Is The Trump Administration Really Trying To Arrest Julian Assange?

The way it has been ‘revealed’ that the Department of Justice has secretly filed criminal charges against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange reads like the latest chapter in the Deep State playbook to control the narrative.

As I’ve said before, I don’t have insiders feeding me with intel, I am just going by intuition, reason, and experience. However, I feel that much of this becomes fairly obvious once the patterns that are used by the Deep State through the Mainstream Media to control the political narrative are deciphered. With your indulgence, please permit me to trace this latest ‘leak’ of information from its likely inception to its end purpose.

There Are No Coincidences

There is one thing about which I am fairly certain, and that is that there are no coincidences when it comes to what the Mainstream Media decides to report on. They will report on whatever will help advance the Deep State agenda, and they will not report on that which does not advance the Deep State agenda. Given that the Deep State controls Mainstream Media at the highest levels, this should come as no surprise.

However, their game is not as easy as it used to be. With the internet, citizen journalists and commentators, an awakening citizenry, and non-puppet Donald Trump at the helm, they are finding it more difficult to control the narrative. They no longer monopolize the airwaves and their reach is not as great as it once was. And now that a new counter-narrative, based in truth, is picking up steam, they are having difficulties wresting back people’s attention.

Sealed Indictments

A big part of that counter-narrative, no longer dismissable by the mainstream as mere ‘conspiracy theory’, is that there is an unusually vast number of sealed indictments accumulating at the Justice Department, and the Trump Administration is set to unseal them and begin making mass arrests of Deep State actors guilty of crimes against humanity.

Naturally, the Deep State is trying to do everything it can to muddle or redirect this narrative. They pay clever and crafty people fabulous amounts of money to analyze the situation and come up with the next action plan. Of immediate importance is to dislodge the [Trump–>Unseal Indictments–>Prosecute Deep State] line of thought. It must have been close to the end of a frustrating, hair-pulling Deep State think tank brainstorming session that gave rise to the idea that could allow Mainstream Media to connect ‘sealed indictments’ favorably to Wikileaks,  DOJ, Russian Collusion, and Mueller:

A: ‘Hey, why don’t we get people thinking that Trump has a sealed indictment against Julian Assange?’

B: ‘How are we supposed to do that without looking like idiots–like when we put those brand new stickers on Cesar Sayoc’s van?’

A: ‘Well, we could, uh, unseal an indictment for some two-bit child molester and…uh…replace Assange’s name after the first page, to kind of suggest that Assange has a sealed indictment against him just like this guy had.’

B: ‘So these pages with Assange’s name will supposedly just be there by ‘accident’?’

A: ‘Yep.’

B: That’s the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard.’

A: ‘You got any better ideas?’

Deep State Goes Ahead With Plan

The Deep State has gone ahead with the plan. The more they thought about it, the more they thought they could use it to spin a narrative in their favor that not only involved Assange, but also Mueller, his own sealed indictments, and Russian collusion. This New York Times article awkwardly titled ‘Assange Is Secretly Charged in U.S., Prosecutors Mistakenly Reveal‘ is almost a step-by-step guide for building a Fake News narrative. Let’s take a look.

WASHINGTON — The Justice Department has secretly filed criminal charges against the WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange, a person familiar with the case said, a drastic escalation of the government’s yearslong battle with him and his anti-secrecy group.

The infamous ‘person familiar with the case’ is once again pulled out of the hat to give instant credibility to the claim they want to be considered as fact. Isn’t the Times so lucky to have such willing informants on classified information in the Justice Department? Looks like a complete fabrication to me.

The charges came to light late Thursday through an unrelated court filing in which prosecutors inadvertently mentioned them.

“The court filing was made in error,” said Joshua Stueve, a spokesman for the United States attorney’s office for the Eastern District of Virginia. “That was not the intended name for this filing.”

So they get one of their stooge spokesmen at one of the US Attorney’s offices to simply say “that was not the intended name for this filing…” and we are supposed to believe that it was just an ‘honest mistake,’ some kind of ‘clerical error,’ that an indictment against a sexual predator of children would somehow have gotten ‘mixed up’ with information from a sealed indictment against Julian Assange, as though we had the proverbial two lawyers bumping into one another in the hallway and dropping their papers, walking away with some of each other’s files? Or that somehow the author of the indictment meant to write ‘Seitu Sulayman Kokayi’ and wrote ‘Assange’ instead by mistake? Twice?

