🚨 Julian Assange's Hope: Americans sue CIA & @mikepompeo for embassy spying. The case likely to proceed & could impact #Assange's fate. @kgosztola analyzes this potential game-changer. https://t.co/oMyjH0Cz0V
Video Transcript AI Summary
Four Americans, including two lawyers and two journalists, are suing the CIA and Mike Pompeo for spying on them during their meetings with Julian Assange at the Ecuadorian embassy. The judge in New York has shown signs of allowing the case to proceed, which could be a significant step towards Assange's release. The plaintiffs allege that a private contractor named UC Global, with connections to the CIA, monitored them while they visited Assange. The contractors reportedly collected audio and video feeds and even took apart their phones to obtain identification numbers and passport photos. The judge's decision not to dismiss the case is unusual, and it could have implications for Assange's extradition case.
Speaker 0: While WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange sits in a London prison for the crime of committing journalism, 4 Americans are suing the CIA and Mike Pompeo, 2 lawyers and 2 American journalists, for spying on them when they met with Assange at the Ecuadorian embassy. There are growing signs this morning that this case will not be dismissed, that the judge in New York is going to allow this to move forward. This could be groundbreaking. This could be the major positive step perhaps in getting Assange released from prison, perhaps a catalyst, if you will. Kevin Gastola is an excellent journalist who knows more about this more about the Assange case than perhaps anyone.
In fact, I think believe he's the only one that's really been covering this New York case, which is unbelievable to me. You think all of the major media would be covering this story. Of course, they're quiet on this story. He's also the author of the book guilty of journalism, the political case against Julian Assange, and Kevin joins us now. Kevin, great to see you, and thanks for your journalism.
Good to speak with you. So this am I putting too much on this case? I I you know, I'm saying that I believe this is a a big catalyst which could lead to major things happening in the Assange case. Can you walk us through it? Am I making too much of this?
Or is this a big deal what this judge in New York looks like he might do here?
Speaker 1: 1st, I just want to emphasize that the the core liberty that is being argued over in this case, when you travel abroad, Does the US government lose or or do you lose as an American? Or do I lose as an American the privacy rights that I have under the constitution in the United States? Meaning, now that I've left the borders of the United States, Can a government agency, intelligence, national security, or any government institution choose to violate those privacy rights? And particularly when I'm in other buildings that perhaps the US doesn't have full control over, and yet there are surveillance systems or Other mechanisms for security that exist, which they could obtain information, video, audio, whatever, and maybe use them to investigate me. Do I lose my right to privacy because I've left the US?
That's central to this because we have 4 individuals, 2 journalists, 2 attorneys that met Julian Assange in the Ecuador embassy in London. There's evidence that people like them were singled out as priority targets by a private contractor named UC Global, run by David Morales. And, David Morales is known to have gone to Las Vegas Sands, potentially, allegedly in the law sued inks some kind of a behind the scenes agreement that allowed the CIA to allegedly outsource a spying operation to him, with somehow Sheldon Adelson being involved. Of course, he's now, dead, does not exist anymore. But, But the the allegations in this is that these individuals who tried to visit Julian Assange were targeted simply Because they were there talking to Julian Assange, and there was some interest on the part of the CIA to monitor those people so they could use it to facilitate spelling Julian Assange from the embassy.
And this case right now, we have not seen a dismissal from the judge. It's extraordinary. Oftentimes, Allegations of spying or criminality by the CIA, the NSA, the FBI. They usually can enter a court and just Invoke national security or state secrets privilege and say that there's no way that this could be litigated, But the judge in the Southern District of New York is allowing them to continue with this lawsuit at the moment.
Speaker 0: So not dismissing it. This lawsuit continues. And I think what the judge has pointed out here or appears to be by not dismissing it is that There are allegations. These allegations need to be aired at trial. Like, you can't a judge can't just rule on these allegations.
He doesn't know the facts. He doesn't know all of the back and forth. So a judge can't just, you know, willy nilly just just dismiss this case. So this moves forward potentially to trial. And then, of course, we'll go through a discovery process, and hopefully, we'll get to actually learn what the CIA was doing to these targeting of these Americans who are meeting with Julian Assange.
And what do they allege? What do the what do the plaintiffs alleged in this case against Mike Pompeo and the CIA. What did they do to them when they went into the embassy that day?
Speaker 1: They alleged That by cooperating with this outfit called UC Global that was tasked with performing Ecuador's security, the Contractors were passing along allegedly these audio and video feeds to, intelligence agencies in the US, and the CIA is believed to have had access, and so they could do constant monitoring of Julian Assange and every person that was being visited. What happened when you visited Julian Assange was that you would go to a security checkpoint. It would be unlike going into a courthouse. However, it was a little bit more like visiting somebody in prison because Your belongings, your electronics, and other things were expected to be left with those security people. And then you would go into a room, and you'd sit down, and you'd meet with Julian Assange.
