To see the video of this historic interview and the full transcript, please click on one of the links, below.
JP: What’s the significance of the FBI’s intervention, in this last week of the US election campaign, in the case against Hillary Clinton?
JA: If you look at the history of the FBI, it has become effectively America’s political police and the FBI demonstrated this by taking down the former head of the CIA; classified information given to his mistress. 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’s anger within the FBI because it made the FBI look weak.
We 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. Of those sixty thousand emails, Clinton has kept about half; 30,000 to herself and we’ve published about half – and then there are the Podesta emails. We’ve been publishing Podesta – he’s Hillary Clinton’s primary campaign manager. This is a thread that runs through all these emails: there is quite a lot of pay-for-play, as they call it, taking/giving access, in exchange for money from many different states, individuals and corporations. Combined with the cover-up of the Hillary Clinton emails, while she was Secretary of State has led to an environment where the pressure on the FBI increases.
Hillary Clinton stated multiple times – falsely – that 17 US intelligence agencies had assessed that Russia was the source of applications. That’s false. We can say that the Russian government is not the source. 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.
JP: All the emails that give evidence of access for money and how Hillary Clinton, herself benefited from this and how she is benefiting politically are quite extraordinary. I’m thinking of where the Qatari representative was given five minutes with Clinton/" target="_blank">Bill Clinton for a 1 million-dollar check and many other examples can you –
JA: – or $12 million from Morocco –
JP: – right – In terms of the foreign policy, the United States – that’s where – for me, anyway, with the emails and most revealing, where they show the direct connection between Hillary Clinton and the Foundation of jihadism of ISIL in the Middle East. Can you talk something about that? How the emails demonstrate this connection; between those who are meant to be fighting the jihadis, ISIL are actually those who have helped create it?
JA: There’s an early 2014 email from Hillary Clinton, so not so long after she was Secretary of State to her campaign manager, John Podesta. In that email, it states that ISIL/ISIS is funded by Saudi Arabia and Qatar – the governments of Saudi Arabia and Qatar. This is, actually, I think this is the most significant email in the whole collection and perhaps because Saudi and Qatari money is spread all over the place, including including into many media institutions.
All serious analyst 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 it’s just some rogue princes, using their cut of the oil money to do it – but actually, the government disapproves.”
JP: The Saudis, the Qataris, the Moroccans the Bahrainis – particularly the Saudis and the Qataris – are giving all this money to the Clinton Foundation, while Hillary Clinton is Secretary of State and the State Department is approving massive arms sales, particularly to Saudi Arabia.
JP: Doubled! And of course the consequence of that is 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 Foundation.
JP: That’s extraordinary.
JA: Look. Hillary Clinton’s 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 there they become sick, they faint, as a result of going on, going on with their ambitions – but she represents a whole network of people and the network of relationships, also with particular States.
The question is how does Hillary Clinton fit in this broader network? She is a 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 even the State Department and the Saudis, and so on. She’s, the if you like, the centralizer that interconnects all these different cogs. She’s a smooth central representation of all that – and all that is, more or less are what is in power now, in the United States. It’s what we called “the establishment” or the “DC consensus” and its influences.
In fact, one of the more significant Podesta emails that we released was about how the Obama Cabinet was formed. Half of the Obama cabinet was basically nominated by a representative from Citibank, which is quite amazing.
JP: Didn’t Citibank supply a list which turned out to be most of Obama cabinet?
JP: So, Wall Street decides the Cabinet of the President of the United States.
JA: If you were following the Obama campaign back then, closely, you could see that it had become very close to banking interests. It wasn’t so close to the oil interests, but it was very close to banking interests.
JP: Why was she so demonstrably enthusiastic about the destruction of Libya? Can you talk a little about just what the emails of 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?
JA: Libya, more than 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 have favored agent, in effect Sidney Blumenthal onto that. There’s more than 1,700 emails out of the 33,000 Hillary Clinton emails we published, just about Libya.
It’s not about the “Libya has cheap oil”. She perceived to 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 in 2011, as an internal document called “Libya Tick-Tock”, that was 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 were around forty thousand deaths within Libya. Jihadis 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 the movement of people through it. Libya faces onto the Mediterranean and so it had been effectively the “cork” in the bottle of Africa – to all problems, economic problems, civil war in Africa.
