επειδή συνεχίζουμε να της επιτρέπουμε να λειτουργεί.

Η αποτυχία μας να προστατέψουμε όσους έβαλαν τους εαυτούς τους στη γραμμή του πυρός για λογαριασμό μας, ακονίζει το σπαθί που χρησιμεύει στη σφαγή μας…

Σε καθεμία από τις τρεις περιπτώσεις, υπάρχουν ουσιαστικά στοιχεία που δείχνουν ότι δεν υπήρξε ποτέ βιασμός.  

Στην περίπτωση του Τζούλιαν, μία από τις εμπλεκόμενες γυναίκες υπέβαλε ένα προφυλακτικό που βρέθηκε ότι δεν περιείχε κανένα ίχνος DNA – δικό του ή δικό της. Στη συνέχεια δήλωσε δημοσίως ότι δεν βιάστηκε. Η άλλη ενάγουσα δήλωσε σε φίλους ότι «είχε δεχθεί πιέσεις από την αστυνομία» και «δεν επιθυμούσε να τον κατηγορήσει για τίποτα».

Στην περίπτωση του Τζέηκομπ Άππελμπαουμ, αυτή που αποδείχθηκε ότι ήταν η μοναδική ενάγουσα βιασμού (παρά τις υποσχέσεις των δυσφημιστών του για την ύπαρξη δεκάδων θυμάτων) του έστειλε μήνυμα ηλεκτρονικού ταχυδρομείου μετά από το συμβάν για να του πει πόσο υπέροχα πέρασε και πόσο ανυπομονούσε να επιστρέψει στο Βερολίνο για να τον επισκεφτεί ξανά. Ένα άλλο υποτιθέμενο θύμα δήλωσε ότι η ιστορία που αφηγήθηκαν οι κατήγοροι του Άππελμπαουμ σχετικά με αυτήν ήταν πραγματικά λανθασμένη και είχε χρησιμοποιηθεί εναντίον του χωρίς τη συγκατάθεσή της.

Στην περίπτωση του Τρέβορ Φίτζγκιμπον, η μόνη κατηγορία βιασμού προήλθε από μια γυναίκα η οποία του έστειλε μια σειρά γυμνών και ημι-γυμνών φωτογραφιών πριν από το υποτιθέμενο περιστατικό, και έπειτα ένα άλλο μήνυμα κειμένου για να τον συγχαρεί και να τον επαινέσει για τη σεξουαλική του απόδοση. Αμέσως μετά του ζήτησε να κάνει μια σειρά από επαγγελματικές χάρες για την ίδια και τους πελάτες της. Ο ισχυρισμός της για βιασμό διερευνήθηκε από τις αρχές – οι οποίες, μετά από μια ετήσια έρευνα, τον απέρριψαν ως αβάσιμο και αρνήθηκαν να τον κατηγορήσουν. Αυτός στη συνέχεια πήρε τα αποδεικτικά στοιχεία της διπροσωπίας της σε δικαστήριο και τη μήνυσε με επιτυχία για δυσφήμιση. Έχει πλέον ανακαλέσει δημοσίως τους ισχυρισμούς της εναντίον του.

Παρά τα παραπάνω, ο μύθος ότι “υπάρχουν πολλοί κατήγοροι” εξακολουθεί να χρησιμοποιείται εναντίον και των τριών ανδρών. Ο Τζούλιαν παρουσιάζεται να εξηγεί στο ντοκιμαντέρ «Risk» της Laura Poitras γιατί η ύπαρξη πολλαπλών κατήγορων είναι προβληματική και αμέσως θεωρήθηκε μισογύνης» επειδή τόλμησε να εκφράσει μια τέτοια βασική παρατήρηση. Απεικονίστηκε  ως ένας ένοχος που σχεδίαζει αντι-αφηγήματα εναντίον των θυμάτων για να αποφύγει τη δικαιοσύνη, αντί ως ένας αθώος άνθρωπος που απορεί με τη διαπλοκή πολυπλοκότητα των αλυσίδων που χρησιμοποιούνται για να τον τυλίξουν.