Then when you'd come back, you'd get to pick up your property. What those individuals visiting Julian Assange did not know was that these contractors were making files on individuals who are considered priority targets. And in some cases, they were even taking apart their cell phones to take photographs of the physical structure of the phone so they could get something called an IMEI. It's an identification number that subscriber services use. It's highly Invasive.
Like, if they have that number, it can be used for tracking and and and following your movements, I I presume especially since they can link it to whatever mobile provider is providing you your service. And they also took pictures of passports. And that's key because taking pictures of your passports means that now They know that you're an American. So if someone's coming to the embassy who is Russian or is, let's say, from Israel or is from the United Kingdom or is from some other country. Well, then it's okay for the intelligence agencies to monitor them.
But as far as the constitution goes at that point, they need to have some idea that this person is conspiring with Julian Assange is plotting some kind of criminality when they enter that room with Julian Assange in ordered to target them outright, particularly if they're attorneys or journalists for a country that goes around as part of its image, claiming that they support human rights and press freedom. Remember, this is a part of president Joe Biden's shtick and all the other officials under him. Well, to target those people, and then also for those officials under Donald Trump to do that when, again, Many of these people use that as part of the US image. We're supposed to be allegedly better than other countries, targeting Americans over in violation of their liberty. Well, that's something that during a trial is going to be argued over, and I there'd never been a case like this.
I'll I'll end my comment here by saying It's been acknowledged by the judge, the prosecutors, and the defense team or the or, I guess, the the the people representing these individuals who were targeted. They're not they're actually bringing A lawsuit, so they're not playing defense. But it feels like it because the CIA usually has the upper hand in these cases. But, There's never been any case like this that you can point to in the history of the US. There are some cases that are similar that implicate NSA surveillance From over 10, 15 years ago, but there's nothing that involves people traveling abroad and being targeted in this manner at a diplomatic building.
Speaker 0: Mike Pompeo, of course, one of the defendants in this case, which I find fascinating. Here's a guy that Stella Assange, of course, is very publicly pointed out has tried to assassinate Julian Assange, that Mike Pompeo, you know, set to target and kill Julian Assange, as part of the CIA hit on him. So this is fascinating. What has there been any response from the from their side, from Pompeo's side, as do their defense in this?
Speaker 1: Their side is to say that Julian Assange was a wanted fugitive. So once you entered the embassy, you should have known that he was a national security target. And when you met him, should have known that probably the United States government was targeting him since he was a national security target. I don't think that's how our rights work. I don't believe that if, I happen to meet with somebody who's under a criminal investigation that I suddenly lose my right to freedom, especially if the government can't prove that I'm engaged in some kind of crime or conspiracy with that individual.
And at no point has the government suggested that these 2 attorneys or 2 journalists were involved in some kind of Criminal conspiracy with Julian Assange. They're definitely not part of the case that's being pursued about against him, which, just to be clear here in this interview, they are Going after Julian Assange and have kept him in prison in a maximum security prison in London called Belmarsh for over 4 years Because of the journalism that he engaged in back in 2010 and 2011. So they say no reasonable expectation of privacy, because that's the standard under the 4th Amendment, that and they weren't gonna get a warrant. They they claim they don't need a warrant for any surveillance of Americans that are going abroad. And, they basically say that if you didn't want to have your privacy violated, that you shouldn't have visited Julian Assange in the Ecuador embassy.
Speaker 0: Yeah. It's an unbelievable precedent. So Americans have no expectation of privacy that if they travel abroad, that, you know, an intelligence agency could swoop in and do whatever they want to them as they leave the leave the United States. And it's not as if it's, like, Israeli intelligences. It's the United States intelligence doing it abroad in nefarious ways.
How did these plaintiffs How did these lawyers and journalists, when they came out of meeting with Assange, how do they know that their phones had been messed with? How do they discover that?
Speaker 1: So many of these allegations come not from a US media organization, which I think collectively the US has failed to follow-up and investigate the way that people were treated, who visited Julian Assange, and how Assange's family, lawyers, etcetera, were targeted. This comes from a Spanish newspaper called El Pais, which was a partner with WikiLeaks on in covering the documents. But they obtained many of these files. I understand that they got some of them from attorneys for Assange because there were 2 whistleblowers from UC Global that had materials that they were able to provide. But there is a case that is being litigated in a Spanish criminal court right now against Pompeo and others who are implicated, the same group that we're talking about in this lawsuit in New York.
