WikiLeaks Founder, Julian Assange, Perp Walked out of Ecuadorian Embassy

WikiLeaks Founder, Julian Assange, Perp Walked out of Ecuadorian Embassy April 11, 2019

So after seven years of hiding from justice, tucked away in the Ecuadorian embassy, it appears that WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange, has worn out his welcome (and it’s about time).

On Thursday, officers entered the embassy, located in London, at the invitation of the ambassador and took Assange into custody. This followed the withdrawal of asylum by the Ecuadorian government, and at the request of United States authorities.

“This is an extradition warrant under Section 73 of the Extradition Act,” London’s Metropolitan Police Department said in a statement.

Assange, 47, “will appear in custody at Westminster Magistrates’ Court as soon as possible,” the department.

Lenín Moreno, the president of Ecuador, said in a tweet Thursday that the country decided to stop sheltering Assange because “his repeated violations to international conventions and daily-life protocols,” according to The New York Times.

And quite the statement it is!

Those who have kept up with Assange’s antics while using asylum as his shield from facing justice know he hasn’t been the best example of a cordial house guest. They couldn’t even get him to clean up after his cat!

Assange and his outfit have their hands in a lot of corrupt and underhanded activities, some potentially dangerous to the national security of the United States.

Back during the 2016 election season, WikiLeaks published the hacked emails of the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton’s campaign team, setting the party into chaos.

That’s how we found out that Clinton was the handpicked choice of the DNC and the whole notion of a Democratic primary was simply a charade. The party leaders never intended to let the people decide.

I’d like to say that was justice for their treachery, but I’m not about celebrating one bad act because it exposed another bad act. Consistency and principle requires we condemn ALL bad acts.

Assange is also responsible for exposing United States troop movements in the Middle East back in 2010, putting those troops at risk.

He does all this and calls it “journalism.”

I remember at the time, American Pravda’s Sean Hannity was raging about Assange’s illegal actions, how our troops were put in danger, and how he should be arrested.

Oddly enough, all that ended and Assange became a “patriot” in Hannity’s eyes, after the DNC emails were leaked.

U.S. intelligence has long since labeled WikiLeaks as a Russian cutout, doing the bidding of the Kremlin.

You can expect the usual suspects from the Trump right to clutch their pearls and squeal in protest of this move, but let’s not forget why Assange sought asylum.

He threw himself on the mercy of international law, after rape and sexual assault charges were brought against him by several women in Sweden. After losing a long court battle in those cases, he claimed that if Sweden were successful in their attempts to extradite him, they would turn him over to the United States, where he would face espionage charges and could face the death penalty.

The rape case against him was dropped in 2017, due to the fact that his asylum meant Swedish authorities could not get to him. Hearing that his asylum has been withdrawn, however, one of his victims wants the case reopened.

“My client and I have just received the news that Assange has been arrested. The fact that what we have been waiting and hoping for nearly seven years is now happening, of course, comes as a shock to my client,” Elisabeth Massi Fritz, the attorney, told Reuters in a text.

“We will do all we can to get prosecutors to reopen the Swedish preliminary criminal investigation so that Assange can be extradited to Sweden and be prosecuted for rape,” she added.

Ms. Fritz may have to wait in line.

In 2018, it was accidentally revealed that our Justice Department had the charges for Assange’s role in publishing those DNC emails ready and sitting on go.

“We are aware of the reports that Julian Assange was taken into custody by United Kingdom authorities. We refer you to the U.K. for comment regarding the arrest,” a DOJ spokesman told the Times on Thursday.

Just a thought, but those charges came about as part of the investigation into Russian activities in the 2016 election. Since we have a president who is amenable to allowing Russia to interfere, or at the very least, is willing to look the other way, and we also now have a Trump toady as attorney general, what do you think the chances are that Julian Assange ever faces justice in the United States?

I’m calling it now. If Assange finally tastes justice for his acts, it won’t be for what he did to the United States on behalf of Russia.

I hope I’m wrong.



Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Annemarie

    Leaking the emails, especially given the timing, was wrong. Enshrining a candidate is also wrong, and I’m sure it’s gone on for many, many elections on the part of both parties. (And I say that as someone who was not–even post-leak– a Bernie supporter.) Of course, now we Democrats are spoiled for choice and I can’t figure out who the party itself supports. So maybe the leak has done some good.

    However, two wrongs, etc. etc. I’m happy that whoever in the current administration was responsible for this did it, and really wish I was party to the conversations that must have gone on. Where is Alexa when you need her?

