Article Image


Mixed NYT Response to Assange's Spurious 18-Count Indictment

Written by Subject: Police State

Mixed NYT Response to Assange's Spurious 18-Count Indictment

by Stephen Lendman ( - Home - Stephen Lendman)

Spurious Trump Regime (In)Justice Department charges against Assange reflect how all police states operate — extrajudicially.

They mock the rule of law, substituting judicial unfairness, denying targeted individuals their fundamental habeas, due process, and equal protection under law rights.

Instead of explaining the above, the NYT equivocated, trying to have things both ways in an article and editorial on Assange's 18-count indictment — mocking what justice under the law is supposed to be all about.

Not in the USA against individuals its ruling authorities want framed and imprisoned — Chelsea Manning, other courageous whistleblowers, and investigative journalists like Assange, criminalizing heroic figures.

The Trump regime intends going all out against him — a message to other truth-telling journalists. The same fate awaits anyone revealing US high crimes of war, against humanity, and other information its ruling authorities want suppressed.

A Times article called Thursday's indictment "a novel case (sic) that raises profound First Amendment issues."

It reflects police state injustice, the Times unwilling to state what's vital to explain. It's not a GOP or Dem issue. It's how both right wings of the nation's war party operate.

Obama prosecuted and imprisoned more whistleblowers than all his predecessors combined. Trump is on track to surpass him, perhaps in less than one term in office.

The Times: "The charges are the latest twist in a career in which Mr. Assange has morphed from a crusader for radical transparency to fugitive from a Swedish sexual assault investigation (sic), to tool of Russia's election interference (sic), to criminal defendant in the United States."

The above remarks show where the Times stands on what Assange is all about. He's no fugitive from Sweden or anywhere else.

Swedish authorities earlier dropped rape and sexual assault charges against him because no credible evidence backed them.

In 2010, he left the country when told he wasn't wanted for questioning, no charges filed against him at the time.

According to WikiLeaks editor-in-chief Kristinn Hrafnsson, "considerable political pressure (was exerted) on Sweden to reopen their investigation" — what was and remains entirely politically motivated.

Despite a Swedish prosecutor saying "no crime at all" occurred, the case against him was reopened at the behest of UK authorities in cahoots with the Trump regime.

Not a shred of evidence suggests Assange or Chelsea Manning operated as "a tool of (nonexistent) Russia's election interference" — one of many Times repeated Big Lies that won't die.

Another Times Big Lie falsely claimed "Mr. Assange's organization published Democratic emails stolen by Russia (sic) as part of its covert efforts to help elect President Trump (sic)."

Nothing was "stolen" by anyone. Material was leaked by a Dem insider. WikiLeaks published it, what journalism the way it should be is all about — what's absent from Times' reports and other major media, suppressing vital information the public has a right to know.

Head of the DOJ's national security division John Demers turned truth on its head, saying Assange is "no journalist" — a bald-faced Big Lie, affirmed by Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University's Jameel Jaffer, saying:

Charges against Assange "rely almost entirely on conduct that investigative journalists engage in every day. The indictment should be understood as a frontal attack on press freedom."

Attorney Barry Pollack representing Assange said he's charged with a crime "for encouraging sources to provide him truthful information and for publishing that information" — removing the "fig leaf" claim about hacking that never occurred, adding:

"These unprecedented charges demonstrate the gravity of the threat the criminal prosecution of Julian Assange poses to all journalists in their endeavor to inform the public about actions that have been taken by the US government."

The Times editorial board addressed the issue of Assange's 18-count indictment. While saying it "aims at the heart of the First Amendment…that could have a chilling effect on American journalism," it turned truth on its head adding:

"There is much to be troubled by in Mr. Assange's methods and motives, which remain murky (sic). He released numerous documents without removing names of confidential sources, putting their lives in jeopardy (sic)."

WikiLeaks describes how it operates as follows, refuting the Big Lie by the Times and Justice Department, saying it's "a not-for-profit media organization. Our goal is to bring important news and information to the public," adding: 

"We provide an innovative, secure and anonymous way for sources to leak information to our journalists (our electronic drop box)." 

"One of our most important activities is to publish original source material alongside our news stories so readers and historians alike can see evidence of the truth."

Anonymous sources are protected, not revealed. "Like other media outlets conducting investigative journalism, we accept (but do not solicit) anonymous sources of information. Unlike other outlets, we provide a high security anonymous drop box fortified by cutting-edge cryptographic information technologies. This provides maximum protection to our sources."

The Times accepted the Justice Department's Big Lie, falsely accusing Assange and WikiLeaks of hacking into government computers when no hacking occurred at any time.

To its shame, Time's editors said "Mr. Assange is no hero." Polar opposite is true — the same true for Chelsea Manning and other truth-tellers on vital issues.

They provide an essential public service. The Times and other establishment media fail the truth-telling test time and again on major issues, sticking virtually always to the falsified official narrative.

VISIT MY NEW WEB SITE: (Home - Stephen Lendman). Contact at

My newest book as editor and contributor is titled "Flashpoint in Ukraine: How the US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III."

Agorist Hosting