At Parliament Hill in London Saturday, there was a demonstration on behalf of jailed Wikileaks founder Julian Assange. Present was the famed rendering of Assange, Chelsea Manning, and Edward Snowden made by sculptor Davide Domino. The statue includes an empty chair for the next whistleblower. I had the honor of standing on that chair to give a short address:
I have a confession to make. Once. like a lot of journalists, I didn’t like Julian Assange. It wasn’t just that Wikileaks was breaking one huge story after another. He had fab hair. He wore skinny jeans. He even modeled at fashion week!
What can I say? I was jealous. We’re in London, so I can quote Shakespeare, can’t I?
Beware the green-eyed monster, which doth mock the meat it feeds on.
Jealousy, that monster, impairs one’s thinking. It impaired mine. I didn’t have a reason to dislike Assange. So I invented one. I decided I didn’t like the concept of “radical transparency.” I thought: “You can’t just dump all of those secrets on the public. That’s irresponsible!”
I was so brainwashed that I forgot, as many people do, that secrets do not belong to governments. That information belongs to us. Governments rule by our consent. If they want to keep secrets, they must have our permission to do so. And they never have the right to keep crimes secret.
I’m an American. Many of you are from the U.K. In our countries, we’re building skyscrapers and huge newcomplexes to store our secrets, because we don’t have room to keep them all as is!
Why do we have so many secrets? Julian Assange told us why. From an essay he wrote:
Authoritarian regimes give rise to forces which oppose them by pushing aga inst the individual and collective will to freedom, truth and self realization. Plans which assist authoritarian rule, once discovered, induce resistance. Hence these plans are concealed by successful authoritarian powers.
When governments become authoritarian, they inspire resistance. Techniques must then be developed to repel that resistance. Those techniques must then be concealed.
In short: the worse a country is, the more secrets it has. We have a lot of secrets now.
Left, robots tend to the FBI’s Central Records Complex in Winchester, Virginia. Right, the NSA’s “Bumblehive” data center in Utah
Julian Assange became famous as we were creating a vast new government-within-a-government, a system of secret prisons, extraordinary rendition, mass surveillance, and drone assassination. Many of these things we know about only because of Wikileaks. Ostensibly, all this secrecy was needed to fight foreign terrorism.
The brutal irony now is the architects of that system no longer feel the need to hide their dirty tactics. My government, openly, wants to put this man in jail for 175 years, mostly for violations of the Espionage Act. These include crimes like “conspiracy to receive national defense information,” or “obtaining national defense information.”
What is “national defense information?” The answer is what makes this law so dangerous. It’s whatever they say it is. It’s any information they don’t want to get out. It doesn’t even have to be classified.
The amended Assange indictment
What is conspiracy to obtain such information? We have a word for that. It’s called journalism.
My government wants to put Julian Assange in jail for 175 years for practicing journalism. The government of this country, the U.K., is going to allow it to happen.
If they did this to Andrei Sakharov, or Nelson Mandela, every human rights organization in the world would be denouncing this as an intolerable outrage. Every NGO would be lining up to lend support. Every journalist would be penning editorials demanding his release.
But because our own governments are doing it, we get silence.
If you’re okay with this happening to one Julian Assange, you’d better be okay with it happening to many others. That’s why this moment is so important. If Assange is successfully extradited and convicted, it will take about ten minutes for it to happen again. From there this will become a common occurrence. There will be no demonstrations in parks, no more news stories. This will become a normal part of our lives.
Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) is ramping up pressure on the FBI and IRS to release unredacted records related to Jeffrey Epstein, insisting the public deserves full transparency regarding his associates and financial dealings.
In a letter addressed to newly appointed FBI Director Kash Patel and acting IRS Commissioner Douglas O’Donnell, Blackburn, 72, demanded the agencies provide “complete, unredacted records” regarding Epstein, including flight logs, surveillance footage, and financial documents.
“This critical information identifying every individual who could have participated in Jeffrey Epstein’s abhorrent conduct is long overdue,” Blackburn wrote. “The survivors of Mr. Epstein’s horrific crimes want transparency and accountability, and they—and the American people—deserve nothing less.”
Epstein, a disgraced financier with high-profile connections, was arrested in July 2019 on federal child sex trafficking charges. He was found dead in his Manhattan jail cell a month later, with the official ruling being suicide. His death has fueled years of speculation and demands for answers regarding his extensive network of associates.
Demands for Full Disclosure
Blackburn is specifically seeking the unredacted flight logs from Epstein’s private jet and helicopter, along with his convicted associate Ghislaine Maxwell’s records, including the infamous “little black book.” Additionally, she is calling for the release of surveillance footage from Epstein’s Palm Beach residence, which was allegedly a hub for his illicit activities.
While redacted versions of these documents have previously surfaced online or been included in lawsuits, Blackburn argues that the full versions must be made public. “Since Mr. Epstein’s death in 2019, there is still much about this tragic case that is not known—including the names of his associates that are listed in the flight logs of his private jet and in Ghislaine Maxwell’s ‘little black book,’” she wrote.
Beyond the FBI, Blackburn is also pressing the IRS for records detailing Epstein and Maxwell’s financial dealings. She is requesting “any and all” documents revealing individuals and entities that had financial relationships with them.
