Beginning in 2010, we, the Yes Men, developed a friendship with Julian Assange and a collaboration with Wikileaks. In 2015, we made this short video about it, originally for inclusion in our third film, “The Yes Men Are Revolting,” but it didn’t quite fit. We think it shows a charming, funny and thoughtful side of the man, and so — despite our more complicated feelings about him after 2016 — we’re making it available now, given the dire threats facing Assange and free speech more broadly.
Assange is currently facing extradition to the United States from London, for allegedly violating the U.S. Espionage Act — marking the first time the act has been used to prosecute the publishing of information. If the extradition is successful, he’ll face trial in a Virginia “espionage court” that has never once absolved a national security defendant. Allowing the Virginia court to try (and most likely convict) him would be a disaster for democracy — something even Obama’s Justice Department believed in 2013, when they determined that indicting Assange would mean having to prosecute any news organization or writer who publishes classified material. (They called it “the New York Times problem.”)
Assange’s extradition hearing began in February 2020, with the second part delayed from May until Sept. 7 because of COVID-19. In its apparent eagerness to extradite Assange, the court has committed some egregious abuses — such as introducing new charges in June that Assange couldn’t respond to — that are mentioned in this summary by the Electronic Frontier Foundation and this short film by Wikileaks collaborator Juan Passarelli.
Meeting the mastermind
We first met Assange in the summer of 2010, in an awkward English manor/organic farm. He was under house arrest as he awaited a hearing for extradition to Sweden, where authorities wanted to question him on allegations of sex crimes. (The case was later dropped.) From Sweden, he would have been vulnerable to extradition to the United States, where he might have been subject to torture or worse; all things considered, he seemed pretty calm, not to mention funny and thoughtful, as we hope our little film shows.
We saw Julian again in February of 2011. Wikileaks had received thousands of internal emails from corporate spy agency Stratfor; a few dozen emails showed that Dow Chemical had hired Stratfor to spy on us, which was flattering to say the least.
In 2015, we shared a delicious rotisserie chicken and bottle of wine at London’s Ecuadorian embassy, where Julian was receiving diplomatic protection from Ecuador’s left-wing government.
Angry at the DNC, angry at Wikileaks
Our feelings about Julian got more complicated when, a year later — not long before the disastrous U.S. election of 2016 — Wikileaks released a trove of private emails showing the Democratic National Committee had conspired with the Clinton campaign against Bernie Sanders’ candidacy. The first group of emails came just before the summer congress of the DNC, and the second, more directly linked to Clinton, a week before the election.
Of course, the DNC’s actions against its own party’s populist leanings were loathsome, not to mention myopic and stupid. Forty years of bipartisan neoliberalism had left millions expecting nothing from government, laying the groundwork for the rise of a right-wing populist like Donald Trump. Now, the DNC was squelching the only thing that could have countered him: a left-wing populist like Bernie Sanders, offering much-needed popular solutions based in reality rather than hatred.
Without Sanders in the mix, millions faced a choice between the same old neoliberal shit they’d been offered for decades, and a brand new kind of shit, untested and unproven. Many chose Trump, who became far and away the worst and most dangerous president in American history.
Still, for as much as we’ve mainly blamed Democrats for the horrible outcome of the 2016 election — see our 2017 #DNCTakeBack intervention — we’re also angry that Wikileaks chose to release the DNC emails, especially the second batch, when they did. The timing undoubtedly helped an unhinged authoritarian, in charge of an unhinged party, to win the election. Had Trump been more competent, we could easily be looking at the end of any sort of democracy in America; a Clinton presidency could have been many things, but not that.
Wikileaks claims that releasing the DNC emails when they did was a matter of “journalistic integrity.” But “journalistic integrity” could also have justified not releasing them at that time, considering the widely-supported possibility that the emails came from a concerted foreign campaign against Clinton. (Assange continues to insist they were not from a “state actor,” but it’s hard to see how that could be strictly ruled out.) It also seems that “journalistic integrity” could have meant releasing the emails after the election was over, rather than give the advantage to a scoundrel known to have even worse skeletons in the closet (that were known then but not publicized until later).
