Joe Biden, Pardon This Man

Joe Biden, Pardon This Man

For the first time since 2011, Julian Assange is spending Christmas Day as a free man.

The founder of WikiLeaks spent seven years holed up inside Ecuador’s embassy in London… and five more confined to a 6’x9’ cell 23 hours a day in the U.K.’s high-security Belmarsh prison.

In June he struck a plea bargain with U.S. prosecutors who’d charged him with 18 counts and sought to put him away for 175 years.

He pleaded guilty to one count of “conspiring to unlawfully obtain and disseminate classified information relating to the national defense of the United States.”

Sentenced to time served, he flew home to his wife and children in Australia.

His freedom is to be celebrated. But the fact remains that Assange is the first publisher to be convicted under the Espionage Act of 1917 for exposing the government’s dirty laundry.

As long as that conviction stands, a sword hangs over the First Amendment.

From the time word first got out in 2018 that the feds would press a case against Assange, we rose to his defense regularly.

This morning, we do so once more — appealing to President Biden to pardon Julian Assange before leaving office.

“In a divided Washington, few causes have as much bipartisan support as prosecuting WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange,” reported The Associated Press in late 2018 — shortly before the feds filed charges.

“Many Democrats seethed when the radical transparency activist humiliated Hillary Clinton by publishing the content of her campaign chairman's inbox. Most Republicans haven't forgiven Assange for his publication of U.S. military and intelligence secrets. Much of the American media establishment holds him in contempt as well.”

The American media establishment better watch its back: With Assange’s conviction on the books, it too is at risk. And that’s no cause for celebration, even if you hold the American media establishment in the contempt it frequently deserves.

For your editor, this is personal.

I’ve spent literally every working day of my adult life exercising the right to freedom of the press — a right bestowed by the Creator and secured by the First Amendment. That’s 20 years in broadcast news, 17 years and counting in financial publishing.

And yes, the activities we conduct in our trade are protected by the First Amendment — as you’ll soon see.

Our point today is that WikiLeaks too exercises the right to freedom of the press.

It was for this reason the Obama Justice Department opted not to pursue a case against Assange — much as it surely wanted to.

As The Washington Post reported in 2013, “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.”

The Trump administration dispensed with those concerns. When he was CIA chief, Mike Pompeo declared, “We have to recognize that we can no longer allow Assange and his colleagues the latitude to use free speech values against us.”

To be clear, by “us” Pompeo meant the government. It’s the government against the people — and Assange has been on the side of the people, no matter which party occupies the White House or Congress.

Little wonder Team Biden continued to pursue the case Team Trump began. For many Democrats, it’s pure revenge — as Glenn Greenwald wrote in 2018.

“Their emotional, personal contempt for Assange — due to their belief that he helped defeat Hillary Clinton: the gravest crime — easily outweighs any concerns about the threats posed to press freedoms by the Trump administration’s attempts to criminalize the publication of documents.”

WikiLeaks’ Many Financial Scoops

People forget, but WikiLeaks has served as an essential source of information about how the economy and the markets really work — information that would have never come to light otherwise.

In particular, the State Department cables pinched by Chelsea Manning and published by WikiLeaks furnished much fodder for 5 Bullets’ predecessor e-letter in 2010–2011. From those cables, we learned…

• that the man who would become China's premier in 2013 considers China's official economic statistics "man-made" — and if he wants to know what's really going on, he looks at only three things — electricity consumption, rail traffic and bank lending

• that U.S. diplomats take a keen interest in Chinese media claims that the U.S. and Europe suppress the gold price to prop up the dollar's reserve-currency status

• and that the State Department under both Bush 43 and Obama colluded with the Spanish government to hose the treasure-hunting firm Odyssey Marine (OMEX) out of $500 million in gold and silver coins the company's explorers discovered off the coast of Gibraltar.

Under the logic of both the Trumpers and the deep-state Democrats, we could have opened ourselves up to prosecution merely by summarizing those classified documents.

The Newsletter Biz In the Feds’ Crosshairs

As it happens, our industry already faces periodic threats from the feds.

In the early 2000s, the Securities and Exchange Commission sued a well-known financial publisher for merely exercising his First Amendment rights. He wrote a sales promotion for a special report, citing a confidential source who said a company was on the verge of winning federal approval for an energy deal overseas.

In the months that followed, the contract was approved and the company’s stock price jumped as forecast — albeit not precisely on the publisher’s stated timetable.

