Julian Assange Arrested

The Wikileaks founder has been detained by London authorities after 7 years hiding in Ecuador's embassy.

BBC:

Wikileaks co-founder Julian Assange has been arrested at the Ecuadorian embassy in London.

Mr Assange took refuge in the embassy seven years ago to avoid extradition to Sweden over a sexual assault case that has since been dropped.

The Met Police said he was arrested for failing to surrender to the court.

Ecuador’s president Lenin Moreno said it withdrew Mr Assange’s asylum after his repeated violations to international conventions.

But WikiLeaks tweeted that Ecuador had acted illegally in terminating Mr Assange’s political asylum “in violation of international law”.

BBC, “Julian Assange: Wikileaks co-founder arrested in London”

NYT adds:

The relationship between Mr. Assange and Ecuador has been a rocky one, even as it offered him refuge, and WikiLeaks said last Friday that Ecuador “already has an agreement with the UK for his arrest” and predicted that Mr. Assange would be expelled from the embassy “within ‘hours to days.’ “

The United States Justice Department has filed criminal charges against Mr. Assange, 47, related to the publication of classified documents, a fact that prosecutors accidentally made public in November.

He also faces a charge in a British court of jumping bail, and the Metropolitan Police said in a statement that Mr. Assange had been arrested by officers at the embassy on a warrant issued by Westminster Magistrates’ Court in 2012, for failing to surrender to the court.

Mr. Assange is also suspected of aiding Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election by releasing material stolen from the computers of the Clinton campaign and the Democratic Party. In July, the Justice Department charged 12 Russian intelligence officers with hacking those computers, and the indictment contends that at least one of them was in contact with WikiLeaks.

Mr. Assange took refuge in the embassy in June 2012 to avoid extradition to Sweden, where he faced questions about sexual assault allegations. He has insisted that the accusations against him are false, and has said that the Swedish authorities intend to extradite him to the United States.
Sweden has rescinded its arrest warrant for Mr. Assange, but prosecutors have stressed that the case has not been closed and could resume.

Ecuador gave Mr. Assange asylum in 2012, but he has been an irritant in its relations with Britain, the United States and other countries. Mr. Moreno, who became the country’s president in 2017, had looked for a face-saving way to get him out of the arrangement.

Paul Manafort, the former Trump campaign manager who has since been convicted of financial crimes, reportedly offered in 2017 to help Ecuador hand Mr. Assange over to American authorities, but the deal was never struck.

In December, 2017, Ecuador gave Mr. Assange citizenship, and was preparing to appoint him to a diplomatic post in Russia, but the British government made clear that if he left the embassy, he would not have diplomatic immunity.

NYT, “Julian Assange, WikiLeaks Founder, Is Arrested in London”

WaPo adds:

Ecuador, which took Assange in when he was facing a Swedish rape investigation in 2012, said it was rescinding asylum because he of his “discourteous and aggressive behavior” and for violating the terms of his asylum.

British authorities immediately took Assange into custody outside the embassy in London’s tony Knightsbridge neighborhood, British police confirmed.

The British government heralded the development. “Julian Assange is no hero and no one is above the law,” Jeremy Hunt, Britain’s foreign secretary, wrote on Twitter. “He has hidden from the truth for years.”

WikiLeaks has characterized Assange’s expulsion as retribution for its reporting on corruption accusations against Moreno.

“If President Moreno wants to illegally terminate a refu­gee publisher’s asylum to cover up an offshore corruption scandal, history will not be kind,” WikiLeaks said in a statement.

Ahead of the U.S. election in 2016, WikiLeaks released tens of thousands of emails that had been stolen from the Democratic National Committee and from Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, John Podesta, in cyber-hacks that U.S. intelligence officials concluded were orchestrated by the Russian government.

When special counsel Robert S. Mueller III indicted 12 Russian military intelligence officers, he charged that they “discussed the release of the stolen documents and the timing of those releases” with WikiLeaks — referred to in the indictment as “Organization 1” — “to heighten their impact on the 2016 presidential election.”

But Assange has been on U.S. prosecutors’ radar screen since 2010, when WikiLeaks’ publication of 250,000 diplomatic cables and hundreds of thousands of military documents from the Iraq War prompted denunciations by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and senior Pentagon officials.

