The Department of Justice is pleased to announce a "superseding indictment" in its case against Wikileaks founder Julian Assange. So what's the big takeaway, Mister Prosecutor?
New Allegations Assert Assange Conspired With "Anonymous" Affiliated Hackers, Among Others
Wow. A conspiracy of anonymous persons on the Internet. Gotcha. But the DoJ wins 97 per cent of its cases without going to court, so, if you can get Assange onto US soil, he'll be in gaol for the rest of his natural...
I am inclined to agree with Breitbart's Allum Bokhari:
No-one's interested in this Obama-Bush-Clinton vendetta. Prosecute Antifa's ringleaders.
Fat chance of that. There's an actual insurrection on the streets of American cities, but federal justice is more concerned to punish Assange for the crime of making the world's most bloated "intelligence community" look stupid. I said on yesterday's Mark Steyn Show that, after the dispatch of fifteen agents to investigate Bubba Wallace's garage-door opener, I was in favor of defunding the FBI. But let's not get hung up on half-measures: Defund the DoJ!
As Tucker and I suggested last year, the only real crime here was committed by the IC fatheads who thought someone as obviously psychologically unsuited as Bradley/Chelsea Manning should be entrusted with the nation's secrets. Whichever brain-dead bureaucratic jobsworth made that decision is the guy who should be on trial.
I'd also emphasise a more basic point I make below: A government has a duty to keep its own secrets; nobody else does, least of all a foreign national who owes no allegiance to that government. Click below to watch:
~We have reported in this space for over three years now the non-case against Michael Flynn. In the fullness of time, his tormentors at the dirty stinkin' rotten corrupt Department of Justice came to agree, and moved to dismiss their own case. At which point the rogue judge Emmett Sullivan decided he'd like to keep it going a while longer, and invited amicus briefs to assist him in that endeavor, notwithstanding that in a criminal case there are no amici curiae.
Even by the standards of federal jurisprudence, that was total bollocks - for no more complicated reason than that a judge is there to adjudicate controversies, and, once the parties are in agreement (as they are here), there is no controversy for him to adjudicate. Case closed.
Yesterday the US Court of Appeals for the DC circuit ordered him to quit arsing around and dismiss the case. By the close of business, Judge Sullivan's only action had been a short order to stay July's scheduled hearing. So the nitwit is at the very least going to take his time complying with the higher court and seems minder to be considering en banc review - that's to say, by every appellate judge. I'm familiar with en banc review because it came up in relation to the Mann vs Steyn case, where certain of my co-defendants were hot for it, to no avail of course. Still, at least they're parties to the case. In the Flynn matter, the parties and the appeals court are all in agreement; the only one who's not is this tosspot judge, but apparently he's entitled to request en banc review - or to persuade another appellate judge to do it sua sponte. So Flynn's torture may not be over yet.
My interview from a couple of weeks back with the National Security Advisor-for-a-day's fearless counsel, Sydney Powell, can be heard above. It's well worth a listen.
~Join me tomorrow for the weekend edition of The Mark Steyn Show.
The Mark Steyn Show is made with the support of members of The Mark Steyn Club. After a rollicking three years of the Club, I am very grateful to all our members around the world, from London, England to London, Ontario to London, Kiribati. With the world ravaged by looting and lockdown, we hope nevertheless you'll have a think about joining our ranks. For further information on The Mark Steyn Club, see here - and don't forget our special Gift Membership.