Και στις τρεις περιπτώσεις, έγιναν ψευδείς ισχυρισμοί που είτε πληρούν οριακά τα χαρακτηριστικά ενός σεξουαλικού εγκλήματος είτε απλά δεν το κάνουν καθόλου. Παρά τα εννέα χρόνια επικλήσεων της λέξης “βιασμός”, και του όρου “κατά συρροή βιαστής”, οι κατηγορίες εναντίον του Τζούλιαν δεν ισοδυναμούν καθόλου με βιασμό. Είναι αυτό που περιγράφουν τα Σουηδικά νομικά βιβλία ως “μικρότερο βιασμό” και περιγράφουν δραστηριότητες που δεν είναι εγκλήματα στις περισσότερες δυτικές χώρες. Στην περίπτωση του Τζέηκομπ, οι κατήγοροί του θεώρησαν ότι αξίζει να ανασύρουν επαγγελματικές διαμάχες, αστεία που ακούγονται σε μπαρ, τον ισχυρισμό τρίτου για ένα απλό φιλί, και το πλύσιμο της πλάτης ενός κατήγορου που  παρέλειψε να αποκαλύψει όταν έγραφε για το περιστατικό, ότι μετά από το πλύσιμο της πλάτης, είχε ουσιαστικά αποφασίσει να κάνει συναινετικό σεξ με τον Άππελμπαουμ. Στην περίπτωση του Τρέβορ Φίτζγκιμπον, η καταγγέλλουσα που είχε ανακαλέσει το βιασμό συνοδεύτηκε στο αστυνομικό τμήμα από δύο άλλες καταγγέλλουσες.  Η μια ισχυρίστηκε ότι ο Φίτζγκιμπον την “αγκάλιασε” ακατάλληλα. Η άλλη ισχυρίστηκε ότι το χέρι του βούρτσισε την πλάτη της κατά τη διάρκεια μιας αγκαλιάς. Αυτές οι καταγγελίες απορρίφθηκαν επίσης από την υπηρεσία διερεύνησης.

Έχω γράψει εκτενώς αλλού για το πώς τέτοιοι ψευδείς ισχυρισμοί υποβαθμίζουν αποτελεσματικά τη σοβαρότητα του βιασμού.   Θα συγκρατήσω τον εαυτό μου από την άβολη θέση να το κάνω αυτό ξανά, εκτός από το να πώ: όσες από εμάς έχουμε βιώσει τη βία και το τραύμα του βιασμού, του ομαδικού βιασμού και της σοβαρής σεξουαλικής κακοποίησης, είναι μια ασυγχώρητη προσβολή να βλέπουμε τέτοια θλιβερά, ρηχά παράπονα, να συγχέονται ως βιασμός. Εκείνες που εμπλέκονται σε αυτή τη συμπεριφορά βλάπτουν την αξιοπιστία, και στην πραγματικότητα θέτουν σε κίνδυνο, όλες τιςς πραγματικές καταγγέλλουσες βιασμού, και πρέπει να ντρέπονται βαθιά για τον εαυτό τους.

Κανένας από τους τρεις άνδρες – Τζούλιαν, Τζέηκομπ ή Τρέβορ – δεν έχει ποτέ κατηγορηθεί για έγκλημα. Ούτε είχαν υποβληθεί εναντίον τους αστικές αγωγές, παρόλο που το αποδεικτικό εμπόδιο είναι χαμηλότερο. Παρόλα αυτά και οι τρεις συνεχίζουν να κακοποιούνται από τους πολιτικούς τους αντιπάλους, οι οποίοι τους κατονομάζουν «κατά συρροή βιαστές».

