Persecution of Assange : Dancing with the Cypherpunks [Updated 2021-11-05]
Dancing with the Cypherpunks
Publication date: 2021-10-30
Update: 20210-11-01, tiny corrections, and one addition of skepticism to my assertion that the cross-appeal could be launched if a Supreme Court appeal is lodged post extradition denial. The classic IANAL (I am not a lawyer).
Updated: 2021-11-05. New sources, and a paragraph extension, describing the workings of the now fully collapsed RussiaGoat narrative.
Although couched in the proceedings of the USA's appeal to the denial of the extradition of Mr Assange, this really is a ramble about the "crimes" committed by Mr Assange and Wikileaks and the culture of the movement in which he spent his formative years, the Cypherpunks.
I include in excess of 4 hours of video "documentary" footage.
This is to set a cultural background to hold in mind when reading the later parts of the article which explore some of Assange's activities while at Wikileaks, before we return to the present predicament.
The Crown Prosecution Service acting on behalf of the USA's Dept of Justice were dealt a very strong hand by Magistrate Baraitser in her judgement to deny extradition. She gave them all of the points of law, and denied extradition purely on humanitarian (medical) grounds. This meant that the appeal which was submitted in the dying hours of the Trump administration, and since persisted with by the new "Build Back Better" and "America is Back" Biden administration would only need to challenge those medical grounds.
They would not have to deal with the now shredded CFAA charge based on the lies of FBI informant and convicted pedophile Siggi "I couldn't hack a tap" Thordarsson. Similarly, they would not have to deal with any human rights of freedom of expression or press freedom issues. Phew. They just had to rubbish the judge and minimize the evidence of a world respected medical expert.
But, before we get to that, lets actually revisit the "journalism" charges, which the Obama administration summarized as the "New York Times problem". But, even before that, we need to go back to the idea of Wikileaks.
If war can be started by Lies, war can be stopped by Truth
The evolution of publicly available strong cryptography emerged in the 1990's during what is known as Crypto Wars 1.0. This is all based on "New Directions in Cryptography", a revolutionary paper in cryptography which solved the "key distribution problem", and later research . Additionally important were faster processors, more storage and more memory, the hardware engineering of personal computing. By 2000 the Cypherpunks, who fought for the public being able to use this new strong cryptography, had won. Code was ruled as a form of speech, and the prohibitions on strong export cryptography had been weakened or removed. Example products like "Pretty Good Privacy", which encrypted email, had emerged.
Crypto Wars and Cypherpunks
This publication on the Crypto Wars link (pdf) is very long. Just read the executive summary, if interested.
It is important to understand this period and this battle [links to an article written after this]. This was happening as Mr Assange was a young man, and the people who fought this battle were his, and many other young computer scientists' heroes.
A quick method is to watch the 6 minutes from 1:00 to 7:00 of the video below of a presentation by Moxie Marlinspike (see sources). However, having watched in total many "man weeks" of IT security presentations over the last decade, this is the best of them all. It is worth every second. It does become technically complex towards the end. Abort when it becomes difficult to follow. Note the date.
Included at the end of the sources are two long videos of Julian speaking with 3 other modern CypherPunks assessing how they see the Internet + Computing nexus of privacy, freedom of communication or dystopia only 2 years after the Marlinspike presentation. They are very long, and quite complex at times. I include them because they are important, though not entirely accessible to all. Combined, these 3 video pieces show an analysis of 5 of the modern "CypherPunks". The cypherpunks were intelligent, principled, playful disruptors. Keep that in mind as I below explore a few historical anecdotes in which Assange is a player.
During this period, the young Julian Assange had self-learnt computing and then studied cryptography and worked on interesting things like the Rubberhose File System. During the middle of the first decade of the new millennium he started to think about a synthesis of these ideas and others. The mission of Wikileaks was, naturally, to obtain leaks, but to then create a publicly available and searchable form of static historical record from the mouths of the powerful via the passion of the disenchanted. The problem was not the "disenchanted" but submission. The USA had 2 million people with top security classification, any tiny fraction of them would be enough. Similar large numbers are involved in any of the large nations of the world, from France, to Russia, to China, to Italy.
The submission problem was largely solved by Aaron Schwartz's "SecureDrop" which Wikileaks adopted and refined, and to which they attached other forms of secure communications. One of these was secure chat via OTR, then a novel form of cryptography using rolling keys which provided an important property, Forward Secrecy . These new methods were being worked on by a new breed of Cypherpunks, including people like Moxie Marlinspike, and supported by some of the "old school" like Matt Blaze who was a key player in Crypto Wars 1.0. This combination of a secure anonymous "drop box" combined with the secure live text chat is powerful.
