Mac Daddy Julian Assange wasn’t the target of a conspiracy, he’s just a player:
But one of Mr. Assange’s close friends in Sweden, who said he had discussed the case in detail with Mr. Assange and one of the women, said he was “absolutely sure” that what was involved were personal animosities and grievances that flowed out of brief relationships Mr. Assange had with the women.
The man, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the delicacy of the issues, said that the volatile mix that led to the two women’s seeking criminal charges against Mr. Assange involved his celebrity in Sweden and the ill feelings that erupted when the two women discovered they had been competing for his attentions.
Ladies, there’s enough of Julian for everyone. No need to trump up rape charges.
When I think of Julian Assange as a player, it makes me think of this for some reason:
debit
Hm. I guess I’m missing my sense of humor this morning. Fabricated rape charges, no matter what the reason simply aren’t funny. Love the Jonathon Coulton, though.
burnspbesq
Neither is witness tampering – and neither you, nor I, nor anyone else not directly involved knows which one actually happened.
debit
@burnspbesq: No, we don’t. However, I was reacting to this line:
I simply didn’t think it was funny.
roshan
Hey chaseyourtail, we got the actual whole story right here, check it out. He is not a perv, just a playa!
General Stuck
I’m sorry, but Two women at the same time going to the cops and making false allegations of rape and molestation out of jealousy seems pretty far fetched to me.
burnspbesq
@debit:
Ohhhhhhh …
You’re right. It’s not funny at all.
mistermix
@General Stuck: The whole thing sounds absurd to me, including the Assange as sex symbol/playa angle. I guess others don’t find it even slightly amusing, oh well.
BTW, on the level of simple common-sense politics, this whole thing breaks in Wikileaks’ favor. It was pretty clear Assange was being set up by somebody (and it might just be a love triangle, who knows?) and the next time someone makes an accusation against him, there will be immense, well-warranted skepticism.
General Stuck
@mistermix:
Think about what you are saying here. That “somebody” contracted two separate women to seduce, or whatever Assange with the intent of having them both go the cops later and file false police reports to smear Assange. I mean that isn’t impossible but really is a stretch by any standard.
And I agree with debit and Burns, it was not a bit funny. Some snark, if that’s what it was, is better left unsaid.
mistermix
@General Stuck: What I was thinking about the setup is that it’s possible that one of the members of the love triangle, if it exists, went to the prosecutor, prompting the other to go and say her piece. That’s a “setup”, too, but one that could happen without the CIA’s intervention.
burnspbesq
When Assange is indicted by a Federal grand jury (which is likely to happen, if the FBI and DOD reports that were discussed in last Friday’s WSJ are any indication), jilted Swedish girls will become the least of his problems.
roshan
BWAAHAAAAAHAAAHAAAAABUAHAA!
mistermix
@burnspbesq: Remind me again why he’s going to be indicted and the NY Times, which ran the same material, isn’t?
burnspbesq
And there’s this:
http://www.salon.com/life/broadsheet/2010/08/23/julian_assange_rape
burnspbesq
@mistermix:
Because he is guilty of conspiracy, and guilty as an accessory to numerous violations of 18 USC 641. It’s an easy case to make based on phone and computer records (and if those records no longer exist, somebody is guilty of obstruction of justice and evidence tampering). I could try this case successfully, and I’m not even a criminal lawyer.
Is there any evidence that the New York Times is guilty of anything?
False equivalence fail. Not even a good try.
mistermix
@burnspbesq: I understand that the NYT role in this case and Wikileaks are somewhat different. Not that different, however – both “conveyed” the purloined material. Wikileaks turned over original source material, which was the property of the US Government, to the NYT, and the NYT published it. It seems to me that both of them are parties to whatever conspiracy is considered criminal, and that both have violated the statute you cited.
But, for the sake of argument, let’s say that Wikileaks’ role and the NYT’s role are different in this specific case. That said, the NYT is the recipient of stolen US property all the time. Sources send original US Government documents, memos, and the like to Times’ reporters regularly. Why isn’t the Times prosecuted under 18 USC 641 if it’s such a slam-dunk?
roshan
Hey Burnsby, take your own advice!
roshan
Pont-Saint-Esprit poisoning: Did the CIA spread LSD?
NOOOOOOOO, that’s a stretch!………Or is it, Stuck?
BWAAHAAAAAHAAAHAAAAABUAHAA!
Anoniminous
Assange prosecutor cited for secrecy breach
This whole thing smacks of COINTELPRO
not only in general outline but in specifics.
I don’t know who is behind it. It may be the CIA or any other the other ‘alphabet soup’ intelligence agencies floating around DC.
MattR
@mistermix: It seems obvious to me that the answer is that charging the NY Times could result in a lot of the MSM coming to their defense. Assange is much easier to isolate and demonize.
One thing that I do not see mentioned that much is that both women admit to having consensual sex with Assange. It kinda sounds like he was into some kind of “perverted” activity that the women didn’t go for. And part of the issue is that I have no idea what the laws of Sweden are like. Do they define rape the exact same way we do here or are there other circumstances that fall into that same legal category? For some reason I don’t trust the MSM to ferret out those details (if they exist).
roshan
Hey Burnsby, consult needed on aisle #19, please advise ASAP!
aimai
@MattR:
I think in the absence of knowing what counts as “rape” and “sexual assault” or whatever the other term of art was for the lesser charge (with which he has not been charged) we really can’t evaluate anything. Sweden has historically and culturally had a very different cultural attitude towards sexuality and currently has extremely strict laws regarding sexual abuse of (say) minors leading to sex tourism by male Swedes. But its not the kind of place that I would have said would lead Swedish women to fake lawsuits out of pique, or shame, or even concern about “love triangles” or sex with “playas.” There isn’t the same level of public policing of female sexuality which (theoretically) can lead to false accusations of rape/sexual abuse to protect the woman from non legal but socially important charges of “sluttiness” or sexual loseness.
Cointelpro is an excellent example, btw, of real world US government ratfucking of its opponents. Speaking as someone who has had many relatives followed and taped by the FBI for literal years you aren’t crazy to assume dirty tricks, you are crazy not to.
aimai
joe from Lowell
Let this be a lesson to you young men out there:
DON’T JUGGLE!
It sounds like a lot of fun in theory, right?
It’s not. It ends badly. Just don’t do it.
roshan
NAAAH, that’s just crazy. You crazy, Aimai, you crazy.
Let’s ask Stuck…….Is that a stretch, what say you, Stuck?
aimai
Oh, the other, lesser, charge was “molestation.”
I am really shocked and disgusted that Sweden’s rape/molestation laws are being abused–either by false accusations or by premature release of the information in such a politicized environment. Because it is that which has brought them into disrepute and under suspicion. While its true that important guys often get away with rape/molestation for longer than unimportant guys do its also true that high profile defendants, at the center of a political firestorm, have as much a right to privacy, dignity, and the presumption of innocence as anyone else.
aimai
burnspbesq
@mistermix:
Knowledge that property was stolen is an element of the “receiving” offense under section 641. United States Attorneys have a duty to the public to exercise discretion to use the resources they are granted wisely; part of that duty is to not bring cases that don’t appear to be winnable. A rational AUSA would take into account the possibility that a media outlet could successfully mount a “we didn’t know the stuff was hot” defense in deciding whether to proceed.
I expect that if all the evidence were to become known, we would learn that Assange assured the thief in advance that anything he could steal would be disseminated. Absent that assurance, the thief’s behavior is entirely irrational. It’s one thing to flush your career and risk a prison term because you see a public good in dissemination of the information; without the assurance that the information will be disseminated, why do the theft? That’s the heart of the conspiracy charge, and also blows a decent-sized hole in a “I didn’t know the stuff was hot” defense.
And let’s not harbor any illusions about the relative jury appeal of a case against a major media outlet and a case against an arrogant bastard who’s too fucking lazy to properly redact stolen documents before releasing them, thereby needlessly putting innocent lives at risk.
mistermix
@burnspbesq: The Times gets documents marked “classified” and they don’t know they’re stolen? Come on. That’s a fig leaf at best.
I’ll buy the jury appeal of this case, but it can’t be unique. The media is not the most popular institution in America. I’m sure there are plenty of cases where recognized media outlets have slipped up and published something that should have been redacted from a government document, thus causing some kind of injury. Judy Miller comes to mind.
Yet I’ve never read of a prosecution of the type you describe as a “slam dunk”. Julian Assange isn’t the first media figure to get a bunch of classified info that was published (or summarized and published). Why is his prosecution, unlike the thousands of other cases, a “slam dunk”?
My guess is that there’s a body of case law that supports First Amendment rights over the statute you cite, but that’s just a guess.
Comrade Kevin
No need to have a trial or anything, burnspbesq has declared Assange GUILTY. Case closed.
burnspbesq
@mistermix:
One man’s fig leaf is another man’s reasonable doubt. It only takes one holdout to hang a jury, as we were recently reminded by the outcome of the Bagojevic case.
“The evidence will show an explicit agreement between Julian Assange and Bradley Manning, entered into before the theft, that Wikileaks would publish whatever Mr. Manning could steal. That, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, is Conspiracy, with a capital C, and it is a crime. You can find the defendant Julian Assange guilty of conspiracy even if you do not find him guilty of knowingly receiving stolen government documents from Bradley Manning. You can find Julian Assange guilty of conspiracy even if the jury down the hall finds Bradley Manning not guilty of stealing classified government documents.
“And one last thing, ladies and gentlemen of the jury.
“The defense is going to make all kinds of noise about First Amendment rights, and about people acting due to sincere qualms about whether what the United States is doing in Afghanistan is legal or moral. Don’t be misled. This case is not about the First Amendment. The Government is not seeking to enjoin Wikileaks from publishing any stolen, secret government documents on its website. We concede that they can do that, although we wish they wouldn’t. What Julian Assange can’t do – what no journalist or blogger is permitted to do – is commit a crime to get his or her hands on secret government documents. The evidence will show, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Julian Assange committed crimes to get his hands on the documents, and if you agree you must find him guilty, regardless of what you think about US policy toward Afghanistan.”
roshan
Burnsby is dispensing justice like at a McDonald’s drive thru window. Poor little Burnsby, never ever gonna matter much in life, sigh.
Morbo
@aimai: Scott Horton has a pretty good piece (as usual) on the subject. Swedish Justice doesn’t seem to be very happy about how the charges became public either.
burnspbesq
@roshan:
Either show me where my analysis is wrong, or STFU, you pathetic little dweeb.
Zuzu's Petals
I dunno, it’s hard for me to see this “two gals competing for his attentions” angle:
mistermix
@burnspbesq: Your peroration to the jury in this particular case doesn’t distinguish it from a case against the New York Times.
Apparently you can’t answer the simple question that I asked earlier — why hasn’t the Times been prosecuted under this statute since they’ve done something similar before.
You started with a clear statement of why this was a crime, now you’re talking about what you can do to convince a jury. Let’s say Assange chooses to have a judge try this hypothetical case. Then what?
MattR
@Zuzu’s Petals: I agree based on this bit from the Scott Horton article tha Morbo linked to above (I assume this is the same woman and same interview)
Sounds like they were upset to discover that he screwed them the same way (pun intended), not that they were “competing for his attentions”
roshan
I am sorry to vex you like this, Burnsby, but you fail to understand what’s really at stake here. Try a little bit harder, see if you can notice it.
Hint: A 9+ yr. war and it’s aftermath.
Mnemosyne
@MattR:
In some countries — and it looks like Sweden may be one of them — that alone can be grounds for a minor assault charge, especially in the wake of the AIDS crisis.
liberal
@burnspbesq:
Could you list cases parallel to the current situation where the government successfully prosecuted under that section of the code?
roshan
Fact-free accusations about WikiLeaks
Burnsby, you paying attention?
Gen. Jrod and his Howling Army
@burnspbesq: That you find this imaginary monologue convincing, and expect that an entire jury would also find it convincing, says nothing good about you.
Then again, throwing a shit-fit over all the theoretical Afghans who might be killed as a result of the leak, without factoring in the hundreds or thousands of Afghans who certainly will be killed every year we continue hunting snipe- er, I mean terrrrrists– in Afghanistan also says nothing pleasant about your priorities.
Whatever. Assange in the monster-devil. Thus for any who obstruct the sacred duty of blowing shit up real good-like.
Corner Stone
And yet, if someone here made the grievous error of stating they believed Goldman Sachs was guilty of boning their grandmother out of their life savings, somehow burnspbesq would be the first person on the scene defending GS. And demanding you wait for more info or evidence before convicting them in the court of public opinion.
But Assange? He’s already fried in burnspbesq’s honorific to John Grisham.
chaseyourtail
And we’re taking this “anonymous” close friend’s account of what happened at face value why?
So the only explanation must be that these two bimbos conspired against his “hunkiness” (I actually find him quite unattractive) out of jealousy and spite….because, of course, woman are vindictive shrews.
Have the women recanted their accusations? If not, then why are you dismissing them based on anonymous hearsay?
This whole thing reeks of sexist bullcrap.
chaseyourtail
@roshan: I hope you’re right roshan. But I wouldn’t just go by what this “close friend” has to say about it. Haven’t you heard of the expression “bros before hoes”? I honestly hope you’re right. I hope nothing bad happened to these women.
chaseyourtail
And can someone please answer me this: If Assange knew these women and had relationships with them (as he admits to) then why did he suggest that this was some dirty trick timed to interfere with his next batch of leaks?
roshan
Oh, Chase, your hope flows eternal.
“Assange might be a perv” or “hope nothing bad happened to those women” or “whole thing reeks of sexist bullcrap“.
Yeah, and why did Assange suggest this was some dirty trick aimed at him? He can’t do that, now, can he? Only you, Chase, the optimist, can offer suggestions of what crimes he has committed.
burnspbesq
@mistermix:
Bench trial? Same charges, same theory of the case, and pretty much the same opening statement.
I’ve told you my theory of why DOJ might choose not to pursue similar charges against a major media outlet. You don’t like it. Not much I can do about that. The alternative theory, which is at least superficially plausible but which I don’t believe, is that DOJ chooses not to go after media defendants because it doesn’t want to risk having a bad precedent out there.
@Roshan:
I don’t need you (or Greenwald) to remind me about the AIPAC case. In my view, DOJ fucked up the AIPAC case. They should have brought the conspiracy charge that I am suggesting be brought against Assange. If the agreement that I believe exists between Assange and Manning doesn’t exist, then the conspiracy case falls flat. But riddle me this: if there’s no prearrangement between Assange and Manning, how is Manning’s behavior anything but insane?
@Gen Jrod.
If you think Assange is a fucking hero, why wouldn’t you want him to have a trial as his very own bully pulpit? And if you think I am opposed to courts martial for US military personnel who have acted badly in theater, you’ve mistaken me for someone else. I have said repeatedly that this should happen. But “other people did bad things and went unpunished” is not a defense, legally or morally, that is available to Julian Assange. He gets judged for what he did. I don’t understand why anyone who professes to care about the rule of law would fail to get that.