WaPo, “WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange arrested by British police after being evicted from Ecuador’s embassy in London”

I concur with the Brits that Assange is no hero and welcome his finally facing justice. I’ll also be interested to see which set of charges against him receive top priority. Presumably, since the UK has him, they have first claim. But the charges in Sweden (which I expect will be reinstated) and the US have potentially more weight.

It’ll be interesting to test US ability to apply the Espionage Act to Assange, who isn’t a US citizen and who has no duty to safeguard our secrets. Glenn Greenwald and others have contended that Wikileaks is essentially a press organization and therefore protected under the First Amendment. Certainly, the Pentagon Papers and other cases have gone the way of American news organizations who have published classified documents. I maintain that Wikileaks’ suborning of the illegal transfer of information and active ties with the Russian government make them more akin to a foreign intelligence operation than a newspaper.

FILED UNDER: Intelligence, Law and the Courts, National Security
James Joyner
About James Joyner
James Joyner is a Security Studies professor at Marine Corps University's Command and Staff College and a nonresident senior fellow at the Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security at the Atlantic Council. He's a former Army officer and Desert Storm vet. Views expressed here are his own. Follow James on Twitter @DrJJoyner.

Comments

  1. Jen says:

    I maintain that Wikileaks’ suborning of the illegal transfer of information and active ties with the Russian government make them more akin to a foreign intelligence operation than a newspaper.

    I agree, and it will be interesting to watch how this progresses, particularly in light of the assistance that was provided to the Trump campaign.

    On another subject, I’m curious about this, as it counters what I had understood about the ability of a country to determine who receives diplomatic status. How does the British government determine this? Meaning, can any country anywhere simply decide that they do not wish to extend diplomatic immunity, or is this because he did not enter the country as a diplomat, and therefore cannot simply be conferred one?

    In December, 2017, Ecuador gave Mr. Assange citizenship, and was preparing to appoint him to a diplomatic post in Russia, but the British government made clear that if he left the embassy, he would not have diplomatic immunity.

  2. Kit says:

    As Dylan had it: To live outside the law you must be honest. While I remain sympathetic to WikiLeak’s purpose, Assange himself is an odious figure and has done far more harm than good to the cause of whistle blowing. A charlatan surrounded by true believers. Arrogance and ignorance. And seemingly played for fools by darker forces. But it started out promising…

    15
    1
  3. Jon says:

    @Jen:

    I believe it boils down to he would have been a diplomat (or rather held a diplomatic post) in Russia, and that is where his immunity would apply. Had he been appointed to an Ecuadorean diplomatic post in Britain, he would then have diplomatic immunity there.

  4. Mark Ivey says:

    “Carried out of the embassy looking like a discount Gandalf.” -Dexter T

  5. drj says:

    @Jen:

    Meaning, can any country anywhere simply decide that they do not wish to extend diplomatic immunity, or is this because he did not enter the country as a diplomat, and therefore cannot simply be conferred one?

    Receiving countries always have the right to not recognize the proposed diplomatic status of a foreign national – as long as this is communicated before admission.

    However, once someone is formally admitted on a diplomatic passport, other rules obviously apply.

  6. George says:

    Let’s take a step back for a moment. This gentleman is certainly no saint, but we have all gotten a very good view of the underbelly of our surveillance state and the lengths its willing to go to get at its “enemies.” The entire thing in Sweden seems like a setup. Can’t imagine our security apparatus doing something like that? Ha.

    Also do we really want to get into the game of what “secrets” are ok to be released and which aren’t? At the end of the day, Wikileaks serves a very important purpose in a world where our governments are more secretive and corrupt than ever. A world where they are willing to construct a scheme to overthrow a duly elected President because they felt their world view was more important than that of the People.

    Assange does need to face his day in court but everyone should be extremely skeptical of what we are presented with as his malfeasances.

    12
    20
  7. Jen says:

    @Jon:
    @drj:

    Thank you both. I suspected it had to do with the “before admission,” but then started overthinking things. I grew up abroad, and remember my father making it really, really clear that diplomatic immunity was not a pass to do just anything–that we were abroad at the invitation of a foreign country, etc. Some of that clearly was to keep a teen pushing boundaries inline, I’m sure 😉 But seeing this, I did wonder.

  8. Dan says:

    Lots of hate here for Assange. For all I know the man could personally be a jerk, and I know nothing about the bail-jumping…but I notice the first thing that happens to anybody who confronts the US deep state is they are barraged with accusations of rape or similar.