Mainly For The Headlines

But these kind of details are not so important for the Deep State. First, because they are really pressed for time to change the narrative. And secondly, even a lame, incredulous story behind the headlines is better than no story at all, because they believe that people only pay attention to the headlines. And to a certain extent, they are right. But for those people who actually read their articles, here is how their narrative is crafted:

The disclosure came as the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, is investigating links between President Trump’s associates and Russia’s 2016 election interference. WikiLeaks published thousands of emails that year from Democrats during the presidential race that were stolen by Russian intelligence officers. The hackings were a major part of Moscow’s campaign of disruption.

Wow, NYTimes, thanks for letting us know that Robert S. Mueller (the third, no less) is investigating President Trump’s associates and Russia’s 2016 election interference. In this very ‘official’ proclamation of information that the average American has probably heard through mainstream repetition ten thousand times (remember Joseph Goebbel’s ‘Big Lie’ technique?), a connection is made to Wikileaks, through the embarrassing Democrat emails that had first been stolen by Russians (UNPROVEN) and were ‘a major part of Moscow’s campaign of disruption’ (UNPROVEN).

The only FACT in this paragraph is the ‘official’ first sentence, and even then it references ‘Russia’s 2016 election interference’ as though this ‘interference’ was a proven  fact, which it is not. If the other sentences were established facts, would there even be a reason for Mueller to be investigating? But no matter, the narrative building continues on, relentlessly, hoping to overwhelm the general public into submission.

Dumping The Desired Information

Now here’s a neat trick. While they are clear to explain that this filing was some kind of ‘error’–(‘A Justice Department spokesman declined to say on Thursday what led to the inadvertent disclosure.’)–they still take the opportunity to print all that was written about Assange in the document as though it was fact. Because they want people to think of it as fact.

While the filing started out referencing Mr. Kokayi, federal prosecutors abruptly switched on its second page to discussing the fact that someone named “Assange” had been secretly charged, and went on to make clear that this person was the subject of significant publicity, lived abroad and would need to be extradited — suggesting that prosecutors had inadvertently pasted text from a similar court filing into the wrong document and then filed it.

“Another procedure short of sealing will not adequately protect the needs of law enforcement at this time because, due to the sophistication of the defendant and the publicity surrounding the case, no other procedure is likely to keep confidential the fact that Assange has been charged,” prosecutors wrote.

They added, “The complaint, supporting affidavit, and arrest warrant, as well as this motion and the proposed order, would need to remain sealed until Assange is arrested in connection with the charges in the criminal complaint and can therefore no longer evade or avoid arrest and extradition in this matter.”

Leaked On Social Media

But how did this information come to light in the first place? It would look kind of silly if the New York Times had claimed to have just ‘found’ and been analyzing these kinds of documents. But of course, we turn to social media, where ‘Seamus Hughes, a terrorism expert at George Washington University who closely tracks court cases, uncovered the filing and posted it on Twitter:

You guys should read EDVA court filings more, cheaper than a Journal subscription pic.twitter.com/YULeeQphmd

— Seamus Hughes (@SeamusHughes) November 16, 2018

This is not to suggest that Hughes is necessarily in on the plot. Apparently he took the document from a screenshot from this Wall Street Journal article–which I can’t read because it’s behind a paywall and I don’t want to pay for it. I mean, I might have wanted to investigate how the WSJ got wind of this unsealed indictment, but I think you see what’s going on here.

Framing The Narrative

Much of the rest of the New York Times article tries to complete a nice mahogany frame around the narrative they are trying to create. First, they want us to believe the Justice Department today is fully in lock-step with the people that were running it during the Obama administration:

The Justice Department has been studying how to charge Mr. Assange or WikiLeaks with some kind of criminal offense since the site began publishing its trove of secret military and diplomatic documents.

Otherwise, the article tries to take a ‘serious, objective’ look at the implications of the prosecution of Julian Assange on the freedom of the press and the rights of ‘traditional news media organizations, like The New York Times’: