Professional Assange Smearers Finally Realize His Fate Is Tied To Theirs

Rachel effing Maddow, the Queen Mother of all tinfoil pussyhat-wearing Russiagate insanity is suddenly supporting Julian Assange after his Espionage Act indictment, as Caitlin Johnstone explains.

By Caitlin Johnstone

Rachel Maddow has aired a segment condemning the new indictment against Julian Assange for 17 alleged violations of the Espionage Act.

Yes, that Rachel Maddow.

MSNBC’s top host began the segment after it was introduced by Chris Hayes, agreeing with her colleague that it’s surprising that more news outlets aren’t giving this story more “wall to wall” coverage, given its immense significance. She recapped Assange’s various legal struggles up until this point, then accurately described Assange’s new Espionage Act charges for publishing secret documents.

“And these new charges are not about stealing classified information or outsmarting computer systems in order to illegally obtain classified information,” Maddow said. “It’s not about that. These new charges are trying to prosecute Assange for publishing that stolen, secret material which was obtained by somebody else. And that is a whole different kettle of fish then what he was initially charged with.”

“By charging Assange for publishing that stuff that was taken by Manning, by issuing these charges today, the Justice Department has just done something you might have otherwise thought was impossible,” Maddow added after explaining the unprecedented nature of this case.

“The Justice Department today, the Trump administration today, just put every journalistic institution in this country on Julian Assange’s side of the ledger. On his side of the fight. Which, I know, is unimaginable. But that is because the government is now trying to assert this brand new right to criminally prosecute people for publishing secret stuff, and newspapers and magazines and investigative journalists and all sorts of different entities publish secret stuff all the time. That is the bread and butter of what we do.”

Maddow carefully explained to her audience that these new charges have nothing at all to do with the 2016 election or any of the Russiagate nonsense the MSNBC pundit has been devoting her life to, correctly calling what the Trump administration is doing with Assange “a novel legal effort to punch a huge hole in the First Amendment.”

She tied this in with Trump’s common references to the mass media as the “enemy of the people”, finally taking mainstream liberalism into a direct confrontation with Trump’s actual war on the press instead of nonsense about his tweeting mean things about Jim Acosta. She rightly highlighted the dangers of allowing a president with a thick authoritarian streak the ability to prosecute journalists he doesn’t like, and discussed the possibility that the UK may not comply with this new agenda in extradition proceedings.

“I think these 17 espionage charges against the WikiLeaks guy are a huge deal, and a very dark development,” Maddow concluded. “Chris Hayes this evening called it a ‘four alarm development’, and I absolutely share that.”

“And, you know, I know you,” Maddow continued, pointing to the camera.

“Given everything else that we know about the WikiLeaks guy, I can feel through the television right now your mixed feelings about what I am saying. I can feel what may be, perhaps, a certain lack of concern about Julian Assange’s ultimate fate, given his own gleeful and extensive personal role in trying to help a hostile foreign government interfere in our election in order to install their chosen president with WikiLeaks’ help. Okay? I know. Okay, I feel ya. I got it. But, it is a recurring theme in history, heck, it is a recurring theme in the Bible, that they always pick the least sympathetic figures to try this stuff on first. Despite anyone’s feelings about this spectacularly unsympathetic character at the center of this international drama, you are going to see every journalistic institution in this country, every First Amendment supporter in this country, left, right and center, swallow their feelings about this particular human and denounce what the Trump administration is trying to do here. Because it would fundamentally change the United States of America.”

Wow. Make no mistake, this is a hugely significant development. This isn’t just some columnist for The New York Times or The Guardian, this is Rachel effing Maddow, the Queen Mother of all tinfoil pussyhat-wearing Russiagate insanity. This same pundit was just a couple of months ago not just smearing but outright lying about Assange, deceitfully telling her audience that the new legal rings closing around Assange were about his 2016 publications then instructing viewers not to Google anything about it because they’ll get computer viruses. Now that she’s recognized that this could actually hurt her and her network directly, she’s finally feeding her audience a different narrative out of sheer enlightened self-interest.

The fact that such a hugely influential figure in mainstream liberal media is now pushing back against Assange’s prosecution, and doing so in a way that her mainstream liberal anti-Trump audience can relate to, cannot be over-appreciated. Maddow’s credulous audience would eat live kittens if she told them to, so the way she’s pushing back against a dangerous legal precedent in language they can understand will make a difference in the way American liberals think about Assange’s predicament. It won’t make them like him, it won’t make them value the things he’s done, but it will get them to finally begin resisting something that badly needs to be resisted. And that’s huge.

The danger has always been that this fatal blow to journalism would be meted out with total compliance and support from a population hammered into docility by the ongoing narrative war which has been waged on Assange’s and WikiLeaks’ reputations with the help of the mass media. There was a very real danger that thought leaders like Maddow were going to choose their feelings over reasoning when the foot finally fell and the charges that criminalize journalism as “espionage” were finally put into play.

I don’t think anyone would have been surprised if she’d applied that giant intellect of hers into making it possible to ignore it without upsetting her audience, and try and figure it out later when it was too late and the legal precedent was set. It would have been so easy to keep feeding into the dominant “Assange is bad so everything bad that happens to him is good” sentiment, but she didn’t. She directly contradicted it.

She actually chose to do the right thing. I’m gobsmacked, and it’s not an exaggeration to say that my hope for humanity sparked up a little today.

If the resting smugfaced apex of liberal psychosis is getting this one right, then many more will surely follow. And indeed, many already are. In addition to Hayes’ coverage of the story, MSNBC’s Ari Melber also did a segment harshly criticizing the implications of Trump administration’s new charges. We’re seeing multiple segments from CNN about the grave dangers of the legal precedent that is being set with the superseding indictment, as well as urgent warnings about the new charges from major publications like The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The Guardian. The outlets which have been smearing Assange relentlessly are now finding themselves forced to defend him.

A typical comment under Maddow’s YouTube share of this segment reads “This is very strange. Very alarming! There we go again. The GOP is preparing the country for a Dictatorship.” And okay, that’s not exactly what is happening (this has been a bipartisan push and it’s not just preparations, we’re in full swing), but whatever, now this viewer can actually see the monster’s outlines. Finally the Maddow crowd which has been fruitlessly expending all their energy so far on punching at Russian shadows will actually be attacking a real thing.

And I’m quietly excited about that. I’m eager to see what happens to the #Resistance if it actually starts #Resisting something. It doesn’t matter that this is only happening because mainstream liberal media outlets realized that they might be next on the chopping block; it matters that it’s happening, period. 

For years mainstream liberals have been fixating on the fake Russiagate psyop and rending their garments about Trump’s rude tweets while commentators like me desperately implored them to pay attention to the actual dangerous agendas that this administration is actually advancing. They’ve been in a holding pattern of adamantly refusing to do that, and now, because it’s threatening them personally, we’re suddenly seeing a sharp deviation from that holding pattern.

As Bill Murray said at the end of Groundhog Day, something is different. Anything different is good.

Caitlin Johnstone is a rogue journalist, poet, and utopia prepper who publishes regularly at Medium. Follow her work on FacebookTwitter, or her website. She has a podcast and a new book Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers.” This article was re-published with permission.








155 comments for “Professional Assange Smearers Finally Realize His Fate Is Tied To Theirs

  1. william chandler
    June 1, 2019 at 18:54

    Nominate Assange for the Nobel Peace Prize

    The Draft Dodger FOLDS like always:
    Flip Flopping on vaccines now .
    Flynn was charged and pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about whether he discussed sanctions in a telephone call with then-Russian ambassador to the United States Sergey Kislyak, before Trump became president. Such a communication could have been unlawful if it interfered with American foreign policy. So, when Trump learned of the lie, he fired Flynn. Yet in his plea negotiations with Mueller, Flynn revealed why he discussed sanctions with Kislyak — because the pre-presidential Trump asked him to do so. An honest revelation by Trump could have negated Flynn’s prosecution. But the revelation never came.
    US President Donald Trump, who said he loved WikiLeaks during his election campaign, tried to distance himself from the arrest of Julian Assange, which was carried out by Britain on the request of the US.
    Speaking to journalists in the Oval Office on Thursday, hours after the arrest of Assange in London, Trump said:
    “I know nothing about WikiLeaks. It’s not my thing.”
    Trump was far less reluctant to speak about the transparency site in 2016, when it played a major role in the US presidential election after it published a number of documents leaked from the Hillary Clinton campaign.
    Then-candidate Trump called the work of the site “amazing” and said he “loved” what it was being doing.
    On the same October day that the “Access Hollywood” tape emerged, revealing that Trump had bragged in 2005 about groping women, WikiLeaks began releasing damaging emails from Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager, John Podesta. Trump and his allies, facing a tough battle in the campaign’s final month, seized on the illegal dumps and weaponized them.
    “WikiLeaks, I love WikiLeaks,” Trump said in Pennsylvania.
    “This WikiLeaks is like a treasure trove,” Trump said in Michigan.
    “Boy, I love reading WikiLeaks,” Trump said in Ohio.
    All told, Trump extolled WikiLeaks more than 100 times, and a poster of Assange hung backstage at the Republican’s debate war room. At no point from a rally stage did Trump express any misgivings about how WikiLeaks obtained the emails from the Clinton campaign or about the accusations of stealing sensitive U.S. government information, which led to the charges against Assange on Thursday.
    When asked about Assange in 2017, Trump said he did not “support or unsupport” WikiLeaks’ move to release hacked emails and that he would not be involved in any decision for the U.S. government to arrest Assange.
    “I am not involved in that decision,” whether or not to arrest Assange, Trump told The Associated Press then, “but if they want to do it, it’s OK with me.”
    That is the SAME betrayal tRUMP pulled with “LOCK HER UP”
    Now that he’s won the election, the president-elect is sending a signal both to Congress and, perhaps even his incoming attorney general, that it’s no longer politically beneficial to try to prosecute the former Democratic presidential nominee. In a Tuesday meeting with editors and reporters at the New York Times, Trump said he doesn’t “want to hurt the Clintons, I really don’t. She went through a lot and suffered greatly in many different ways.”
    god damn coward

  2. Ann Garrison
    May 29, 2019 at 21:18

    Does anyone have a copy of the 17-count indictment? I can’t find one online.

  3. bardamu
    May 29, 2019 at 00:34

    Some of the possible motivation for Maddow’s about-face is likely visible right here in the title of the MSNBC film clip: “Scandal: Trump is the First President to Indict Press for Espionage.”

