Whistleblower Julian Assange has given one of his most incendiary interviews ever in a John Pilger Special, courtesy of Dartmouth Films, in which he summarizes what can be gleaned from the tens of thousands of Clinton emails released by WikiLeaks this year.
John Pilger, another Australian émigré, conducted the 25-minute interview at the Ecuadorian Embassy, where Assange has been trapped since 2012 for fear of extradition to the US. Last month, Assange had his internet access cut off for alleged “interference” in the American presidential election through the work of his website.
made FBI look weak, now there is anger’
the significance of the FBI's intervention in this last week of the
US election campaign in the case against Hillary Clinton?
you go to the history of the FBI, it has become effectively America's
political police. And the FBI demonstrated with taking down the
former head of the CIA over classified information given to his
mistress [that] almost no one was untouchable. The FBI is always
trying to demonstrate that, "No one can resist us." But
Hillary Clinton very conspicuously resisted the FBI's investigation.
So, there is anger within the FBI because it made the FBI look weak.
Well, we have published quite a number of different sets of emails,
so, about 33,000 of Clinton's emails while she was Secretary of
State. They come from a batch of just over 60,000 emails. In those
60,000 emails, Clinton has kept about half, 30,000, to herself, and
we have published about half. And then there are the Podesta emails
we've been publishing. Podesta is Hillary Clinton's primary campaign
manager. So, there's a thread that runs through all of these emails.
There is quite a lot of "pay for play," as they call it –
taking… giving access in exchange for money for many individual
states, individuals and corporations – combined with the cover-up
of Hillary Clinton's emails while she was Secretary of State has led
to an environment where the pressure on the FBI increases.
government not the source of Clinton leaks’
the Clinton campaign has said that Russia is behind all of this. It
says that Russia has manipulated the campaign and is the source for
WikiLeaks and its mails.
Clinton camp has been able to project that kind of neo-McCarthyist
hysteria that Russia is responsible for everything.
Clinton stated multiple times – falsely – that 17 US intelligence
agencies had assessed that Russia was the source of our publications.
OK. That's false. We can say that the Russian government is not the
source, yes. WikiLeaks has been publishing for 10 years. In that 10
years, we've published 10 million documents. Several thousand
individual publications, several thousand different sources. And we
have never got it wrong.
Arabia & Qatar funding ISIS and Clinton’
the emails that give evidence of access for money and how Hillary
Clinton herself benefitted from this and how she is benefitting
politically are quite extraordinary. I'm thinking of where the Qatari
representative was given five minutes with Bill Clinton for a
million-dollar check and many other examples. Can you…?
terms of the foreign policy of the United States, that's where –
for me, anyway – where the emails are most revealing, where they
show the direct connection Hillary Clinton and the foundation of
jihadism, of ISIL in the Middle East. Can you talk something about
that? What the… how the emails demonstrate this connection
between... those who are meant to be fighting the jihadist ISIL are
actually those who have helped create it.
an early 2014 email from Hillary Clinton, so not so long after she
left [her job as] Secretary of State, to her campaign manager John
Podesta. That email, it states that ISIL, ISIS is funded by Saudi
Arabia and Qatar – the governments of Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Now,
this is a… I actually think this is the most significant email in
the whole collection...
perhaps because Saudi and Qatari money is spread all over the place,
including into many media institutions, all serious analysts know,
even the US government has mentioned or agreed with that some Saudi
figures have been supporting ISIS, funding ISIS. But the dodge has
always been, that's… what… it's just some rogue princes using
their cut of the oil money to do what they like but actually the
government disapproves. But that email says that no, it is the
governments of Saudi and the government of Qatar that have been
Saudis, the Qataris, the Moroccans, the Bahrainis – particularly
the Saudis and the Qataris giving all this money to the Clinton
Foundation while Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State and the State
Department is approving massive arms sales, particularly to Saudi
Hillary Clinton, and Clinton emails reveal significant discussion
about it, the largest ever arms deal in the world was made with Saudi
Arabia – more than $80 billion. In fact, during her tenure as
Secretary of State, total arms exports from United States in terms of
the dollar value double.
And of course, the consequence of that is that this notorious
terrorist jihadist group called ISIL, or ISIS, is created largely
with money from the very people who are giving money to the Clinton
has been eaten alive by her ambition’
Hillary Clinton is just a person. I actually feel quite sorry for
Hillary Clinton as a person because I see someone who is eaten alive
by their ambitions, tormented literally to the point where they
become sick. You know, they faint as a result of going on and going
on with their ambitions. But she represents a whole network of
people, and a network of relationships also with particular states.