Aaron Schwartz is another modern "information rebel", but I wouldn't categorize him as a cypherpunk. A documentary film about this life, and specifically his stellar contribution to internet technology in the 00's, and then his tragic suicide is included in the sources.
While a journalist may not be too concerned about the motives of a source, they do care about authenticity of documents. Email was completely monitored by the NSA and other agencies and completely insecure unless the source understood how to secure it and this could even be problematic for the relatively skilled. The encrypted live chat protocols were easier to install and secure and thus used to interrogate sources to determine the reliability of the material, and ascertain motives and objectives. A "journalist" would call this "vetting". Interestingly enough, Assange does seem to have been interested in motives. He evolved this method of taking leaks and partnering with established news organisations in the jurisdiction where the leaks would have greatest effect. This increased the impact of the material, which was good for Wikileaks, but also honored the risks taken by the informant (whistleblower). So, after material was obtained and verified, then a process of working out how to give it the greatest impact was begun, rather than just publishing.
A "journalist" wants a "scoop", and a smart journalist wants that scoop and the possibility of more, which means source protection. There is also an ethical consideration behind source protection. Assange wanted all of that, and something more. Not just a few sources, handled with care, but a methodology of creating sources. His and Wikileaks' response to Edward Snowden's predicament is a testament to this end goal. An equivalent can be seen in Wikileaks' response to Manning. When the motive is understood, the actions become clear.
The end result is this now voluminous, permanent, publicly searchable archive of largely government documents provided by dissatisfied insiders. This is his crime.
The "establishment" has a few problems here. Firstly, the archive itself is intolerable. Secondly, it serves as an example, and with all of the awards delivered to Wikileaks, not only the organisation, but the mechanism, could run out of control. Finally, it exposes one of the core control mechanisms. Classification is not for "national security" in the most part, but to protect against embarrassment. Classification is also the method by which governments do nasty things and keep them secret.
The USA government does deserve some credit for the eventual declassification, usually redacted, of "secret" documents. However, this process needs to be under political control. Take the recent case of former President Trump attempting to declassify government documents related to the assassination of President Kennedy. Even he, the sitting president, could not get this done, despite it being 50 years after the event. Classification is a crucial control mechanism, and Wikileaks is a declassification mechanism in which control is given to whistleblowers and Wikileaks, not the government or any "deep state". They are completely bypassed. But, again, its about the permanent, publicly searchable archive. This is the big crime.
When you get a "something must be done" moment and politicians are in charge, silly things can happen. But, when its military intelligence services meet that moment, really nasty things can happen.
Diving into the Cesspit
The intelligence services formed their tactics, and diplomatic services helped to provide leverage. A "Red Notice" (a sort of emergency European Arrest Warrant) was issued by a Swedish prosecutor (not a judge) for Assange for questioning. No charge had been issued, an old investigation had been resuscitated. The UK, in whose jurisdiction Assange resided was co-opted. Between the UK and Sweden, the whole initial extradition process was played out with Sir Keir Starmer's Crown Prosecution Service declaring to the Swedes "don't get cold feet". This meant two things; continue the investigation and demand extradition, and do NOT interview Assange until he is in Swedish custody. Meanwhile, especially since the State Department cable release, the USA media (with other English language media following) played the whole "rapist" rubbish. This was the second strategy, character assassination.
In the end, the UK's Supreme Court rules against Assange, while at any time the Swedes could have come to the UK to interview Assange as they had many times for other investigations (remember, no charge), and Assange is forced to seek asylum. It is his seeking asylum, which was later granted, that generates the "bail violation" charge which upon his capture puts him in prison. He does not fear the investigation in Sweden (remember, no charge). He fears being extradited to the USA who he knows are very angry. "Drone the son-of-a-bitch" etc..
Just weeks following the Supreme Court's decision to approve the extradition to Sweden, the UK parliament amends the law to not acknowledge "Red Notices" unless they are signed by a judge. This is little known, but a key element in the whole escapade.
A quasi-interregnum ensues when Ecuador issues asylum (and rightly so), and Assange resides in their London embassy doing his work, and coming up with even more embarrassing things for many governments. Recall, its the military intelligence who are in that "something must be done" moment, because they thought they had control over the media (Hi, Operation Mockingbird), but not this rebel. One can imagine the frustration at the CIA; Assange is still operating!