    Actually, though Trump appears to be on his way to set a new record, Barack Obama currently holds the dishonor of having invoked the Espionage Act to persecute more journalists than all previous US presidents combined, going back to Woodrow Wilson.

    If the press as a whole were particularly concerned about First Amendment proceedings, it is more than a little strange that they should have waited this long to rise to defend Julian Assange–or, for that matter, Chelsea Manning or Edward Snowden or prior whistleblowers, or even Glenn Greenwald, who received all manner of abuse and insult when he went to press with part of Snowden’s revelations back at The Guardian.

    I would be glad to see Assange not persecuted, and I do not wish to take anything away from the importance of that matter. It just seems unwise to go petting jackals just because they wag their tails a bit.

    • J_A
      May 30, 2019 at 03:01

      Perhaps the last masterful example of Maddow’s ability to think journalistically was in her “Tale of Two Speeches” piece, where she decried Obama’s thought crime promulgation. Around the same time she also took the LRAD, and the fascist mindset surrounding it, to task — something I didn’t see anyone else anywhere near the mainstream do, particularly on television.

      I quit watching when she seemed to be devolving into a shrill cheerleader for the Democrats, particularly in the context of the woeful “Obamacare” betrayal, in which there was an orchestrated campaign of lies to the public about the public option.

      More recently, I started to watch again, mainly due to disgust over Trump. But, the devolution certainly had not stopped and her show had become monotonous and full of ugly fawning episodes. The capstone was her pitifully inadequate defense of Joy Reid.

      Greenwald encapsulated the transformation in one of his relatively recent comments.

      P.S. Note to Maddow and others. If you’re going to serve us up the Savior of the Week (e.g. Muller, Rosenstein, Kelly) — it’s helpful to keep one’s facts straight — like Rosenstein’s Poor Hillary memo.

    • June 1, 2019 at 23:41

      first of all trump has done nothing yet. England did assange in. England may be our proxy but they are fully responsible for Assange difficulties. Assange will not even live long enough. they are crucifying him unmercifully. But its England doing it. They have control over him.
      nobody is going to take on the 5 eyes in this case.

      • Skip Scott
        June 2, 2019 at 07:57

        It is an error to separate “England” from the USA. It is all one empire, as you allude to regarding the “5 eyes”. Trump will have to “get out of the way” at a minimum. He has been largely brought to heel on every issue that matters. “They” have control over Trump as well.

  4. John Carter
    May 28, 2019 at 15:32

    I hope this sort of yellow journalism and sloppy thought doesn’t come to characterize Consortium News. I submitted it as a sample of why Consortium News should not be rated as unbiased, truthful, non-conspiracy minded.

    • Clark M Shanahan
      May 28, 2019 at 15:48

      A few examples of Caitlin’s supposed “Yellow Journalism” and some concise responses could, perhaps, bolster your point.

      Also, please elaborate, if you actually find ‘perky’ Rachel provides legitimate points to the public debate.

    • Skip Scott
      May 29, 2019 at 06:28

      Please provide us with some of your “unsloppy” thought if you don’t want to be dismissed as a troll.

  5. May 28, 2019 at 10:10

    Let us know when Rachel Maddow starts telling the truth to her viewers about Russia, Yemen, and Syria…

    • Sulo
      May 29, 2019 at 20:20

      …or starts to criticize in any way anything Israel does,

  6. Hmmm
    May 28, 2019 at 02:47

    This piece is kind of a silly overreaction. (CJ is prone to that.) Given the nature of the charges against Assange, Maddow (and like-minded media) had little choice but to oppose them in relatively strongly terms. They’ll use it to bash Trump (rightly so). But it’s not like it’s a sign that they or their supporters have seen the light about Russiagate etc. It’s actually a good excuse for them to move on to another topic. Also, as Barr’s investigation into the underpinnings of Russiagate gets uncomfortable, they’ll connect it to Trump’s pursuit of Assange and portray it as part of an assault on press freedoms and whistleblowers.

    No corners have been turned.

    • shaydeegrove
      May 28, 2019 at 09:24

      well pointed out, for CJ has lost the real irony here, as usual…is it not a fact that similar charges were also going to be brought under the Obummer Admin? and if the same chance to actually bring them had arisen at that time, the Queen B wouldn’t have said a mumbling word in Assange’s defense…

    • Dave P.
      May 28, 2019 at 20:49

      ‘This piece is kind of a silly overreaction . . .” Yes. I agree.

  7. May 27, 2019 at 21:42

    I just can’t help saying, “We told you so you dumb cow” but I am glad she’s changed her tune for now. However, I note that she is STILL mooing out the line that Assange helped elect the hated TRUMP. Has no one seen the interview pre 2016 where Assange said choosing Between Trump or Clinton is Like Picking Between Cholera or Gonorrhea? He clearly states here that he has no preference, and that either would equally kowtow to the establishment. Stranger still, it seems that hatred of Trump may well be what helps Assange now, as only a media hating madman like Trump would ultimately go after the whole press after he is finished with that ‘not so likeable’ guy Assange, ergo – stick up for the unlikeable guy even if he is a Russian tool!

  8. Michael Niemi
    May 27, 2019 at 21:06

    Trump could potentially wrong-foot both the intelligence community and the MSM by pardoning Assange. MSM is slavering at the mouth for the ratings bonanza an extended trial would bring. Both the intel guys and Clintonites would get a well deserved thumb in the eye.

  9. May 27, 2019 at 16:48


  10. Pablo Diablo
    May 27, 2019 at 13:22

    Rachel Maddow is a despicable human being. Does this absolve her of hugging John Bolton? The MSM (and Rachel) keep stating Russia hacking of Hillary. At least CONSORTIUM NEWS has made an effort to refute this.

    • May 27, 2019 at 21:47

      Does not absolve her at all! Caitlin is not saying that, but merely saying to be glad of small mercies. That dumb cow Maddow unfortunately has some friends in the paddock who’ll chew the cud she says to chew.

  11. Steve Lindsey
    May 27, 2019 at 13:07

    Smells like coffee burning in the pot…

  12. Dunderhead
    May 26, 2019 at 21:04

    The irony in this particular situation is just beautiful! Madcow is actually raining in the crazy. Oh Dearie what if, political hit jobs can be spun in both directions? Gasp!

  13. Jessejean
    May 26, 2019 at 20:43

    It’s actually the best thing to happen as a result of Russia, Russia Madcow–we got more exposure to the genius that is CJ,

  14. Joan Black
    May 26, 2019 at 19:48

    Why would you call her a “pussy-hat” wearer? Those hats are Code Pink and Code Pink is not a part of the
    Russia- gate hysteria. It’s an inappropriate smear of Code Pink.

    And using terms like “effing” is pretty childish. You’re obviously an intelligent and perspicacious woman but, to me, your writing style makes you come across as a know-it-all smart-aleck. Not cool.

    • Jessejean
      May 26, 2019 at 20:44

      O boo!

    • Miranda Keefe
      May 27, 2019 at 06:39

      Code Pink did not create the Women’s March nor the pink pussy hats most participants wore. Yes, Code Pink participated and wore the pussy hats like other participants, but did so to insure an anti-war presence.

      Most participants in the March were not part of Code Pink and the pussy hat project and it’s creators had nothing to do with Code Pink. Code Pink is a female group that protests war. It uses pink, a color associated with the feminine, to indicate it is female. In the same way, the pussy hat project chose to make pink hats. But it was not coordinated with Code Pink’s usage of pink.

      The basic idea of the March was to resist Trump winning the presidency and that grew into the Resistance movement, that basically is of a Clintonista mindset and championed Russiagate. So associating wearing a pussy hat and pushing Russiagate is a valid thing.

      • Litchfield
        May 27, 2019 at 11:34

        “The basic idea of the March was to resist Trump winning the presidency and that grew into the Resistance movement, that basically is of a Clintonista mindset and championed Russiagate. So associating wearing a pussy hat and pushing Russiagate is a valid thing.”

        Spot on, Miranda.
        The women’s march, pussy hats and all, looked to me like a hysterical outburst of misplaced horror that Hillary had lost the election. It led many women off on a children’s crusade called #Resistance that sucked all the oxygen out of the room for analyzing what was wrong with *their* candidate and the responsibility she bore for landing the USA with Trump. It paved the way for a noncritical acceptance and three-year-long bleating about Russiagate, while real crimes and suicidal stupidity by Trump & Co. were being committed in plain sight. And the bleating and shrieking sidelined the only potentially positive aspect of Trump’s platform, which was reducing tensions with Russia and cutting out the foreign military adventures. So, on those fronts, too, Maddow and her minions have harmed this country, and the world.

        As for “And using terms like “effing” is pretty childish,” TONE POLICING pure and simple. Ignore it.
        We are focusing on Maddow’s actions and statements, not the author’s choice of words. Personally, I think “effing” pretty much hits the spot when it comes to Maddow. “Effing” is far too kind for that ilk. Basically, Johnstone is being very nice to Maddow now, even though IMO Maddow doesn’t deserve for the heat on her to let up for an instant.

        I reckon Maddow finally was fearing for her job. Someone got to her and said:
        Time for one-eighty, sweetheart, or your career is over.

    • ML
      May 27, 2019 at 14:25

      I happen to like (very much) Caitlin’s saucy style of prose. She is young, smart, and gets right to the heart of the matter. I appreciate her writing style. Keep ‘em coming, Caitlin. You were much too nice to the despicable Maddow. It is you, Caitlin, who deserves to be paid handsomely for your writing, not Rachel. Rachel reads from an approved script, but you tell the truth! And that is what journalists should do! Cheers!

    • C. Kent
      May 27, 2019 at 14:58

      Pussy hat is a wampeter, that’s why Johnstone uses it, because it epitomizes putrid vacuous liberal kumbaya. YOU use it, to divert: “Hey wait, hold on, never mind substance, you can’t smear pussy hats!” Well in fact yeah we can. Same with Occupy Protest Theater, gender identity outrage and other PC tricks of the bullshit Neoliberal trade.

      Then you ironically attack language as childish, the irony being it is YOU are who is childish. To use “fucking” never mind “effing” is perfectly appropriate here. Johnstone’s writing style is refreshing just because it is hard and nasty, because hard & nasty is necessary medicine against catbird seat liars like Maddow. I was never more pleased than when she wrote re John McCain, “Just Fucking Die Already!” She IS cool because she is right. YOU are very uncool.

      • Lowell
        May 27, 2019 at 22:05

        I just clapped my hands loudly and enthusiastically after reading your post. Bravo. Encore!