  • chemical

    Assange has consistently taken actions that have been detrimental to the USA’s interests. With any luck his anarchist Wikileaks site goes down with him. And that moron had the audacity to resist arrest. Seeing that filthy neckbeard in chains just made my day. Between that and the black hole pics, it’s been a good week. Good riddance.

  • chemical

    Yeah, it seems like us liberals are much less divided on candidates this time around. The 2016 primary had Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, Lincoln Who?, DINO, and Sir Not Appearing In This Election. Now it seems like there are quite a few viable options, some of whom could actually beat Trump in the general! And the Harris fans don’t hate the O’Rourke fans, who don’t hate the Warren fans, etc., etc.

  • Bruce

    The other day Pecker lost his newspaper and Trump’s sister resigned from the federal bench in disgrace.

  • RebeccaSusanWright

    Be careful.
    I see Democrats didnt get the message from the fiasco with the GOP in 2016. They’re packing the bench far too deep. The vote will be hopelessly split and whatever dreg is left will get the runoff of votes.

  • Michael Weyer

    Anyone see photos of Wikileaks’ main server/office headquarters? The place looks like the lair for a Bond villain. Explains so much about the guy.

  • Michael Weyer

    Ah, way too early yet to figure things out, so much can happen.

    Never forget early 2004, Howard Dean was cited as the absolute sure lock then comes the Iowa disaster….

  • chemical

    I get your point, and it concerns me a bit, too. There are 3 candidates that could be reasonably called Blue State Progressive Woman #1, #2, #3 (Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, and Kristen Gillibrand). I think those 3 will end up splitting the progressive votes, so I don’t think it’s super likely that a true progressive will win the nomination, unless either Harris or Warren drops out early.

    On the plus side, there isn’t a Commander Cuckoo Bananas polling too highly (though you can make a case for Bernie Sanders, I think his time has passed). Also the Democratic party doesn’t have the same primary rules as the GOP, and actually has a bit more control over the process.

    For me the most important characteristic for a Dem nominee is “beats Donald Trump in the general election”. So I’m less concerned with sticking a true progressive in there, and more focused on someone less divisive. Right now I’m liking Mayor Pete and Beto O’Rourke for those reasons. Beto is a fellow Texan and ran a good campaign, nearly flipping friggin’ Texas., and Pete Buttigieg is basically the exact opposite person Donald Trump is. Harris would be a good pick, too, but I don’t think she will win the primary based on splitting votes with other progressives.

  • Assange being carried out of the embassy was priceless!

  • chemical

    I didn’t vote in the 2004 election. I was in the army at the time, and hadn’t lived in the USA for 3 years. At the time my knowledge of what was going on in the USA was actually rather limited.

    Also, I voted for George W. Bush in the 2000 election (first election I was old enough to vote in), because I was conservative at the time.

  • chemical

    While I agree — the problem you guys had in 2016 is that your relatively sane policy crafters (Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, John Kasich, Chris Christie) all split the primary votes. Also the GOP base was furious with the party, to the point where you had 3 serious candidates that never held political office in the primary (Trump, Carly Fiorina, and Ben Carson). If 4 out of the 5 sane policy crafters / Old Guard GOPers dropped out, the last one would have won the GOP primary and lost the general election to Clinton (those furious people would have stayed home). In the general election, too many conservatives were afraid of a Clinton presidency, and not many liberals were thrilled at the prospect, either.

    We only have one political outsider running right now (Howard Schultz) and he gets booed and heckled by liberals at his campaign rallies.

  • IllinoisPatriot

    Do you have a reference for “Pecker lost his newspaper” ?

    I have not seen or heard that particular bit of news.

  • Michael Weyer

    I do feel not as much passion for Sanders as in 2016 (his age doesn’t help) and more of a push for a female. O’Rourke does seem to be doing well. Never forget the factor that scores of teens unable to vote in ’16 will do so now and the Dems seem to be doing better winning them over than the GOP is. Again, just hard to tell right now as still a lot that can happen.

  • chemical

    From MSN:
    Washington Post also covered it:

  • chemical

    It’s too early to speculate who’s going to win, but there are quite a few candidates that I like.
    Personally I think O’Rourke, Harris, and Buttigieg can beat Trump in a general election, and as such will have my vote in the Dem primary (too early to decide which).
    Warren, Sanders, Gillibrand, and Biden: Will have my vote in the general election but I don’t think they can beat Trump.
    Tulsi Gabbard: DINO
    Howard Schultz: I seriously don’t know what he’s thinking. A billionaire with no political experience? Yeah, that will win over liberals.

  • Michael Weyer

    And now the question: Who is going to want to openly admit they want to buy the National Enquirer?