Snowfall in Hong Kong
One of the horror stories of the revelations published by journalists with which Edward Snowden interacted and to which he gave encrypted archives of classified documents, is that these journalists, notably Glenn Greenwald and Ewan McCaskill, had no plan whatsoever for how their source could escape the noose that was ever tightening around him. I refuse to blame Laura Poitras. She is (or was at the time) a cinéma vérité documentarian focused on the moment in time and the capture of events. But, Ewan and Glenn should have had some idea about what was about to be unleashed, and Ewan at least had the backing of the Guardian. But, no plans were made about which we know, except at the last minute. This could be called "source protection" failure.
Snowden's declaration of himself as the leaker has got to be one of the bravest "public journalism" efforts in recent history. It is so beautiful to watch; calculated and innocent at once.
The tightening noose is so tight that the protagonists need to scamper. But, just in time, a contact via a local lawyer is made with Mr Tibbo, a Canadian lawyer who is an expert on human rights and asylum. At the "last" moment, they all disperse, and Snowden exits the building which was identified by the type of lamp shade shown in the "it was me" video. Lawyer Tibbo secures Snowden with a family of other refugees, providing funds and support as best as possible.
What follows is a spy novel, in which Mr Assange entraps the CIA and the USA government by their own desperation, and Snowden secures asylum in an unexpected place. I expect there is no better way to enrage the CIA, with the singular exception to the later being the publication of the Vault 7 release.
Assange sees the trouble. With Wikileaks having suffered an informant (Manning) being prosecuted, the motive is to do everything to protect a new whistleblower. It works both ways; Wikileaks needs whistleblowers, and its good PR. So, Sarah Harrison is sent to Hong Kong as a Wikileaks "operative". She, in collaboration with Tibbo and Wikileaks construct an "exit strategy" for Snowden to Ecuador through flights via Russia and Cuba. Post boarding the plane, following classic "spy novel" hypertension, the USA learns of the boarding and cancels Snowden's passport mid-flight between Hong Kong and Moscow such that when Edward lands in Moscow he cannot board the next flight.
39 days of no fun at all in the Moscow airport ensue for Sarah and Edward until asylum is given to Ed by Russia. The USA media starts going batshit crazy about THE RUSSIANs because they need to create a new cold war to support their funders, or because they're old cold warriors or because they have no idea what they're talking about, or all of the above. Interestingly enough, this Russia beating was a precursor to the now thoroughly debunked RussiaGoat (as I refer to it) narrative. A USA special prosecutor has recently indicted a lawyer for lying to the CIA. In a newly uncovered indictment the whole RussiaGoat narrative is illuminated. The Clinton campaign hires a law firm to generate the rumours to fuel the narrative. This firm hires a private “intelligence” firm Fusion GPS for two purposes, one is the a collection of spurious rumors contained in the Steel “dossier” which are obtained from a Russian born USA citizen speaking to a Clinton operative. A complete circle jerk. The second is the use of Crowdstrike, an IT Security firm, which the FBI let maintain control of the supposedly “hacked” DNC computer hardware and deliver to the FBI redacted reports on their investigation of said hardware. See the Aaron Mate interview in the sources for more details. The key detail is CrowdStrike’s CEO Shaun Henry admitting under oath to the USA Senate that they found no evidence of exfiltration (data leaving the DNC servers). Thus, the data was copied locally, a leak not a hack.
It is in the middle there, during the 39 days at the Moscow Airport, that Wikileaks (Assange, to be honest) causes diplomatic pain to the USA.
Evo Morales, the then president of Bolivia, the first indigenous president, and an ally of the "Pink Tide" socialist movement in the Monroe Doctrine area of "our backyard" (aka, all of the north and south American continents) was actually in Moscow! To sweeten the matter, his presidential diplomatic plane was to depart from the same airport in which Ed and Sarah were confined.
Where there is tinder, all it takes is a tiny spark.
I've no idea how Wikileaks managed to suggest to the CIA that Snowden was on Morales' diplomatic flight, but they did it. The diplomatic flight carrying the president of Bolivia was denied transit across western Europe; Spain, France, I think Italy too. It was forced to land in Austria. People exiting the plane were photographed. The diplomatic plane was thoroughly searched which is a serious violation of the Geneva conventions on diplomatic relations. The plane is in essence an embassy, and thus the territory of the nation from which the diplomatic delegation origniate.