      • Clark M Shanahan
        May 28, 2019 at 09:26

        As the DNC withdrew its support of the Women’s March after some Black organizers refused to publicly disavow Farrakhan.
        The DNC sometimes gloms on movements, utilizing them for its own gain.

    • Peter Loeb
      May 27, 2019 at 20:46


      Joan Black is entirely correct in her criticism of the “childish” language and response
      by Caitlin Johnstone. As a result I cannot share his obviously “childish” article.

      Peter Loeb, Boston, MA

      • Clark M Shanahan
        May 28, 2019 at 10:00

        Right, I prefer the gravitas of David Brooks or Thomas Friedman.
        Their obscenity is, at least, couched politely :-).
        Ditto, for the august Jim Lehrer & Tom Brokaw.

    • May 27, 2019 at 21:49

      Joan, I appreciate the no bullshit style of Caitlin Johnstone. It’s a very effing Australian style.

      • Clark M Shanahan
        May 28, 2019 at 09:37

        Wonder if Joan would protest this rhetorical flourish of the normally staid Prof Juan Cole describing Bolton: “He wants to see flies walking on the Iranians’ eyeballs and wants even their dogs to be f–ked.”

        • Tom Kath
          May 28, 2019 at 21:36

          I must side with Joan about certain standards being important. It depends on the audience you are hoping to appeal to. A more refined, dare I say “intelligent”, use of vocabulary might inspire serious thought, whereas the “fuck yea, mate!” style might inspire blind following.
          All in all, we should not judge Caitlin simply by her use of some poetically liscenced imagery. She is after all, legitimately prone to be emotionally overwhelmed. (hoping a bit of friendly humour will not offend)

          • Clark M Shanahan
            May 29, 2019 at 22:09

            ““fuck yea, mate!” style might inspire blind following”
            Or maybe just sharing the outrage to the sleazy MSM that sold the company line on Iraq, Honduras, Libya, Ukraine, and Syria, to kindred spirits.
            Just as with one of our greatest minds on the ME and his statement of disgust with Bolton; Prof Juan Cole, who I quote just below.

            Our perky Rachel was chosen specifically to replace our Mid-West country boy; uber tool Brokaw, she’s the lesbian everyone would like to invite over for Sunday dinner. How it warms the soul..
            (play the closing music of PBS NewsHour, for that “civilized” sound…
            How many civilians lives have we participated in snuffing out since 9-11?
            A million?

    • Peter Loeb
      May 28, 2019 at 07:25


      Why was my brief reply not printed. It was in answer to Joan Black’s res;ponse.

      It needed to be “moderated”. Instead , Caitlin Johnstlone’s article and tone should
      have been “moderated” and rejected. —

      My responses are rarely if ever published and it seems a waste of time to write them
      —Peter Loeb

  15. Abe
    May 26, 2019 at 18:20

    Meanwhile, Congress loudly declares its utter devotion to the pro-Israel Lobby:

    “Top Democratic Party leaders have joined hawkish Republicans in a bipartisan demand that the far-right president ‘address threats in Syria’ and ‘demonstrate American leadership in resolving the prolonged conflict.’

    “They hope to do this through more US intervention, implementing a three-pronged ‘Syria strategy’: one, ‘augment our support’ for Israel and maintain its ‘qualitative military edge’; two, ‘increase pressure on Iran and Russia’; and, three, ‘increase pressure on Hezbollah.’

    “While the letter stops short of openly requesting more American troops inside Syria, it clearly states that the US should take more aggressive actions. It also expressly calls on the Trump White House to punish Iran, Russia, and Hezbollah with crippling sanctions.”

    Bipartisan thirst for more war: 75% of Congress calls on Trump to boost intervention in Syria, to ‘pressure’ Iran and Russia
    By Ben Norton

  16. Clark M Shanahan
    May 26, 2019 at 16:12

    Wouldn’t be easier for our “perky Rachel-Rachel” to say “Assange” instead of “wikileaks guy”?
    What does that say? Such an abject tool.. Resentment? Jealousy?
    I agree with an earlier comment suggesting that our MSM is working hard to cover their collective hineys. Wash their hands of their part in the paranoia & persecution?

  17. William M Steele
    May 26, 2019 at 15:12

    The ONLY reason Russia Madcow is bringing this up is the fact Trump is going after Assange and the 1st Amendment. Guaranteed, if Barry O or Warren or Biden or any of the other Neo-Cons were doing this, she’d still be mum on the topic. Pathetic.

  18. Mike Perry
    May 26, 2019 at 14:42

    At this point, my view of our greatest asset, our airwaves, it should come packaged with a stern “Health Warning”.

    According to the A.C. Nielsen Co., the average American watches more than 4 hours of TV each day (or 28 hours/week, or 2 months of nonstop TV-watching per year).
    * … So, in a 65-year life, that person will have spent 9 years glued to the tube.
    * Percentage of households that possess at least one television: 99
    * Number of hours per day that TV is on in an average U.S. home: 6 hours, 47 minutes
    * Number of hours of TV watched annually by Americans: 250 billion
    * Hours per year the average American youth spends in school: 900 hours
    * Hours per year the average American youth watches television: 1500 hours
    * Number of 30-second TV commercials seen in a year by an average child: 20,000
    * Number of TV commercials seen by the average person by age 65: 2 million
    * Percentage of local TV news broadcast time devoted to advertising: 30%
    * Percentage devoted to stories about crime, disaster and war: 54%
    * Percentage devoted to public service announcements: 0.7%

    And, remember when the Internet was ramping up, the phrase “Information Super Highway”, it was very common? And now, to the phrase’s demise, I wonder if the Establishment felt that this it had way too much implication of a public asset. .. Welcome to another – high priced, low octane Toll Road to administered thought.

    I have never seen one episode of Rachel, nor have I ever heard one episode of Rush. .. I do this for my health. .. What a crime that our greatest assets, (including the Internet), are purposely being turned into Jerry Springer platforms.

    • May 27, 2019 at 16:26

      I turned off the tv in 1993. I quit reading any corporate ‘news-paper’ around the same time. That means I’ve saved…my mind?

      I’ve never owned a cell phone. I never signed up to FaceBlech. I still have a library card. I read maybe 200 books a year. I read alt news investigative sites like this one (I’m a natural speed reader so it isn’t hard to do).

      Yep, I’ve saved my mind. What good it’ll do me with the madness sweeping the planet I have no idea, but I sleep better at night for having done so. The stupidity of our species in unbelievable.


      • Mike Perry
        May 28, 2019 at 02:53

        That is just so very well said. It’s right on target, so direct.

        I have heard that some grade schools have begun on their campus to ban cell phones. This is a good start.

        Four books a week. That is incredible! .. You are the reason that I visit this site. (

        And, I assume that you are referencing the Selkirk Mountain range of the North West & Western Canada. Now that is just such a tremendously majestic, and beautiful mountain range. (

  19. May 26, 2019 at 14:22

    Here’s your sign: Even Foreign Policy, which may be the most serious publication we have, now comes right out and tells the Russia-gate crowd of Maddow kooks to “Get Over It.”

  20. john perry
    May 26, 2019 at 13:18

    Didn’t Maddow’s show publish the tax returns for a currently sitting president? She isn’t just jawing.

    • Clark M Shanahan
      May 28, 2019 at 12:02

      Her piece on Trump’s tax returns was a fiasco that played into Trump’s game.

  21. casfoto
    May 26, 2019 at 13:09

    The twist here is that Trump is being blamed for something that was set up by the Obama administration. Obama’s Democratic Party went after more whistleblowers and put more pressure on the media than any of the previous administrations before him. This lie will be pushed by Rachel MadCow over and over again. Her handlers better get a grip. Anyone that could fog a mirror can remember this….

  22. Abe
    May 26, 2019 at 11:49

    With all the discussion about Assange’s indictment under the Espionage Act and the implications for American journalism, actual espionage and infiltration of election systems by Israeli intelligence (not to mention direct interference in US electoral politics by the pro-Israel Lobby organizations backed by the Israeli government) is being assiduously ignored by most mainstream and independent journalists alike:

    “Following the 2016 election and the heavily promoted concerns about ‘Russian hackers’ infiltrating election systems, federal agencies like the NSA have used that threat to lobby for greater control over American democracy. For instance, during a 2017 hearing then-NSA Director Adm. Mike Rogers stated:

    “‘If we define election infrastructure as critical to the nation and we are directed by the president or the secretary, I can apply our capabilities in partnership with others – because we won’t be the only ones, the Department of Homeland Security, the FBI – I can apply those capabilities proactively with some of the owners of those systems.’

    “With Rogers — who is now employed by the Microsoft-funded and Israeli military intelligence-connected company Team8 — having lobbied for the direct involvement of U.S. government agencies, including the NSA and DHS, in supervising elections, it seems likely that ElectionGuard will help enable those agencies to surveill U.S. elections with particular ease, especially given Microsoft’s past of behind-the-scenes collaboration with the NSA.

    “Given that ElectionGuard’s system as currently described is neither as ‘secure’ nor as ‘verifiable’ as Microsoft is claiming, it seems clear that the conflicts of interests of its developers, particularly their connections to the U.S. and Israeli militaries, are a recipe for disaster and tantamount to a takeover of the American election system by the military-industrial complex.”

    Microsoft’s ElectionGuard a Trojan Horse for a Military-Industrial Takeover of US Elections
    By Whitney Webb

  23. May 26, 2019 at 10:48

    What makes the latest indictment as groundbreaking as the earlier one against Assange is that it frames the alleged offense as a conspiracy to steal and publish proscribed government information. Both indictments specifically cite Manning’s government secrecy agreement. Underneath all the legalisms what the Justice Department is trying to do is what it contemplated doing to me and my publisher in a civil law context years ago after I allegedly breached my CIA secrecy agreement by publishing my Vietnam/CIA memoir without official approval. Random House had worked secretly with me to prepare my book for publication out of eyeshot of the CIA. The Carter Justice Department considered prosecuting Random House for conspiring with me in breaching my secrecy compact which allegedly required prepublication review and censorship. In that instance prosecutors balked at the First Amendment implications and took me alone all the way to the Supreme Court where I lost. In the Assange indictments the conspiracy concept has been repacked and fully weaponized using the criminal espionage statutes. And because conspiracy is a large part of the battering ram the press is all the more imperiled by extension. But keep in mind: the implications are most ominous for a journalist who engages a leaker in a conspiracy-type arrangement, a prolonged pattern of mutually assisted pilfering of government secrets. The one off publication of forbidden material is less likely to invite an Assange type prosecution modeled on the Assange indictments. Small comfort. But if and when the government gets a court sanctioned precedent in the Assang case, the sky is the limit.

