The U.S. ambassador to Australia said there could be a “resolution” to the Justice Department’s pursuit of Julian Assange.

Excerpt:

The United States is considering a plea deal that would allow WikiLeaks founder and whistleblower Julian Assange to return to Australia, the Sydney Morning Herald reported Monday.

U.S. Ambassador to Australia Caroline Kennedy told the Morning Herald that there could be a “resolution” to Assange’s now-four-year detention in Britain. Assange, an Australian citizen, has been held in a London prison since 2019 while combating U.S. extradition efforts. He faces 18 criminal charges in the U.S., 17 of which allege violations of the Espionage Act.

    • Hot Saucerman@lemmy.mlEnglish
      3·
      1 year ago

      All of which happened during the Trump administration.

      https://theintercept.com/2018/11/16/as-the-obama-doj-concluded-prosecution-of-julian-assange-for-publishing-documents-poses-grave-threats-to-press-freedom/

      Here is Glenn Greenwald discussing the Obama era DOJ and their choices on the matter, in response to the indictment you are referencing.

      Prior to that, they did not recommend charges. The original Grand Jury was set in motion in 2010.

      • Five@beehaw.orgOPEnglish
        2·
        1 year ago

        You’re right, it was during the Trump administration. For some reason I thought the first indictment had been made and then sealed during Obama’s tenure. Trump’s attack was a major escalation.

        I don’t see any reference to a Grand Jury in the linked article, and I can’t find anything in Google about “assange grand jury 2010”. Are you thinking about this section?

        Justice officials said they looked hard at Assange but realized that they have what they described as a “New York Times problem.” If the Justice Department indicted Assange, it would also have to prosecute the New York Times and other news organizations and writers who published classified material, including The Washington Post and Britain’s Guardian newspaper.

        It seems to indicate that they didn’t even bother to assemble a grand jury, which is even better for Obama.

          • Five@beehaw.orgOPEnglish
            2·
            1 year ago

            Thanks. Yeah, I think I heard about this jury, but only that its deliberation was secret, and I never found out what was decided. When the indictment was unsealed, I assumed it was the revelation of this Jury’s decision.

            • Hot Saucerman@lemmy.mlEnglish
              2·
              1 year ago

              Easy to get mixed up. It has been a long and complex case!

              Even more complex with the changing of administrations who each handled it differently.

              • Five@beehaw.orgOPEnglish
                2·
                1 year ago

                Do you remember when the decision of the 2011 grand jury was revealed? If they kept it secret to scare Assange, that’s still a pretty outrageous form of press intimidation.

                • Hot Saucerman@lemmy.mlEnglish
                  21·
                  1 year ago

                  Oh agreed and I am pretty sure they were happy to leave it hanging over him for intimidation purposes.

                  Democrats are “better” on press freedom simply because their moves are more overt than direct, so fewer people notice them.