Evo Morales was recently removed in a CIA supported coup d'etat in Bolivia, following the use of the Organisation of American States (a USA funded body) to cast doubt on an election, and the USA's media arm to support the false accusation. Happily for the Bolivians the installed coup regime (a bunch of right wing Christian ideologues) could not withstand a single election, despite repeatedly delaying it. But, back to Wikileaks.
The intelligence agencies’ plan to weaken Wikileaks via character assassination, and then using MasterCard and Visa to deny funding, had had some effect, but in this denial of flight transit the manipulators of international control got completely played. They burnt diplomatic capital and embarrassed themselves for nada. To make matters worse, Snowden was not, and has never been a Wikileaks source! Funnily enough, Wikileaks during the credit card blockade were delivered quite a lot of Bitcoin, which would prove later to very, very valuable. Check the value of Bitcoin in 2010 and 2011.
Learn one thing. When the USA/CIA wants to bring down a presidential diplomatic flight to speculatively search for a fugitive, they don't give a shit about anything but their own objectives. Law!? Ha ha ha. Protocols? lol. Its called POWER you dipstick.
In 2019, or thereabouts, the CIA gets control over the security firm at the Ecuadorian embassy in London, UC Global, via Trump's Israeli, gambling mogul, donor Sheldon Adelson to obtain access to everything possible about Assange's life. The phones of all visitors are obtained and have their innards photographed, which will give the unique number, the IMEI, to the CIA, which allows tracking. Interviews are taped, legal documents are copied, bugs are installed all over the place, and even the windows are put under laser microphone surveillance. Finally, a change in government in Ecuador occurs and the new president is bribed with a 4 Billion USD IMF loan to revoke the asylum, and a first occurs. An embassy admits the local law enforcement of the hosting nation into their embassy. Not for a chat, but to arrest a citizen. (Assange had obtained dual citizenship by then). He was arrested for that "bail violation" mentioned earlier. The level of duplicity here is astounding. Venezuela invites the Metropolitan Police into their embassy to arrest a citizen for the action which lead to their being granted political asylum. You can't make this stuff up. But, 4 Billion USD buys quite a lot.
Funnily enough, not long after the UK police enter the Ecuadorian embassy in London, the Washington D.C police would not be invited into the Venezuelan embassy in their city but break the door down. Rest in Power, Kevin Zeese. You are remembered.
But, back to Assange. Now the real extradition can begin! First, throw him into a maximum security prison for a "bail violation" and give him an exorbitant sentence of 50 weeks.
The New York Times Problem
To go after Assange/Wikileaks he/it needs to be separated from the other organisations that co-published the revelations provided via Wikileaks. This is the NYT problem. The solution is an extension of the Obama era persecution of whistleblowers under the 1917 (as amended for global reach in 1961) Espionage Act.
The "crack in the windshield" was Chelsea (then Bradley) Manning. (I shall henceforth just use the female form for Manning). She had confided to "scum of the earth" Adrian Lamo that she was in touch with Wikileaks. This was the basis for her prosecution. It is this, with false testimony from Siggi the con-man, pedophile which enables the COUNT 2 charge of "Conspiracy To Commit Computer Intrusions". This is one of the 18 charges, with the other 17 being about obtaining, possessing or disseminating classified material under the Espionage Act. This very loosely separates Assange/Wikileaks from the NYT and other outlets. Its is this which enables the "not a journalist" narrative.
It is, of course, bullshit. The CFAA charge is based on a chat log between two identifiers. For one, Manning has admitted to it being her. The other is probably someone at Wikileaks. But, there is no public evidence to determine who that is. It would make sense that Assange would have taken an active interest in such a valuable source, and so it is entirely reasonable to expect that he may have been on the end of that handle sometimes, even quite often. But, people have to sleep. Wikileaks is not a person, but an organisation. Were multiple people were using that handle? Maybe multiple handles were used and with different Wikileaks persons mixing between them? Maybe Wikileaks were suspicious of the logs being "lost" and deliberately switched between one another, re-expressing chat lines so as to not have a single "fingerprint" of style of expression? I dunno, and neither does the DoJ. It would not be provable in court unless other members of Wikileaks testified against Assange, which is a problematic position for the prosecution.
It is during this exchange that Manning asks for assistance in cracking the local administrator's password on the computer she is using. What follows is a VERY important piece of understanding about the CFAA charge.
