Sunday, September 06, 2020


"Arrested "Boogaloo Boi" Portrayed By Media As "Far-Right" Is a Self-Described Left-Wing Anarchist" (Striker).

Trump the socialist, while Nancy gets her hair done:  "CDC eviction moratorium offers partial relief" (Freeman):
"Trump is no friend of the working class, but suddenly, with one sweeping decision that brings actual relief to desperate tenants, he has shifted the tone of the campaign. This has been in sharp contrast with Congress, where political posturing and a bipartisan lack of urgency in the face of crisis has been revealed for all to see. Millions of people, celebrated as “essential workers” when they kept the country running even without adequate protection in the early days of the pandemic, have seen how little they are valued by the political establishment.

The Democrats’ disconnect from working class realities was illustrated by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s mid-April segment on James Corden’s late night television show. In it, she showed off her freezer stocked with gourmet ice cream, emphasizing how much she loves chocolate. This was in a time when news stories featured people waiting in long lines for free food. The Trump campaign, seeing political gold, quickly made an advertisement interspersing a clip of Pelosi showing off her luxury ice cream with testimonies of people worrying about running out of food.

The Democrats’ lackluster response to the medical and economic crises have allowed Trump to claim: “I want to make it unmistakably clear that I’m protecting people from evictions.” This turn of events comes as the Biden campaign courts conservative Republicans and emphatically rejects the popular policies that energized the Bernie Sanders campaign. “No” to Medicare for all, even in a pandemic. “Yes” to continued taxpayer subsidies to fossil fuel companies while forests burn and ice sheets melt. “No” to anything that would upset billionaires, even as they grow ever wealthier. 
Trump’s hard core base of support appears energized, unfazed by his often erratic behavior. This new tangible protection can only increase their fervor. Biden supporters, having no actual policy proposals to rally around, are left with little more than: “At least he isn’t Trump.” It’s not a very rousing battle cry. This enthusiasm gap between the campaigns should concern the Democratic Party’s establishment after their skillfully executed defeat of Sanders’ progressive challenge."
Remember how (((they))) amplified various warmongering lies leading to the illegal Assholian attack on Iraq by spreading the lies around to various foreign but friendly intelligence agencies, who would then 'confirm' the lies?:  "Journalism’s New Propaganda Tool: Using “Confirmed” to Mean its Opposite" (Greenwald).  "How Attacks On Trump Help Him To Make His Case" (Moon).

"An Interview With Barry Pollack, Julian Assange's US Lawyer" (Gosztola):
"GOSZTOLA: One of the issues that has become pronounced is we see the U.S. government making this argument that Julian should be denied First Amendment rights while at the same time suggesting they can bring a prosecution under the Espionage Act. But many defense attorneys have defended alleged leakers by claiming the Espionage Act is too broad when it comes to the First Amendment, making First Amendment defenses to try to see how far those might go. 
How do you view this dynamic that is part of the U.S. prosecution?

POLLACK: The position that the U.S. is taking is a very dangerous one. The position the U.S. is taking is that they have jurisdiction all over the world and can pursue criminal charges against any journalist anywhere on the planet, whether they're a U.S. citizen or not. But if they're not a U.S. citizen, not only can the U.S. pursue charges against them but that person has no defense under the First Amendment. It remains to be seen whether a U.S. court would accept that position, but that certainly is the position that the government is taking.

In the cases that have been brought under the Espionage Act to date, efforts to build defenses around the First Amendment have been quite unsuccessful. The courts have not [generally allowed or supported defenses] based on the First Amendment. But those are cases where the defendant was a leaker, not a publisher.

This case is unique. The U.S. government has never tried to charge a journalist or a publisher under the Espionage Act.

GOSZTOLA: That raises an important question in my mind, which is, how can someone who is not from the U.S. be expected to submit to these U.S. secrecy laws and regulations, especially when he never signed a non-disclosure agreement?

A key part of these Espionage Act prosecutions are that they are brought forward as strict liability offenses, that he signed something. It seems that there is no evidence whatsoever in favor of the U.S. government that he signed anything to agree to not disclose information.

POLLACK: That's correct. In the cases that have been brought to date, the charges have been against an employee of the government, a government contractor, a former employee of the government, all people who entered into an agreement with the government that they would not disclose classified information.

Journalists don't enter into that type of agreement, and every day the New York Times and the Washington Post publish classified information. The Department of Justice has never charged a domestic reporter under the Espionage Act. Up until the current administration, I think it was widely understood that doing so would be inconsistent with the First Amendment.

Publishers do not have those kinds of non-disclosure agreements. They report what is newsworthy, and that includes classified information that comes into their possession.

What the government is doing here is not only charging a publisher who has no non-disclosure obligation but charging a publisher who is not in the United States. They're charging an Australian citizen, who is publishing from the U.K. So it is an unprecedented prosecution.

GOSZTOLA: What concerns do you have about the U.S. criminal justice system? One aspect is that there are such things as coercive pleas. Are you concerned about what would happen if he was put on trial and the way in which he could be pressured to not go to trial in the United States?

POLLACK: The pressure on defendants in the federal criminal justice system in the United States generally is extraordinary. In a case like this, it would be even greater. There is frequently in the United States a tremendous disparity between the penalty somebody receives if they plead guilty versus the penalty that they would receive if they go to trial and are ultimately unsuccessful.

So there is a tremendous disincentive to go to trial. Approximately 97 percent of all federal criminal cases end in the plea, not going to trial, for that reason.

Here one would expect Julian would be kept in an isolated administrative detention. In other words, he would be in jail effectively under solitary confinement, even awaiting trial, awaiting appeals. Once sentenced and put into the Bureau of Prisons system, he would likely be sent to a maximum security system.

And the potential sentences if he is convicted after trial are extraordinary. He's facing a maximum of 175 years. Under those conditions, it would be very, very difficult for somebody to say I want to go trial, and if I'm unsuccessful, I want to appeal and be heard in the Supreme Court. Even if you were ultimately successful, you would spend years in draconian prison conditions fighting the charges.

Yes, there would be tremendous on him to accept some sort of a deal that mitigated some of those consequences."
blog comments powered by Disqus