Previously, 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 early 2011 by Qaddafi: “What do these Europeans think that they are doing, trying to bomb and destroy the Libyan State? There’s going to be floods of migrants out of Africa and jihadist into Europe.” And that is exactly what happened.
JA: My analysis is that Trump would not be permitted to win. Why do I say that? Because he doesn’t have any establishment on his side. 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 –
JP: They all want him beat.
JA: Foreign money, etc. are all united behind Hillary Clinton – and the media, as well. So, media owners are – and journalists, themselves.
JA: We have published over 800,000 documents of various kinds, that relate to Russia. Most of those are critical. A great many books have come out of our publications about Russia – most of which are critical. Our documents have gone on to be used, in quite a number of court cases, refugee cases, of people fleeing; some kinds of claims of political persecution in Russia, which they use our documents to back up.
JA: Donald Trump, what does he represent in the American mind and in the European mind? He represents American white trash; deplorable, an irredeemable, basically the same thing.
It means, from an establishment or educated, cosmopolitan, urbane perspective: these people are, you know, they’re the “rednecks” and you can’t – like, they’re just – you can never deal with them.
And because he so clearly, through his words and actions, at a time people turn up his rallies, represents people who are NOT the middle, not the upper-middle-class, educated – there’s 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 by criticizing Clinton. And that and if you look at how the Middle Class gains its economic and social power, it makes absolute sense.
JP: I’d like to talk about Ecuador, a small country that has given you refuge and giving you asylum in this Embassy in London. Now, Ecuador cut off the Internet from here we’re doing this interview in the Embassy. To 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?
JA: Let’s let’s go back four years ago. I made an application to Ecuador, in this Embassy because of the US extradition case and the result was, after a month I was successful – and then the Embassy has been surrounded by police – quite an expensive police operation, which the British government admits to spending more than 12.6 million pounds; they admitted that over a year ago.
Now, there’s undercover police and there’s robot surveillance cameras of various kinds, so that there has been a quite serious conflict, right here, in the heart of London, between Ecuador, in a country of 60 million people, in the United Kingdom and the Americans have 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 of 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 this Embassy or in Ecuadorian Territory. We publish from France, we publish from Germany, we publish from the Netherlands and a number of other countries.
So, that the attempted squeeze on WikiLeaks is through my refugee status, this is really intolerable. You try and get at a publishing organization, you try and prevent it publishing true information that is of intense interest to the American people and others about an election.
JP: Tell us what would happen if you walked out of this Embassy?
JA: 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 one hundred percent of people that the US has requested, since at least 2000. So, over the last 15 years, every single person the US has tried to get extradited from Sweden has been extradited and they refuse to provide a guarantee. So it’s yeah –
JP: Many people often ask how you cope with the isolation here?
JA: Look, one of the best attributes of human beings is it they’re 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…
JP: It is a world is a without sunlight for one thing
JA: It’s world without sunlight but I haven’t seen sunlight in so long, I don’t remember – 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.
JP: You worry about them.
JA: Yeah, I worry about them, I worry about their mother.
JP: Some people would say, “Well, why don’t you end it and simply walk out the door and allow yourself to be extradited to Sweden?”
JA: The UN has looked into this whole situation and spent 18 months in formal adversarial litigation, me at the UN vs Sweden and the UK; Who’s right? The UN made a conclusion that I am being arbitrarily detained, illegally deprived to my freedom; that what has been occurred has not occurred within the laws that the United Kingdom and Sweden must obey: it’s it is illegal abuse.
When the United Nations, formally asking, “What’s going on, here? What’s your legal explanation for this? He says that you should you should recognize his Asylum. Sweden, formally writing back to United Nations says, “No. We’re not going to.” So, leaving open their ability to extradite.
I just find it absolutely amazing that the narrative about the situation is not put out publicly 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, 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; we have already been cleared and found to be innocent; where the woman, herself said that 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 those are the facts – but what is the rhetoric?
JA: 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.