The data which Manning was providing to Wikileaks was not "on" that computer. It was on servers within their "secure network". The ONLY way to access that data, which Manning had legal access to, was via Manning's personal account. This personal account is NOT local to the computer but is known to the network. Equivalently, the LOCAL administrator's account has NO access to the network resources which contained the data. So, cracking the local administrators account is technically a violation of CFAA but would not have provided access to any data.
Secondly, there is no evidence that the unknown person on the other end of the chat logs actually ever did provide any assistance in "cracking" the local administrators account. Finally, "cracking a hash" at that time was declared as nigh impossible by an IT security expert at the September 2020 trial.
To summarize this component of the CFAA charge: Manning asks an unknown person, probably at Wikileaks, for help in cracking the password, the unknown person says they'll see what they can do, and no evidence is given that any help was provided. The kicker is that computers do keep records of changes of passwords, and its a government computer. Don't these clowns keep logs?
All of the other spurious allegations to support COUNT 2 are by this criminal from Iceland. COUNT 2, the CFAA charge, is vacuous. All the other charges are about security classification and things journalists do every day, based on the Espionage Act.
This is why the prosecution was gifted the easiest hand by Magistrate Baraitser. They don't have to deal with any of this. However, the legal defense team are rather clever, and how they played the prosecution did allow them to introduce "new evidence", circuitously.
Returning to the Surface
The prosecution's job on day 1 of the hearing was to fill out the five points of its appeal. There seem to have been two key targets, the first is Professor Kopelman's reports and testimony, and the second being Magistrate Baraitser's choosing to give significant weight to that testimony.
There were 5 medical submissions to the Magistrate. She chose to emphasize Kopelman's for reasons declared in her judgement, "more detailed". The prosecution attempts to sow discord amongst the opinions submitted, but in fact there was large agreement, and deference to Kopelman as the expert on the key topic (autism) for which he was the key witness.
The prosecution goes on to question the basis for the Judge's choice and claim that she was not upholding the relevant law. This be thin ice on which to make proclamations.
During the second day's testimony, the defence had been throwing warm oil on that thin ice. One contention which the prosecution cited was that Kopelman's initial submission did not declare the relationship between Ms Stella Morris and Mr Assange which he knew about at the time. He was thus "misleading the court". Sadly for the prosecution, there is a higher standard for medical expert witnesses and that is their professional ethics. In this case, revealing the relationship in publicly available documents would have declared the paternity of the children.
Since May 2020 The Grayzone had published documents about the relationship between the CIA and UC Global and the fact that there were potential poison threats to Assange. This was known to the defense team earlier. They were aware of what was happening in Spain, with ex-UC Global employees complaining about the misconduct they had been asked to perform. Kopelman knew about this and saw protecting the children as a higher professional ethic that fully declaring all he knew to the court in his preliminary report. However, not too long later, the relationship became public knowledge (perhaps deliberately) and this enabled Kopelman to declare this in his final submission. The court knew about the relationship before proceedings began and thus there was no "misleading" of the court. Judge Baraitser even refers to this in her judgement.
So, during the defense's presentation to the court it had opportunity to mention the CIA plans for kidnapping and assassination, in relation to the defense of the children, as recently confirmed by the Yahoo! News article. So, whooops, a bit of egg on face there for the prosecution. In their final submission to the court the prosecution wisely chose to leave the egg on their face and ignore this.
Below is the On Contact program about the hearings between Chris Hedges and Joe Lauria to provide some independent testimony to support many of my above descriptions.
There is, however, a deeper rub. It is obvious that this is a political trial, and of course there was political pressure on Magistrate Baraitser to "do the right thing". She did this, by finding with the prosecutors on ALL POINTS OF LAW, but she denied the extradition on medical grounds. Why? This is the question. The obvious answer is public opinion and not making a laughing stock of the British legal establishment on which she depends for her career advancement. While I expect there is truth in this, it also seems likely that she was actually swayed by the medical evidence. I can't recall where it was during the trial that it was mentioned that her attention was piqued during the medical testimony. She had been quite inattentive at other times. Perhaps she didn't want Assange's blood on her hands? I don't know. But, I sense a balancing of objectives political, collegiate and personal in her judgement.
Then, the prosecution questions the judgement and its "soundness". This is very thin ice. If Baraitser understands anything about balancing objectives in judgments the Lord Chief Justice (that's as high as it goes, people) certainly does. There are protocols for interactions between judges. However, the Lord Chief Justice may wish to speak with Magistrate Baraitser before he reaches a conclusion on the matter. He was asked by the defense to respect the fact that it was Baraitser who heard the evidence, and as protocol demands, it is the initial judge's job to evaluate evidence.
