Julian Assange, President Trump and bipolar Sweden

recedite

Interesting times ahead for Julian Assange after a deadlock of several years.

Looney Left Sweden wants to arrest Assange on charges of rape, which may or may not centre on his failure to buy quality condoms.

Once arrested, Putin Fearing Atlanticist Right Wing Sweden is likely to extradite him straight to the US, where he is wanted for whistleblowing via Wikileaks. Which could potentially earn him a penalty up to, and including, death.

But, in a master stroke while holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy in London, Assange harnessed the whistleblowing power of Wikileaks to embarass Hillary, much to the advantage of The Donald. It would have been a risky strategy for Assange, except that he had everything to gain by exposing the Clinton e-mails, and nothing left to lose.

After his inauguration, will President Trump have the ability to reward Assange by reassuring him that the US will not seek his extradition from Sweden, nor press any spying charges?

If that happens, and the rape charges turn out to be ahem.. "Trumped up".. the Swedes will come out of it badly. After all, they have dragged the whole thing out for a very long time. Is this why we now see them suddenly making efforts to wrap it up.

Could this be the end of a very long and silly Swedish saga?

Nody

Oh how many faults in such few words; let's see.

First of all Swedish law does not allow anyone to be extradited if they face the death penalty as it's seen as cruel; so the US would have had to guaranteed that not being on the table and it would require USA to actually make such a request to be even considered. On the other hand UK has been very willing to hand over everyone inc. their own citizens with ADHD etc. for hacking and spying so great plan to flee to that country... Now that's esp. funny as he had applied for a work and residence permit in Sweden before the charges so he must have been really afraid of being extradited from Sweden, right? So before being notified of charges he applies for working permit and residence permit which would give you a public listed address etc.; after charges suddenly afraid of being extradited. Funny how that looks like someone trying to come up with an excuse to run...

Secondly the rape charges that were "trumped up" consisted of two different women accusing him of sex without consent; you know that's rape in most minds but I guess not in your mind and I know this will be a shocker for you but in Sweden a woman has the right to say no at any time inc. after penetration and you have to stop. I know those pesky women and freedom to decide over their body; should lock them up and stop abortion like Trump and Ireland, am I right or am I right?

Third the delay in the interview; this was correctly called out by Swedish court to be going slowly and telling them to put a bit of effort into it; and guess what they did and the interviews went ahead. You know how a legal system with controls and balances are suppose to work which is more than we can say about for example USA's court system.

So where do we now stand? Well we have a person who applied for residence and work permit in Sweden, get accused of rape and decide to run away from the country claiming he's at risk of extradition suddenly and when prosecution drags their feet they get called on it by the court and speed things up. You want to know what's the funny part? Trump could promise not to go after him in writing and Assange would still refuse to leave the embassy because he's not afraid of being extradited to the USA because that's not the reason he fled in the first place. If it was anyone else people would be up in arms about it but because it's Assange it has to be a big lie for some reason; reminds me of Trump and the locker talk excuse.

BoJack Horseman

recedite wrote: »

Looney Left Sweden......

......Right Wing Sweden

Proof reading necessary.

hatrickpatrick

Nody wrote: »

Secondly the rape charges that were "trumped up" consisted of two different women accusing him of sex without consent; you know that's rape in most minds but I guess not in your mind

You left out the part where they only accused him after they met and each discovered that he had slept with the other; That one of them had written a blog on how to use the legal system to get revenge on somebody; That the charges were initially dismissed by the prosecutor; And finally that they were reinstated by a different prosecutor from another jurisdiction who just happened to be friends with one of the accusers.

But sure, if you'd rather use this new "all rape accusations are automatically truthful and there shouldn't even be due process involved" then fair enough.

Finally, the US has never threatened the death penalty. It's far more likely that he'll be locked up for life and tortured in the same manner that Chelsea Manning has been.

Skylinehead

I never really got the whole "Sweden will just extradite him to the USA" angle. He's in Britain. They'd be far more likely to do it, and they didn't.

Manach

Sweden is well known to be a progressive society and would take the allegations of such nature very seriously. So one the one hand, their foreign ministry which has pioneered feminist diplomacy would also be loath to interfer with their legal branch.
On the other, and based from what I know of Swedish history, they have a preternatural fear of their Russian neighbours (Poltava is still a potent symbol).
From the recent US election, there was a number of suggestions (even though it is difficult to prove conclusively) that the Russian intelligence feed data to Wikileaks. This suggests getting involved in this situation this would be too much of a diplomatic hot potato for Sweden.

oscarBravo

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

But sure, if you'd rather use this new "all rape accusations are automatically truthful and there shouldn't even be due process involved" then fair enough.