Αυτό έχει προκαλέσει ανεπανόρθωτη βλάβη σε αυτούς και στα κοντινά τους πρόσωπα. Επίσης, κατέστρεψε σημαντικά την καριέρα τους.

Και για αυτό ακριβώς γίνονται όλα αυτά. Δεν αφορούσε ποτέ αυτούς. Αφορούσε τις επαγγελματικές τους επιδιώξεις: τι κάνουν καλά, τι αγαπούν να κάνουν, ποιοί ενοχλούνταν από αυτό που αυτοί κάνουν, και ποιοι ήταν εκείνοι που επωφελήθηκαν από την αναστολή της ικανότητάς τους να συνεχίσουν να το κάνουν.

Διαβάστε εδώ το πλήρες κείμενο.


Media dead silent as Wikileaks insider explodes the myths around Julian Assange


It is the journalists from The Guardian and New York Times who should be in jail, not Julian Assange, said Mark Davis last week. The veteran Australian investigative journalist, who has been intimately involved in the Wikileaks drama, has turned the Assange narrative on its head. The smears are falling away. The mainstream media, which has so ruthlessly made Julian Assange a scapegoat, is silent in response.

Greg Bean likens the revolutionary work of Julian Assange to that of Johannes Gutenberg who invented the printing press. Government reaction, 580 years later, is similarly savage.

Five hundred and eighty years ago, Johannes Gutenberg introduced the printing press to the world. That single act created a free press which gave birth to the concept of freedom of speech. The two are inextricably linked; printing is a form of speech.

Gutenberg’s invention started the Printing Revolution, a milestone of the 2ndmillennium that initiated the modern period of human history including the Renaissance, the Reformation, the Age of Enlightenment, and the Scientific Revolution, and began the knowledge-based economy that spread learning to the masses.

Such mass communication permanently altered the structure of society. Removing control of information from the hands of the powerful and delivering it into the hands of the disempowered.

The broad circulation of information, including revolutionary ideas, in many languages, undermined Latin’s dominant status and the authority previously held by those trained in Latin, it transcended borders, threatened the power of political and religious authorities, increased literacy breaking the monopoly of the literate elite on education and learning, and bolstered the emerging middle class. It increased cultural self-awareness and cultural cohesion and undermined the authority of distant rulers and high priests.

His major work, the Gutenberg Bible was the first printed version of the Bible.

A global game-changer

Until 1439, Bibles were hand-scribed by rooms full of monks. There were virtually no mass produced books. Only an organisation able to fund these scribe factories could generate information that could be shared with others, in Latin. The Catholic Church was not impressed that Gutenberg made these scribe factories redundant.

But that’s just one enemy Gutenberg created. As well as destroying religious control he destroyed political control, which was largely aligned with the Church across Europe.

And then he destroyed the monopoly of the literate elite, creating educated populations where previously, powerful nobles had unchallenged control. Then, by supporting the local languages, all of which could be printed, he destroyed the dominance of Latin as the only language worth knowing.

Gutenberg was a game changer. He undermined the control of monarchs and the ruling class, the church, the political establishment, the Latin speaking elite, the educated upper-class, and probably also the authority and reliance on masters in every field of human endeavour as their previously spoken instructions, to a limited set of apprentices, could now be shared to the world in print.

Gutenberg destroyed the masters in virtually every realm by providing the means to expose knowledge to everyone. The genie was out of the bottle.

Imagine the masters’ anger.

Though anger could not save them from what Gutenberg had done.

From paper revolution to digital revolution

Today in 2019, 580 years since Gutenberg unleashed his printing press, the powerful are still trying to put the free press and freedom of speech genie back in the bottle.

Their present strategy is to make their knowledge, the element that is the key to retaining authority, as it was in Gutenberg’s day, secret, even Top Secret, and criminalising any action that reveals these secrets to anyone outside their circle of authority.

