0:00

So yesterday David Letterman was arrested

0:02

in the Ecuadorian embassy in London

0:04

and dragged out to his car. Why was David

0:06

Letterman arrested? That was actually Julian A

0:09

Sanshack, co founder of Wiki

0:11

leaks. After

0:14

many years there hold up in the embassy, finally

0:16

something happened. Why it happened,

0:19

and and and how it happened is a

0:21

really interesting story in which the usual

0:23

partisan lines are are more

0:25

or less useless. I think which refreshing.

0:28

I saw a lot of Democrats and Republicans

0:31

wanting Julian Assange too, Rod and Jail. I

0:33

get a little concerned when Republicans and Democrats

0:35

agree on something. Sometimes sometimes

0:38

that means this clearly obviously is a good thing. Sometimes

0:40

it means it's clearly obviously a bad thing. Well. Matt

0:42

zapp Potowski is part of a team that has

0:44

written a really terrific and interesting

0:46

piece in the Washington Post this morning,

0:49

the title of which is, after years

0:52

of debate, Trump administration chose to pursue

0:54

criminal case against as sage, Matt za Potowski

0:56

joins us. Now, Hello, Matt, how are you sir? Hey?

0:59

I'm doing great for having me on. Yeah,

1:01

it's our pleasure. So really thought provoking

1:03

stuff here about the press and the First Amendment

1:06

and visit a criminal conspiracy with what

1:09

are the two sides, if indeed there

1:11

are just two to the question. Well,

1:13

this is a really interesting debate. Julian

1:16

Assange, of course, at some

1:18

base level, is a publisher. He publishes

1:21

information, and he's drawn the ire

1:23

of governments because he publishes a lot

1:25

of classified information. So

1:27

for years, pretty much starting in after

1:30

he dumps these State Department cables

1:32

and Iraq and Afghanistan war documents

1:34

onto the Internet, there's this great debate

1:36

inside the Justice Department. Can

1:39

we charge this guy with a crime?

1:41

The sort of hardest edged people would

1:43

say, well, sure we can. Publishing classified

1:46

information itself could be considered

1:48

a crime. But then other people would say

1:51

no, no, no, that would make him just the

1:53

same as the New York Times or the Washington Post.

1:55

Their reporters published classified information

1:58

all the time. So at the end of

2:00

the Obama administration, they're kind of been

2:02

a holding pattern. His cases technically

2:04

open, but they've decided they're

2:06

not going to charge him because of the precedent.

2:08

This would set for the media potential

2:11

First Amendment challenges to the case. Jeff

2:13

Sessions comes in as Attorney General, really wants

2:16

to crack down on unauthorized disclosures

2:18

of information, kind of dusts off this old

2:20

case and we're off to the races. And the climate

2:22

by then two has changed. His

2:25

organization has leaked a lot more

2:27

stuff, most notably c i A, hacking

2:29

tools, democrats emails.

2:31

The climate is just different. And and

2:33

that's sort of how they come to this decision that

2:36

yeah, they're going to charge him. Um, And

2:38

you know, the debate will rage about the First

2:40

Amendment. Do you know in what way this is the same

2:43

or different than the famous Pentagon Papers

2:45

case that the Supreme Court ruled on in which

2:47

Daniel Ellsberg got a hold of documents

2:50

that you know, said some important

2:52

things about the Vietnam War and then they were printed.

2:56

So the way prosecutors view this

2:58

case as different. You can see this in

3:00

the charge is that Julian, Well,

3:02

this is different from from Elsberger a

3:04

person like that, because Julian Assange is the recipient

3:07

of information. He's not a guy who signed papers

3:09

that said I won't reveal this

3:11

classified information which the government has

3:14

given me access to. In this case, that would be

3:16

Chelsea Manning, who was charged, went

3:18

to jail for a while until our sentence was

3:20

commuted. Joan Assange is a little different. He's

3:22

the publisher, so it's comparing

3:24

it to the Pentagon paper story. A songe

3:27

is the New York Times, not Daniel Ellsberg,

3:29

correct, But prosecutors see him as

3:32

a little different because he's not just the recipient

3:34

and publisher of information. The way they

3:36

see it, he kind of conspired

3:39

with Manning to get the information, and in

3:42

particular, they discussed

3:44

possibly cracking this password

3:46

so they would sort of have administrative privileges

3:49

inside the government system. They

3:51

didn't. They were ultimately successful in that,

3:53

and a lot of what Manning leaked he had

3:56

access to. They didn't need to crack any password.

3:58

But what he was charged with, it's just this hacking

4:00

conspiracy trying to crack this

4:03

password, and that's where they say, that's where

4:05

the justice pharmacisum is different from a journalist.