Perhaps you could provide a link to the new "all rape accusations are automatically truthful and there shouldn't even be due process involved" Swedish statute? Because I'm not familiar with it.

It seems strange that they sent a prosecutor to question him, what with them skipping due process and all.

lazybones32

I doubt Trump could exonerate Assange after everything that has happened. There are probably too many high-ranking people who want his head on a pike (figuratively speaking). Even if he is extradited, I doubt he'd ever set foot on US soil...Gitmo.

The whole Swedish rape case seems a bit fishy and looks like a pretext.

hatrickpatrick

oscarBravo wrote: »

Perhaps you could provide a link to the new "all rape accusations are automatically truthful and there shouldn't even be due process involved" Swedish statute? Because I'm not familiar with it.

It seems strange that they sent a prosecutor to question him, what with them skipping due process and all.

I wasn't referring to Sweden's legal system but to Nody's attitude:

Secondly the rape charges that were "trumped up" consisted of two different women accusing him of sex without consent; you know that's rape in most minds but I guess not in your mind and I know this will be a shocker for you but in Sweden a woman has the right to say no at any time inc. after penetration and you have to stop. I know those pesky women and freedom to decide over their body; should lock them up and stop abortion like Trump and Ireland, am I right or am I right?

Nobody is suggesting that that is not rape, people are suggesting that the story was made up by people with an axe to grind. Totally different than suggesting that it's ok to keep going when somebody tells you to stop - nobody has implied that. If the accusations are true, it was rape - the point is, there is a lot of evidence pointing to them being trumped up. And the fact that the prosecutor who re-opened the case after another prosecutor dismissed it is a personal friend of at least one accuser is a clear conflict of interest - that fact alone should have stopped the case from proceeding, at least unless a third prosecutor with no bias towards either side had reviewed the evidence.

alastair

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

And the fact that the prosecutor who re-opened the case after another prosecutor dismissed it is a personal friend of at least one accuser is a clear conflict of interest - that fact alone should have stopped the case from proceeding, at least unless a third prosecutor with no bias towards either side had reviewed the evidence.

It's not a fact though. The prosecutor isn't a personal friend of either of the women. Marianne Ny knows their lawyer, not exactly a shocker in legal circles, and that's the extent of who knows who.

FortySeven

Imagine if trump gave a presidential pardon. The least he owes him after the daily podesta email dumps during the election.

I think he may find himself the victim of a suicide should he ever return to the US

The rape bolloxology is hilarious. He was the most wanted man on earth. They got wjhat they wanted then retrospectively created a story when they realised they weren't exclusive. Only in loony left Sweden.

Nody

FortySeven wrote: »

Imagine if trump gave a presidential pardon. The least he owes him after the daily podesta email dumps during the election.

Pardon for what? He has never been charged with anything and the state department has already said they are pretty much never going to be able to make anything stick. The reason being he did not download the documents himself using his security clearance but simply released them. So for him to be pardoned they would need to start with actually accusing him of something in court or issuing a warrant which has never happened.

It did not happen for the over a month he spent in Sweden before, during and after the rape accusations either which would been plenty of time for the extradition request to be issued for him to be deported which "is so likely to happen from rightwing Sweden". That leaves only way said extradition to happen to be done via a CIA kidnapping or similar which goes into to the tinfoil territory.

hatrickpatrick wrote:

Nobody is suggesting that that is not rape, people are suggesting that the story was made up by people with an axe to grind. Totally different than suggesting that it's ok to keep going when somebody tells you to stop - nobody has implied that. If the accusations are true, it was rape - the point is, there is a lot of evidence pointing to them being trumped up. And the fact that the prosecutor who re-opened the case after another prosecutor dismissed it is a personal friend of at least one accuser is a clear conflict of interest - that fact alone should have stopped the case from proceeding, at least unless a third prosecutor with no bias towards either side had reviewed the evidence.

If it was trumped up then why run and claim extradition risk and skip a 240.000 GBP bail? As for the re-opening after the women's appeal is heard, that's called due process; you know when you can appeal a decision in the court system you disagree with. On the appeal a new prosecutor reviewed the case and decide if there's enough evidence on the rape accusation to continue the investigation or not. That still does not mean it's true or not but simply that there's enough evidence there to continue the investigation to come to the final conclusion if the prosecutor should take it to court or not; that's literally the stage it's been at since the start. Assange was been informed he's under the suspicion of rape & molestation; that a decision to prosecute the case has not been done yet, and yet he decides the best defense is to flee the country and refuse to come back because black helicopters will snatch him...

Tell me why would Assange decide his best route of defence, after being heard by the police, is to run to London and then claim he's afraid of being extradited to the USA? UK has a far longer history of extraditions than Sweden does to the USA; so how come that UK is suddenly suppose to be more safe esp. as USA had over a month to actually extradite him in the first place if they wanted to from Sweden?

recedite

Nody wrote: »

Pardon for what? He has never been charged with anything and the state department has already said they are pretty much never going to be able to make anything stick. The reason being he did not download the documents himself using his security clearance but simply released them.