  • Michael Weyer

    Well, depends on the billionaire. Let’s be honest, Oprah were to announce she’s running, she’d get the nom in a heartbeat and probably win.

  • chemical

    Don’t even joke about that. Oprah has promoted a lot of quackery on her show over the years, and I don’t want to be complicit in validating it. If she ran and won the primary, it would hypocrisy of the highest level out of us liberals to criticize one charismatic TV billionaire with no political experience while signing off on a different charismatic TV billionaire with no political experience. The war on truth would end, with truth losing out. Absolutely not. If Oprah ran against any Republican with a shred of sanity, I’d vote Republican. Else, I’d vote 3rd party.

  • Michael Weyer

    That can happen. On the other hand, I still clearly remember much the same said in 1992. Hell, still remember a late ’91 SNL skit of a Dem debate and “the race to decide who will lose to Bush” as few at the time thought Clinton was going to break out as he did.

    Cut to 2008, most thought Hillary anointed, a thick batch of contenders and that leads to Obama taking off.

    Trump will always be a confounding presence for future historians to how the GOP latched onto him and Dems don’t have quite that figure on their side. Again, it’s just too hard to see as it stands right now as scores of things can happen in the next year to shift up the race.

  • Michael Weyer

    Whether liberal or conservative, I think we can all agree seeing this scumbag get the treatment he deserves is a glorious sight.

  • Alpha 1

    Looking at it from Canada, it seems like just about any Democrat has a good shot at beating Trump. He’s incredibly unpopular, his base is literally dying of old age, he lost the popular vote by 3 million last election, and he only won from 70,000 strategically placed votes against the worst politician in history. Beyond that, remember that Donald Trump is president: nobody knows what is or isn’t electable anymore, especially since Trump became president by beating the “electable” candidate in 2016. I’d focus less on what you think other people want and more on who you think would fight for good policies as president. The last thing you want is someone like Joe Biden winning because Democrats thought he was electable, and then trying to cut social security or starting a war.

    FWIW the only Democratic candidates who seem to me like they would be actively good as president are Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, since they’re the only ones who have shown they’re serious about fighting against powerful interests instead of bandaiding over problems: Warren wants to break up tech monopolies and institute a wealth tax, while Sanders wants to abolish your vampiric private health insurance industry and voted against military spending increases. Sanders also has a decent foreign policy, since he helped introduce the resolution to end the war in Yemen and was the first to support Ilhan Omar against the bad faith antisemitism smears. That’s important because foreign policy is what the president has the most control over.

  • IllinoisPatriot

    Thank you.
    It’s good to see Mr. Pecker is getting what he deserves – the loss of his ‘baby’ and source of his influence.

  • Michael Weyer

    I was never a Sanders fan as the man is every inch the socialist folks on the right thought Obama was. Just not a fan of his economic policies and his age is a factor too. LIkewise, Warren has a few good things but also a lot of bad which can work against her (you know those tech monopolies will fight her hard). Ditto on Harris, some good heart but also drawbacks. O’Rourke might be something if he can build on momentum while Biden’s issues are obvious. Right now, it’s the really early stages and the Dems will no doubt be closely watching the mood swings of the country to gauge things.

  • Bruce
  • IllinoisPatriot

    Thank you.

  • sometypeofguy

    I’ll vote for any Dem that gets the nomination. On a personal level, I really like Bernie. he’s consistent and I just like him. But I think he’s too old, same with biden. I really dislike fakeness and identity politics, so for me that rules out Harris, Warren, O rourke and probably Booker (though I might be wrong about Booker.) Klobuchar I like, but she’s kinda flat and I think Trump would make mincemeat out of her. I’m cautiously optimistic about Buttigieg, but I think he needs to stop going after Mike Pence yesterday. That could backfire bigtime. Most Americans don’t care what married adults do. There’s no need to rile up the conservative Christians, especially if they are potential swing voters who are disgusted with Trump.

  • sometypeofguy

    I agree with you; just about any Dem can beat Trump. But I’m not Bullish on Warren. For me she has a likability and authenticity problem very similar to what Hillary Clinton had. Trump, for all his titanic faults, comes across as “authentic.” He is who he is etc. Now I don’t actually believe that, but he comes across that way, and there is a certain sense in which he does not give a f*** and does not play by the rules. Warren is fake as a $3.00 Bill and desperate to be liked. Trump would make mincemeat out of her.

    As for his base dying of old age, I disagree there too. If you look at the faces of those marching in Charlottesville with tiki torches, you see a lot young faces, very few old ones.