One of the ways this has been achieved is by enlisting the very core of what should be the free press, granting them almost monopoly rights to information dissemination and transmission and in exchange attaining for themselves the guarantee that their secrets will not be revealed.

Media concentration and control

In the US today, it is estimated that five dominant media organisations have almost total control of information transmission to the entire 325 million Americans. While the Internet was meant to democratise the transmission of information we see a few giant technology companies, Google, Facebook, and Twitter, have near total control of what is seen and shared.

The situation is even worse in Australia with two or three media companies and the same technology giants having control. And the Government of Australia has granted them ever wider market access to extend their monopolies. As an aside, it’s both funny and ironic that the Turnbull Government last increased the capacity for Australian media to further consolidate and then Malcolm Turnbull was deposed by that same media for being insufficiently sycophantic to their wishes.

But in 2006, something akin to the arrival of Gutenberg’s press appeared that would threaten the tightly held master’s control as surely as Gutenberg’s press threatened autocratic control in 1439.

That something was a technology suite, from WikiLeaks, that protected the anonymity of individuals who leaked the secrets of corruption that powerful governments preferred to keep hidden.

The strategy was quite elegant in its simplicity. WikiLeaks recognised that organisations and governments can only succeed if they can communicate their instructions to the operational workforce. If the instructions are legal and legitimate, this can be done publicly and with no need to hide any of these instructions.

What have they got to hide?

If however, the instructions entail illegal or illegitimate actions, then the only way these can be communicated to the entire workforce is as secrets. And to ensure they remain secret the organisation or government must impose a penalty on anyone who breaks that secrecy and divulges the information to person not authorised to see it.

The very act of defining something as secret and restricting its dissemination is a clear indicator that the actions or events are very likely illegal or illegitimate. Imposing penalties on those who disseminate these secrets outside authorised channels is another indicator of illegal or illegitimate actions or events.

Authoritarian regimes, murderous military organisations, human rights breaching spy agencies, polluting or corrupt organisation, mind control religious cults, and many more examples are available where their ability to continue with the illegal or illegitimate actions or to hide past events all must utilise secrecy and impose punishment on leakers to ensure that secrecy.

WikiLeaks destroyed that ability. Anonymous leaking of illegal or illegitimate actions or events destroys the ability of corrupt organisations to continue being corrupt.

That undermines their authority and control. And that’s what WikiLeaks introduced to the world — a mechanism and technology that was as pivotal to educating, enlightening, and promoting corrective action as was previously achieved by the creation of Gutenberg’s printing press.

WikiLeaks destroyed the masters in virtually every realm by providing the means to expose knowledge worldwide. The genie was out of the bottle.

Imagine the master’s anger.

A drastic response

WikiLeaks’ threat to the powerful was recognised and every effort was, and is, being made to criminalise anonymous leaking, which would be akin to criminalising Gutenberg’s printing press, but there is not much chance this criminalisation will succeed.

Their strategy however, as exposed in a document leaked by WikiLeaks, outlined how WikiLeaks uses trust by protecting the anonymity and identity of leakers and concluded that damaging or destroying this trust would deter leaking; defame Assange and WikiLeaks to kill the threat posed by anonymous leaking.

For 12 years, since 2008, that is exactly what powerful organisations, powerful media and government, powerful military and corrupt corporations have been doing. They are trying to destroy the public’s trust in Julian Assange and, by so doing, destroying the trust in WikiLeaks and ensuring this mechanism of educating the world fails.

Slowly, instance by instance, the malicious and deceitful smears of Julian Assange’s character have been exposed for what they are; an effort to destroy trust in a system of anonymous leaking that will educate everyone. As an example, on Thursday, August 8, 2019, at an event in a pub in Sydney, Mark Davis, a multi-Walkley award winning video journalist destroyed the smear that Assange was cavalier; cavalier that is about the risk of death of informants whose names appeared in documents in one of the sets of releases.

Davis said that, not only was Assange quite worried about the risk, but that The Guardian and New York Times journalists showed little if any worry. The video is here. It is quite remarkable.

As well as these smears, numerous torturous actions were visited on Assange, aimed at achieving not just his discrediting but also to break him mentally and physically.

Assault on human dignity

The UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, Nils Melzer, recently wrote a damning articlepublished on the United Nations Human Rights website describing the situation in detail and comments, “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,” Melzer said. “The collective persecution of Julian Assange must end here and now!”.

Sydney based Clinical Psychologist Lissa Johnson has also written about the treatment of Julian Assange ( link ) and the complicit actions of many who turn a blind eye.

“At this democratic crossroads, although establishment media have signalled their reluctance to support Espionage Act charges, in the knowledge they could be next, many nevertheless appear willing to act as instigators of torture, inciting publics to morally disengage, so that states can continue persecuting Julian Assange,” wrote Johnson. “Every act of ‘journalism’ that buries crucial information, and every utterance that vilifies or dehumanises Julian Assange, or sanitises his abuse, is complicit.. “.

Bring Julian Assange home

It’s time to bring Julian Assange home. Torturing and punishing him has never been legitimate and serves absolutely no purpose.

It’s time to recognise that anonymous leaking is here to stay and promote the world changing benefits that this system of mass education will deliver.

How can I be sure anonymous leaking is here to stay? Like Gutenberg’s printing press, WikiLeaks is not a one-off unit, it is a model for how to approach and overcome an issue. Many printing presses were built after Gutenberg revealed the concept and they were soon powered, automated and churning out printed material in huge volumes.

The same has happened with Julian Assange’s concept of a mechanism and technologies that can support anonymous leaking. A group called The Freedom of The Press Foundation, founded among others by Daniel Ellsberg, the man famous for leaking the Pentagon Papers that exposed the lies about the War in Vietnam, created a freely available WikiLeaks-like system called SecureDrop that is now in use by many news organisations.

And a number of these SecureDrop implementations are multi-national and so shield the recipient from AFP-style raids as they exist out there … somewhere … out of AFP and Australian authority reach … out of the reach of any other nation attempting to clamp down on anonymous leaking.

The WikiLeaks style anonymous leaking genie is out of the bottle and is not going back in.

Vive la revolution!

ALISON BROINOWSKI. Julian Assange One case dismissed: one to go


From the Australian mainstream media most readers won’t know it, but on 29 July a Federal Court in New York dismissed the Democratic National Committee’s case against Julian Assange for publishing leaked internal emails in 2016.

The Australian media usually overcome their mutual antipathy and band together to defend journalistic freedom and the rights of whistle-blowers, as we can expect to see in the case of Witness K. But Julian Assange is different. Denying that what he does is journalism is the excuse given by many in the media for taking no interest in the truth of his case or in finding out what is happening to him in Belmarsh supermax prison.

If Australian journalists were doing their job they would pursue Assange’s case with at least as much enthusiasm as they and the government brought to those of Peter Greste jailed in Cairo, Hakeem al-Araibi arrested in Bangkok, and Alek Sigley detained in Pyongyang.

The New York Times and Washington Post buried the highly significant story of WikiLeaks’ recent exculpation (Oscar Grenfell, ‘Media silent on dismissal of DNC suit against Julian Assange‘).To do otherwise would have brought down the house of negative cards about Assange which they have built ever since 2010. The New York Timespublished the war-log documents Assange passed to them before he, working through the night, had finished redacting 10 000 names. David Leigh at the Guardian published the very password for the cables database over which Assange is now facing prosecution.

All the media beneficiaries, and leaders of several governments, claimed repeatedly that Assange recklessly endangered the lives of people mentioned in the classified reports. They ignored that fact that in 2013 the Pentagon’s Brigadier-General Robert Carrconceded that no-one had been killed as a result of the leaked cables. The US and other governments were greatly embarrassed, but no-one died, while their killing of un-numbered civilians in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria continues to this day.

