An Arizona State University (ASU) professor is among the 38 law professors petitioning the Department of Justice (DOJ) for the release of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange.
ASU law professor Gregg Leslie and 37 other professors submitted their petition days ahead of Tuesday’s hearing on Assange’s extradition from the U.K. Should the court deny his request to block his extradition, Assange will be taken to the U.S. to face 17 espionage charges over his 2010 publication of classified materials.
Among the leaked materials were footage of a 2007 airstrike in Baghdad revealing that soldiers shot 18 civilians from a helicopter, including a Reuters journalist and his assistant; nearly 391,900 Iraq War logs spanning 2004 to 2009; and the “Cablegate” files consisting of diplomatic cables revealing U.S. espionage against the United Nations and other world leaders, tensions with allies, and corruption in other countries.
The DOJ accused Assange of working with former Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning to obtain classified information. The DOJ charged Assange with espionage in 2019, alleging that he used Manning to secure certain sets of classified Secret documents: about 90,000 Afghanistan war-related significant activity reports, 400,000 Iraq war-related significant activities reports, 800 Guantanamo Bay detainee assessment briefs, and 250,000 State Department cables.
In 2020, the DOJ issued a second superseding indictment broadening the scope of the charges to include allegations that Assange recruited computer hackers to benefit Wikileaks. The indictment cited an alleged unauthorized access to a government computer system of a NATO country in 2010, and a contract with a hacking group to obtain materials from the CIA, NSA, or New York Times.
Last week’s letter from the 38 law professors made the case that Assange qualified as a journalist and, therefore, the First Amendment protected Assange’s actions. The law professors countered that Wikileaks’ openness to receiving information didn’t qualify as Assange recruiting sources or soliciting confidential documents
“Award-winning journalists everywhere also regularly ‘recruit’ and speak with sources, use encrypted or anonymous communications channels, receive and accept confidential information, ask questions to sources about it, and publish it,” said the professors. “That is not a crime — it’s investigative journalism. As long as they don’t participate in their source’s illegality, their conduct is entitled to the full protection of the First Amendment.”
The law professors further warned that Assange’s prosecution served as an “existential threat” to the First Amendment and would, in time, enable the prosecution of other reporters. They cited the police raid of a local Kansas newspaper that occurred last August based on verbal allegations of identity theft.
“It could enable prosecution of routine newsgathering under any number of ambiguous laws and untested legal theories,” said the professors.
In that case, a disgruntled local restaurant owner had told the city council and the county attorney — the brother-in-law of the hotel owner housing her restaurant — that the local newspaper had illegally obtained documentation of an unresolved DUI charge that proved she had been driving without a valid license for over a decade. At the time, the newspaper had also been investigating claims of sexual misconduct by the police chief. Within days, the police conducted their unlawful raid. The newspaper had obtained the documentation legally through public records.
Similarly, editors and publishers of a number of news outlets, including The New York Times and The Guardian, argued that Assange engaged in journalism by obtaining and disclosing sensitive information for the public interest.
In a 2019 press release announcing Assange’s charges, the DOJ dismissed the claim that Assange qualified as a journalist.
“Julian Assange is no journalist. This is made plain by the totality of his conduct as alleged in the indictment — i.e., his conspiring with and assisting a security clearance holder to acquire classified information, and his publishing the names of human sources,” stated the DOJ.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
Secretary of State Adrian Fontes wants the Department of Justice (DOJ) to crack down more aggressively on threats to election officials.
Fontes revealed his dissatisfaction with the Biden administration in an exclusive interview with The Rolling Stone. He said that prosecutors ought to hit harder and treat the threats as domestic terrorism.
“We’ve got people who are threatening violence or committing acts of violence to achieve a political end,” said Fontes. “How are these people not being treated like terrorists?”
Fontes said that DOJ Attorney General Merrick Garland is endangering Americans because has been “far too cautious” when handling threats against election workers and officials.
