Monday 20th of August 2018

wish you were here...

assange

Roger Waters, the former Pink Floyd singer, has once again mixed the worlds of music and politics by displaying a banner in support of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange at a concert in Berlin.

READ MORE: Pink Floyd’s Roger Waters hits out at musicians for crossing Israel ‘picket line’

The neon red text, which read “Resist the attempted silencing of Julian Assange,” was projected onto a black backdrop before his concert on Saturday night. Waters, who is known for making radical political statements on stage, is an admirer of Assange and has previously featured images of the whistleblower in his shows.

 

Read more:

https://www.rt.com/news/428600-roger-waters-julian-assange-berlin/

resistance...

resist

We have to condemn the UK for its hypocrisy on Assange. If Assange was an ordinary person who had jumped bail, they would not have the massive security rigmarole about him. To a great extend, the Pom Malaise of Brexit would become easier to carry by freeing Assange, accepting that his years holed-up in the Ecuador embassy can make up for the years in prison for "jumping bail". Just sign a paper to this effect: justice is as easy as this. This would improve UK's image rather than the Tories changing horses. It would give the Poms a moral sense of being good rather than being utterly ugly, ugly, UGLY...

 

And yes, we liked Pink floyd's Dark Side of the Moon... Carry on Roger Waters!

an obligation to protect his health and safety...

GLENN GREENWALD: There is clearly a danger that the current Ecuadorian government, which has become much more subservient and compliant with the demands of Western governments, including those in the U.S. and the U.K. and in Spain, is willing to trade away the protections that Ecuador, for seven years, has maintained and owes to Julian Assange because of the likelihood that he will be persecuted, not in Sweden, but in the United States. Remember, the case in Sweden for sexual assault, the investigation has been dropped and closed. It is no longer pending.

What the concern is is the Trump Administration, specifically Mike Pompeo who at the time was the director of the CIA and is now the secretary of state, along with Jeff Sessions, has said that arresting Julian Assange and putting him in prison is a priority because of the leaks of documents that WikiLeaks has published. Because of the journalism that they have done, which just this week the Freedom of the Press Foundation and the Committee to Protect Journalists have said would pose a grave threat to the First Amendment.

So when I interviewed President Correa, he was saying essentially that the way in which Julian Assange has been silenced by blocking his access to the internet, by denying him visitors from the outside world with the exception of his lawyers and a couple of other people, is a violation of his human rights. He’s an Ecuadorian citizen, he has formal asylum from Ecuador, and they own him an obligation to protect his health and safety.

And at the same time, doctors who have examined him say he has very grave threats to his health and can’t get treatment for it because of the situation in the embassy. So no matter what you think of Julian Assange, there are serious threats to press freedom being posed and to questions of asylum and the sovereignty of the Ecuadoran government by what is taking place.

 

Read more:

https://www.democracynow.org/2018/5/30/glenn_greenwald_on_julian_assange...

revisiting some painful news...

BREAKING: DEATH OF WIKILEAKS LAWYER, JOHN JONES QC, RULED NOT ‘SUICIDE’August 24, 2016


 

With the recent DNC leaks, the previous leaks of Hillary Clinton’s emails from her “homebrew” server last March – plus Julian Assange’s warning that he has in his possession an email that could land HRC in prison, there is no shortage of Arkancide waiting to be directed at Assange and WikiLeaks’ members and supporters.

This is why the untimely death of John Jones, 48, father of two and the lawyer for WikiLeaks, found dead on the train tracks at West Hampstead Thameslink station on April 18, 2016 raised a lot of eyebrows – but only three months later, as his death was not widely reported at the time and only emerged virally in the Independent Media last week. The only two online news outlets which, to that point had carried this sad story were The Sun and a local publication for the London suburbs of Hampstead Gardens, where Jones lived, the Ham & High News.

After an official inquest, Jones’ death was ruled NOT a suicide by the coroner involved in his case Mary Hassell, according to an announcement published on the official WikiLeaks Facebook page on late Monday and elsewhere.

Jones, who was a celebrated Human Rights lawyer was being treated for anxiety and bi-polar disorder. These conditions had become evident, just as he began working on the case to prevent Assange from being extradited to Sweden. He struggled to continue to work as his condition worsened.

