First they came for Julian?

Not quite. First they assassinated his character to help a credulous wokerati – which should have formed his natural support base – run for cover.

When the selectively amnesiac James Ball subsequently popped up at the (London) Times …

… Caitlin Johnstone swiftly put the record straight …

… but it’s like swatting flies. Another Guardian lifestyle warrior tweeted:

Finished throwing up, Hanna Jane?

The criminal justice system of Washington’s most dutiful vassal is, like its media, impartial on matters not threatening to power.  It has ruled inadmissible or irrelevant evidence on the lying of a key FBI witness … illegal eavesdropping of client-counsel meetings at London’s Ecuador Embassy … and FBI plots to have a man murdered on British soil. ¹ Any one of these factors should alone have seen the request thrown out, before we even get to the exemption, in ‘our’ lopsided extradition treaty with the USA, of manifestly political cases.

On Tuesday and Wednesday coming, the Royal Courts of Justice will go through the motions of deciding whether a man who has sacrificed so much for telling us the truth about the empire’s war crimes and contempt for its ‘allies’ will be extradited by the most vindictive power on earth.

It won’t make a ha’porth of difference to the outcome but, should you be in London as I intend to be, why not come along to show solidarity?

* * *

1. In one of her many Alice-in lines of argument – why didn’t Ted Bundy offer this defence? –  Vanessa Baraitser, who heard the original extradition request under the supervision of Lady Arbuthnott, opined in her ruling that the assassination plot showed just how bad Julian must have been to inspire such extreme measures!

   “They [the defense] alleged that the US authorities discussed more extreme measures such as kidnapping or poisoning Mr. Assange. I have declined to make findings of fact regarding whether this took place, as the allegations are currently being investigated in Spain. I merely note here that if the allegations are true, they demonstrate a high level of concern by the US authorities regarding Mr. Assange’s ongoing activities.”

   The ruling denied the US request, yes, but on such narrow grounds – deliberately so? – as to leave the door wide open for the successful appeal which followed.