4:07

A journalist generally isn't going to break into

4:09

a government office and get information that's

4:11

clearly a crime. They're gonna try to coax people

4:13

who actually legitimately have information

4:16

to give it to them, and that person, the

4:18

person giving the information might be charged

4:20

for the crime, but the journalists, generally in justice

4:23

parmament practice would not. And this is where it gets

4:25

so interesting. I saw Glenn Greenwald tweeted

4:27

earlier this morning that the New York Times

4:30

installed. Is that what call some

4:32

some sort of phone line is

4:34

something that obviously made it

4:36

easier for people to leak information without

4:38

getting caught. I don't remember the precise parameter

4:41

of it, but Glenn asked, is that

4:43

conspiracy to um,

4:47

you know, disseminate classified

4:49

material? Are they actively now aiding and

4:51

abetting the sharing of classified

4:53

material making them liable in the same way

4:55

that Julian Osane is uh drawn?

4:58

That line is going to be a little

5:00

tough. I think, yeah, there's

5:02

so much gray area here. We at the Post

5:04

have a similar thing called secure drop, where

5:06

people can communicate with us anonymously

5:09

over encrypted apps. They can share tips

5:11

that well, you

5:14

are, I

5:16

think prosecutors would say Assange is a little

5:18

different because he's sort of reaching out

5:21

to Manning and they're trying together

5:23

to hack a government system that you

5:25

know, there are interesting gray areas

5:28

here, though in the indictment also cites things that are

5:30

just sort of common reporting practice, use

5:32

of encrypted apps encouraging sources

5:35

to kind of cover their tracks. That is common

5:38

reporting practice. And Glenn,

5:40

who I really respect, is saying, look,

5:42

even the hacking was kind of a cover up. The

5:44

the hacking wasn't meant to get him more materials.

5:47

It was meant to cover up the fact that materials

5:50

already had been leaked. So is

5:52

that so far from using signal?

5:55

I mean, there is really interesting an interesting

5:57

First Amendment question here. Prosecutors

6:00

sought to narrow that by only charging him

6:02

with sort of one hacking offense, not SPN

6:04

and what yeah, what how big an offense is

6:06

hacking? Anyway? It's it's not

6:09

not that big. But he faces

6:11

so far as a five year statutory

6:13

maximum penalty, and it's it's funny in the federal

6:15

system, nobody really gets the statutory

6:19

so think so on what he's been charged

6:21

with it he's facing a couple of years in jail if

6:23

he's found guilty. So I don't understand why he couldn't

6:25

claim, look, we got the information from Bradley

6:28

and the thumb drive and all that, I didn't get

6:30

it from the hacking. And I don't know how you'd argue with that.

6:33

Yeah, I mean the trick here is it's

6:36

not like hacking has to be successful

6:38

to be a crime, and it's not like hacking has

6:41

to get classified information to be a

6:43

crime. If somebody hacked the Washington Post,

6:45

for example, or sought to hack the Washington Post,

6:48

we don't have classified information that it

6:50

could be across. Just to clear my confusion, as

6:53

I saw Republicans and Democrats talking

6:55

about how Assange needs to rot in jail, that

6:57

doesn't seem like that's even on the table right

6:59

now. No. Now, it is

7:01

possible that they will upgrade the charges

7:03

until he's sort of formally turned over to US

7:06

custody, which is the process that could take years.