Jones had been living at home and had spent the previous day with his family, who’d become concerned about the side effects from his withdrawal from his medication, so he’d voluntarily checked himself into Nightingale, a private mental health hospital. At 5AM the following morning, he signed a risk assessment form, which allowed him to leave the hospital.

At the inquest heard at St Pancras Coroners Court on August 18th, 2016, Coroner Mary Hassell criticized the treatment Jones received while he’d been interned previously, saying, “He was in his room, lying on his bed or on his laptop. That seems fairly awful in therapeutic terms. To me if I were worried about a person that was mentally unwell I would think that environment was the worst possible environment for them.”

It is because Hassell believes that “The state of his mental health at the time [of his death] meant he lacked necessary intent to categorize this as a suicide,” even though she has no doubt he intended to jump in front of the train. CCTV footage proved that he had acted alone, completely ruling out “the action of any other person.”

Hassell will be writing up the Hospital demanding changes she believes must be made to prevent future deaths, including mandatory talk therapy, which Jones had avoided and which Hassell partially blames for his death.

That Jones was happily married with two children and was described by colleagues as a “brilliant and creative lawyer” and that his firm, Doughty Street Chambers issued a statement that said, “John was admired and appreciated for his amazing sense of humor, his professionalism and his deep commitment to justice and the rule of law,” doesn’t sound like he was a man on the brink of committing suicide.

This has led leading some, like Next News Network host Gary Franchi, here to wonder whether or not Jones may have been a victim of mind control. This of course sounds like tinfoil hat stuff but the fact is that brainwave entrainment weapons have existed for decades with the capability of leading an intelligent man who had told his mother that he would never commit suicide for the sake of his children to throw himself in front of a commuter train.

If an investigation of his death is made, it may be the first one that exposes such mind control weapons.

 

Read more:

https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/breaking-death-of-wikileaks-lawyer-john...

 

John’s academic excellence enabled him to preach what he practised: he wrote a textbook with Antonio Cassese, a founding father of international criminal law, who in 1993 had become president of the war crimes court for the former Yugoslavia (the ICTY). The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: A Commentary (2002) examines the institution’s legal basis; International Criminal Practice (1998, third edition 2003), written with his friend and colleague Steven Powles, analyses the operation of the various courts and tribunals. With his wife, the Slovenian lawyer Miša Zgonec-Rožej, John wrote an important article on the rights of suspects for Amal Clooney’s book The Special Tribunal for Lebanon (2014).

In 2005 John joined Doughty Street Chambers, where he specialised in extradition law and served as a part-time immigration judge. He appeared for governments as well as for potential extraditees, and earned praise from judges for the fairness of his approach. Throughout his legal life his scholarship enabled him to intellectualise what he was doing daily in the forensic arena: he produced the valuable Extradition and Mutual Legal Assistance Handbook (2005, second edition 2010).

He appeared in a number of leading extradition cases, including a supreme court decision about the needs of vulnerable children caught up in the process. He was a member of the team acting for Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks founder confined to the Ecuadorian embassy in London pending the resolution of an extradition application by Sweden, and it was his submissions that persuaded the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention this year to rule (much to the annoyance of the UK government and newspaper editorials) that Assange was being wrongfully detained.

John was appointed QC in 2013, and worked full time at the Hague from the following year as resident director of Doughty Street International. He represented some of the most demonised (and, it must be said, a few of the most demonic) defendants, always putting up the legal arguments they were entitled to make and thus ensuring that justice upon them would be seen to be done. He appeared for Saif al-Islam Gaddafi and the Libyan spymaster Abdullah al-Senussi, mastermind of some of the worst crimes of the Gaddafi era, in appeals to have them tried for crimes against humanity by the ICC, which cannot pass a death sentence, rather than lynch-law Libyan tribunals.

Born in Wimbledon, south-west London, John was the son of Dr Hugh Jones and his wife, Margaret. From the independent sixth-form college Mander Portman Woodward, London, he went to study philosophy, politics and economics at St Edmund Hall, Oxford, and took master’s degrees in law at City University, London, and George Washington University, in the US capital. He was called to the bar at Lincoln’s Inn in 1992.

It was at The Hague, as a legal officer for the ICTY (1995-99) that his special ability was first recognised by Cassese. He engaged John to help draft the ICTY’s rules of evidence and procedure, and then in 1998 dispatched him to Arusha, in northern Tanzania, to do likewise for the ICTR, the court set up to punish the perpetrators of the Rwandan genocide.