    • Rodion Raskolnikov
      May 26, 2019 at 13:27


      I thin you are right — this case is about the government seeking a precedent so that it can shut down leakers, investigative journalism, and independent publishing altogether. It is also setting the president that “espionage” means that even non-US citizens are bound to obey American government laws. The Pentagon and CIA rule the world and everyone had better not betray them.

      We are crossing the Rubicon.

  24. Taras77
    May 26, 2019 at 10:43

    More recent caitlin article which has and is bringing the Qcultists out of the woodwork: e.g. “Assange is protected”

    The delusion continues.

  25. Rodion Raskolnikov
    May 26, 2019 at 09:42

    Maddow is not on the same side of the ledger as Assange. Neither is the NYTimes of Wapo. These are all mouth organs of the intelligence community. They spend all of their time propagandizing for the military and financial elites. They will never be prosecuted for anything they do.

    What is really happening is that Maddow, the NYT editorial board, and other as covering their asses. They have demanded that Assange be arrested and prosecuted for a long time and now that his execution has begun, they don’t want to be seen as holding the coats of the firing squad. Maddow’s remarks are the height of cowardice. She’s an odious lackey for the military and financial elites. She praised John Bolton.

    The reference above to Rachel effing Maddow is just right. That’s her name.

    • Jessejean
      May 26, 2019 at 20:48


  26. Johnathan Birks
    May 26, 2019 at 09:00

    Don’t get your hopes up. Rachel’s only doing a 180 because her ratings are tanking.

  27. Sam F
    May 26, 2019 at 07:11

    There are two major issues here:
    1. Where does secrecy begin, and when is the publishing of secrets legitimate?
    2. Should the extreme corruption of mass media be allowed to hide behind the legitimacy of real journalism?

    1. Secrecy is legitimate when it protects strictly legitimate actions of government, which do not include foreign wars beyond the federal powers in pursuit of political bribes. For example, details of the Normandy invasion before it began. The Assange question depends upon that standard of legitimacy, which is clearly not met for any recent US war or surveillance policy. The government will use that rationale, those tribal fools and opportunists of fake patriotism will agree, and so will the judiciary. The question of the the legitimacy of US foreign policy will never come up in court. But that is the question the People must decide now, to have a basis for viewpoints on Assange. Not whether “journalism” is protected categorically.

    The solution is to demand that foreign and domestic policy be made by the people after substantial properly-organized public debate. That requires amendments to the Constitution to restrict funding of elections to limited, registered individual donations, to severely penalize the acceptance of other funding or favors as treason, and to prohibit foreign wars except in defense against military attack.

    2. When the corrupt oligarchy mass media of the US, including of course Maddow, seek to hide behind Mr. Assange, it is not to protect journalism, but to protect their corruption of journalism. The US mass media are entirely corrupted by economic powers opposed to democracy, and willfully serve the oligarchy that replaced US journalism with extreme propaganda.

    The solution to this is to demand amendments to the Constitution, to restrict funding of mass media to limited, registered individual donations, and to require balance at all levels and departments of mass media, in political views and protected characteristics such as race, creed, color, etc. That will ultimately require the seizure of the US mass media and handing them off temporarily to the universities with preparation, so that the amendments can be passed and properly constituted mass media organizations formed to resume operation.

    If Trump did that to the mass media he would be serving the People, an unlikely prospect. I would rather see the People do that, and expect that none of that will happen until the People rise up and demand the reforms.

    • J_A
      May 30, 2019 at 01:27

      Universities, eh? Remember how Chomsky dubbed academia “the handmaiden of power”?

      Even National Geographic can put on a TV documentary about how universities, as a power network, enthusiastically cooperated with the government for very amoral secret projects. Universities are the government with a different brand name.

      • Sam F
        May 30, 2019 at 20:26

        Yes, one would not leave mass media in the hands of universities, because
        1. This would politicize the universities far more even than presently;
        2. Universities are not administratively constituted to protect all views, despite their traditions;
        3. It is necessary to define mass media (say over 10% of audience in any region or specialized subject area) and define their proper organization to protect all viewpoints (e.g balance of viewpoints and protected traits in all departments and admin levels) as well as to prevent economic or other control.
        But as a temporary means of continuing mass media while demanding that Congress pass amendments to so protect mass media and elections from economic power, they are probably viable with preparation and monitoring for a few years.

  28. Meaghan Simpson
    May 26, 2019 at 06:49

    To Dear Caitlin Johnstone, Meaghan Simpson here in Eureka, CA, Humboldt County US
    I read you a lot as much as I can have time and without being able to afford the $ support I would love to.

    Just wanted to send you and big thank you for your article now, ProfessionalAssange Smearers Finally Realize Their Fate Is Tied To Theirs.

    Yeah the MSM Monopoly Monster Madness Mind Control could REALLY get tied up?
    Yeah they’re thinking they could get VERY tied up…like in terrorist solitary confinement prison.
    Like Chelsea Manning. Like Julian Assange.

    Tell ya the truth, truth is all I’m talking about.
    Truth comes in and truth comes out!
    We stand up on it! We sing, dance, jump and shout!
    Tell me the truth, truth is all we’re talking about!

    Come on now! We’re going beyond all guilt, sin, shame, blame or doubt!
    Come on now! Come on get it out!
    Can’t be any nothing left of any doubt about!
    Truth is I am a truth toting truth scout!
    And I know for sure you know what I’m talking about!
    No time like the present to turn the truth out!

    *its a song with a lot of sound and jumping Mississippi saxophone
    We be bopping and a hopping!

    I need to thank you for everything I know of you share.
    And I need to thank you for this article with videos of MSNBC and the NYT, etc… because it is way big break in news by the prime fake news USA! I do not even own a TV…cable is sooo way overpriced and useless in USA …so I would not know of this without your kind assistance.

    I send you big love and peace and wiggles and giggles as we go dancing in the Dragon’s jaws.
    I embrace you forever as family yes forever. Divine intervention. Blessed be.

    Still wanna invite you to our community in unity for peace on earth.
    You can become a guest on our Redwood community radio station, if you are amenable… phone or podcast interview on our community radio… … check it out streaming on the web.

  29. David G
    May 26, 2019 at 06:38

    It’s sad that in all the commentary about these indictments no one entertains even the possibility that a jury of Americans who value their liberties might just acquit Assange. I’m not saying that assumption is incorrect, just sad.

    Where have you gone, John Peter Zenger?

    • helper
      May 26, 2019 at 12:25

      You’ve obviously not listened to John Kiriakou speak about the Eastern District Court.

    • Skip Scott
      May 27, 2019 at 07:14

      You’re assuming a fair trial by jury. The history of verdicts in the eastern district in Virginia denies that possibility. Also the prosecution will pull the “national security” card to deny admission of vital evidence, and control every step of the trial process.

  30. Daniel Rich
    May 26, 2019 at 03:43

    I have nor respect for an MSM Fake News prostitute [Maddow] to hastily change her tune and clothing, in order to lure more customers into her cobbed spiderweb stockings.

  31. bob
    May 26, 2019 at 02:57

    The british regime media do not even mention Assange anymore – he apparently does not exist. In the meantime they are ‘bigging up’ the failed and traitorous treasonmay – trying to find her a legacy to justify her existence – good luck with that

  32. Tom Kath
    May 26, 2019 at 00:39

    I urge caution about leopards changing their spots, but of course I welcome any sign of potential cracks or flaws that may develop into change for the better or right direction.

    It also reinforces my view that it is always the ACTION we should consider, not the individual, person, or personality.

  33. nietzsche1510
    May 26, 2019 at 00:17

    not a good thing for Assange: MSDNC & her hosts have become so untrustworthy that a yes on their part ends up in a no in the public opinion. toxic cheerfellows to keep at a distance.

  34. CitizenOne
    May 25, 2019 at 22:59

    Let us not compete with the most vigorous defense of Julian Assange against the overwhelming authorities which seek to incarcerate him.

    The dividing line is all about what the state controlled media does versus what independent media does. Wikileaks represents the whistle blowers shining truth on what are factual digitalized and electronically recorded facts which inescapably affront the senses which are the human responses to the outwardly mechanized inhuman affronts which are the reasons that Julian Assange or Chelsea Manning risked their careers on by daring to expose what in every tenant of justice would demand that they should report the truth.

    It is a crucial event when whistle blowers are prosecuted by the state. President Obama was one who decided based on the evidence to place Julian Assange on a short list of terrorists equal to the terrorists that in a typical story endangered US spies which could have perhaps compromised the identity of US spies and operatives who were engaged in the war with Iraq.

    What are the real results? Manning and Assange reported that the actions of the US government were a violation of the Geneva Convention against torture of prisoners of war and as well the targeting of civilians in order to kill them.

    I agree that the former motives of the US military which were the clearly imperatives to defeat a foreign enemy (axis of evil) was a just cause but I do not agree that the means justify the ends if it means killing innocent civilians that are deemed collateral damage.

    What is at stake here in the USA is the possibility that we will condone the killing of people and that we will absolutely condemn and punish with the full force of law those individuals like Chelsea Manning and Julian Assange who dared to bravely put their lives and careers on the line knowing that the full force of the government would seek to incarcerate them forever for trying to expose the lethal forces in a part of the World which the vast majority of all of us will never see.

    • anon4d2
      May 26, 2019 at 07:54

      Any who think that Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan were an “axis of evil” have some studying to do of the facts, rather than the propaganda of zionists and Brzezinski commie-haters. That is a very complex region, with a complex history and complex potential paths to progress and justice. To serve humanity in such a mess, one does not choose sides and denounce everyone else as an “axis of evil.” That kind of tribalism is the whole problem of the region. Simplification is the cause of “collateral damage.”

      There is very little similarity of the situations of Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan, and they certainly were not unified into some kind of “axis” except in opposing US and zionist aggression. Their problems were primarily the Islamic extremism supported by KSA and the US in the service of Israel, disguised originally as unfounded anti-communism but clearly zionist since the collapse of the USSR. Any who consider Mideast affairs simple will benefit by reading (e.g.) Dreyfuss’ Devil’s Game and the website of Juan Cole.

      • AnneR
        May 26, 2019 at 09:32

        True, anon4d2.