    To me the important thing is he didn’t lie or spread lies. Nobody has credibly accused him of doctoring anything, in part because the emails contained hash keys proving their authenticity. Those emails showed criminality at the highest level of our government, and showed our former president to have lied several times. Every American should be thankful for at least that much.

    They don’t want me on the jury for this guy. Unless they came up with MUCH better info than they have so far released, I would vote to nullify the whole shebang. This guy has already spent many years in prison, effectively.

    2
    11
  9. drj says:

    @George:

    The entire thing in Sweden seems like a setup.

    Why? I never understood this.

    If the Swedes can extradite Assange to the US, why then, would the UK be unable to do so?

    In fact, Assange has been “further arrested on behalf of the United States authorities […] This is an extradition warrant under Section 73 of the [UK] Extradition Act. He will appear in custody at Westminster Magistrates’ Court as soon as possible.”

  10. Jen says:

    What a rude guest!

    The dramatic expulsion follows a year of ratcheting tension between Assange and his Ecuadorian hosts, culminating in Wikileaks publicizing a leak of hundreds of thousands of hacked emails mysteriously stolen from the inboxes of Ecuador’s president and first lady.

    Via Daily Beast

  11. Rachel Maddow's Doorman says:

    He didn’t age well.

  12. Kathy says:

    I maintain that Wikileaks’ suborning of the illegal transfer of information and active ties with the Russian government make them more akin to a foreign intelligence operation than a newspaper.

    That’s what they look like.

    I haven’t followed much what Wiki leaks does and when, but I don’t recall they’ve released much, or any, leaks regarding Russia or Putin, or for that matter Saudi Arabia, or other dictatorships. This tells me they either like dictators, or can’t get much data from them, or they’re a front for them.

    13
    2
  13. John C. Randolph says:

    Assange is a hero, just like Snowden. It is because of Assange and Wikileaks that we are aware of countless violations of American and International law committed by our own government against us. He has suffered tremendously for his service, and he has done more to further the cause of justice than the last ten attorneys general of the United States, combined. All of you who are gloating over this should be ashamed of yourselves.

    -jcr

    3
    10
  14. KM says:

    @@George:

    The entire thing in Sweden seems like a setup.

    No, not really. See, setups only work if you think somebody’s going to fall for it. For instance, speed traps aren’t going to snag careful drivers. He’s accused of taking advantage of her in her sleep and expressly disregarding her wishes regarding protection while doing so. So if it was a “setup” then it means he would have been *exactly* the kind of man who’d do such a thing willingly or it wouldn’t logically work. He needs to be known as that kind of asshat for the charges to believable.

    So…. scum or setup? Based on his behavior over that last couple of years, you don’t need Occam’s Razor to end up at the scum conclusion. He’s exactly the kind of entitled moron to do what he pleases to someone powerless to stop it solely because he felt he was owed exactly what he wanted and when.

    17
    3
  15. OzarkHillbilly says:

    @Kathy:

    This tells me they either like dictators, or can’t get much data from them, or they’re a front for them.

    Follow the money.

  16. drj says:

    @Kathy:

    I haven’t followed much what Wiki leaks does and when, but I don’t recall they’ve released much, or any, leaks regarding Russia or Putin, or for that matter Saudi Arabia, or other dictatorships.

    Back in 2016, Assange said that quite a few “vibrant” local alternatives to WikiLeaks exist in Russia. Hence, no need for WikiLeaks to get involved with Russian leaks or secrets:

    In Russia, there are many vibrant publications, online blogs, and Kremlin critics such as [Alexey] Navalny are part of that spectrum. There are also newspapers like “Novaya Gazeta”, in which different parts of society in Moscow are permitted to critique each other and it is tolerated, generally, because it isn’t a big TV channel that might have a mass popular effect, its audience is educated people in Moscow. So my interpretation is that in Russia there are competitors to WikiLeaks, and no WikiLeaks staff speak Russian, so for a strong culture which has its own language, you have to be seen as a local player.

    Somehow, I am not entirely convinced by Assange’s reasoning.

  17. Kathy says:

    @drj:

    Oh, it’s not like Russia is shooting down commercial airliners, annexing territories, interfering in elections in other countries, carrying out assassinations of opponents, persecuting minorities, oppressing women, or developing new weapons of mass destruction, right?

    17
  18. MarkedMan says:

    @drj: I think it’s actually worse than it appears at first glance. Some years ago Wikileaks staff (and maybe even Assange) admitted they had received a massive dump of incriminating information on Russian government officials and oligarchs and they would be releasing it soon. Then Assange became good friends with those Russian government officials and oligarchs and suddenly there was no urgency and finally no need to release the incriminating documentation. Which begs the question: Did he turn over the identity of the leakers in order to get Russian protection?

    11
  19. An Interested Party says:

    @George: You’re being awfully charitable to someone who has ties to a hostile foreign government…

    7
    2
  20. grumpy realist says:

    Moral of story: don’t tick off the president of the country you’re dependent upon for asylum, and don’t make difficulties for said country in foreign policy. Assange comes off as a clueless but arrogant git who fails to understand how the Real World (TM) works. Maybe before getting so involved in computer hacking he should have read more history?

    (A lot of people should have the following phrase forcibly tattooed upon their foreheads in reverse, so they would see it every time they look into a mirror: “You’re not as important as you think you are.”)

    5
    1
  21. Gustopher says:

    Since he was in the embassy for seven years, part of me is hoping that he ends up getting just shy of seven years when he is sentenced — so he spends the next seven years sitting in jail thinking “I could have been free now”.

    3
    1
  22. Mister Bluster says:
  23. Kathy says:

    @Gustopher:

    Good one.

    Far more likely, his lawyers will request the court, if it comes to sentencing, consider this lapse as time served.

  24. OzarkHillbilly says:

    @grumpy realist: I’d prefer, “I am 0”. Most people aren’t worth any more ink than that.

  25. OzarkHillbilly says:

    @Kathy: I’m not sure there is a judge that stupid.

  26. @Jon: Correct. Article 31 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations gives a diplomat immunity from the criminal jurisdiction of the receiving state — in this case, Russia. It also notes the immunity doesn’t extend to the jurisdiction of the sending state (Ecuador). In this case, it’s silent on third party states like the UK. In this case, however, the UK is positioned more like Ecuador than Russia — the whole reason for the immunity is to prevent a receiving state from using a diplomat’s arrest or detention as leverage in foreign affairs. That doesn’t really apply to the UK, which has no role in the Ecuador-Russia relationship — it’s like the diplomat were arrested while passing through Heathrow — clearly permissible under international diplomatic law.

  27. Just nutha ignint cracker says:

    @Gustopher: Worse than that; I mean who really serves the whole seven of a seven?

  28. Matt says:

    @Kathy: Yeah see that’s my problem with him and wikileaks. It started off great but then it became clear that they were only interested in leaking stuff about the USA and allies. When they started refusing to release stuff relating to Russia is when my opinion went against them. Then they straight up just became a dumping point for information gathered by Russian hackers and intelligence..

    Like I said it was a great idea but they sold out to the Russians fairly quickly. Not sure if it was because of threats or money.

  29. Kathy says:

    @OzarkHillbilly:

    I’m not sure there is a judge that stupid.

    How about a judge that Republican?

    They wouldn’t be stupid. on the contrary. They’d need much intelligence to rationalize his stay at the Ecuadoran embassy as equaling prison time.

  30. Robert C says:

    The guy shows how your government lies to you and spies on you and you sots just take it. Shameful.

    2
    17
  31. Mister Bluster says:

    Robert C:
    Which President Donald J. Trump, Chief Executive of the United States Government, do you believe?
    “I love Wikileaks!”
    “I don’t know anything about Wikileaks!”

  32. Robert C says:

    @Mister Bluster:

    Trump is a turd and a grifter. Who cares what he says about Wikileaks.

    I don’t need Wikileaks to tell me the Russian govt is nationalist, xenophobic, undemocratic, and authoritarian.

    People need Wikileaks to let them know the US govt lies to them and spies on them, so the US doesn’t become (more) nationalist, xenophobic, undemocratic, and authoritarian.

    2
    8
  33. Mikey says:

    @Robert C: Our government is far from perfect, but there’s no equivalence with Russia (despite the best efforts of Trump et al).

    Assange as an individual and Wikileaks as an organization are tools of Russia, employed in furtherance of Russia’s overarching aims of discrediting not only America but the entire Western world and even the very concept of democratic governance.

    I don’t give a flying fuck if Wikileaks occasionally reveals something about our government that we should know but was hidden. It’s essentially become a hostile intel service and is, therefore, our enemy. Period.

    16
    3
  34. David S. says:

    @Robert C:
    Before Wikileaks: no Trump.
    After Wikileaks: Trump.

    Thanks for helping keep America from becoming (more) nationalist, xenophobic, undemocratic, and authoritarian!

  35. An Interested Party says:

    People need Wikileaks to let them know the US govt lies to them and spies on them…

    I would really prefer an organization not linked to the Russian government to let me know about US government lies, thank you…I find it puzzling that you don’t feel the same way, considering your view of the Russian government…

  36. Mike says:

    Time off his sentence for time spent voluntarily hiding in a foreign embassy to avoid the charges and a sexual assault charge from another country. I’m sure a US Federal Judge will give credit :). This aint the Bergdahl case.

  37. Andre Kenji de Sousa says:

    @Dan:

    Lots of hate here for Assange. For all I know the man could personally be a jerk, and I know nothing about the bail-jumping…but I notice the first thing that happens to anybody who confronts the US deep state is they are barraged with accusations of rape or similar.

    I’m not a fan of the way that he was accused of rape, and I’m critical of the way that these accusations can be used against minorities. But that wasn’t what brought him down. And he helped destroy Wikileaks, that was a great concept and could be a extremely valuable tool.

    Besides that, it was completely idiotic for him to be running around London at that time. There were several countries with no formal extradition treaty with the US, several countries that refuse to extradite people (Brazil famously does not extradite people that have Brazilian children).

    He brought that to himself.

  38. Robert C says:

    @Mikey:

    Best way to keep the U.S. unlike Russia is encourage whistleblowers when they see crimes, not imprison them.

    So you don’t care that your government spied on you because the source may be connected to Russia. Hmmm…you sound like a Good German.

    11
  39. Robert C says:

    @Andre Kenji de Sousa:

    Destroyed Wikileaks? Because he showed the sordid soft underbelly of the US Govt.

    10
  40. EddieInCA says:

    @Robert C:

    Robert C says:
    Thursday, April 11, 2019 at 23:27
    @Mikey:

    Best way to keep the U.S. unlike Russia is encourage whistleblowers when they see crimes, not imprison them.

    So you’re an “ends justifies the means” character. Good to know.

    Assange is alot of things. “Whistleblower” wouldn’t make the first page of his CV.

    8
    1
  41. Robert C says:

    @EddieInCA:

    The US govt lied through their teeth…to you and every single Citizen. They spied on you.

    Ends justify means?….virtue singling..
    You sound like another Good German

    Pentagon papers…leaks..

    Watergate…deepthroat..leaker..

    Common man.

    1
    7
  42. EddieInCA says:

    Daniel Ellsberg was a journalist who was acquitted.

    Assange is/was a hacker. Different things. Be smarter. Read the indictment.

    The indictment—which you can read in full below—centers on an incident nine years ago ago, when Assange allegedly told his source, then Army private Chelsea Manning, that he would help crack a password that would have given her deeper access to the military computers from which she was leaking classified material to WikiLeaks.

    “On or about March 8, 2010, Assange agreed to assist Manning in cracking a password stored on United States Department of Defense Computers connected to the Secret Internet Protocol Network, a United States government network used for classified documents and communica­tions,” the indictment reads, referring to the Pentagon’s SIPRNet network of computers that store classified information.

    https://www.wired.com/story/julian-assange-arrest-indictment-hacking-cfaa/

    5
    1
  43. EddieInCA says:

    @Robert C:

    Robert C says:
    Friday, April 12, 2019 at 00:23

    @EddieInCA:

    The US govt lied through their teeth…to you and every single Citizen. They spied on you.

    1. “The US govt lied through their teeth….to you and every single Citizen.

    I’m 59 years old. I remember the lies about Vietnam, Iran Contra, S&L Scandal, Keating Five, Abscam. You’re so precious in your thoughts that this is something new. US (and other Govts) have been lying to their citizens as long as there have been governments.

    2. They spied on you.

    Again. So precious. They spied on you? So does Google, Amazon, and Facebook. Daily. But is it really spying if Americans give up their privacy willingly?

    12
    2
  44. Robert C says:

    @EddieInCA:

    Listen, I remember all those lies too. But, I give a shit.
    If Assange wasn’t considered a tool of Russia, people like you would be up in arms. Consider the information before the source.

    Google, Facebook, amazon…not on Facebook ( don’t have idiot gene), don’t use Google. Amazon, I agree to terms and conditions. I never agreed to have the NSA spy on me or my fellow citizens.

    You so,d your soul. Precious.

    1
    8
  45. Robert C says:

    @EddieInCA:

    A leak is a leak is a leak is a leak.

    Ellsberg couldn’t hack because the info wasn’t on computers. It was 1971. He released top secret papers. He released confidential information, in the format available at the time, about government lies and coverup.

    Some thing.

  46. Robert C says:

    @EddieInCA:

    BTW..Ellsberg has defended Assange and Wikileaks.

  47. Ebenezer_Arvigenius says:

    To put it quite clearly: I wouldn’t give a rat’s ass if he received the nobel peace prize and the personal blessings of mother Theresa. Rape is a crime and if he did it he should face jail. Whether ot not he did it is a matter for the courts to decide. He preempted that by fleeing persecution.

    11
    1
  48. Jen says:

    The difference between a leak to a legitimate news source and hacking & dumping data is by many magnitudes different.

    A publishing source, even a small one, won’t run the risk of outing people who would be endangered.

    Assange and Wikileaks just dump data. They reveal names and probable locations of human rights dissidents. They put innocent people in harm’s way and they don’t care. And, as others have noted above, they have left some of the world’s worst offenders alone, which says an awful lot about the organization.

    It’s an adversarial intelligence service. Assange is no hero, he’s an entitled jerk.

    Governments, all of them, have secrets. Having *our* government and its allies as the targets of his malicious behavior puts *us* at risk, because we need people to work with us and this makes those efforts less likely. The notion that we could function with total transparency is naive, dumb, and foolish. We need intelligence work. We certainly don’t need to have our intelligence agencies hobbled while the Russians get to poison British citizens with no consequences, and do whatever else they are getting away with whilst Assange targets us.

    12
    1
  49. Tony W says:

    The timing is interesting, and I’m guessing somebody leaked a copy of the full Mueller report and Assange was poised to release it.

  50. EddieInCA says:

    @Robert C:

    Robert C says:
    Friday, April 12, 2019 at 02:04

    @EddieInCA:

    A leak is a leak is a leak is a leak.

    Wrong. A leak is a leak. A government data dump that doesn’t discern between legitimate news value and the danger posed to people listed in the data dump is NOT a leak. It’s an irresponsible and dangerous act which puts all American’s at risk.

    And yes, Ellsberg is supporting Assange. He’s wrong, too.

  51. Mikey says:

    @Robert C:

    Best way to keep the U.S. unlike Russia is encourage whistleblowers when they see crimes, not imprison them.

    Assange isn’t a whistleblower, but others have already pointed this out. And whatever benefit Wikileaks provided in the past is irrelevant now that they’re a fully co-opted tool of an adversary. If the guy who kindly helped me change a tire last week shows up in my house to steal my computer and kick my cat, I’m not going to make excuses for him because he did something nice once.

    Hmmm…you sound like a Good German.

    You sound like an ignoramus who is wholly ignorant of both context and history.

    Off is the direction in which you should, most expeditiously, fuck.

  52. grumpy realist says:

    @Robert C: best for the U.S. to not become like Russia is for self-professed whistleblowers who get their mitts on evidence of Russian oligarch corruption to actually, y’know, PUBLISH it, rather than letting themselves get bought off.

    When Assange treats evidence of Russian governmental shenanigans as something to be exposed as even-handedly as he does US evidence, then I’ll believe his claims of wanting Truth and Justice and Freedom. As it is, he’s a Useful Idiot for the Russians, a Pain in the Neck for the U.S., and a total jerk all-around.

  53. KM says:

    @Ebenezer_Arvigenius:
    Indeed. People seem to forget that bad people can do good things and vice versa. Just because someone released evidence the government’s engaged in something potentially illegal doesn’t give them a pass on their own sins. Assange could walk in here with all the dirt on Trump needed for an impeachment and it *still* isn’t going to save him if he did it, nor should it.

    He ran, plain and simple. It generally doesn’t look good when you flee the country due to charges. It looks even worse when it’s *Sweden* you’re running from, for god’s sake. TBH, he’d likely have be out and about years ago instead of imprisoning himself in that embassy. The man doesn’t think consequences should apply to him and it’s shown through his behavior as the house-guest from hell.