Sad though it is to predict, I think I can see where this goes. It will be the same again, unless the Lord Chief Justice wants to burn some scout badges. The appeal will be denied, but not with prejudice, which will allow a Supreme Court appeal. This is the "wise move". It re-affirms respect for the lower court and places Baraitser above criticism in the view of the legal community. It re-affirms the independence of the British Judiciary. It does not burn any political bridges, locally or internationally, and the USA will be happy enough if Assange is kept in prison.
And that, as Kim Dot Com said so many months ago, is what this is really about; BAIL. And, maybe, just maybe, that can be achieved. If it is, I very much hope that he and family will be offered the use of a large estate by some well to do British citizen, as was the case when this all began 12 years ago.
If this happens, Mr Assange could recuperate with this family in some privacy and maintain his bail conditions. In parallel the USA can continue to embarrass itself by seeking a hearing at the Supreme Court. But, that is going to be one hell of an uphill battle as the "denied, but not with prejudice" judgement will have come from Britain's most senior trial judge. Meanwhile, Assange's legal team could switch from defense to offense and launch a cross-appeal against Baraitser's legal findings. (Update: I am not a lawyer, and this may be completely wrong. It may be that the only way to get the “cross appeal” heard, is if the extradition is granted.) They should minimally be able to remove the CFAA charge. And, if that is done, we're back into the "free press" space and the NYT problem resurfaces.
Mr Assange should not only be freed, but also compensated for his torture, as noted by Nils Melzer, the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture (and degrading treatment). However, a “house arrest” bail in a suitable dwelling, with legal wranglings to continue, is an acceptable political outcome, though the USA would be most displeased.
Its a hell of a lot better for Mr Assange and family than HMP Belmarsh or the USA.
Do not forget that the USA's Dept of Justice can end this whole charade with one phone call, followed by one letter.
Marlinspike has been welcomed into the "official" cryptographer club, and continues his main efforts with Signal. At 36C3, the most recent Chaos Computer Club annual 'symposium', he threw a bit a spanner in the works arguing that "decentralization" is not the correct strategy in our rapidly changing IT world.
Jacob Appelbaum was tried for sexual transgressions by public opinion, and is disappeared from public discourse.
Andy Müller-Maguhn has been hounded by various intelligence services, but calmly continues in the background.
Jérémie Zimmermann of La Quadrature du Net continues his work for civil rights in digital spaces.
Julian Assange is, to quote another 'punk Lauri Love, being punished by process.
"New Directions in Cryptography", Diffie and Hellman, 1976
DOOMED TO REPEAT HISTORY? Lessons from the Crypto Wars of the 1990s, DANIELLE KEHL, ANDI WILSON, AND KEVIN BANKSTON, Open Technology Institute, 2015-06
Changing Threats to Privacy, Moxie Marlinspike, DEFCON 18, August 2010
Rubberhose (file system), Wikipedia, last edit January 2021
Off-the-Record Messaging, Wikipedia, last edit 2021-10-28
The Internet's Own Boy: The Story of Aaron Swartz, written and directed by Brian Knappenberger, uploaded to youtube by DocumentaryStorm, released 2014
Julian Assange Extradition Case, On Contact, Chris Hedges interviews Joe Lauria about the extradition hearings, 2021-10-30
The Julian Assange Show: Cypherpunks Uncut (p.1), Assange and friends, RT, 2012-07-29
The Julian Assange Show: Cypherpunks Uncut (p.2), Assange and friends, RT, 2012-07-29
Russiagate's Steele Dossier - Paid For By Clinton - Had Clinton Operative As Key Source, b., MoonOfAlabama, 2021-11-04
CrowdStrike one of Russiagate's 'biggest culprits': ex-House investigator, Aaron Mate interviews Kash Patel, Pushback/The Grayzone, 2021-10-28
Power and the Passion, Midnight Oil, Published by Columbia Records, 1983
Do Not Subscribe: This blog does not and will not ever issue "notifications". Do not "subscribe", it wont help. Use RSS. The URL is the obvious: https://yesxorno.substack.com/feed .
If you like what you read here then thank the author by sharing it.
Copyright and Licensing
This work is copyright to the blog's author with CC BY-SA 4.0 licensing. Have fun, reuse, remix etc. but give credit and place no further restrictions. Lets build culture. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode