This is such excellent reporting. The sources and the sequencing in time that locks out (by pure virtue of sourced facts) any possibility of Assange treated fairly consistently, and by whom; and is then air-right with respect to those who have treated him fairly consistently, even after reconsideration, some contradicting themselves, and not budging, some caving in and returning to his defence. The people involved in all capacities is just air tight and irrefutable. It shows some behaving ethically and others behaving as ugly paradoxes. Yet he’s still being treated extra-judicially, extra-ethically. It’s guerrilla warfare inside the State services and the press services and would transpose to massacre if played out on the ground. Thank you @Andrew. We now know.

Expand full comment

Because the CIA and the security state control mass media along with social media and all journalists and editors are actually careerists and not journalists.

No need to go to Harper's now.

You're welcome.

Expand full comment

Predictably, YOU're not listening. I never said that leveling the Espionage Act charges against Assange might not be part of an attack on journalism. In fact, it certainly seems they are. That STILL doesn't make Assange himself a journalist.

I also note that you ignored my "facts not in evidence" observations.

Given that, and given, speaking observations, what I do and don't observe on your profile, I'll also observe that Substack, like Facebook but unlike Twitter, has just one tool, or actually, just 1/2 of that 1 tool.

Expand full comment

Let me also, re the Seth Rich conspiracy theory, per my other comment here that Assange goosing it removed him from the ranks of journos, if nothing else had, quote your own managing editor at Counterpunch, Andrew. St. Clair, 2019:

<blockquote>I think Julian Assange’s lowest moment was his inculcation of the Seth Rich conspiracy in some of the more credulous precincts of the Left. The strangest part of the affair is that if the preposterous Rich conspiracy had proved true, it meant that Assange would have outed his source.</blockquote>


Expand full comment

I agree with CPJ, and Dick Tofel, formerly of Pro Publica, and others. He's not a journalist.

The CPJ, in saying he's not a journo (I remember reading their piece a couple of years ago, Andrew) explicitly said he's due full legal due process, like any other person. Which, of course, he's not getting. But, his prison treatment is itself independent of the issue of whether or not he's a journo, so raising it with the linkage to the journalism issue is to some degree a red herring.

Per the people noted above, and myself? If he was a journo pre-Seth Rich (Tofel says he wasn't ever since he incited criminal behavior by Manning, and he may be right), he certainly forfeited any claim to be a journalist after goosing the Seth Rich conspiracy theory.


Expand full comment

Julian embarrassed the powerful, both in government and in the mainstream media. And so he's paying the price for being a real journalist who's willing to inform the powerless about the powerful and their various crimes and atrocities.

Of course, those in the government and in the mainstream media are often one and the same. Just as a revolving door exists between the military and its merchants of death, so too does a revolving door exist between government and its media liars and spinners. Caitlin Johnstone cited Jen Psaki at MSNBC as the latest example of this: https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2023/02/22/free-speech-is-for-fighting-the-empire-notes-from-the-edge-of-the-narrative-matrix/

The persecution of Julian is all about intimidating other journalists. He's being crucified to deter others from following in his path. And overall it may even be working, which is obviously not good.

Thanks for everything that you do, Andrew.

Expand full comment