The DOJ's 'New York Times problem' with Assange

[AdamSmith]

The DOJ's 'New York Times problem' with Assange

By HADAS GOLD | politico.com
11/26/13 4:39 PM EST

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange will likely not face charges in the United States for publishing classified documents, because the Justice Department would not be able to do so without also prosecuting media organizations who do the same, The Washington Post reports.

Calling it a "New York Times problem," Justice officials told the Post that if they indicted Assange, they'd also have to prosecute the Times, The Washington Post, and The Guardian for publishing classified leaked material from people like Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden. A formal decision has yet to be issued.

“The problem the department has always had in investigating Julian Assange is there is no way to prosecute him for publishing information without the same theory being applied to journalists,” said former Justice Department spokesman Matthew Miller told the Post. “And if you are not going to prosecute journalists for publishing classified information, which the department is not, then there is no way to prosecute Assange.”

Justice officials told the Post that the same distinction between leaker and journalist or publisher is being made between Manning or Snowden and Assange. Unless they can find evidence Assange did something like hack into government computers, he's being treated the same as a publisher. Manning and Snowden have been charged with violations of the Espionage Act.

But during Manning's 2011 trial, online chat logs found on Manning’s personal computer show she sought advice about cracking passwords from a chat user listed as “Nathaniel Frank,” whom prosecutors said they linked to an e-mail address used by Assange, our colleague Josh Gerstein reported.

The user alleged to be Assange replied that he had access to “rainbow tables,” a type of data set that can be used to convert an encrypted password into plain text. However since then, no other evidence emerged publicly of Assange, or someone who prosecutors said was Assange, asking Manning for records or to crack passwords to get access to records.

On Twitter, WikiLeaks said they are "skeptical" about the Post report.

"A smoke screen or is the US DoJ finally realizing that it has no case against (Assange)?" WikiLeaks tweeted.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2013/11/the-dojs-new-york-times-problem-with-assange-178396.html?hp=l8

[AdamSmith]

Julian Assange unlikely to face U.S. charges over publishing classified documents

View Photo Gallery — The saga of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange: Julian Assange, responsible for one of the largest leaks of classified U.S. documents, has been holed up in the Ecuadoran Embassy in London since June 2012, when he was granted diplomatic asylum. According to high-ranking U.S. law enforcement sources, there is no sealed indictment or criminal complaint against the WikiLeaks founder, despite rumors that he was under investigation by the Justice Department.

By Sari Horwitz, Published: November 25

The Washington Post

The Justice Department has all but concluded it will not bring charges against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange for publishing classified documents because government lawyers said they could not do so without also prosecuting U.S. news organizations and journalists, according to U.S. officials.

The officials stressed that a formal decision has not been made, and a grand jury investigating WikiLeaks remains impaneled, but they said there is little possibility of bringing a case against Assange, unless he is implicated in criminal activity other than releasing online top-secret military and diplomatic documents.

The Obama administration has charged government employees and contractors who leak classified information — such as former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden and former Army intelligence analyst Bradley Manning — with violations of the Espionage Act. But officials said that although Assange published classified documents, he did not leak them, something they said significantly affects their legal analysis.

“The problem the department has always had in investigating Julian Assange is there is no way to prosecute him for publishing information without the same theory being applied to journalists,” said former Justice Department spokesman Matthew Miller. “And if you are not going to prosecute journalists for publishing classified information, which the department is not, then there is no way to prosecute Assange.”

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, according to the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.

WikiLeaks spokesman Kristinn Hrafnsson said last week that the anti-secrecy organization is skeptical “short of an open, official, formal confirmation that the U.S. government is not going to prosecute WikiLeaks.” Justice Department officials said it is unclear whether there will be a formal announcement should the grand jury investigation be formally closed.

“We have repeatedly asked the Department of Justice to tell us what the status of the investigation was with respect to Mr. Assange,” said Barry J. Pollack, a Washington attorney for Assange. “They have declined to do so. They have not informed us in any way that they are closing the investigation or have made a decision not to bring charges against Mr. Assange. While we would certainly welcome that development, it should not have taken the Department of Justice several years to come to the conclusion that it should not be investigating journalists for publishing truthful information.”

There have been persistent rumors that the grand jury investigation of Assange and WikiLeaks had secretly led to charges. Officials told The Post last week that there was no sealed indictment, and other officials have since come forward to say, as one senior U.S. official put it, that the department has “all but concluded” that it will not bring a case against Assange.

A Justice Department spokesman declined to comment, as did former U.S. attorney Neil H. Mac­Bride, whose office in the Eastern District of Virginia led the probe into the WikiLeaks organization.

In an interview with The Post earlier this month, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said that Justice Department officials are still trying to repatriate Snowden, who has obtained temporary asylum in Russia, to stand trial. But Holder also said that the Justice Department is not planning to prosecute former Guardian reporter Glenn Greenwald, one of the journalists who received documents from Snowden. Greenwald has written a series of articles based on the leaked material. An American citizen, Greenwald has said he fears prosecution if he returns to the United States from his home in Brazil.

Justice officials said that the same distinction between leaker and journalist or publisher is being made between Manning and Assange. One former law enforcement official said the U.S. government could bring charges against Assange if it discovered a crime, such as evidence that he directly hacked into a U.S. government computer. But the Justice officials said he would almost certainly not be prosecuted for receiving classified material from Manning.