And Julian Assange brought those claims saying that his rights were violated. And that's running parallel to the extradition case in the United Kingdom right now, which has everyone's attention. And We're waiting on bated breath wondering what's going to happen next. He could be extradited to the United States at any point in the 1st few months of 2024. And yet this could have ramifications for how the case against Julian Assange proceeds.
Because if there's a ruling that There was a violation of privacy in that embassy. If there's more evidence brought out about this CIA backed operation, that will be useful for Julian Assange's attorneys in that courtroom. And also, it's just worth noting, I don't think I'm suggesting that The judge is biased. I'm I'm suggesting that he's fair minded. But John Kotel is a remarkable individual, because he has a backstory that includes A prior case involving WikiLeaks.
One of the cases that he presided over was a case where the DNC and particularly, Chair Tom Perez brought this lawsuit alleging that the Trump administration and WikiLeaks And Russian individuals were responsible for targeting the DNC when they published those emails, the Podesta emails or the Clinton campaign emails in 2016 and that they needed to be held accountable. And the judge determined that WikiLeaks had a right to publish hacked materials and that it was journalism, and journalism similar to the tradition of publishing classified information that newspapers engage in routinely, and that was part of his dismissal Of of Tom Perez and the DNC's ludicrous claims that they were bringing in New York. So trial in the eastern district of Virginia just outside of DC.
Speaker 0: I'll get you out of here on this, Kevin. Do you think that he's going to be extradited to the United States? And is this case against the CIA and Mike Pompeo perhaps the catalyst we need, as as champions of free speech and of journalism to have Julian Assange released from
Speaker 1: prison? Let me just share a parallel history that I think is instructive to how things Could go forward or should go forward. We know that when president Richard Nixon was in office, and Henry Kissinger was part of that administration, that they were upset that Daniel Ellsberg Came forward and released the Pentagon Papers. There was a break in. They targeted his psychiatrist's office Because they did not like that he was sharing a study about what the military was saying behind closed doors about how the military operations in Vietnam actually failing.
They were failing to defeat the enemies that they were going after in Vietnam, and that eventually sunk the Espionage Act case that was brought against Daniel Ellsberg. He wasn't He he'll set himself up to his death that he was not found innocent. He he just barely escaped being convicted. He was spared because the judge found that there was wrongdoing by the government, and so he was able to walk free. And people who are supporters of Assange have seen parallels, including Ellsberg prior to his death who said, this is the kind of wrongdoing That should lead the justice department to dismiss the case with prejudice because you can't bring a fair trial against Julian Assange, the very people who Julian Assange exposed or who are found to have been targeting him because they were vindictive and wanted to, see him prosecuted are the ones who are going to have their thumbs on the scale, tipping it so that they are able to get the outcome that they desire.
I'll just close on this point. The reason why Pompeo and others at the CIA allegedly wanted to conduct this spying operation that ensnared these Americans that we're talking about is because there were these Vault 7 materials that were published in 2017 That exposed some of the ways the CIA engages in cyber warfare, offensive or defensive capabilities that they have, Countering powerful countries, let's say, like China or Russia, etcetera, and what they can do to plant malware and how they could get into Apple Devices and other, other technology. And they were embarrassed. It's it's alleged that Mike Pompeo felt he could not face Donald Trump because WikiLeaks had now happened to the CIA, and that's where the vengeful attitude came from. And that's why he wrote about, WikiLeaks in his memoir, Mike Pompeo did talking about how, Julian Assange was a rapist because he raped America of this information.
Very, very, out there language, you know, very, very bombastic language. But that's why it is believable that they would go so far as to violate American civil liberties and why it's important that the, US court step in and say That your rights don't end at the US border. US agencies should have to respect your privacy and civil liberties when you travel abroad.
Speaker 0: Well said. Well, we'll be watching this very closely, and we expect some perhaps big movement on the Assange case and the extradition, as you mentioned, in the next few months. And, again, I'll get you out of here on this. When do we expect a ruling on this motion to dismiss and whether or not this case in New York will move forward?
Speaker 1: Well, we're up against the holidays, so probably in the 1st week or 2nd week of January, which means it could be in the same window of time that we learn about the extradition against Julian Assange.
Speaker 0: Wow. 202020 2024 is gonna be the year of Julian Assange, and, I think, Yeah. We're gonna see a lot of that. Kevin, great journalism on this. Thank you for being one of the lone lone voices in covering this story, one of the most important stories of our time.
Thanks, Kevin.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much for watching this segment here at Redacted. We are live every day at 4 PM Eastern Time I'm trying to share the stories that the mainstream media will not cover. You should also come over and join our community of redacted rebels over at redacted dot I n c. That's our private locals community where we can share exclusive content that we simply cannot share here on YouTube. Come over and join the rebellion together right now by going to redacted.inc.
We'll see you next time.