John usually acted in death penalty and other deserving cases free of charge. He gave time unstintingly to mentor young lawyers and to assist colleagues with creative arguments in his specialities. His advocacy was fluent and unflappable, his scholarship unimpeachable and his sense of humour always intact. From 2008, he served as a trustee of the Orangutan Protection Foundation.

 

Read more:

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2016/may/01/john-rwd-jones-obituary

 

 

Why revisit the death of the human rights barrister John RWD Jones? Good question. This is due to a possible mole/squealer in Cambridge Analytica, Brittany Kaiser, who told UK MPs in April that some Cambridge Analytica employees had had contact with lawyers who had represented Julian Assange:

 

Damian Collins, the DCMS committee chair, asked Kaiser: “If Alexander Nix wanted to reach out to Julian Assange, couldn’t he do it through you?” Kaiser replied: “That’s what I was wondering when I found that out from the press – he could have asked me to put him in touch with the legal team. But he didn’t.”

Kaiser told MPs that her principal connection to WikiLeaks was via John Jones QC. Jones represented Assange in his extradition case against the Swedish government and became a close, personal friend, visiting him weekly until he was killed by a train in April 2016. The inquest ruled that no-one else was involved in the death of Jones, who had been depressed.

Jones’s legal assistant, Robert Murtfeld, who worked closely with him on the WikiLeaks case subsequently went to work for Cambridge Analytica as director of commercial sales in New York. Information passed to the US and UK committees reveals that Murtfield had arranged Kaiser’s visit to Assange last year.

In a Tweet on Wednesday, Wikileaks said: “WikiLeaks has no knowledge of donations from either party mentioned, did not have a meeting to discuss the US election and was not approached by Murtfeld or anyone connected to him.”

 

Read more:

 

Why Alexander Nix did not go via Cambridge Analytica's Brittany Kaiser, to have access to Assange, since she had contact with his lawyer? The answer could be very complex or simple. I don't know and can only speculate from my own experiences. Company loyalty from staff is often limited, especially when jealousies with "other" executives are concerned. It appears that Brittany Kaiser is talking bullshit to suit the desire outcome of the investigation. It is likely that Nix did not trust Kaiser, but on all account according to Nix and Wikileaks, they did not meet. It appears also that Kaiser was the one who went to see Assange AFTER THE US PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS.

... visitor logs from the Ecuador embassy obtained by the Guardian and Focus Ecuador appear to show that Brittany Kaiser, a senior executive at Cambridge Analytica until earlier this year, visited Assange on 17 February 2017. Information passed to the DCMS committee in the UK and the Senate judiciary committee in the US states that the meeting was “a retrospective to discuss the US election”.

 

Conspiracies?... Your call.

nobel prize for julian...

The Australian whistleblower, who is in London's Ecuadorian embassy evading US authorities after publishing classified information on Iraq , balked after Ecuador cut off his Internet and social media access and warned about terminating his asylum for breaking the rules.

The delegates from the Australian High Commission in London have reportedly paid a visit to WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange in the Ecuadorian Embassy. The whistleblower has been claiming asylum there for several years, fearing extradition to the US and persecution there for leaking Iraq War log, but this is believed to be the first time he has received officials from his homeland over last 6 years.

One of Assange’s lawyers, Jennifer Robinson, cited by the Australian site news.com.au, has confirmed that his meeting with Canberra’s government representatives took place. He declined to comment further, stating that her client “is in a very serious situation, detained without charge for seven-and-a-half years” as there’s a risk of extradition.

 

Read more:

https://sputniknews.com/europe/201806081065223069-assange-embassy-ecuado...

 

------------------------

Western countries speak of the need for democracy and free speech around the world while restricting citizens’ access to information and silencing the messengers.

Nowadays the media is a form of education for many, especially when it comes to understanding politics. Therefore, people believe what they see and hear even if it’s only half the truth. I have always stated that the media is the fourth branch of government because it moves public opinion and every day we see more proof of that. US society, as well as British society, has made choices about which kinds of speech to permit and which to forbid in an attempt to silence discussion on specific topics.