7:08

They could upgrade the charges, but for

7:10

some people this is kind of uh, I

7:12

don't know if you would say disappointing, but kind

7:14

of anticlimactic. Again, it's not like he's

7:17

charged as a spy or as an agent

7:19

of a foreign government. And if he cleaned up after

7:21

there's cat, he might still be in the embassy, right

7:26

Mad Zapatosky, The Washington Post is onlinement

7:29

covers national security, among

7:31

other things. Uh so, well,

7:33

yeah, you know, I was going to make the joke

7:36

that the various actresses who

7:38

bribed their kids away into Yale. Are

7:40

you gonna get five times as much time as Julian

7:42

Osan? So it's a little odd we're paying this much attention

7:44

to it. But there he's gonna spend

7:46

that in jail clearly

7:49

and should um and yes, I'm pretty

7:51

judging, But well, I just

7:53

how likely is the addition

7:55

of, for instance, an espionage

7:58

charge Matt that. It's

8:01

just so hard to say. I mean,

8:04

on one hand, a lot of people would want that,

8:06

and this is so surprising that he charged with one

8:08

hacking offense to five year penalty. But on

8:10

the other hand, when you start to bring an

8:12

espionage you're really going to start raising

8:15

these First Amendment concerns. And there's

8:17

also a concern about his extradition. This

8:19

is a very involved,

8:21

intricate process, and if the

8:24

UK decides we've charged him with a

8:26

political crime, they will not send him

8:28

over here. Espionage kind of has a

8:30

political context. So do you slap on those

8:32

charges and risk never getting him back? Do you just

8:35

sit on the hacking charges, maybe at a few more

8:37

hacking charges. Uh? You know, this

8:39

is gonna be a tough call for prosecutors, and

8:41

the United States couldn't say no, no, no no, that's

8:43

just a hack in case. Then get him here and charge him

8:46

with everything, including treason. Put

8:48

him out, go up against the wall because the Brits

8:50

would go nuts. Yeah, that would

8:52

right thereship. Yeah, that's

8:54

right, they couldn't do that. Wow. Wow, this

8:57

is so thought provoking. That's kind of why it's

8:59

fun. Matt zap Potoski, national security

9:01

reporter covering the Just Department for the Washington

9:03

Post. Matt always stimulating. Thanks a Milian,

9:05

We appreciate your time. He's

9:09

gonna end up spending, if any time

9:11

in jail, a very small amount

9:13

in a not very scary jail conspiracy

9:16

to hack. Right, he'll

9:19

spend two years in a medium security jail,

9:21

and you know, given a fact that you know,

9:24

he won't have his cat with him. But he's been

9:26

in a kind of a glorified apartment.

9:29

Nobody speaks anything but Ecuadorian. There's cat

9:31

crap everywhere. He could argue time served,

9:34

right, time served. Yeah,

9:37

I mean, I'm trying to be fair about this, and uh,

9:39

you know, we're both free speech guys. You don't

9:42

want anything that could, in the future make

9:44

it more difficult for

9:46

the truth to come out. I think Julian Ossange

9:48

is a thoroughly bad human being. I

9:50

think he's an awful human being. He hates America,

9:53

so I think that's pretty clear. Yeah, he's an America hater.

9:56

He is more

9:58

than willing to endanger

10:01

innocent people or to spill national

10:03

secrets that there's no justification

10:06

for because he I think he's

10:08

got I think he's a

10:11

megalomaniac. I think he's

10:13

convinced that he's one of the great people in

10:15

history. Um, you know, I

10:17

think some of the stuff he's leaked has been fine. I think

10:19

it probably should have been leaked. Um, some

10:21

of the stuff was was terrible. There's no justifying

10:24

it. So I don't like the guy at all. I

10:26

think he's slimy. On

10:29

the other hand, I get the First Amendment argument

10:32

and and and I think the government needs to tread

10:34

carefully, But they are treading carefully.

10:37

I think we may have

10:40

lines drawn or at least kind of better

10:43

shading on some of this activity as

10:45

a result of this case, as we work

10:48

through it as a people, which I think is probably a

10:50

good thing. I think you'll end up in the United States. Yeah,

10:53

I would guess. So, I would guess spending

10:56

heard some man was saying they don't really want him

10:58

in the United States A real yeah,

11:01

I don't know who. That's interesting? Was that TV

11:03

lawyers, I wonder? Yeah,

11:05

yeah, well it does open up a

11:08

whole series of problems, Justice

11:11

Department problems, pr problems. UM.

11:15

Might be easier just let him languish in embassy

11:17

somewhere surrounded by his cat's poo. Could

11:20

shine a light on some information that people have

11:22

forgotten that came out of it. Yes,

11:25

right now. Because I'm

11:27

also a bad person, I've been very excited

11:29

about the idea that he's got his poison pills

11:32

somewhere ready to get de encrypted

11:34

and uh and disseminated secrets

11:37

about the rich and the powerful all over the world, um,

11:40

which he claims. Yeah, yeah, bring

11:42

it on, Julian, now's the time get

11:45

that dang old beard trimmed and and turn loose

11:48

to gossip man cat scratch

11:50

fever. I see, all right, very

11:53

nice, ted nugent classic and

11:55

going with the cat theme of the previous

11:57

conversation. Why not. I

11:59

would to know what percentage of

12:01

him getting this whole story,

12:04

him getting booted out of the embassy and starting

12:06

this whole story is because he wouldn't clean up after

12:08

his cap. If he had cleaned up after

12:10

his cat, would he's still be there and he wasn't paying

12:12

his bills? Would he been able to live out the rest of

12:14

his life there if he had just cleaned up after his

12:16

cap. From the Ecuadorian's point of view,

12:19

this wasn't a delicate and complex First

12:21

Amendment case. This was a crappy roommate

12:24

right,