        I am amazed (not really) that anyone capable of thinking for themselves and paying close attention to reality – not the MSM/corporate-government propaganda machine – could imagine that Iran, for instance, was part of any bloody “axis of evil.” Had anything to do with 9/11 or Sunni/Wahhabi terrorism.

        Iran was included in this “axis” because its people had revolted against the CIA-MI5 installed Shah and had instead formed a government of their own choosing (not every single person – but, hey, in so-called western democracies large numbers of people oppose any given party in power), retaking their own country, choosing their own path. Which as many of us know that is an absolute no no for the global dominant power and its vassals.

        Iran has not invaded any country in well over a hundred years. It is many thousands of miles from America’s shores. What threat could it conceivably be to the USA?

        And so what if it supports Hizbullah? Hamas? The US supports Saudia, the IDF (Israel in toto), the UAE, execrable regimes in Latin America… none of these entities are white hats – far from it.

        • May 27, 2019 at 13:09

          in response to anon4d2 and Anne R: I stopped reading Citizen One’s comment as soon as he mentioned the infamous “Axis of Evil.” Every nation the US Empire decides to invade, bomb, and destroy for “humanitarian reasons” or “regime change” or because they happen to sit on oil becomes automatically a member of our infamous “Axis of Evil.” The Empire changes those belonging to said axis more often than some folks change their socks and underwear, or so it seems. The only thing that hasn’t changed for decades at least is the real Axis of Evil which creates all these enemies, and that would be the true Axis of Evil consisting of Israel/USA/Saudi “royals.”

      • May 26, 2019 at 16:50

        It cannot be repeated to0 often that Gen Wesley Clarke publicly informed the world a number of times in 2003 that the Pentagon was planning to attack Iraq,Iran, Syria, Libya , Somalia, Sudan and Lebanon .

        There is some similarities among the nations, a majority are/were secular socialist. Most have extractive resources. Some were threatening the USA’s international financial system.

        Of course a great percentage of the demonization of these nations and their leaders was/is completely false.

        • Miranda Keefe
          May 27, 2019 at 06:51

          Clarke was a late comer.

          The architects announced it themselves nearly ten years earlier in their Project for a New American Century. They published it. Anyone could have read it to see what the cabal of NeoCons would do.

          It reminds me of Hitler publishing Mein Kampala.

  35. Robert Mayer
    May 25, 2019 at 22:22

    Glad2 tune in albeit daylate2 see mainstreem greedia realize NEWS separate from Product Sales

  36. Stumpy
    May 25, 2019 at 21:22

    Hm. I don’t see why you keep insulting Maddow if she is coming around, Ms. Johnstone. Why would anyone cooperate with someone who uses such a derisive tone?

    Flipping Maddow would be a serious coup. Flipping her off will get which result?

    Perhaps we should get Maddow to comment on the video that put Manning on the map, i.e. the assassination of Reuters reporters by US attack helicopter.

    • Mike
      May 26, 2019 at 12:16

      It seems like you missed the point where Rachel maddow’s only concern is her career. Maddow would be okay if Google, YouTube, Facebook and whatever took Kaitlyn’s opinion off the internet. Screw Rachel Maddow. Let her be the first to die by her own sword of mischief.

      • Stumpy
        May 29, 2019 at 20:44

        Point taken. Whatever is happening in Maddow’s mind, Johnstone’s shrill tone suggests that she is too angry to realize she’s winning.

    • J_A
      May 30, 2019 at 01:59

      Maddow has shown that she has no credibility in multiple ways, in multiple incidents, over multiple years.

      Just because she, or the interns who work for her, get something right once in a while doesn’t mean her vaunted academic resume is much more impressive than Bill Clinton’s. (Read my lips: Military coups to stand for heterosexism are fine by me!)*

      Clinton’s response to Powell’s open mutiny in his call for mutiny, which extends through Hillary Clinton going on Ellen as late as 2007 to tell the world gays don’t deserve marriage, which extends through the Obama/Holder DOJ hate briefs and other arcana.

      Here are a few of the issues I’ve had with Maddow:

      1) I have never heard her complain about US funding going to build Israel’s wall, nor have I seen any application of ethical concern over wall building — concern which is apparently so pressing for “enlightened liberals” in terms of another wall.

      2) She was a cheerleader for so-called Obamacare, a system that was put into place via the DNC whipping against the public option, the Democrats lying — over and over — to the public about wanting the public option, Obama making a secret deal with the industry in which he gave away the public option and single payer, long before the “we really really want a public option but simply can’t get the votes” charade ended. She, and people like Aravosis, weren’t merely cheerleaders. They would suggest that opposing the “Obamacare” deal is akin to being morally reprehensible. He even said anyone who opposed the plan wanted people to suffer and die. Obama’s people also smeared Howard Dean, with a second round of “the scream”, calling him crazy for saying the deal should be renegotiated to include a public option. Funny how Dean apparently sold out later, but as Bugs would say: If you can’t beat ’em… Kucinich memorably, after IS THIS THE BEST WE CAN DO? and then being “invited” aboard Airforce One, literally gave a press briefing in which he said it’s an awful bill which is why he must support it. That’s more honesty than we got from Maddow.

      3) She’s a propagandist for certain parts of the government while simultaneously casting herself as the intellectual savior who will expose corruption in government. The good parts, of course, are the surveillance/law/police state and the bad parts are anything she can pin on Trump. Unlike, say, the EPA, the surveillance/law/police state can never have corrupt people in it or corrupt actions/goals. She is like a giddy schoolgirl when announcing for the hundredth time, that she’s not a lawyer, during one of her fawning interviews. I have a suggestion for her. Since she clearly isn’t all that interested in applying her alleged intellect to the championing of truth via the media, perhaps she should go to law school and then get recruited by one of those awesome surveillance/police/law state actors. Or maybe her fawning and propaganda really don’t run so deep. Logically, one would cast a baleful eye at all government sectors when seeing massive corruption, both historically (as in her Nixon stuff) and contemporarily. But, logic ain’t her strong point.

      4) How much pushback did she provide about Obama’s record-setting use of the espionage act, when he was in office? Maybe I missed the show but I doubt that she covered the full scope of Obama’s betrayal of gay folk as well (the hate briefs, Golinsky stonewalling, closing the park when vets chained themselves to the fence, firing troops for being gay, etc.).

      5) Before I quit watching her show (which I had quit watching prior), every show was boring anti-Trump pro-police state bilge. There were so many other things happening but who cares.

      6) Sexism and racism. Having more female candidates and racial/ethnic minorities is, objectively, not an improvement nor a diminishment. Yet, there is the blithe promotion of the idea that we should celebrate when a male, particularly one who is light-skinned, is replaced politically with a female. Funny how Palin isn’t promoted with the same mindset. Does this mean that, so long as said female espouses the MSNBC/DNC talking points that’s what really counts? Diversity is potentially a good thing but it’s also very dangerous to demean the humanity of people simply because they’re not trendy in terms of their sex and/or ethnicity and/or sexuality.

      7) Joy Reid. That was the last straw, really. (The hackers ate my homework… umm… I mean my credibility!)

      There are others but those are the ones that come to the top of my head. And, for those who think “no credibility ” is hyperbolic, I respond that either one acts according to one’s principles, in good faith, or one is corrupt. One doesn’t get to flap back and forth. That is acting according to convenience, not good faith. Selling out to a corporation is no excuse, unless one subscribes to the incrementalist argument to a high degree, which I don’t. If Maddow is really so intelligent then how come it doesn’t show in consistently-applied high standards of journalistic conduct? Being good at tests and/or teacher-fluffing doesn’t equal full intelligence. If the Ivy League were so great, we’d be in a lot better shape. As Chomsky said, academia is the handmaiden of power. It doesn’t shock me one bit to see social climber Warren condemn Assange, like throwing out a piece of red meat. I can’t wait to hear her go onto a show like Maddow’s and tell us about the poor middle class, the same class that is largely to blame for many of our social ills.

  37. David T Martin
    May 25, 2019 at 21:20

    Professional Trump defenders realize how dangerous it is to play with fascists

  38. May 25, 2019 at 21:03

    Not sure if the defence of Assange by these mouth pieces for corporate and government power will be too little too late. I think it will take the mass uprising of the population of working people to resolve the situation the world is in. All current laws, post “war on terror,” 2003, are designed to end democratic freedoms, including freedom of the press. In Australia currently, witness “K” a former ASIS operative, has gone into bat for East Timor on information regarding the Australian government wire tapping the East Timorese, during negotiations on boundaries for oil and gas in the Timor Sea. The purpose being to out negotiate and maintain Australian companies’ interests in the access to the natural resources of one of the poorest countries on the planet. New laws prevent and criminalise his efforts and those of his lawyers. What next? Nazi black shirts marauding through our streets carrying out violent attacks on Muslims? (or more likely in Australia’s case it would be Chinese residents, to placate the US allies)

    • nietzsche1510
      May 26, 2019 at 00:28

      as far as the rules of the ”democratic” contest are not changed do not expect anything positive: the rigging is within the rules of the representation.

  39. Christopher Kauffmann
    May 25, 2019 at 19:18

    Hi Caitlin, First, I’m a huge fan; I read everything you write. However, I have to quibble with your choice of words regarding Rachel Maddow — it’s the semi-retired journalist in me. Rachel Maddow did not ‘choose’ to do the right thing; she was forced to in order to save her exorbitant, multi-million-dollar salary and her talking head position that allows her to lie with impunity, never having to admit when she’s wrong, never having taken any sort of responsibility for anything she’s said. She has done nothing for the last 10 years except promote war, death, subjugation, and last, but certainly not least, Russiagate. A propagandist of the first order. You could fit her integrity on the head of a pin with plenty of space leftover for an army of lice. Under Nurenberg (sp.?) rules, she would not have faired well. I got out of the business 10 years ago because I had long seen where that runaway train was headed. It’s not just Maddow, they (NYT, Washington Post, WSJ, NBC, CBS, ABC, Fox, PBS, etc., etc.) are all a disgrace to the profession I once loved and revered.

    • nietzsche1510
      May 26, 2019 at 00:43

      not only in the USA. the whole media in the West have become a giant PRAVDA: they perform only for the exclusive satisfaction of their Judeo-Zionist money-printer propaganda lords. like in the good old URSS.

    • Zhu
      May 26, 2019 at 03:38

      I love that phrase “tinfoil pussyhat”!