Your link illustrates the very weasely words that have been used by the Obama administration to keep this Sword of Damocles hanging over Assange's head.

“Nothing has occurred so far,” said one law enforcement official with knowledge of the case. “But it’s subject to change. I can’t predict what’s going to happen. The investigation is ongoing.”

As Assange's lawyers point out...

Federal officials said the grand jury investigation has not been closed, and a spokesman for WikiLeaks said the organization drew no comfort from the fact that there was no sealed indictment.
“We will treat this news with skepticism short of an open, official, formal confirmation that the U.S. government is not going to prosecute WikiLeaks,” said Kristinn Hrafnsson, the spokesman. “It is quite obvious that you can shake up an indictment in a very short period of time.”
Hrafnsson added, “Unfortunately, the U.S. government has a track record of being deceptive and of choosing its words carefully on this issue and other issues as well.”

As soon as Trump gets into the White House, The Justice department will be under his remit and he can issue this "short official formal confirmation". And then Assange will be formally off the hook.



On the rape charges...

Nody wrote: »

If it was trumped up then why run and claim extradition risk and skip a 240.000 GBP bail?

Assange slept with the two women (separately) in August 2010, and left Sweden in September. The prosecutor decided to issue an arrest warrant in November. If you want to call that "running" then its some kind of "pre-emptive running". In fairness he could have guessed that some proceedings would be initiated against him. Or equally, he could have just become disillusioned with Sweden and its bipolar disorder. While it is socially a very permissive looney left wing society in many ways, those who crave such a society and go there, will quickly become disillusioned by its authoritarian militaristic side.

I presume you mean that he skipped bail in the UK by going into the Equadorian embassy in order to avoid extradition to Sweden. So we have to listen to his own explanation that it was not the rape charges he was worried about, it was his likely subsequent extradition to the USA, assuming the rape charges would fail to stick.

oscarBravo

recedite wrote: »

So we have to listen to his own explanation that it was not the rape charges he was worried about, it was his likely subsequent extradition to the USA, assuming the rape charges would fail to stick.

That explanation is deeply undermined by his claim that he'd be extradited to face the death penalty. A non-death-penalty country won't extradite someone to face the death penalty. It doesn't happen. If the US wanted him extradited, they'd have to guarantee that the death penalty was off the table before the extradition was even considered.

recedite

oscarBravo wrote: »

If the US wanted him extradited, they'd have to guarantee that the death penalty was off the table before the extradition was even considered.

That could happen, very quickly if needs be.

techdiver

All this talk of the Death Penalty. What exact grounds would they have for that?

Treason? No he's not a citizen.
Espionage? No, he was not present in the country during the crime.

They have no case as far as I can see. He didn't steal the documents, he simply released them in the same manner as the journalists that released the classified information that Snowden provided.

I can't see any crime that they can actually even charge him with.

johnp001

It is a damning indictment of our supposed free press that Wikileaks has had to become an underground organisation that is accused of espionage and treason when really all the things it publishes are in the public interest and therefore should be headlines in the national newspapers.

Everything that they do regarding publishing of information is what the popular press would do in a truly free society. They have an excellent track record for accuracy unlike a lot of other media organisations.

Billy86

johnp001 wrote: »

It is a damning indictment of our supposed free press that Wikileaks has had to become an underground organisation that is accused of espionage and treason when really all the things it publishes are in the public interest and therefore should be headlines in the national newspapers.

Everything that they do regarding publishing of information is what the popular press would do in a truly free society. They have an excellent track record for accuracy unlike a lot of other media organisations.

To be fair, it's also a pretty damning indictment of Wikileaks that they have become little more than a one-sided political tool and all in the interests of their founders' own personal gain.

johnp001

Billy86 wrote: »

To be fair, it's also a pretty damning indictment of Wikileaks that they have become little more than a one-sided political tool and all in the interests of their founders' own personal gain.

In fact Wikileaks have a track record of publishing the information available to them without political bias.

Julian Assange wrote:

Assange Statement on the US Election
8 November 2016
By Julian Assange

In recent months, WikiLeaks and I personally have come under enormous pressure to stop publishing what the Clinton campaign says about itself to itself. That pressure has come from the campaign’s allies, including the Obama administration, and from liberals who are anxious about who will be elected US President.

On the eve of the election, it is important to restate why we have published what we have.

The right to receive and impart true information is the guiding principle of WikiLeaks – an organization that has a staff and organizational mission far beyond myself. Our organization defends the public’s right to be informed.

