Stella Moris: Pardoning Assange Will Also Defend the U.S. Constitution and First Amendment

In an in-depth interview with Revolver.news, published today, Stella Moris-Smith Robinson, fiancée of Julian Assange, developed in greater detail several themes she has discussed in previous interviews, starting with the fact that Assange has committed no crime, and that this is “an unconstitutional, political case that has bent the law to suit its political objective. It turns necessary journalistic practices — communicating with a source and having and publishing true information — into crimes."

Moris-Smith’s description of the U.S.’s First Amendment is eloquent: “The strength of the First Amendment is that it is simple, clear, absolute. It is truly exceptional when you compare it to equivalent rights in Europe, and that comes from the fact that it isn’t what people think it is. It doesn’t grant people rights that can be taken away. It bans lawmakers and the executive from interfering with speech and publishing. So what is unlawful is passing laws attempting to criminalize speech and the press.” She charged that some of the “most sinister” elements of the U.S. government “are abusing the broad wording of an existing piece of legislation, the 1917 Espionage Act, to re-purpose it so that it will do what the First Amendment forbids: interfere with freedom of speech and the press. The political case against Julian has created a noose around the First Amendment rights of everyone.”

Moreover, she added, under Barack Obama, the DOJ “normalized re-purposing the Espionage Act to prosecute whistleblowers. But expanding it to apply to journalists and publishers {is explicitly against what is in the spirit and the wording of the Constitution.} Congress’s stated intent when it passed the Espionage Act was that it would not apply to the press. Julian’s case is the first time it has ever been used against a publisher.” (emphasis added)

“The worst elements of government hate Julian because he has exposed their abuses against the public for years,” Moris-Smith elaborated. “Their self-interest is obvious. They are worried that they will be fired, defunded, or prosecuted, or won’t be able to wage what Julian calls `dangerous, stupid wars.'" She recalled that President Eisenhower “warned in his farewell address to the nation of the undue influence of what he described as the military-industrial complex. Lack of accountability has allowed the shadow state to grow every larger and more powerful. When you consider how they misuse their power to covertly shape press narratives to the detriment of the public, Julian’s work with Wikileaks has been a necessary antidote…. the secret state as a whole threatens the democratic foundations of free societies. It is a bit like a vampire, it doesn’t like sunlight, and Julian is the sunlight.”

Moris-Smith concluded by noting, that “If I could speak to the President, I would tell him that Julian’s liberty and the liberty of the United States hang together. The President can save Julian, he can save our family, and he can save the First Amendment with a single stroke of his pen. It is in his power to do so. He is the only one who can do it, and he can do it today….It is clear that the overwhelming majority of the President’s supporters want to see this pardon and also share this vision. The hardest thing is to realize that the justice system is a misnomer and it can be instrumentalized for political ends. When we speak, I am sure to tell Julian about all the support there is for him. He is enormously encouraged by the overwhelming support for a pardon — from Sarah Palin to numerous Nobel Peace Prize winners, all campaigning for this to happen. That support has an extraordinary energy about it, in the United States and around the world. If the President issues a pardon, he will be forever commended for it, for having saved our liberties and for having Julian’s life.”