      • David G. Horsman
        May 26, 2019 at 14:07

        I am gobsmacked that you like it. ;-)

    • Josep
      June 4, 2019 at 05:26

      Indeed! Let’s take this article from the WaPoo as an example. It comes off as blatant lies if <a href=""this Russian YouTube video is of any indication (at the 6:00 mark, you can see brands like Tide and Ariel legally being sold). And the readers of WaPoo are just as Russophobic as the writers.

    • Josep
      June 4, 2019 at 05:32

      (Apologies for the double post; my browser was having issues, and I couldn’t edit my original message properly.)
      Indeed! If this Russian YouTube video from 2019 (warning: cussing) is of any indication (at the 6:00 mark, you can see Western brands like Tide, Calgon and Ariel still on store shelves), you’ll realize this this WaPoo article from 2015 comes off as an attempt to smear Russia as some “Soviet Union 2.0”. And the readers of WaPoo are just as Russophobic as the writers. You can say the same about this NYT article and its readers.

  40. Emma Portman
    May 25, 2019 at 18:48
  41. George Vukmanovich
    May 25, 2019 at 17:43

    Rachel Maddow’s sudden epiphany that the charges of espionage against Julian Assange are an attempt to suppress a free press by the Trump administration, comes as no surprise to me. For decades I have heard the refrain that “what this country needs is a business man in the White House.” Well, now the USA has is a business man in the White House. And what is the result? A dangerous, autocratic moron. Trump’s ignorance, arrogance, stupidity and hypocrisy are now on full display for all to see around the world. What is also on display is that government is not a business enterprise. For those dullards who think private enterprise is an exercise in democracy, think again folks! It’s nothing of the sort. At best, any business is in effect, an enlightened despotism. That is the world Donald Trump comes from. Too bad some reporter didn’t ask Trump how he would get along with a hostile Congress. After all, you cannot fire Congress! But Congress can fire you! Look that up in your Funk & Wagnalls encyclopedia as they used to say on Laugh-In.

    • Eddie S
      May 26, 2019 at 13:10

      Yes GV, I strongly agree with your statements about ‘a businessman in the WH’ meme. Like most US workers, I’m currently working for one of the corporations here, and in my 50+ yrs of being mostly in the corporate world, I see NOTHING that indicates to me that businessmen OR the ‘business model’ would be advantageous to the current model, since as you rightly alluded-to, Trump is ONLY a ‘pure’ businessman, never having-been ‘corrupted’ by having served in government and we can all see what a bang-up job he’s doing. His ethics & policies are classic business-world short-term opportunism, complete with the autocratic management structure and little-more. The only difference I can see is that his mantra has shifted from the ‘profit’ of the business world to ‘power/re-election’ of the political world.

  42. Drew Hunkins
    May 25, 2019 at 17:10

    Now suddenly it’ll be okay for me to support Assange amidst all my deluded Russophobic friends and acquaintances b/c their disgusting gatekeeper has given him her imprimatur. I’m glad that’s all cleared up.

    • nietzsche1510
      May 26, 2019 at 00:52

      it is more about attacking the present power,Trump, than defending Assange: this is the perception Maddow wants to distill into her audience.

    • Miranda Keefe
      May 27, 2019 at 06:59

      Except the new idea is that he is a disgusting rapist and should be sent to Sweden to get convicted of that. I don’t watch Maddow- so I don’t know if they’re getting this idea from her. It wouldn’t surprise me, though.

      I have to keep telling them Sweden will extradite him if the U.K. doesn’t. I have to point out these bogus charges were dropped until the U.S. needed a backup plan if the U.K. courts didn’t cooperate.

  43. emma portman
    May 25, 2019 at 16:45
  44. lysias
    May 25, 2019 at 16:11

    Washington Post’s lead editorial today calls on Congress to “reconsider” the Espionage Act. Occurs to me that, although it is unconstitutional for Congress to retroactively impose criminal penalties and liability after the fact, the Constitution does not prohibit removing criminal penalties or liability retroactively. So Congress can pull the rug out from under the prosecution of Assange by repealing the act or the relevant parts of it retroactively.

    • me
      May 27, 2019 at 05:51

      Great idea worthy of implementation.
      All court proceedings deserve the light of day.
      Repeal Espionage Act & FISA.

      Worthy of an advanced civilization.

      Down with the Dark Ages.

    • TS
      May 28, 2019 at 08:29


      Of course you are right to suggest the radical (= going to the root of the problem) solution.

      But one minor point:
      > repealing the act or the relevant parts of it retroactively.

      That would not be “retroactive”. It would only be retroactive if somebody had been tried, convicted, and sentenced under a law which was then repealed, and their sentence was quashed for that reason.

  45. Abe
    May 25, 2019 at 15:44

    It won’t be easy, you’ll think it strange
    When I try to explain how I feel
    That I still need your love after all that I’ve done
    You won’t believe me, all you will see is a girl you once knew

    Don’t Cry for me, Rachel Maddow

  46. Rabbit
    May 25, 2019 at 14:31

    Caitlin must be close to a heroine for listening to that crazy crow flapping her beak for a whole hour. I couldn’t take it and would be tempted to shoot the TV after five minutes.

    • May 25, 2019 at 17:06

      You own a tv set? Sadly, There will never be a ban on them. Well, ‘never’ for now.

  47. Nathan Mulcahy
    May 25, 2019 at 13:37

    “Rachel effing Maddow” is a presstitute, who’ll do anything for money. She is too smart for me to believe that until now she was mistaken. For her “It’s All About the Benjamins”. Next topic.

  48. Eddie S
    May 25, 2019 at 13:21

    Yes, interesting how RM (and a few other entertainment-journalists) ‘get religion’ when her ~$9M/yr salary and non-jail lifestyle are threatened —- NOW we have to be concerned, AFTER it’s virtually a fait accompli that JA will face US jail-time and another major pillar of freedom of the press is compromised…

    I’m really glad I don’t waste my time watching ‘news’ shows on TV, especially these melodramatic ones where the talking-head is hyperventilating in the throes of an almost religious fervor…

    • geeyp
      May 25, 2019 at 22:40

      Ya know Eddie, I can’t even watch the clips provided on this page.

      • Eddie S
        May 26, 2019 at 11:29

        Yes geeyp, same-here. I do have to admit I have never really watched news ‘analysis’/talking-heads shows. I prefer the written word because it’s usually more thoughtful, composed and lengthy, with source footnotes or links. Also, with written discussions/arguments, I don’t emotionally react to the writer like I find myself doing with video/audio formats (ie; his/her tone, dress, enunciation, gestures, etc). Another reason is the convenience of written format—I can start/stop/restart/re-read as I wish, though admittedly this is becoming less of a factor as recording technology has progressed. Probably my biggest reason is that the MSM in this country has always seemed to have some underlying beliefs/‘frames’ (ie; US exceptionalism, militarism, unbridled capitalism, etc) which I strongly disagree with.

    • J_A
      May 30, 2019 at 02:08

      I highly doubt it that she’s really that worried about her career. She can always pull a Kristol, Reid, Wallace, or whatever — and switch to whatever side is paying her at the new point in time. Enlightenment for bucks.

      No, the decision was made that this is yet another way to attack Trump and prop up the faux liberal DNC/MSNBC crusade.

  49. Abe
    May 25, 2019 at 12:53

    I know. Okay, I feel ya, Caitlin. I got it. But…

    “That is the bread and butter of what we do… right?”
    – Maddow on MSNBC video (minutes 3:35-3:40)

    You have to be pretty gobsmacked to miss the bile rising in Maddow’s throat when she bleats about “what we do”.

    Maddow actually did not choose to do the right thing. She chose to double down on the wrong thing while posturing as a threatened “journalistic entity”.

  50. Kalen
    May 25, 2019 at 11:47

    She lost all of her credibility long time ago and now practically is repudiating her own journalistic credibility, ethical stand and purpose once again and hence her reversal has to be taken as disingenuous self serving expression of fear of Trump personal revenge and fear of abandonment by all those corporate and political forces that applauded her spewing hatred and dividing country along non existent lines of Russia gate and stealing elections that if were stolen it was Netanyahu and AIPAC who stole it for Trump while suppressing true reality of Trump corporate crimes and corporate fascism advanced already in Clinton years that resulted in endless wars and recurring economic crises.

    What must be noted that she did not directly stated that she opposed Assange extradition to US but use of 1917 espionage act against him.

    And her demeaning and condescending attitude to man who was tortured for 8 years and needs immediate hospitalization and not Max security prison is simply appalling and inhumane so is this indifference to Manning her pupil stand of prisoner of conscience by defended of LGBT smears huge hypocrisy of a moral dwarf.

    • J_A
      May 30, 2019 at 02:13

      It was okay for the Democrats (Obama included) to lie to the public, over and over, about — for example — really really wanting a public option… then whipping against it (which they did when Sanders tried to force a vote)… and other acts of stonewalling betrayal — because Obama had already sold us out in a deal with the industry at the start of the process (aka the fix that was in).

      Lots of cheerleading from Maddow for this. Kucinich, by contrast, shouted about the best we can do then, after an invitation he couldn’t refuse to Airforce One, slunk out to tell the press it’s a bad bill which is why he must support it. More honesty from him than from her.

      (Joy Reid’s dog that ate her blog says hi.)

  51. Jeff Harrison
    May 25, 2019 at 10:50

    Yes, it appears that she suddenly realizes where the dangers lie. It’s not impressive when you realize that those dangers were obvious to anyone with half a brain a long time ago. It becomes even less impressive still when you realize that she is still incapable of independent thought and analysis as she continues to cling to the deep state’s garbage about their favorite boogeyman. But really, she’s like Wile E Coyote after he’s gone off the cliff edge. It’s impossible to miss the depths beneath your feet but sadly, it’s too late to do anything about it.

    • Skip Scott
      May 25, 2019 at 14:36

      I doubt Maddow has anything to worry about. She’s turned into a Deep State shill. If she started speaking of the logic in seeking detente with Russia, or spoke out against senseless regime change wars that kill innocents and leave the invaded country worse off, she’d be in trouble. As it is, she’s on solid ground. I would bet that if it were Obama’s administration (or Hillary) prosecuting Assange instead of Trump’s she’d be all aboard.

    • Litchfield
      May 27, 2019 at 12:24

      I expect Maddow’s “conversion” is purely opportunistic.
      And, she will continue with the personal attacks on Assange as an excuse for not defending him sooner.
      Johnstone is really giving her the benefit of the doubt—probably to try to “herd” Maddow into continuing in the right direction on her show, so that she (Maddow) continue to “herd” her viewers in the right direction.
      IOW, probably Johnstone is treating Maddow with kid gloves purely to avoid alienating her and creating some kind of backlash.

