The suspension of CNN correspondent Jim Acosta’s White House press pass has caused a major controversy, with a judge Friday morning ruling against the White House and granting CNN a temporary restraining order.
The Wall Street Journal reports Friday morning that “U.S. Is Optimistic It Will Prosecute [WikiLeaks Founder] Assange.”
In “Trump and Big Media: Clash or Collusion?,” Institute for Public Accuracy senior analyst Sam Husseini, who was expelled from the Trump-Putin news conference in Helsinki and locked up, recently wrote that beneath the heated rhetoric, there is a symbiotic relationship between Trump and establishment media. Husseini who covered the Helsinki summit for The Nation, noted, for example, that mainstream outlets at times ignore or even facilitate attacks on WikiLeaks, himself and other non-establishment media. Ironically, CNN invoked a legal precedent established by Robert Sherrill, who also wrote for The Nation and died in 2014, see obituary by Victor Navasky: “A Man Who Never Kissed Ass.”
ExposeFacts, a project of IPA, released a statement by Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg in 2017, “Trump Threats to WikiLeaks ‘Nuclear Option’ Against the First Amendment,” which stated: “Obama having opened the legal campaign against the press by going after the roots of investigative reporting on national security — the sources — Trump is going to go after the gatherers/gardeners themselves (and their bosses, publishers). …
“If journalists and publishers fail to call this out, denounce and resist it — on the spurious grounds that Julian is ‘not a real journalist’ like themselves — they’re offering themselves up to Trump and Sessions for indictments and prosecutions, which will eventually silence all but the heroes and heroines among them.”
JOE EMERSBERGER, jemersberger at aol.com, @rosendo_joe
Emersberger recently wrote the piece “Assange Case Shows Support for Free Speech Depends on Who’s Talking” for the media watch group FAIR. He writes: “The UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention concluded in February 2016 that the governments of the UK and Sweden had forced WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange into a condition of arbitrary detention in the Ecuadorian embassy in London, where he has been since 2012. The group’s press release stated: ‘The expert panel called on the Swedish and British authorities to end Mr. Assange’s deprivation of liberty, respect his physical integrity and freedom of movement, and afford him the right to compensation.’
“Assange has never been charged with a crime in Sweden. At the secret urging of the UK government, Sweden refused for several years to question Assange in London regarding sexual assault allegations. That kept the case in ‘preliminary investigation’ limbo, while Sweden also refused to guarantee that Assange would not be extradited to the United States, where he is likely to face prosecution for his work as a publisher.
“Emails between UK and Swedish officials show that Swedish officials were getting ‘cold feet’ in 2013, and were considering dropping the ‘preliminary investigation’ into Assange, but the UK argued forcefully against it. Last year, Sweden finally dropped the investigation (shortly after it finally agreed to interrogate Assange in London, as it could easily have done years earlier), but the UK has been using the allegation that Assange skipped bail as a way to hold the threat of extradition to the United States over his head.
“In March of this year, Ecuadorian President Lenin Moreno made the conditions of Assange’s arbitrary detention much worse. For seven months, Assange has been without any means to directly communicate with the public — in other words, to defend himself from relentless attacks and ridicule in Western media. Moreno has not only cut off Assange’s internet and telephone access, but also severely restricted visits. Moreno has openly stated that he silenced and isolated Assange because he objected to Assange’s political statements, but rather than blast Moreno for trampling Assange’s right to free expression and other basic rights, the international press and prominent ‘human rights’ organizations have responded with silence, distortions and even smirks.”