Also, “journalistic integrity” would have probably precluded talking to Donald Trump Jr. about what they could do for each other.
The real reasons?
We don’t believe that “journalistic integrity” was Julian’s main reason for releasing those emails at the moments he did. There was also his abiding hatred of at least two things Hillary Clinton represented: her hawkishness and her neoliberalism.
While Clinton had supported the Iraq war, Wikileaks shined a light on U.S. abuses there with its “Collateral Murder” videos. (Among the revelations for which Assange is on trial is Wikileaks’ release of the Army’s rules of engagement, which it used to prove that such drone strikes on civilians are in fact murder.) According to leaked online chats, Assange seems to have believed that Clinton’s hawkish tendencies would only worsen if she became president.
Wikileaks has published a lot of crucial information and revolutionized the idea of what journalism can do, whether or not we like all its results.
And while Clinton was the most prominent champion of the neoliberal consensus — which helped lead to Trump — Assange had long fought that consensus and the financialization it led to. (Financialization, the increase in size and influence of financial institutions and markets, was why Visa, MasterCard, Paypal and others were able to cut off contributions to Wikileaks following its release of the “Collateral Murder” videos, effectively censoring the organization with no legislative recourse to speak of.)
It’s also possible that Julian, like some others on the left, thought a Trump presidency would put a dent in U.S. power abroad, both militarily and economically. But when strongmen succeed the results are predictable — just look at China, Russia or, yes, Germany in the 1930s. Luckily, Trump was too incompetent to succeed, even if he did directly and profoundly affect millions of Americans, including the hundreds of thousands who’ve unnecessarily died of COVID-19. You just can’t tell an American that the gambit was worth it.
Now what?
We intensely regret that Julian acted as he did in 2016, whether it was out of “journalistic integrity,” hatred for Clintonite warmongering or other policies, or a desire to see American power fail.
But we even more intensely believe that extraditing Julian to the United States to face trial under the Espionage Act would be a disaster for journalism and democracy worldwide. Wikileaks is a media organization, and an incredibly effective one at that. It has published a lot of crucial information and revolutionized the idea of what journalism can do, whether or not we like all its results.
Waging Nonviolence depends on your support. Become a sustaining member today and receive a gift of your choice!
DonateTo continue persecuting Julian is to persecute journalism. If Democrats keep squelching their own best ideas, fascism may take over — but without journalism, without a free press, democracy fails for sure.
More than ever these days, the left needs to support, not destroy, the small groups that are part of the “forces of light,” as Julian calls them near the end of our film — even when they get things a bit wrong. For one thing, we’ll need every force of light imaginable to pressure our president-elect into doing what America needs, much as other movements did with LBJ, FDR and Lincoln.
Should we fail in that project, we’ll have mainly ourselves to blame when a smarter Trump comes to power in 2024 — no matter what steps or missteps, aided or not by a foreign power, lead to that outcome.
While I commend this article for laying out a lot of truths the mainstream media refuses to acknowledge, I think you’re missing the fact that the charges are regarding Assange’s release of the Iraq War Cables. An unjust war proven to be started under false pretenses. In other words started by lies told to the American public by our highest government officials, all our mainstream media outlets and our intelligence community.
To conflate Assange’s 2016 questionable journalistic integrity with this extradition is to further the lies told by the mainstream media. It means you are POTENTIALLY justifying his prosecution because of those 2016 decisions in which the legality is not a question. It means that you are giving weight to the idea that we should not defend someone’s rights because they did something unrelated we didn’t like.
And even though Assange’s decisions in 2016 are not relevant to his extradition it’s important that you be honest about the facts. The reality is that the Senate Intelligence Committee released FBI interviews regarding the Russian Hacking investigations in May 2020 that shows there is no concrete evidence of Russian hacking. You can read the reporting about these investigations below.
https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2020/05/13/hidden_over_2_years_dem_cyber-firms_sworn_testimony_it_had_no_proof_of_russian_hack_of_dnc_123596.html
I’m not missing the fact that “the charges are regarding Assange’s release of the Iraq War Cables.” In fact I cite and link to one of those documents.
I’m also not “giving weight to the idea that we should not defend someone’s rights because they did something unrelated we didn’t like” – the whole point of this piece is actually precisely the opposite.
Finally, the RealClearInvestigations page you cite is not at all about “FBI interviews regarding the Russian Hacking investigations in May 2020 that shows there is no concrete evidence of Russian hacking.” It’s in fact a list of statements by the Crowdstrike president (interviewed by a House committee, not the FBI) about concrete vs. circumstantial evidence for Russian hacking. It also doesn’t say there’s no concrete evidence.
There’s some pretty obvious bias in that page you cite. Like its parent company, RealClearInvestigations is known to be biased to the right and has only a so-so reputation for factualness. Here’s a sobering and disturbing article about RealClearMedia:
https://www.thedailybeast.com/realclear-media-has-a-secret-facebook-page-filled-with-far-right-memes
Andy, so you maintain Russia’s involvement despite not seeing concrete evidence? Sorry but you’re trying to play both sides here and frankly I don’t think that helps Assange whatsoever, despite your claimed intentions. In fact it seems this article is more an effort to alleviate some guilt you feel. Like you’re trying to reconcile the your belief that “it can’t be ruled out” Assange is responsible for Trump and also that you think of him as somewhat of a friend or acquaintance.
Just first off – I’m a huge fan of the Yes Men, which means I forgive you for any mistakes because they come from a place of meaning well. The problem is that for the last decade, the security services have had the chance to plant all kinds of anti-Assange memes in the media. They weren’t all in this article, so I have a list:
– Rape charges in Sweden
– Faeces smeared walls in the embassy
– Collusion with Russia to make Hillary look corrupt
– Wikileaks releases ‘hurt a lot of people’
– There were rape charges in Sweden
There never were. There was an investigation that for political reasons was opened and closed 3 times, however never led to a prosecutor having the guts to put any of their evidence before a judge. Who would have laughed their case out of court, because the evidence is exculpatory. The ‘broken condom’ in question had never been used. End of case. And for a short moment in 2012, it was the end of the case. Until the case was opened again, closed again and opened again to be closed again. What Habeas Corpus?
“It’s in fact a list of statements by the Crowdstrike president (interviewed by a House committee, not the FBI)”
Welcome to Washington DC. 🙂 Crowdstrike President Shawn Henry used to be the head of the FBI’s Washington DC office.
“He joined CrowdStrike in 2012 after retiring from the FBI, where he oversaw half of the FBI’s investigative operations, including all FBI criminal and cyber investigations worldwide, international operations, and the FBI’s critical incident response to major investigations and disasters. He also oversaw computer crime investigations spanning the globe and received the Presidential Rank Award for Meritorious Executive for his leadership in enhancing the FBI’s cyber capabilities.” https://www.crowdstrike.com/about-crowdstrike/executive-team/shawn-henry/
Remember it was Shawn Henry’s Crowdstrike, not the FBI, which was allowed to investigate the DNC’s servers for external hacks. And yet… Henry is FBI too.
– Feces smeared walls in the embassy
The allegation was the smear – against Julian Assange’s reputation. It is almost painful to watch your documentary and see a hesitant Julian Assange not wanting to show his ankle bracelet because it would “look undignified”. There is a reason they took away his shaving kit in the embassy, and why he looked like that way. It is on purpose, and part of what UN investigator Nils Melzer has labeled long-term psychological torture.