Australia’s dearth of public interest journalism on the Assange case was somewhat relieved by Nick Miller’s coverage for Fairfax of statements by the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture (SMH, 28 July 2019). Nils Melzer visited Assange in Belmarsh in May, but his written concerns about the effects on Assange of anxiety and long incarceration have since been rejected by Sweden and the US.

Then came ABC Four Corners, with episodes on 22 and 29 July about Assange’s prosecution, ‘Hero or Villain’ Part 1 and Part 2. Telling viewers little that they haven’t already seen in Linda Poitras’ documentary Risk and Alex Gibney’s feature We Steal Secrets: The Story of WikiLeaks (a deliberately misleading title), the two ABC programs recalled that only after the US papers ignored Chelsea (then Bradley) Manning’s offer did she seek out WikiLeaks, and that Assange told her what he could and couldn’t do to help with encryption. Concerned about balance, Four Corners gave Assange’s enemies a lot of air-time for personal allegations and familiar smears like ‘vanity’ and ‘megalomania’. But about his present condition it said nothing.

Dr Lissa Johnson brought to the story her expertise as a clinical psychologist. She observed on 8 August that Four Corners ignored Melzer’s statements, and accused the mainstream media of contributing to Assange’s torture by cultivating the established narrative ( Melbourne-based blogger Caitlin Johnstone has countered 27 smears against Assange, providing quotable ripostes, in ‘Debunking All The Assange Smears’. And lest Australians not forget, by April this year, more than 100 000 had signed Philip Adams’ petition to the government to act ( In the UK, that petition would trigger a debate in Parliament.

While public support for Assange builds through social media, Australian ministers have consistently refused to seek assurances that he will not be extradited to the US, which imposes the death penalty, and threatens him with its equivalent, more than 170 years imprisonment. Although his Australian lawyer Jennifer Robinson met politicians in Canberra in late July and informed them about Assange’s case, the Prime Minister made it known that he would not raise it with US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo (Australian, 2 August 2019: 4). If Marise Payne mentioned it to the British Foreign Secretary at a Global Conference for Media Freedom (sic) in July, she didn’t say so.

Lissa Johnson was joined on 8 August by Mark Davis, a veteran of ABC and SBS, whose talk in a Sydney pub was screened on Consortium News. Davis was in the Guardian‘bunker’ in July 2010 when Assange decided to get the leaked documents published by mainstream media in the UK, US, and Europe. Exasperated that the ‘complete lie’ about Assange’s ‘lack of integrity’ has widely been accepted as truth, Davis blames the Guardian’s then editor, the plausible and urbane Alan Rusbridger, his brother-in-law David Leigh, and Leigh’s co-author, the ardent Russo-phobe Luke Harding. Davis says they claimed that the Guardian was only reporting about what Assange had published, thus avoiding blame for publishing it themselves while still claiming credit for the scoop. The Guardian decided that as Leigh had already published the password to the cache of documents it was ‘best to publish the whole thing’, Davis says. By December Julian Assange was under arrest. ‘Julian’s in jail now because of that subterfuge’, Davis told his Sydney audience (Mark Davis, ‘Julian Assange and the Culture of Revenge’

The recent dismissal by the Federal Court relates not only to allegations about Wikileaks, but also Donald Trump jr, Jared Kushner, and Paul Manafort over ‘Russiagate’. But the political establishment hasn’t dropped it, says a former UK ambassador ( That establishment still controls what is happening to Assange, and his coming extradition to the US, charged with espionage.

John Pilger, who visited him in Belmarsh last week, has expressed serious concern about his health. More worrying, given what has happened to other public enemies – Seth Rich and Jeffrey Epstein in the US and Sergei Skripal in the UK – is that someone may rid the world of this troublesome truth-teller.

Dr Alison Broinowski was a Senate candidate for the WikiLeaks Party.