In 2010 Hillary Clinton cited President Obama during her speech stating that “the more freely information flows, the stronger societies become”. She then went on to say that “information networks are helping people discover new facts and making governments more accountable.”


What she didn’t expect was that information networks such as WikiLeaks would uncover incriminating information that not only compromised her credibility but also that of many others. First Amendment to the US constitution guarantees the rights of free expression and action that are fundamental to democratic government. These rights include freedom of assembly, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, and freedom of speech.

The First Amendment prohibits Congress from restricting the press or the rights of individuals to speak freely. The First Amendment should be able to protect a right to publish information on unlawful government programs especially when the existence of a particular program is a matter of significant public concern. Because of the Espionage Act, there’s no way for third party to “lawfully” acquire classified national security information that they are unauthorized to possess.

Julian Assange and his organization WikiLeaks have provoked controversy over the years with the release of compromising emails that shed light, and confirmed speculation from many, on government officials conspiring against its own citizens.

United States Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, in a speech delivered on April 13 at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, insisted that disclosures about what the CIA and intelligence community are doing is a threat to the safety of Americans. He then went on to address WikiLeaks stating "We can no longer allow Assange and his colleagues the latitude to use free speech values against us." What exactly was Pompeo referring to when he said "against us”.

On the contrary, thanks to WikiLeaks, Americans are now better informed. The continuous actions taken against Assange is by default proof that many are afraid and scared as to what yet remains to be exposed. In suggesting that Americans’ right to free speech depends on whether or not the topic is aligned with the government's agenda and interests, Pompeo, like many lawmakers, have been waiting for the day in which they can openly control what constitutes "real news" as opposed to, what President Trump calls, "fake news".

 

Read more:

https://www.rt.com/op-ed/429106-julian-assange-free-speech/

 

Julian Assange makes an old Gus proud to be Australian.

All the other monkeys in charge of governing something in Kanbra are pitifully useless and are as empty as a bunch of leaky buckets... A NOBEL PRIZE FOR JULIAN HAS TO BE.

victim of vichy journalism and deceitful governments...

 

From John Pilger

 

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull can seize this opportunity to defend the life of an Australian citizen and bring Julian Assange home. 

THE PERSECUTION of Julian Assange must end. Or it will end in tragedy. 

The Australian Government and Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull have a historic opportunity to decide which it will be. 

They can remain silent, for which history will be unforgiving. Or they can act in the interests of justice and humanity and bring this remarkable Australian citizen home.

Assange does not ask for special treatment. The Government has clear diplomatic and moral obligations to protect Australian citizens abroad from gross injustice: in Julian's case, from a gross miscarriage of justice and the extreme danger that await him should he walk out of the Ecuadorean embassy in London unprotected. 

We know from the Chelsea Manning case what he can expect if a U.S. extradition warrant is successful — a United Nations Special Rapporteur called it torture.

I know Julian Assange well; I regard him as a close friend, a person of extraordinary resilience and courage. I have watched a tsunami of lies and smear engulf him, endlessly, vindictively, perfidiously — and I know why they smear him.

In 2008, a plan to destroy both WikiLeaks and Assange was laid out in a top secret document, dated 8 March 2008. The authors were the Cyber Counter-intelligence Assessments Branch of the U.S. Defence Department. They described in detail how important it was to destroy the 'feeling of trust' that is WikiLeaks'centre of gravity'.

'They also revealed the secret password Julian had given The Guardian in confidence and which was designed to protect a digital file containing the U.S. embassy cables.' 

This would be achieved, they wrote, with threats of 'exposure [and] criminal prosecution' and an unrelenting assault on reputation. The aim was to silence and criminalise WikiLeaks and its editor and publisher. It was as if they planned a war on a single human being and on the very principle of freedom of speech. 

Their main weapon would be personal smear. Their shock troops would be enlisted in the media — those who are meant to keep the record straight and tell us the truth.

The irony is that no one told these journalists what to do. I call them "Vichy journalists" — after the Vichy Government that served and enabled the German occupation of wartime France. 

Last October, the ABC journalist Sarah Ferguson interviewed Hillary Clinton, over whom she fawned as "the icon for your generation"

This was the same Clinton who threatened to "totally obliterate" Iran and, who, as U.S. Secretary of State in 2011, was one of the instigators of the invasion and destruction of Libya as a modern state, with the loss of 40,000 lives. Like the invasion of Iraq, it was based on lies.