Interview of UN Special Rapporteur on torture, Nils Melzer, July 2019
United Nations: demasking the Torture of Julian Assange. Cafe Weltschmerz Rico Brouwer and Nils Melzer https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cEFeV9YVtCU&t=176 ) Or google: Nils Melzer psychological torture julian assange
(BBC) Julian Assange subjected to psychological torture, UN expert says
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-48473898
– Collusion with Russia to make Hillary look corrupt
This ‘the dogs ate my homework’ meme, according to Ben Swann,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQ9P8PN2Ur8&t=335s
came from Hillary Clinton advisor Jake Sullivan (International Crisis Group, Alliance for Securing Democracy at the German Marshall Fund US). All Wikileaks did was show what Hillary said and did. If that destroyed her chances that’s on her and the DNC, not Wikileaks. In the words of veteran investigative journalist Seymour Hersh: “The DNC wrote this —-.” (I love Seymour Hersh’s drunken admissions.)
– Wikileaks releases ‘hurt a lot of people’
In the trial of Bradley Manning, the head of the Pentagon’s counter-intelligence, retired Brigadier general Robert Carr, stated that he could not find a single case of anyone being killed because of the Wikileaks releases.
“the counter-intelligence official in charge of investigating the impact of the Wikileaks disclosures couldn’t find a single instance of someone getting killed because of Manning’s leaks.” (Source: (THE ATLANTIC) The U.S. Can’t Connect a Single Death to Bradley Manning’s Leaks, by Abby Ohlheiser, July 31, 2013)
Wikileaks and especially Julian Assange were obsessive about redacting names and sources. Unfortunately, the intelligence services infested Guardian was not. Especially Luke Harding wrote a book in which he published the password to Wikileaks’ unredacted files.
Thanks, but there’s no need to get psychoanalytical.
This thread may explain better than I did what I was trying to say:
https://threader.app/thread/1329505334914916356
Enjoy.
Assange worked with Putin during the 2016 to release a data dump of Podesta emails designed to embarrass the Hillary camp while drawing attention away from the pussy grabbing story.
In an election decided by inches, Assange gave us the Trump Presidency as much as any individual did. He hated Clinton because of her stance against him as Secretary of State and he lost any journalistic integrity because of it.
He began as a hero, he became a villain. I don’t really care what happens to him. Probably the best result would be some sort of trial in his home country but I’ll never forgive him for Trump.
Dear Sir, Your film is beautiful and only a have regrets, reading about your difficulties with J Assange for having published files of 2016 at the moment where that was ofence against a left candidate, dealing to the election , of one of the worsth people. Integrity should means total independecy about elections. Probably you know actually the Mueller report , in which is stated that the russians weren’t implicated…. this should be help Trump, me, I don’t know in which way , but everybody it seems was waiting Assange give names… Trump came and went furiously agains’t Assange. Please try to be clear with your difficultie of 2016. Time is came when many, many people is really having a knowledge of what is going with Men in power.
Assange is a hero. No doubt he has flaws — a New York Times magazine hit piece claimed he didn’t wash enough. Who doesn’t have their defects? Assange published important information when it came to him. Isn’t that the job of a journalist? The DNC leak damaged Clinton — so what? You seem to suggest the leak should have been suppressed because you prefer Clinton to Trump — bad argument. I suspect the leak was from inside the DNC, so Assange may well know that “state actors” were not
involved.
Nick
Including the unjustified targeting of Chelsea Manning, who never stopped standing up against gov’t misconduct. We all need to do the same, whatever our mixed feelings about Assange’s operatic war on Hillary.
If you move as far left as you want to go, what does that look like? I’m serious and curious, really.
Neoliberalism is laissez-faire capitalism. Hillary Clinton is not a laissez-faire capitalist (which is why she’s called a communist by true neoliberals).
Glad to see even some guarded criticism of ultra-reactionary creep Assange, but your headline poses a false dichotomy. There can be more than one “real threat.”