U.S. News

2243 readers

88 users here now

News about and pertaining to the United States and its people.

Please read what's functionally the mission statement before posting for the first time. We have a narrower definition of news than you might be accustomed to.

Guidelines for submissions:

Post the original source of information as the link.
If there is a paywall, provide an archive link in the body.
Post using the original headline; edits for clarity (as in providing crucial info a clickbait hed omits) are fine.
Social media is not a news source.

For World News, see the News community.

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

alyaza@beehaw.org

rs5th@beehaw.org

Powderhorn@beehaw.org

U.S. Official Hints at Possible Plea Deal for Julian Assange (theintercept.com)

submitted 1 year ago by Five@beehaw.org to c/usnews@beehaw.org

11 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Excerpt:

The United States is considering a plea deal that would allow WikiLeaks founder and whistleblower Julian Assange to return to Australia, the Sydney Morning Herald reported Monday.

U.S. Ambassador to Australia Caroline Kennedy told the Morning Herald that there could be a “resolution” to Assange’s now-four-year detention in Britain. Assange, an Australian citizen, has been held in a London prison since 2019 while combating U.S. extradition efforts. He faces 18 criminal charges in the U.S., 17 of which allege violations of the Espionage Act.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Five@beehaw.org 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

the Grand Jury that was impaneled to look at Assange during the Obama years chose not to prosecute because they couldn’t disentangle other media outlets

I'm getting really confused; the history I remember is that the Grand Jury decided to prosecute not just once in a sealed indictment, but then added further controversial charges in a second indictment.

[–] dingus@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

All of which happened during the Trump administration.

https://theintercept.com/2018/11/16/as-the-obama-doj-concluded-prosecution-of-julian-assange-for-publishing-documents-poses-grave-threats-to-press-freedom/

Here is Glenn Greenwald discussing the Obama era DOJ and their choices on the matter, in response to the indictment you are referencing.

Prior to that, they did not recommend charges. The original Grand Jury was set in motion in 2010.

[–] Five@beehaw.org 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

You're right, it was during the Trump administration. For some reason I thought the first indictment had been made and then sealed during Obama's tenure. Trump's attack was a major escalation.

I don't see any reference to a Grand Jury in the linked article, and I can't find anything in Google about "assange grand jury 2010". Are you thinking about this section?

Justice officials said they looked hard at Assange but realized that they have what they described as a “New York Times problem.” If the Justice Department indicted Assange, it would also have to prosecute the New York Times and other news organizations and writers who published classified material, including The Washington Post and Britain’s Guardian newspaper.

It seems to indicate that they didn't even bother to assemble a grand jury, which is even better for Obama.

[–] dingus@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2011/may/11/us-opens-wikileaks-grand-jury-hearing

Looks like I was a year off, it was 2011.

[–] Five@beehaw.org 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Thanks. Yeah, I think I heard about this jury, but only that its deliberation was secret, and I never found out what was decided. When the indictment was unsealed, I assumed it was the revelation of this Jury's decision.

[–] dingus@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Easy to get mixed up. It has been a long and complex case!

Even more complex with the changing of administrations who each handled it differently.

[–] Five@beehaw.org 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Do you remember when the decision of the 2011 grand jury was revealed? If they kept it secret to scare Assange, that's still a pretty outrageous form of press intimidation.

[–] dingus@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago

Oh agreed and I am pretty sure they were happy to leave it hanging over him for intimidation purposes.

Democrats are "better" on press freedom simply because their moves are more overt than direct, so fewer people notice them.