“I have a lot of respect for the attorney general, but he is not being nearly aggressive enough on this threat, which is imperiling our democracy, and he and the department are not devoting nearly enough resources to it,” said Fontes. “It’s a crying shame when they put the physical health of their agency up against their actual duties to protect people and to protect our democracy.”
The secretary of state further accused the Biden administration of taking election officials for granted, and implied that entities like the DOJ owed election workers for getting them elected.
“They have the capacity to serve with honor because we have changes in administration at the White House, different people doing investigations and oversight in Congress,” said Fontes. “They need to prioritize those folks who administer the democracy that gives them that warm blanket that they serve under.”
According to the DOJ, Fontes and federal agents have engaged at least four times over the past 18 months. DOJ deputy chief John Keller told Rolling Stone that the agency has been aggressive in its response to threats against election workers and officials.
“The Justice Department will continue to aggressively prosecute cases involving threats to election workers to the fullest extent of the law,” said Keller. “Recent convictions and sentences demonstrate that federal courts and the department are taking threats to the election community extremely seriously, and there will be consequences commensurate with the seriousness of the activity.”
The Biden administration launched the Election Threats Task Force in mid-2021. In 2022, the DOJ announced its investigations into over 100 cases out of over 1,000 complaints reviewed.
Since the ETTF’s launch, the DOJ has charged four individuals for making threats to Arizona election officials concerning the 2020 election: James Clark, Walter Lee Hoornstra, Mark Rissi, and Joshua Russell. Several major threats made by critics against GOP election audit efforts, however, were overlooked.
Fontes also said that he and other election workers were risking their lives every day due to lies about the recent past elections and the elections system.
“[S]omeone who’s listening to that lie, believing it, is so upset about it that they literally want to go kill you. It’s a very very strange place to be as a civilized society,” said Fontes.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
In whatever field you work for, can you imagine doing your job with one hand tied behind your back? What about both hands tied behind your back? Well, for the Phoenix Police Department this is no longer an “imagination,” this is their reality.
For the past 2 years, the Department of Justice has been investigating the Phoenix PD on the basis of allegations against the department regarding use of force, retaliation to protestors, and mistreating the homeless. For 2 years the Phoenix PD has been fully compliant with their investigation as stated by the Phoenix Law Enforcement Association in an open letter to Mayor Kate Gallego;“Because the city and it’s police department have nothing to hide, you have cooperated with every aspect of the DOJ’s investigation thus far – rightly so, and with our full support.”
However, the Phoenix PD, in that same open letter, conveyed their dismay to Mayor Gallego; “I write to you today on behalf of PLEA, United Phoenix Firefighters Local 493, AFSCME 2384, AFSCME 2960, ASPTEA and neighborhood groups Operation Blue Ribbon, Violence Impact Coalition, and Phoenix Mid-Century Modern Neighborhood Association to express our concerns about the direction of the DOJ investigation and its implications for the future of the City of Phoenix.”The Department of Justice, after concluding their “investigation,” has recommended—as they always seem to do—a consent decree go in effect for the Phoenix PD.
Now, why is this such a bad thing? Why are people against this? Here are a few of the reasons.
At What Cost
Let’s start with the most obvious reason taxpayers and residents of Phoenix oppose this. The financial burden on the City of Phoenix would be astronomical, costing the city $10 million alone for the court ordered monitor required by the consent decree. The rest of the cost widely depends on the length a consent decree is in effect for, but the Seattle PD, which has a consent decree, has spent $100 million so far. And that number continues to climb as the consent decree remains in place. I am sure you can see why taxpayers would be against this.
“I’m From the Government, and I’m Here to Help”
If the cost alone isn’t enough to sway you, then let’s look back on Ronald Reagan’s famous quote that the “nine most terrifying words in the English language are ‘I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.’” This is exactly what is going on in Phoenix. There really is no reason that someone from another state or the federal government should be dictating or instructing officers within the Phoenix PD. This takes away our state and local sovereignty. While the Phoenix PD is not perfect, they have taken actions and steps to improve and make policy and training changes when necessary. For the DOJ to come in and overreach in such a way, costing taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars, is grossly inappropriate.
The CRIME, Need More Be Said?
If you look at cities that have a consent decree in place, violent crime has skyrocketed! In a statement, about a survey of officers within the Phoenix PD, the President of the Phoenix Law Enforcement Association said, “In [the survey], we asked what the members felt would happen to crime if a consent decree was implemented. 93.73% said crime would rise either somewhat or substantially. That is in line with what we have seen across the country.”In that same survey, officers were asked how likely they would be to retire if a consent decree were to go in effect for Phoenix PD. The President of the Phoenix Law Enforcement Association shared the results, saying, “Here in Phoenix, we are approximately 600 short of the max staffing of 3,125. In a recent survey, PLEA asked members how likely they would be to retire or resign if a consent decree was implemented in Phoenix. 12.57% responded that they would definitely retire or resign, while another 30.26% said they would strongly consider retiring or resigning. 42.87% is a concerning number!” Phoenix already has rising crime rates. We cannot afford to lose more officers. We need to gain more!
This Affects Us ALL
If you don’t live in Phoenix, why should you care? Phoenix is the 5th largest police department in the U.S. If the DOJ can do this to Phoenix, what will stop them from coming to Chandler, Gilbert, Mesa, Scottsdale, or other cities in the valley? Not only that, but if crime rates soar in Phoenix, that will certainly flow into neighboring cities. As the residency rates rise in Arizona, crime is bound to rise too, but so far Arizona has remained a decently safe state to live. However, if this consent decree goes in effect, there’s no telling how bad it could get.
Speed, Speed, Speed
After a slow and drawn-out investigation, speed seems to be the name of the game for the DOJ all of a sudden. After the DOJ concluded its two-year investigation, it brought its recommendation to the city council and for a decision within 48 hours. Many council members were frustrated and curious as to why an outside entity came into their city and demanded action in 48 hours when they themselves got 2 years to do their investigation. As Phoenix Councilwoman Ann O’Brien said, “Phoenix has been transparent and collaborative, now it’s time for the DOJ to do the same.”
This Is Nonpartisan
This is a non-partisan issue that affects all Arizonans, and we need you in this fight. Even the Maricopa County Sheriff Paul Penzone, a Democrat, has announced his resignation because of the lack of ability to run his office due to this consent decree. That’s why I encourage everyone in our state to go to community forums hosted by the Phoenix PD and voice your concerns. The future of our state may depend on it.
Joseph Yang is a young community leader and grassroots activist. He currently runs a community organization and serves on the Chandler Police Review Panel. Joseph is the Founder of the East Valley Young Republicans and current assistant state advisor for the TeenAge Republicans. He hosts a show called “The Conservative Seoul Show” that you can find here.
Phoenix officers and residents have expressed concerns that the Department of Justice (DOJ) will use a consent decree to take over the Phoenix Police Department (PPD), as they have done for several dozen other major cities across the country.
Activists accused the DOJ of using a rinse-and-repeat playbook: launching opaque investigations into police departments over alleged misconduct that invariably churn out multimillion-dollar consent decrees containing politicized departmental reforms that result in higher crime rates.
Arizona Women of Action (AZWOA), a right-leaning grassroots nonprofit, said they have received emails from police officers expressing concern over Phoenix entering into a consent decree. AZWOA urged their network to have the Phoenix City Council oppose a consent decree in a press release.
“Please VOTE NO to a DOJ consent decree, and protect our city from high crime and high costs that come with it,” stated AZWOA. “Simply issue a letter of acknowledgement instead of taking on the costly and unnecessary Federal Monitor and decree.”
Consent decrees came to be during former President Bill Clinton’s first term in office under the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, with the specific goal of remedying alleged civil rights violations based on alleged patterns or practices of racial discrimination or excessive use of force. Under a consent decree, a city agrees to federal reforms and monitoring outlined as Recommended Remedial Measures (RRM) within a court-enforced settlement agreed upon by the city and DOJ. Should a city refuse an agreement, the DOJ will then sue the city to ensure compliance.