The SEC pursued a bizarre case resting on the assertion that the publisher’s source made no such disclosure and the resulting error of timing caused short-term losses to subscribers.

The federal courts accepted the SEC’s broad-brush interpretation of a clause in the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, prohibiting false statements “in connection with the purchase or sale of any security.”

The law’s intent is to keep money managers, broker-dealers and other financial professionals from lying to their clients. It’s Alice-in-Wonderland legal logic to go after a publisher who didn’t even have a stake in the stock in question.

As the publisher’s lawyers wrote in a Wall Street Journal Op-Ed, “The SEC has no more business penalizing a writer who simply covers the markets than the Food and Drug Administration has in regulating a cookbook publisher because an official questions the nutritional content in a meatloaf recipe.”

At that time, the mainstream media recognized how this case posed a potential threat to their own First Amendment activities.

Thus, The New York Times, The Washington Post, CNBC and several other outlets filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of the publisher — hoping the case would get a hearing in the U.S. Supreme Court.

“The implications of the SEC’s action are potentially profound,” said The New York Times editorial board in 2010: “Newspapers or websites promising their paying readers stock information that later turns out to be untrue suddenly leave themselves open to fraud charges. Any financial commentator who passes on bad information in good faith could be sued.”

Alas, the Supreme Court refused to review the decision of lower courts, letting stand a fine of more than $1 million.

Why did the SEC pursue the case in the first place?

To no small extent, our industry has a federal target on its back — for reasons we first spelled out over six years ago. Financial newsletter editors frequently expose truths that the power elite would rather you not hear and disclose information they’d rather you not know.

Which is exactly why Julian Assange has a target on his back.

The First Amendment: Not Just For Journalists

An important point the Establishment would rather overlook: "The First Amendment doesn't use the word 'journalism' and it doesn't apply only to journalists,” says Elizabeth Goitein, co-director of the Liberty and National Security Program at the Brennan Center.

“The First Amendment protects anyone who publishes information,” she told the Associated Press in 2018, “regardless of whether they carry the mantle of journalism.”

If you want to publish a blog post about poor decision-making by your local sewer board, you’re covered by the First Amendment.

Glenn Greenwald again: “The First Amendment isn’t available only to a certain class of people licensed as ‘journalists.’ It protects not a privileged group of people called ‘professional journalists’ but rather an activity: namely, using the press (which at the time of the First Amendment’s enactment meant the literal printing press) to inform the public about what the government was doing.”

But that mattered little to the bipartisan crowd out for Assange’s blood.

“Neither the most authoritarian factions of the Trump administration behind this prosecution, nor their bizarre and equally tyrannical allies in the Democratic Party, care the slightest about press freedoms,” Greenwald wrote.

“They only care about one thing: putting Julian Assange behind bars, because (in the case of Trump officials) he revealed U.S. war crimes and because (in the case of Democrats) he revealed corruption at the highest levels of the DNC that forced the resignation of the top five officials of the Democratic Party and harmed the Democrats’ political reputation.”

And while in the end Assange did not serve a prison term as a convicted felon, that wasn’t the point.

The aim was never to try Assange on Espionage Act charges in the United States. As Greenwald wrote in 2022, “The goal was to neutralize and break him by keeping him locked up with no trial.”

Which he effectively was for 12 years — seven years holed up inside London’s Ecuadorian embassy, five years in solitary inside London’s Belmarsh prison.

That’s a powerful deterrent to anyone else who has a mind to expose government wrongdoing the way he did.

“A Dangerous Precedent”

But at the very least, a pardon by Joe Biden could undo some of the damage.

“This conviction, the first of its kind, sets a dangerous precedent that threatens press freedom globally and risks the safety of journalists who expose government wrongdoings — the very things Julian risked his life to protect.”

So says a web page devoted to a petition drive appealing to Biden for an Assange pardon.

“Our Founding Fathers who fought against tyranny for the birth of the republic recognized freedom of speech as a pillar of a free society,” writer Nozomi Hayase said in 2021.

“Assange, through his publishing activities, fiercely defended the principle of free press. He sacrificed his personal liberty so that we all can have our own freedom.”

I’ve signed the petition, and I encourage you to go here and do likewise.

Since 2018, each of my defenses of Assange concluded with the words, “Free Julian Assange.”

He is free now — but that’s still not enough to reassure us that the U.S. government will honor and respect our First Amendment rights.

Mr. President, pardon Julian Assange.

Merry Christmas,

Dave Gonigam
Managing editor, Paradigm Pressroom's 5 Bullets