The question is, how does Hillary Clinton fit in this broader
network? She's this centralizing cog, so that you've got a lot of
different gears in operation from the big banks like Goldman Sachs,
and major elements of Wall Street, and intelligence, and people in
the State Department, and the Saudis, and so on. She's is the, if you
like, the centralizer that interconnects all these different cogs.
She's smooth central representation of all that, and all that is more
or less what is in power now in the United States. It's what you call
the establishment, or the DC consensus, and its influences. In fact,
one of the most significant Podesta emails that we released was about
how the Obama cabinet was formed – and half the Obama cabinet was
basically nominated by a representative from Citibank. It is quite
Wall Street decides the cabinet of the president of the United
you were following the Obama campaign back then closely, you could
see it had become very close to banking interests. It wasn't so close
to oil interests but it was very close to banking interests.
I think you can't properly understand Hillary Clinton's foreign
policy without understanding Saudi Arabia. The connections with Saudi
Arabia are so intimate.
is Hillary Clinton’s war’
was she so demonstrably enthusiastic about the destruction of Libya?
Can you talk a little about just what the emails have told us –
told you – about what happened there? Because Libya is such a
source for so much of the mayhem now in Syria: the ISIL, jihadism,
and so on. And it was almost Hillary Clinton's invasion. What do the
emails tell us about that?
more that anyone else's war was Hillary Clinton's war. Barack Obama
initially opposed it. Who was the person who was championing it?
Hillary Clinton. That's documented throughout her emails. She had…
She put her favored agent in effect, Sidney Blumenthal, onto that.
There's more than 1,700 emails out of the 33 thousand of Hillary
Clinton's emails we published just about Libya. It's not about that
Libya has cheap oil. She perceived the removal of Gaddafi and the
overthrow of the Libyan state something that she would use to run in
the general election for president. So late 2011, there's an internal
document called the "Libya Tick Tock" that is produced for
Hillary Clinton, and it's all the... it's a chronological description
of how Hillary Clinton was the central figure in the destruction of
the Libyan state. As a result, there are around 40,000 deaths within
Libya. Jihadists moved in, ISIS moved in. That led to the European
refugee and migrant crisis, because not only did you have people
fleeing Libya, people then fleeing Syria, destabilization of other
African countries as a result of arms flows. The Libyan state itself
was no longer able to control movement of people through it. So,
Libya faces on to the Mediterranean. So, it had been effectively the
cork in the bottle of Africa. So, all problems, all economic
problems, the civil war in Africa... Previously, the people fleeing
those problems didn’t end up in Europe because Libya policed the
Mediterranean. And that was said explicitly at the time, back in
2011, by Gaddafi: what do these Europeans think they are doing,
trying to bomb and destroy the Libyan state? There’s going to be
floods of migrants out of Africa, and jihadists into Europe. And that
is exactly what happened.
won’t be permitted to win’
get a lot of complaints from people saying, “What is WikiLeaks
doing, are they trying to put Trump into White House?”
analysis is that Trump would not be permitted to win. Why do I
say that? Because he’s had every establishment offside. Trump
doesn’t have one establishment – maybe with the exception of the
Evangelicals, if you can call them an establishment. But banks,
intelligence, arms companies, big foreign money, etc. – it’s all
united behind Hillary Clinton. And the media as well: so, media
owners and even journalists themselves.
accusations that WikiLeaks is in league with the Russians and you
hear people saying, “Well, why doesn’t WikiLeaks investigate and
publish emails on Russia?”
have published over 800,000 documents of various kinds that relate to
Russia. Most of those are critical. And… a great many books have
come out of our publications about Russia, most of which are
critical. And our documents have gone on to be used in quite a number
of court cases, refugee cases of people fleeing some kinds of claimed
political persecution in Russia, which they use our documents to back
you take yourself a view of the US election? Do you have a preference
for Clinton or Trump?
Trump – what does he represent in the American mind and in the
European mind? He represents American “white trash,” deplorable
and irredeemable. Basically, the same thing. It means, from a…
establishment or educated, cosmopolitan, urbane perspective, these
people are, you know, like the rednecks, and you can’t… like,
they are just… you can never deal with them. And because he so
clearly – through his words and actions and the type of people that
turns up at his rallies – represents the people who are not the
upper-middle-class-educated, there is a fear of seeming to be
associated in any way with that, a social fear that lowers the class
status of anyone who can be accused of somehow assisting in any way
Trump, including criticizing Clinton. And if you look at how the
middle class gains its economic and social power, it makes absolute
attempting to squeeze WikiLeaks through my refugee status’
like to talk about Ecuador, a small country that has given you refuge
and has given you asylum in this embassy in London. Now, Ecuador cut
off the Internet from here, where we’re doing this interview, in
the embassy for the clearly obvious reason that they were concerned
about appearing to intervene in the US election campaign. Can you
talk about why they would take that action and your own views on
Ecuador’s support for you?