FBI Director Patel’s Pledge
During his confirmation hearing last month, Patel assured Blackburn that he would “absolutely” work with her to bring more transparency to Epstein’s case files. However, it remains unclear how far he will go in releasing sensitive documents, particularly given past concerns over revealing the names of individuals who met with Epstein but were not implicated in criminal activity.
Blackburn has been a consistent advocate for obtaining these records. She previously urged the Senate Judiciary Committee to subpoena the files and pressed former FBI Director Christopher Wray on the issue. In December 2023, Wray told the Senate Judiciary Committee that his team would “figure out if there’s more information we can provide” on Epstein, but no follow-up information was ever released.
“Director Wray never provided any such follow-up information,” Blackburn noted in her letter to Patel. “Over a year has elapsed since then, and we still do not have all of the necessary information regarding Jeffrey Epstein’s crimes.”
The demand for transparency on Epstein’s network is gaining momentum. Last week, former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi revealed that Epstein’s client list is “sitting on my desk” as it undergoes review for potential release.
As the pressure mounts, Patel and O’Donnell now face a crucial decision: whether to follow through on their promises of transparency or continue withholding key documents that could shed light on one of the most notorious criminal cases of the century. The American people, as Blackburn asserts, are watching—and waiting.
Biden Administration’s Nicotine Ban: A Move Toward Regulation or a Boost for Cartels?
In a controversial move during its final days, the Biden administration is advancing a proposal to drastically lower nicotine levels in cigarettes, effectively banning traditional products on the market. While the administration frames the measure as a step toward reducing smoking addiction, critics argue it will backfire, fueling black markets and empowering criminal cartels.
Regulatory Shift with Broad Implications
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) confirmed that its proposed rule to establish maximum nicotine levels in cigarettes has completed regulatory review. The measure is part of a broader effort to make cigarettes less addictive, potentially shaping one of the most impactful tobacco policies in U.S. history.
FDA Commissioner Robert Califf previously stated that the initiative aims to “decrease the likelihood that future generations of young people become addicted to cigarettes and help more currently addicted smokers to quit.” However, opponents warn that this policy could create new public safety and economic challenges.
A “Gift” to Organized Crime
Critics of the proposed regulation, including former ATF official Rich Marianos, are sounding the alarm. Marianos described the plan as a “gift with a bow and balloons to organized crime cartels,” arguing that it would open the floodgates for illegal tobacco trafficking.
Mexican cartels, Chinese counterfeiters, and Russian mafias are well-positioned to exploit the demand for high-nicotine cigarettes. These groups, already entrenched in smuggling operations, would likely ramp up efforts to meet consumer demand. This shift would not only enrich organized crime but also compromise public health by introducing unregulated, potentially more harmful products into the market.
Unintended Consequences for Public Health
While the FDA’s goal is to reduce smoking rates, experts suggest the policy may have the opposite effect. Smokers could resort to “compensatory smoking,” consuming more cigarettes to achieve their desired nicotine levels. This behavior increases exposure to harmful chemicals like tar, negating the intended health benefits.
Additionally, the regulation could discourage smokers from transitioning to safer alternatives, such as vaping or nicotine replacement therapies. By removing higher-nicotine products from the legal market, the government risks alienating individuals who might otherwise seek healthier pathways to quitting smoking.
National Security and Economic Concerns
Beyond health implications, the nicotine ban raises significant national security issues. A 2015 State Department report highlighted the role of tobacco trafficking in funding terrorist organizations and criminal networks. Reducing nicotine levels in cigarettes could expand this illicit market, providing criminal groups with a lucrative new revenue stream.
Moreover, law enforcement agencies could face increased pressure as they work to combat tobacco smuggling alongside ongoing efforts to address opioid and fentanyl trafficking. This strain on resources could compromise broader public safety initiatives.
Balancing Public Health and Freedom
The proposed nicotine reduction also ignites debates over personal freedom. While reducing addiction is a laudable goal, critics argue that adults should retain the right to make their own choices regarding tobacco use. For many, the measure feels like government overreach, imposing a paternalistic approach to health regulation.
As the Biden administration pushes forward with its nicotine reduction proposal, the policy’s broader implications remain uncertain. While intended to curb addiction and promote public health, critics warn of significant risks, including empowering organized crime, increasing smoking rates, and straining law enforcement resources.
A more balanced approach—focused on education, harm reduction, and access to cessation resources—may better address smoking-related challenges without creating new societal harms.
McDonald’s has announced plans to scale back certain diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, citing a “shifting legal landscape” following the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2023 decision to end affirmative action in college admissions.
The fast-food corporation intends to retire specific diversity goals for senior leadership positions and discontinue a program that encouraged suppliers to implement diversity training and enhance minority representation within their leadership teams. Additionally, McDonald’s will pause participation in external surveys that assess workplace inclusion, a move similar to recent actions by companies like Lowe’s and Ford Motor Co.
Despite these changes, McDonald’s emphasizes its ongoing commitment to fostering an inclusive environment. The company reports that 30% of its U.S. leaders come from underrepresented groups and that it has achieved gender pay equity across all levels since setting that goal in 2021. McDonald’s also plans to continue supporting efforts to maintain a diverse base of employees, suppliers, and franchisees, and will keep reporting its demographic information.
This development aligns with a broader trend among major corporations reassessing their DEI strategies in response to legal and societal shifts. Companies such as Walmart, John Deere, and Harley-Davidson have similarly rolled back diversity programs following the Supreme Court’s ruling and subsequent conservative backlash.
You must be logged in to post a comment Login