The DOJ began investigating PPD in August 2021. Their investigation focuses on types of force used, retaliatory activity against First Amendment-protected activity, discriminatory policing, unlawful seizures or disposals of homeless belongings, and responses to disabled individuals.
In August, two years after initiating their investigation, the DOJ and city of Phoenix offered an update. PPD provided over 20,000 body-worn camera videos, 80,000 documents, 200 hours of ride-alongs, and access to trainings at Phoenix Police Academy to DOJ investigators. PPD Interim Chief Michael Sullivan indicated in a video corresponding with the two-year update that PPD would seek to be independent of DOJ oversight.
“We need to be a self-assessing, self-correcting agency, and that’s not just something that we say,” said Sullivan.
Albuquerque, New Mexico; Baltimore, Maryland; Chicago, Illinois; Cleveland, Ohio; Ferguson, Missouri; Los Angeles County, California; Miami, Florida; New Orleans, Louisiana; Newark, New Jersey; Portland, Oregon; the Puerto Rico Police Department; Seattle, Washington; Springfield, Massachusetts; and Suffolk County, New York are among those major cities who have operated under a DOJ consent decree.
These consent decrees come at a great cost, with cities paying anywhere from several to tens of millions annually. Cleveland taxpayers have paid anywhere from $6 million to $11 million annually since 2015.
Part of the great cost comes from independent monitors charged with ensuring law enforcement’s compliance with the consent decree. Albuquerque has paid out millions to its independent monitor: six figures a month, totaling about $11 million since his work began in 2015. The monitor has made over $1.5 million annually, despite reportedly not living in the city. What’s more, investigative reporters found in April that Albuquerque’s violent crime rate has doubled since DOJ oversight began in 2015. Albuquerque Police Officers Association president Shaun Willoughby said that DOJ oversight has cost much for worsening returns.
“We have spent millions upon millions upon millions of taxpayers’ dollars, for what?” said Willoughby. “What did you get, Albuquerque? What did you receive out of this process but higher crime, a smaller police department, and you’re waiting longer for calls? That’s it.”
Consent decree timelines are subject to change as well.
Despite the worsening crime conditions, Albuquerque may only leave the consent decree if it achieves 95 percent operational compliance; as of May, the city had achieved 92 percent. The city originally agreed in 2015 to attempt full compliance within four years, or 2019, but has been kept under the agreement for over eight years now.
Studies have linked consent decrees to excess crime. A 2020 Harvard University report claimed that consent decrees created the conditions for 900 excess homicides and nearly 34,000 excess felonies.
Axios found that seven of 12 agencies experienced jumps in violent crime rates within the two years after enacting a consent decree.
Earlier this month, Law Officer reported that the city of Phoenix posted a job opening for a DOJ policy writer — despite the DOJ not having yet completed its investigation. The job listing appears to have since been removed.
“We aren’t sure what is happening in Phoenix but the DOJ has not even completed an investigation and it appears that officials within the city are simply assuming that they will be under a DOJ Consent Decree?” questioned the report.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
The federal government and state governments across the country should be doing everything they can to ensure election integrity going forward. Over the past few years, the Arizona legislature has taken this to heart. But the Left has been fighting against every legitimate election reform that comes from conservatives. Not only are they filing lawsuits in court, but they’ve been deploying a new tactic that threatens the First Amendment.
Lawsuits Against Election Integrity Bills
In 2021, the Arizona legislature passed, and then-Governor Ducey signed into law SB 1485—a law designed to clean up Arizona’s early voter list. Then in 2022, state lawmakers followed that up with HB 2243 (to ensure regular voter list maintenance) and HB 2492 (to ensure that only U.S. citizens are voting in our elections).
These are commonsense laws that everyone should be able to get behind, but the Left gave up commonsense years ago…