When the Libyan President was murdered publicly and gruesomely with a knife, Clinton was filmed whooping and cheering. Thanks largely to her, Libya became a breeding ground for ISIS and other jihadists. Thanks largely to her, tens of thousands of refugees fled in peril across the Mediterranean — and many drowned.

Leaked emails published by WikiLeaks revealed that Hillary Clinton's foundation – which she shares with her husband – received millions of dollars from Saudi Arabia and Qatar, the main backers of ISIS and terrorism across the Middle East. 

As Secretary of State, Clinton approved the biggest arms sale ever – worth $80 billion – to Saudi Arabia, one of her foundation's principal benefactors. Today, Saudi Arabia is using these weapons to crush starving and stricken people in a genocidal assault on Yemen. 

Sarah Ferguson, a highly paid reporter, raised not a word of this with Hillary Clinton sitting in front of her. 

Instead, she invited Clinton to describe the "damage" Julian Assange did "personally to you". In response, Clinton defamed Assange, an Australian citizen, as "very clearly a tool of Russian intelligence" and "a nihilistic opportunist who does the bidding of a dictator". 

She offered no evidence – nor was asked for any – to back her grave allegations.

At no time was Assange offered the right of reply to this shocking interview, which Australia's publicly-funded state broadcaster had a duty to give him.

As if that wasn't enough, Ferguson's executive producer, Sally Neighbour, followed the interview with a vicious retweet:

'Assange is Putin's bitch. We all know it!'

There are many other examples of Vichy journalism. The Guardian, reputedly once a great liberal newspaper, conducted a vendetta against Julian Assange. Like a spurned lover, The Guardian aimed its personal, petty, inhuman and craven attacks at a man whose work it once published and profited from.  

The former editor of The GuardianAlan Rusbridgercalled the WikiLeaks disclosures, which his newspaper published in 2010, 'one of the greatest journalistic scoops of the last 30 years'. Awards were lavished and celebrated as if Julian Assange did not exist. 

WikiLeaks' revelations became part of The Guardian's marketing plan to raise the paper's cover price. They made money, often big money, while WikiLeaks and Assange struggled to survive.

With not a penny going to WikiLeaks, a hyped Guardian book led to a lucrative Hollywood movie deal. The book's authors, Luke Harding and David Leigh, gratuitously abused Assange as a "damaged personality" and "callous". 

They also revealed the secret password Julian had given The Guardian in confidence and which was designed to protect a digital file containing the U.S. embassy cables. 

With Assange now trapped in the Ecuadorean embassy, Harding, who had enriched himself on the backs of both Julian Assange and Edward Snowden, stood among the police outside the embassy and gloated on his blog that 'Scotland Yard may get the last laugh'.

The question is why.

Julian Assange has committed no crime. He has never been charged with a crime. The Swedish episode was bogus and farcical and he has been vindicated. 

Katrin Axelsson and Lisa Longstaff of Women Against Rape summed it up when they wrote:

The allegations against [Assange] are a smokescreen behind which a number of governments are trying to clamp down on WikiLeaks for having audaciously revealed to the public their secret planning of wars and occupations with their attendant rape, murder and destruction ... The authorities care so little about violence against women that they manipulate rape allegations at will.

This truth was lost or buried in a media witch-hunt that disgracefully associated Assange with rape and misogyny. The witch-hunt included voices who described themselves as on the left and as feminist. They willfully ignored the evidence of extreme danger should Assange be extradited to the United States. 

According to a document released by Edward Snowden, Assange is on a "Manhunt target list". One leaked official memo says: 'Assange is going to make a nice bride in prison. Screw the terrorist. He'll be eating cat food forever'.

In Alexandra, Virginia – the suburban home of America's war-making elite – a secret grand jury, a throwback to the middle ages, has spent seven years trying to concoct a crime for which Assange can be prosecuted. 

This is not easy; the U.S. Constitution protects publishers, journalists and whistleblowers. Assange's crime is to have broken a silence. 

No investigative journalism in my lifetime can equal the importance of what WikiLeaks has done in calling rapacious power to account. It is as if a one-way moral screen has been pushed back to expose the imperialism of liberal democracies: the commitment to endless warfare and the division and degradation of "unworthy" lives: from Grenfell Tower to Gaza.