go back four years ago. I made an asylum application to Ecuador in
this embassy because of the US extradition case. And the result was
after a month, I was successful in my application, and then the
embassy has been surrounded by the police. Quite an expensive police
operation, which the British government admits they’re spending
more than 12.6 million pounds – they’ve admitted that over a year
ago. And now there’s undercover police and there’s robot
surveillance cameras of various kinds. So, there has been a quite
serious conflict right here in the heart of London between Ecuador –
a country of 16 million people – and the United Kingdom. And the
Americans, who’ve been helping on the side. So, that was a brave
and principled thing for Ecuador to do. Now we have the US election
afoot. The Ecuadorian election is in February next year. You have the
White House feeling the political heat as a result of the true
information that we have been publishing. WikiLeaks does not publish
from the jurisdiction of Ecuador, from its embassy or the territory
of Ecuador. We publish from France, we publish from Germany, we
publish from the Netherlands and a number of other countries. So, the
attempted squeeze on WikiLeaks is through my refugee status. And this
is really intolerable: When you try and get at a publishing
organization, to try and prevent it publishing true information that
is of intense interest to the American people and others about an
us what would happen if you walked out of this embassy.
I would be immediately arrested by the British police, and I would
then be extradited, either immediately to the United States, or to
Sweden. In Sweden, I am not charged, I’ve already been previously
cleared, etc. So, we’re not certain exactly what would happen
there, but then we know that the Swedish government has refused to
say that they will not extradite me to the United States. And they
have extradited 100 percent of people that the US has requested since
at least 2000. So, over the last 15 years, every single person that
the US has tried to extradite from Sweden has been extradited. And
they refuse to provide the guarantees. So, it’s… yeah.
often ask how you cope with the isolation here.
one of the best attributes of human beings is that they are
adaptable. One of the worst attributes of human beings is that they
are adaptable. They adapt and start to tolerate abuses. They adapt to
being involved themselves in abuses. They adapt to adversity and
continue on. So, in my situation… frankly, I’m a bit
institutionalized. This is the world – visually, this is the world.
a world without sunlight, for one thing…
a world without sunlight, but I haven’t seen sunlight in so long
like I don’t remember it. So, yeah, you adapt. The one real
irritant is that my young children – they also adapt. They adapt to
being without their father. That’s a hard adaptation, which they
didn’t ask for.
you worry about them?
I worry about them, I worry about their mother.
am innocent and in arbitrary detention’
people would say, “Well, why don’t you end it and simply walk out
the door and allow yourself to be extradited to Sweden?”
UN has looked into this whole situation. They spent 18 months in
formal adversarial litigation: me, at the UN, versus Sweden and the
UK – who is right? The UN made a conclusion – I’m being
arbitrarily detained, illegally, deprived of my freedom. What has
been… occurred, has not occurred within the laws that the United
Kingdom and Sweden must obey. It is an illegal abuse. I mean, the
United Nations formally asking what’s going on here, what’s your
legal explanation for this. He says you should be… you should
recognize his asylum. Sweden formally writing back to United Nations,
says “No, we’re not going to,” leaving open their ability to
extradite. I just find it absolutely amazing that the narrative about
this situation is not put out publicly and in the press. Because it
doesn’t suit the Western establishment narrative that, “Yes, the
West has political prisoners.” It’s a reality. It’s not just
me, there’s a bunch of other people as well. The West has political
prisoners. No state accepts to call the people it is imprisoning or
detaining for political reasons “political prisoners.” They don’t
call them political prisoners in China, they don’t call them
political prisoners in Azerbaijan, and they don’t call them
political prisoners in the United States, the UK or Sweden. It’s
absolutely intolerable to have that kind of self-perception. But here
we have a case. Talking about the Swedish case, where I have never
been charged with a crime, where I have already been cleared and
found to be innocent, where the woman herself said that the police
made it up, where the United Nations formally said the whole thing is
illegal, where the state of Ecuador also investigated and found that
I should be given asylum. Those are the facts. But what is the
rhetoric is pretending, constantly pretending that I have been
charged with a crime, never mentioning that I have been already
previously cleared, never mentioning that the woman herself says that
the police made it up, trying to avoid that the UN formally found
that the whole thing is illegal. Never even mentioning that Ecuador
made a formal assessment through its formal processes and found that
yes, I am subject to persecution by the United States.