WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange secured his release following a plea deal with U.S. authorities.
According to Fox News, Assange's plea agreement allows him to avoid additional prison time in the U.S. and return to his home in Australia.
On Wednesday, Assange pleaded guilty to a felony charge in the Saipan, Northern Mariana Islands federal court. This plea deal led to his sentencing of time served by U.S. District Judge Ramona Manglona.
Judge Manglona acknowledged the severity of Assange's previous incarceration in the U.K., remarking that it factored into her decision to accept the plea agreement. She stated that the prolonged nature of his detention and the lack of physical harm caused by his actions influenced her judgment.
Assange had been held at Belmarsh Prison in London since April 2019 before being flown to Saipan on a chartered flight to face U.S. charges. The charges included 17 counts of violating the Espionage Act and one count of conspiracy to commit computer intrusion, stemming from WikiLeaks' 2010 release of classified U.S. documents leaked by Chelsea Manning.
The documents publicly detailed alleged war crimes and instances of torture by the U.S. government. As part of the plea deal, Assange agreed to destroy any classified information that had been provided to WikiLeaks.
The Justice Department disclosed the plea arrangement on Monday night. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese of Australia expressed his relief and support for the judgment, emphasizing that Assange's continued incarceration served no purpose.
Stella Assange, Julian's wife, expressed her relief regarding the deal, stating that it had been a tense period for the family, with uncertainty about whether the agreement would go through. Assange’s attorney, Jennifer Robinson, also expressed immense satisfaction that Assange can now reunite with his family in Australia.
Seth Stern, head of advocacy at the Freedom of the Press Foundation, criticized the prosecution yet acknowledged that ending the legal pursuit was a relief. Ben Wizner, who leads the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project, shared similar sentiments, stressing that the activities Assange admitted to are fundamental to investigative journalism.
Judge Manglona emphasized the temporal aspect of her decision, suggesting that her view of the case might have been different had it occurred closer to when the acts were initially committed. Her remarks about the absence of a personal victim reinforced the decision. She reminded the court that it's 2024, implying the lengthy duration of proceedings weighed heavily on her mind.
President Obama had previously refrained from charging Assange for the 2010 leaks. This was consistent with his commutation of Chelsea Manning's sentence in January 2017.
Looking forward, Assange’s return to Australia is welcomed by supporters who view this outcome as a victory for free speech and press freedom. Meanwhile, critics continue to reflect on the broader implications for national security and the boundaries of investigative journalism.
In summary, Julian Assange’s guilty plea ends his imprisonment and extradition battle, steadfastly supported by prominent figures in advocacy and politics. He leaves behind a contentious legacy that sparks ongoing debate in journalism and national security circles.
On Tuesday afternoon, President Joe Biden's official White House X account committed an embarrassing error in a now-deleted post.
As reported by Fox News, President Biden's account mistakenly referred to a federal judge's decision as a ruling by the Supreme Court before quickly deleting and correcting the post.
The incorrect post aimed to address a preliminary injunction issued by a Louisiana federal judge. This injunction temporarily paused the White House's ban on new liquefied natural gas exports.
The case was brought forward by sixteen Republican-led states, which stood against Biden’s limitations on energy projects. The White House X account inaccurately described the ruling as a "Supreme Court ruling" rather than a federal court decision.
The original post read:
Yesterday's Supreme Court ruling on our pause on Liquified Natural Gas exports is incredibly disappointing. I'll continue doing everything I can to protect our environment and our communities, while ensuring America’s energy security.
Realizing the error, the account swiftly deleted the post and published a corrected version, omitting the mention of the Supreme Court. The corrected statement properly referred to it as "yesterday’s court ruling."
Despite the swift correction, screenshots of the original post were captured and circulated by social media users, drawing widespread attention to the mistake. The community note attached to the shared images clarified, "This was not a Supreme Court decision. It was a federal judge in Louisiana."
Public figures and commentators quickly chimed in with their reactions. David Pivtorak remarked, "Good lord even the X account has dementia," while Paul Szypula added, "Wow, even his interns have cognitive issues."
The popular Libs of TikTok account noted: "Biden just deleted this post after confusing the Supreme Court with a Federal Court. This case literally had nothing to do with the Supreme Court." Christopher Calvin Reid expressed: "Biden's staff is just as inattentive to detail as he is."
Chaya Raichik criticized the error, questioning, "Which DEI hire is responsible for this." Michael D. Brown speculated: "Maybe Hunter Biden is now doing POTUS’ social media…"
Courtney Holland also commented on the mistake, stating: "The Biden team, in a now deleted post, confused a federal court decision with a SCOTUS decision. Not the best timing."
Overall, the gaffe and the subsequent correction have opened a dialogue about President Biden's and his administration's competence. As screenshots of the initial error continue to spread across social media, it remains to be seen how the White House will address the fallout from this mistake.
In summary, Biden’s White House X account mistakenly referred to a federal judge's ruling as a Supreme Court decision, leading to a swift deletion and correction. The lawsuit challenging the White House’s energy policies involved sixteen Republican states. Despite the swift correction, social media reactions highlighted the mistake, further fueling ongoing concerns regarding Biden's mental acuity ahead of the political battle for the presidency.