      • J_A
        May 30, 2019 at 02:16

        I adore our fake “liberal” talking heads class.

        You know, like the WaPo’s opinion writer, Milbank, who gave us such treasures as puff pieces for Pence.

        Whatever would we do for humor without our darling media elites?

  52. Nathan Mulcahy
    May 25, 2019 at 10:43

    The world is complex. And there is an increasing amount of spin and propaganda. Therefore, in order to preserve my sanity and not to be fooled, while not having to expend an excessive amount of time and energy, I occasionally use a strategy. This strategy is to ask a simple question about that specific situation that goes to the heart of the matter. Anyone failing that test disqualifies automatically from further consideration.

    One case in point is Assange. From the very beginning, ANYBODY who has smeared Assange and anybody who HAS NOT supported him disqualifies automatically to be considered as a journalist (or a journalistic organization). From that point on, they fall in one or more buckets of propagandist, presstitute, stenographer, actors playing the role of a journalist, etc.

    After that, I consider it a waste of my time, and an insult to my intelligence, to pay any attention to such people. I am so thankful to have Consortiumnews as one of the few oasis in the desert.

    • J_A
      May 30, 2019 at 02:19

      What you’re talking about is the difference between the activist/radical and the politician/incrementalist.

      Both will claim they’re in the right and the other is in the wrong.

      The former will say the latter lacks principles and will sell anything so long as it will sell.

      The latter will say the former is reckless, impatient, ignorant, and destructive.

      Basically, the radicals are the ones who get things done and the politicians (also known as “moderates”) take the credit.

  53. Blue
    May 25, 2019 at 10:28

    This is just a new way to bash Trump. A good thing no doubt, but if it were Hillary, she and the rest would let it slide.

    • May 25, 2019 at 17:03

      You’re right. Your point is sweet and simple.

      And Maddow’s commentary here is a good example of what I call demonstration thinking and behavior. She is a brazen liar who knows that this particular lie is done like dinner and so, being the smart cookie, and useful cookie, she is, she smoothly incorporates the change (a particular lie that can no longer be told) into her lying narrative. Zombie followers of Maddow’s ‘real’ news are not meant to understand that, but only parrot the lie (which now includes the fact that Assange is a journalist and a target of the Trump regime for simply telling inconvenient truths).

      • J_A
        May 30, 2019 at 02:24

        I watched MSNBC for gems like the open blithe admission, from elite insiders who were guests, that the Justice Department has a policy of not prosecuting corporate criminals.

        Sometimes these people are so far up the ivory tower that they forget the ground.

        (They used an utterly preposterous rationale to justify the policy. The policy, which is a version of Too Rich to Fail, is that poor ordinary workers would lose their jobs if the CEO/management class were to be held accountable, rather than the corporations merely fined. Funny how that’s the opposite of truth because guess who loses their raises, vacations, promised retirement days, retirement benefits, and on and on — when corporations are fined. Guess who are downsized.)

        The reason to watch such television is to get rare glimpses behind the curtain. Yeah… the DOJ intentionally acts as a shield for corporate crooks. News at 11.

        • J_A
          May 30, 2019 at 02:25

          Corporate fines also translate into higher prices for ordinary consumers so can be seen as a partial regressive tax. Since corporations are not people, it makes no sense to punish paper entities for the wrongdoing of real people in the first place.

    • geeyp
      May 25, 2019 at 22:32

      Yes, they could have spoken out in his favor many, many times with umpteen chances. Choosing going after President Trump over Julian Assange is NOT the way to think. Narrow minded hippocrites; no offense to hippos.

    • Kevin Bradley
      May 25, 2019 at 23:51

      Absolutely. She has been given her role to further an agenda, not speak the truth. This pretense is also a way to convince the viewer that she is a committed journalist rather than a propagandist.

  54. May 25, 2019 at 10:13

    post twitter; codeforezap 5-24-19

    We know that the only reason for the Guantanamo Bay facility is to commit crimes against humanity that are contrary to the US Constitution and would therefore be against the law within the borders of the United States. Morally it matters not that these atrocities against (political and non political prisoners) are committed outside of the United States, but it matters that they are committed by members of the US government.
    Julian Assange exposed this and many other “secret actions” committed by our government for the betterment of us all. The treatment of uncharged and untried arrestees (they are called detainees) held outside of the borders of the United States to avoid prosecution by the persons who operate Guantanamo Bay is the real crime against the United States, not what Julian Assange did by exposure .
    Its hypocrisy to prosecute a man who exposed crimes committed outside of the US by US employees to avoid prosecution themselves is it not? What’s up with this?
    It matters not what or where the information came from when it arrived in the hands of Wikileaks. Assange used exemplary restraint when releasing information and one must ask who benefited from the release of this release and who was exposed? Assange’s actions via Wikileaks was done at extreme risk in the name of humanity, character and justice. The US Constitution supports Assange’s actions. Who do these people in our government think they are serving by using man made laws contrived to protect their actions that are contrary to our constitution? Sadly they are self serving. We are experiencing, even today, what an agency like the FBI can do in the name of “Top Secret”
    As my grandfather would say, “Bull shit.”
    As a voter for Mr. Trump I and my colleagues are not only baffled, but appalled by Trumps non action in protecting the person who had a profound impact on his (Trump’s) election win by exposing the evil and truly illegal actions committed against him by his opposition in the name of “Top Secret”.
    When he was running for president he said “I love wikileaks”. Of course he did, but now he says “I don’t know them.”

    Are these the words and actions of a man who truly believes what he told us, his followers as he stands idly by and allows the real media seditionists to spit venom against our great country without pause or response? Who is it that now sits in the big chair?
    Is the path to revolution being paved?

    • geeyp
      May 25, 2019 at 22:14

      Some very good posts and mature discussion here today. Perhaps that comes from reading a twisted crooked minded individual spewing C.Y.A. commentary (although she used to make sense on Air America radio). Now for something completely different, check out the letter written (Julian Assange) to Gordon Dimmack. You can find it on

  55. May 25, 2019 at 10:08

    The “woke” crowd represents a revolution of faux mindfulness. Maddow on one side and Limbaugh on the other. Both claim to have THE way to utopia, through liberalism and conservatism respectively. If only everyone were woke like they are. If only everyone’s minds were right…

    Y’all get your minds right. Assange has nothing to protest, there is no need for dissent, it’s all fake news.

    Just do your jobs, watch TV, and listen to the radio. You’ll see…

    • David G. Horsman
      May 26, 2019 at 14:32

      I read the solipsism despite my cynical suspicions of thy handle. I didn’t entirely. agree but I was really impressed with the author.

      Which has a link to:
      The Power of the Powerless
      Vaclav Havel
      October, 1978

      It has something to say about manufacturing and maintaining subscribed belief as well as consent.

      So… I’ll have a look. I think Maddow (and The Intercept) shows us that the source and motivation don’t fundamentally alter truth.

      Off we go. Have a nice day.

    • Yahweh
      May 26, 2019 at 16:33

      Welcome to the hotel California…..You can check out anytime you like, but you can never leave.

      Capitalism is not the problem. Predatory/Crony capitalism is a serious problem.

      Religion is a lethal virus of the human mind….Welcome to the hotel California

      You have all been programed since birth

      • Zhu
        May 28, 2019 at 04:45

        Political “religions” like Marxism or Nationalism gave been far more danger ous.

      • J_A
        May 30, 2019 at 02:29

        “Capitalism is not the problem.”

        Capitalism is inherently amoral. Dislike whatever alternatives you like but be mindful of a little thing called the tu quoque fallacy.

        (P.S. It’s amoral because it’s based on dehumanizing/exploiting others. Tricking people into paying more for less is the path to “profit”.)

    • David G. Horsman
      May 26, 2019 at 19:20

      ‘In fact, Becker has coined the term stressism to describe “the current belief that the tensions of contemporary life are primarily individual lifestyle problems to be solved through managing stress, as opposed to the belief that these tensions are linked to social forces and need to be resolved primarily through social and political means.”’

      That was another very insightful article. I did indeed have you list under suspected regime change but found this:

      It not only clarified your lack of relationship but I see you went through a similar process in encountering Mr. “The Devil” Soros. To your credit I see the man in a quite different light now. Not great on strategy but an honest broker it turns out.

      Thanks for the links.

  56. AnneR
    May 25, 2019 at 10:05

    Thank you Caitlin for all your work on this very serious issue. Like some other respondents here, though, I seriously doubt that this “shock horror” on RM’s part will either be long-lasting or in fact true. (Don’t “watch” any MSM “news” so can’t actually speak directly to the MSDNC’s propaganda.) Or for that matter the like reaction on the part of any of the MSM.

    Why? Well how much over the past few years have they really, truly revealed about the nefarious, bloody, warmongering, war-profiteering that this country and its vassal states have engaged in? How much about the really existing US-UK-IS deep state, secret intelligence agencies’ surveillance, back door electronic monitoring of everyone, rather than, for instance, distracting us with the Kremlin does it/China does it? Do they report on the really existing links – long standing – between the US (and Israel’s) Military-Intelligence outfits and Silicon Valley companies, even as they finger point at Huawei and its putative connections to the Chinese government? NO.

    So – while there is a momentary flutter among the Orwellian-Huxleyan MSM (all of it) pretending to be concerned about their own potential futures should they “dare” to publish anything that the Deep State wants well-hidden from view – I’m not holding my breath that it will last more than a day or so. They don’t have the ethics, morals, conscience necessary. And they like their nice salaries, chummy-chummy relationships with the power-brokers and so on all too much.

    • David G. Horsman
      May 26, 2019 at 19:19

      ‘In fact, Becker has coined the term stressism to describe “the current belief that the tensions of contemporary life are primarily individual lifestyle problems to be solved through managing stress, as opposed to the belief that these tensions are linked to social forces and need to be resolved primarily through social and political means.”’

      That was another very insightful article. I did indeed have you list under suspected regime change but found this:

      It not only clarified your lack of relationship but I see you went through a similar process in encountering Mr. “The Devil” Soros. To your credit I see the man in a quite different light now. Not great on strategy but an honest broker it turns out.

      Thanks for the links.

      • David G. Horsman
        May 26, 2019 at 19:22

        Oops. Please delete the above comment. I posted it in reply to the wrong person.

    • J_A
      May 30, 2019 at 02:33

      No. Maddow fawns over spycrafters as long as they’re US or British, as well as lawyers and police state functionaries.