Assange has been living in a room in the Ecuadoran Embassy in London since Ecuador granted him political asylum. Assange is facing sexual-assault allegations in Sweden. Assange and some of his supporters have said the Australian national fears that if he goes to Sweden to face those allegations, he will be extradited to the United States.

But current and former U.S. officials dismissed that defense.

“He is hiding out in the embassy to avoid a sexual-assault charge in Sweden,” Miller said. “It has nothing to do with the U.S. government.”

Julie Tate contributed to this report.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/julian-assange-unlikely-to-face-us-charges-over-publishing-classified-documents/2013/11/25/dd27decc-55f1-11e3-8304-caf30787c0a9_story.html

[AdamSmith]

Julian Assange lawyer calls on US to make formal decision on prosecution

• Reports that US unlikely to pursue charges over Manning leak
• WikiLeaks founder remains holed up in Ecuadorean embassy

• Ed Pilkington in New York
• theguardian.com, Tuesday 26 November 2013 13.38 EST

The lawyer acting for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange over the US criminal investigation into his publication of hundreds of thousands of state secrets has called on the Department of Justice to make a formal statement that it will not prosecute him, in the wake of off-the-record reports that the department is minded not to press charges.

Barry Pollack responded sharply to anonymous officials who told the Washington Post that the US government was unlikely to prosecute Assange because to do so would raise the issue of prosecuting news organisations and journalists involved in the WikiLeaks disclosures. Pollack said that the Justice Department had failed to respond to WikiLeaks’ inquiries about the status of the investigation, which has been led by the eastern district of Virginia, where a grand jury has been impaneled.

“Mr Assange would welcome a formal unequivocal statement from the Department of Justice that it has not brought charges against him and will not do so in the future. Unfortunately, to date, the Department of Justice has not been willing to make such a statement,” Pollack said.

The Washington Post report is the latest in a flurry of unattributed articles suggesting that the Justice Department is unlikely to take up formal charges against Assange. The paper said that the justice officials had concluded that they had a “New York Times problem” – that is, if they went after Assange they would also have to prosecute journalists from the New York Times, the Guardian and others who worked on the WikiLeaks revelations.

In 2010, WikiLeaks shared with the Guardian and other international news organisations access to the massive trove of US state secrets leaked by the American soldier Chelsea Manning, formerly Bradley. WikiLeaks has consistently argued that it is a journalistic organisation, and thus shielded by the same first amendment protections as any other news outlet.

The Justice Department declined on Tuesday to comment on whether or not it would prosecute Assange.

The drip-drip of anonymous indications from the department of justice that Assange will not be prosecuted, combined with the refusal to make public its intentions, has caused anger and frustration in the WikiLeaks camp which sees it as a form of games-playing on the part of the Obama administration. WikiLeaks used its Twitter feed – often used by Assange as a channel for his personal opinions – to vent a sceptical response to the story, pointing out that the US government under Obama has an aggressive record on pursuing official leaks.

Manning has been sentenced to 35 years in military custody as the source of the WikiLeaks disclosures. She is one of eight individuals charged under the Espionage Act in recent years, the latest being Edward Snowden of the National Security Agency leaks.

Other observers, however, reserved their scepticism for Assange, who has been ensconced for more than a year in the Ecuadorean embassy in London where he has been granted diplomatic asylum. He is wanted for questioning in Sweden in regard to sexual assault allegations.

Assange has said he is resisting extradition to Sweden for fear of being sent in turn to the US to face criminal prosecution over WikiLeaks. Were the US to confirm publicly that it will not press charges, Assange’s critics believe that would undermine his self-defence.

Philip Crowley, the former US State Department spokesperson who resigned from the post in protest at the treatment of Chelsea Manning in a US marine jail, struck that note in a tweet: “With a US indictment not plausible, Julian Assange’s new narrative is information should be free, and rent too.”

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/nov/26/julian-assange-lawyer-us-prosecution-decision

[MsGuy]

Disinformation campaign designed both to deflect current critisim of administration's use of the espionage laws and, with luck, lull their targets out to where they can snatch them.

Or maybe the leopard has changed its spots. One never knows with these guys.

But, as I said in response to one of RA1's posts, one thing we know for sure is they're lying. Even when they tell the truth, they're lying.

Maybe especially when they tell the truth.

[TampaYankee]

DOJ has already neutered this dog when they first accused journalist James Rosen (FNC) of being a co-conspirator in a classified leak case. http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2013/06/feds-publicly-id-fox-newss-james-rosen-as-leak-recipient-165556.html Something they were forced by public opinion to do, IMO.

It just took them this long to convince themselves that they couldn't find another way to get Assange. Or... maybe it is disinformation designed to lure Assange into the open. One thing for sure, if I were Assange I'd believe nothing has changed for the better. Paranoia can keep one alive or free or at least not in forced captivity. The price for mistake is high indeed.

[Guest Paragon]

CNN's problem with Assange this morning is that he wouldn't shut up. Interviewed at a distance while he is in exile in the Ecuadorean Embassy, he just wouldn't stop talking no matter how many times the anchor tried to cut in. He came across as a bit narcissistic!

[TampaYankee]

CNN's problem with Assange this morning is that he wouldn't shut up. Interviewed at a distance while he is in exile in the Ecuadorean Embassy, he just wouldn't stop talking no matter how many times the anchor tried to cut in. He came across as a bit narcissistic!

Probably a bad case of cabin fever responding to a new face.