When Harold Pinter accepted the Nobel Prize for Literature in 2005, he referred to 'a vast tapestry of lies upon which we feed'. He asked why 'the systematic brutality, the widespread atrocities, the ruthless suppression of independent thought' of the Soviet Union were well known in the West while America's imperial crimes 'never happened ... even while [they] were happening, they never happened'.

In its revelations of fraudulent wars (Afghanistan, Iraq) and the bald-faced lies of governments (the Chagos Islands), WikiLeaks has allowed us to glimpse how the imperial game is played in the 21st Century. 

That is why Assange is in mortal danger.

Seven years ago, in Sydney, I arranged to meet a prominent Liberal Member of the Federal Parliament, Malcolm Turnbull.   

I wanted to ask him to deliver a letter from Gareth Peirce, Assange's lawyer, to the government. We talked about his famous victory – in the 1980s when, as a young barrister, he had fought the British Government's attempts to suppress free speech and prevent the publication of the book, Spycatcher – in its way, a WikiLeaks of the time, for it revealed the crimes of state power.

The Prime Minister of Australia was then Julia Gillard, a Labor Party politician who had declared WikiLeaks "illegal" and wanted to cancel Assange's passport — until she was told she could not do this: that Assange had committed no crime: that WikiLeaks was a publisher, whose work was protected under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to which Australia was one of the original signatories. 

In abandoning Assange – an Australian citizen, and colluding in his persecution – Prime Minister Gillard's outrageous behaviour forced the issue of his recognition, under international law, as a political refugee whose life was at risk. Ecuador invoked the 1951 Convention and granted Assange refuge in its embassy in London. 

Gillard has recently been appearing in a gig with Hillary Clinton; they are billed as pioneering feminists. 

If there is anything to remember Gillard by, it's a warmongering, sycophantic, embarrassing speech she made to the U.S. Congress soon after she demanded the illegal cancellation of Julian's passport.

Malcolm Turnbull is now the Prime Minister of Australia. Julian Assange's father has written to Turnbull. It is a moving letter, in which he has appealed to the Prime Minister to bring his son home. He refers to the real possibility of a tragedy.

I have watched Assange's health deteriorate in his years of confinement without sunlight. He has had a relentless cough but is not even allowed safe passage to and from a hospital for an X-ray.

Malcolm Turnbull can remain silent. Or he can seize this opportunity and use his Government's diplomatic influence to defend the life of an Australian citizen, whose courageous public service is recognised by countless people across the world. He can bring Julian Assange home.  

 

This is an abridged version of an address by John Pilger to a rally in Sydney, Australia, to mark Julian Assange's six years' confinement in the Ecuadorean embassy in London.

You can access more of the films and journalism of John Pilger at johnpilger.com or follow him on Twitter @johnpilger.

 

Read more:

https://independentaustralia.net/life/life-display/john-pilger-bringing-...

 

Julian Assange makes an old Gus proud to be Australian.

All the other monkeys in charge of governing something in Kanbra are pitifully useless and are as empty as a bunch of leaky cardboard buckets... A NOBEL PRIZE FOR JULIAN HAS TO BE.

 

Assange is a victim of "Vichy" journalism and deceitful governments. Attacked, for telling the truth, from all sides of the self-righteous liars, the media, the governments and the churchmen (who are saying nothing about this outrageous abuse — yes we know you, the priests who abused children), Assange is entrapped in a Joan-of-Arc syndrome, way beyond the pain of a Dreyfus in a nasty Affair. Read from top...

 

-------------------------------

 

 

2,192 days...

June 19 marks six years since the founder of WikiLeaks entered the building of the Ecuadorian Embassy in London. He hasn't stepped foot outside it since.

Julian Assange has been residing at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London since 2012, where he sought refuge while facing sexual assault allegations in Sweden.

981 days have passed since the Metropolitan police removed dedicated 24/7 guards from outside the Ecuadorian Embassy on October 12, 2015.

 

Read more:

https://sputniknews.com/europe/201806191065516777-assange-6-years-embass...

 

Julian Assange makes an old Gus proud to be Australian.

All the other monkeys in charge of governing something in Kanbra are pitifully useless and are as empty as a bunch of leaky cardboard buckets... A NOBEL PRIZE FOR JULIAN HAS TO BE.

 

Read from top.