      Such fawning means minimal questioning, if any. Typically, it is simply a dog and pony show in which the spies are the dogs, the lawyers are the ponies, the police are waiting in the wings, and someone is hawking a new vapid book in a celebration of the global miracle of tree killing.

      • J_A
        May 30, 2019 at 02:35

        To be clear, however, if you’re a Trump-aligned lawyer then you’re not a “real lawyer”, in this narrative. You have a kook with a funny mustache, a penchant for profanity, a job at a third-rate firm, et cetera.

        This, like the massive blindness when it comes to being able to see some areas of government as fallible/corrupt, while simultaneously adoring others…

  57. Stephen P
    May 25, 2019 at 10:01

    In the meantime, listen to “Loud and Clear” between minutes 59 and 68. The trump is about to declassify information concerning the russia-gate witch hunt embarrassing (or worse) Brenner, Clapper, et. al. My question is, what were the Dems thinking? Did they never consider that this might go wrong? Whew, some liberals (sic) really are dumber than a bag of Sarah Palins.

  58. vinnieoh
    May 25, 2019 at 09:43

    Every single “journalist” could line up in solidarity behind Assange and it wouldn’t make a darn bit of difference. The US government will have its persecution of Assange, make no mistake. There isn’t a pol on the national scene that wouldn’t have him locked up forever or executed. Can’t have the illegal violent reality of the US paraded around the world, now can we?

    What does it matter that Maddow becomes a macabre parody of herself?

    • Charlene Richards
      May 25, 2019 at 21:27

      Rep. Tulsi Gabbard already said she would pardon Assange and Snowden.

      • Zhu
        May 26, 2019 at 04:09

        Unfortunately, Gabbard is not likely to be elected. We’ll Goszilla Trump or Mechagidzilla Biden. :-(

    • J_A
      May 30, 2019 at 02:37

      Journalist is like professor — it is a title awarded by the state for faithful adherence to the party line.

      One gets nowhere in academia and media if one doesn’t grease the greasy wheels.

  59. Joe Tedesky
    May 25, 2019 at 09:38

    All of these MSM anchors and pundits are painting themselves into a corner where freedom of speech is concerned. So stupid that these paid opportunistic journalist think that it matters whether Hillary or anybody is president. In fact they are doubly stupid since these journalist are part of the apparatus that’s taking our civil rights away while they teach us citizens how to hate one another.

  60. Doggrotter
    May 25, 2019 at 09:34

    It would be good to have a list of anti Assange Journalists. Then we won’t get upset when any of them are arrested. And we won’t make a mistake and donate to their defense fund.
    Ms Maddow would be a good No.1, until someone suggests someone better.

  61. Thomas
    May 25, 2019 at 09:04

    No, there’s an alternate possibility where you could be, and very likely, wrong… she plays the role of putting out the message of helplessness and hopelessness to the masses on this issue. The “looks like there’s nothing we can do to stop this folks” message, so subconsciously start keeping your mouths shut.

  62. May 25, 2019 at 08:02

    “…a certain lack of concern about Julian Assange’s ultimate fate, given his own gleeful and extensive personal role in trying to help a hostile foreign government interfere in our election in order to install their chosen president with WikiLeaks’ help. Okay? I know. Okay, I feel ya. I got it. But, it is a recurring theme in history, heck, it is a recurring theme in the Bible, that they always pick the least sympathetic figures to try this stuff on first. Despite anyone’s feelings about this spectacularly unsympathetic character at the center of this international drama, you are going to see every journalistic institution in this country, every First Amendment supporter in this country, left, right and center…”

    Looks to me like her job’s secure.

    • Thomas
      May 25, 2019 at 09:01

      No, there’s an alternate possibility where you could be, and very likely, wrong… she plays the role of putting out the message of helplessness and hopelessness to the masses on this issue. The “looks like there’s nothing we can do to stop this folks” message, so subconsciously start keeping your mouths shut.

  63. May 25, 2019 at 07:31

    My, my, my–Maddow suddenly turns right after screaming so long about Putin and Russia! Well, whatever, even if she sees her own bread-and-butter challenged by the threat to Assange. More propagandists–ahem, journalists–are beginning to see that threat, i am reading.

  64. Realist
    May 25, 2019 at 05:29

    I totally stopped wasting my time watching Maddow ever since her prime directive became 1) bash Putin and 1a) bash Trump. How does she keep from burning out her circuits when these things can’t be accomplished simultaneously? For example, whose side is she on in Venezuela, Iran and Ukraine? If she wants to bash Trump, she’s gotta be on the side of Maduro, Rouhani and the Donbass and Crimea. But that contradicts her imperative to beat up on Putin because those are his allies. She must sputter and spark like one of those numerous society-controlling computers that Capt. James T. Kirk talked to death using fuzzy logic on many an occasion. Those poor alien minds were never a match for a two-fisted American yahoo from the heartland. They say even Siri doesn’t fall for that. They say she gets snarky when you ask her to carry out a mathematical operation that would give an undefined result rather than freezing up like Weather Channel graphics displayed on Windows 95. Somebody continue to watch Maddow (I know, it’s an onerous task) and let us know if her matrix starts to glitch when confronted with prolonged support of a man she surely must revile because Russia, Russia, Russia. They say the first thing to go is the use of contractions, which Commander Data never could master even with his positronic brain. Amazing, Maddow deigns to allow Assange his free… his freedom There’s that darn black cat again…

    • mbob
      May 25, 2019 at 12:30

      I like it!

      I admit to being confused about RM’s behavior. She’s an establishment propagandist, not a journalist. She’ll never do anything like Assange did that’ll potentially jeopardize her income and status. So why did she come to Assange’s defense? Oh, well.

      Live long and prosper.

    • lou e
      May 25, 2019 at 13:18

      I gave up on MadCow when she was on the radio. After the Virginia Tech shooting (the one where the hamsters are not allowed to pack in the “safe zone” and are thus left defenseless due to government fatwa) she wanted to double down on the theory of uninventing the gun (how did that work with nukes Rachel). Next year on the “anniversary” she called in “sick” on her program. She was in for a good fact-based drubbing had she the intestinal fortitude to face the music.

  65. Joel Walbert
    May 25, 2019 at 04:44

    Satan always comes collecting eventually.

    …So when the devil wants to dance with you, you better say never
    Because the dance with the devil might last you forever.

    -Immortal Technique, ‘Dance with the Devil’

  66. NofunkerNofunkerD
    May 25, 2019 at 03:27

    Caitlin Johnstone is awesome, thanks Consortium News for many times extending her articles’ reaches.

    I think she may be a bit more optimistic than me though. Maddow for example might be back to her hijinks in a week or two. Might even be mocking Assange a month later.

    And any utilitarian benefit from her credulous listeners/followers waking up is more wishful thinking.

    That’s my only problem with Caitlin Johnstone–she seems to accept rehabilitation, forgiveness, and “the goodness of humankind” in general. I personally think the born state of humans is being an asshole and it takes enormous effort from society to reign in the natural human tendency to rape, murder, and steal.

    And to lie and venally calculate scenarios, such as IMO Maddow has just done. Caitlin’s ideal might be Maddow finally waking up to the danger. My ideal would be Maddow in just as much prison-time and torture as Assange or Manning has been in.

    Caitlin Johnstone is awesome. This is just a small disagreement. Well, unless she’s an actual Humanist. Believing in some kind of innate good of humans. Well after typing this I guess that’s my big disagreement.

    • Neil S
      May 25, 2019 at 04:03

      Although you seem to be something of a misanthrope, I still think you’re basically a good person.

    • May 25, 2019 at 06:19

      Noting that Rachel (we will pray for you) Maddow said something half-good does not mean appreciating that she has a good spark. To me, ethical person does not judge person first and their actions according to the first judgment, but judges the actions. And here RM repeated some smears on Assange and then said something that shows some ability of telling right from wrong when it affects her directly.

      Not a feat of courage or deep insight, but something. Perhaps RM is like a lobster enjoying hot bath that gradually gets hotter, but the cook turned the heat up abruptly enough so she actually noticed something. Like that we have expansive laws that totally erase freedom of press, or any free expression, if executed. As long as hypocritically authorities were selecting small bits of these laws that infrequently pertain to the bulk of journalists, she was OK, and most probably, she will be.

      After all we already know that after identifying a culprit that “surely will not be missed” (I’ve got a little list, The Mikado), it is sufficient to find a deed that latches upon something that the likes of RM usually not do (like giving opinions about computer passwords), slap the maximum, keep in solitary confinement, release after full term, quickly put back in the slammer as a “material witness” and repeat. With luck the “culprit” will get insane from the conditions of incarceration.

      But now the doctrine of actually applying laws about getting secret information is sweeping indeed. First, the duty of all government worshipping journalists is to get “off the record” info from CIA, military, State Deparment etc. Then they obediently disseminate it WITHOUT ANY PROOF THAT IT IS DECLASIFIED!! Then they can be arrested at any time.

      • J_A
        May 30, 2019 at 02:41

        Maybe Joy Reid’s dog barfed up her blog and she ended up with egg on her face?

        With Maddow all things are possible.

    • TWHM
      May 25, 2019 at 22:59

      I don’t think Caitlin’s tumbled into any ‘hope’ or optimism. Her work is defined by her skepticism, not optimism or pessimism.

      Her last line sums that up to a tee;

      “As Bill Murray said at the end of Groundhog Day, something is different. Anything different is good.”

    • Iron Felix
      May 26, 2019 at 16:09

      “I personally think the born state of humans is being an asshole and it takes enormous effort from society to reign in the natural human tendency to rape, murder, and steal.”

      It is easy to understand this view. We live in a dog eat dog society and have since the beginning of a class based society when the mass of humanity ceased being hunter gatherers. The class based society has only existed for the blink of an eye, too short a time for it to influence basic psychology. That evolved over several hundred thousands of years and created a species which survived though cooperation. Any individual who undermined the security of the group would certainly have been dealt with severely. Probably killed, if antisocial behavior continued.

      • J_A
        May 30, 2019 at 02:45

        I don’t. I think it comes down to personality. I was trained, for example, to love guns and to kill animals for sport. It is not something I enjoyed nor continued once I was out of parental clutches.

        All the indoctrination in the world couldn’t turn me into a heterosexual. Etc.

        Not every Milgram participant behaved identically.

        “a species which survived though cooperation”

        That bonobo is a much better fit for that definition than homo sapiens.

Comments are closed.