This is why, irrespective of the outcome of the 2016 US Presidential election, the real victor is the US public which is better informed as a result of our work.

The US public has thoroughly engaged with WikiLeaks’ election related publications which number more than one hundred thousand documents. Millions of Americans have pored over the leaks and passed on their citations to each other and to us. It is an open model of journalism that gatekeepers are uncomfortable with, but which is perfectly harmonious with the First Amendment.

We publish material given to us if it is of political, diplomatic, historical or ethical importance and which has not been published elsewhere. When we have material that fulfills this criteria, we publish. We had information that fit our editorial criteria which related to the Sanders and Clinton campaign (DNC Leaks) and the Clinton political campaign and Foundation (Podesta Emails). No-one disputes the public importance of these publications. It would be unconscionable for WikiLeaks to withhold such an archive from the public during an election.

At the same time, we cannot publish what we do not have. To date, we have not received information on Donald Trump’s campaign, or Jill Stein’s campaign, or Gary Johnson’s campaign or any of the other candidates that fufills our stated editorial criteria. As a result of publishing Clinton’s cables and indexing her emails we are seen as domain experts on Clinton archives. So it is natural that Clinton sources come to us.

We publish as fast as our resources will allow and as fast as the public can absorb it.

That is our commitment to ourselves, to our sources, and to the public.

This is not due to a personal desire to influence the outcome of the election. The Democratic and Republican candidates have both expressed hostility towards whistleblowers. I spoke at the launch of the campaign for Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate, because her platform addresses the need to protect them. This is an issue that is close to my heart because of the Obama administration’s inhuman and degrading treatment of one of our alleged sources, Chelsea Manning. But WikiLeaks publications are not an attempt to get Jill Stein elected or to take revenge over Ms Manning’s treatment either.

Publishing is what we do. To withhold the publication of such information until after the election would have been to favour one of the candidates above the public’s right to know.

This is after all what happened when the New York Times withheld evidence of illegal mass surveillance of the US population for a year until after the 2004 election, denying the public a critical understanding of the incumbent president George W Bush, which probably secured his reelection. The current editor of the New York Times has distanced himself from that decision and rightly so.
More...

recedite

techdiver wrote: »

Treason? No he's not a citizen.
Espionage? No, he was not present in the country during the crime.

That's the thing about the US; they reserve the right to extradite foreign citizens for perceived crimes against the USA, or failing that, to illegally use " direct rendition" to "render" them to someplace where no human rights and only martial laws apply, like Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.

But when the shoe is on the other foot, they refuse to allow their own people to be tried at the International Criminal Court.

Billy86

johnp001 wrote: »

In fact Wikileaks have a track record of publishing the information available to them without political bias.

It's not exactly that credible to have Assange claiming that he is not using Wikileaks as a personal tool though, is it? Not really any different from taking Clinton on face value if she said she didn't delete any emails, or Trump if he said he didn't have any dodgy tax details. It's also tricky to come across information that you're not searching for in the first place, compared to information that you are feverishly trawling for non-stop.

They treated the Clinton emails differently to other items they have before in order to go all-out on them, something which was even criticised from the likes of Edward Snowden and Glenn Greenwald. Assange and Wikileaks' very hostile, defensive responses to these comments say an awful lot more than an official statement from Wikileaks' founder claiming to not be using Wikileaks as a partisan outlet for his own benefit. Actions, like the above and of openly taking the side of Breitbart (otherwise known as the Trump presidential campaign) and their staff in non-political matters speak far louder than empty words - their initial role was .

There's a reason that their reputation has been going down the toilet, and it is more than just releasing the personal information (including phone numbers, home addresses and political affiliations) of millions of voting woman in Turkey and then attempting to smear those who criticised them for clearly not even checking their own data very well, and has far more to do with than releasing anti-semitic ranting tweets, later (somewhat ironically) deleting them, and then attempting to smear critics of that as "pro Clinton hacks" which very much calls into question their agenda - they've strayed very far from what they intended to be a few years ago.

After all, do these sound like the public comments someone trying to claim neutrality should make?

“She has a long history of being a liberal war hawk, and we presume she is going to proceed”

"Hillary lacks judgement and will push the United States into endless, stupid wars which spread terrorism."

And that's before getting into his hinting at the "Clinton murders" conspiracy lunacy, or Ecuador's embassy who have given him asylum all these years actually having to temporarily cut off his internet access because they felt he was trying to interfere with the election too.

My guess is that spending years locked inside a small house has been driving him to lose his marbles a bit which is pretty understandable, but Assange's increasingly erratic behaviour which has for obvious reasons been mirrored quite well by Wikileaks as a whole have really damaged their reputation in recent times.

recedite

If the Obama administration has been effectively keeping him under house arrest for the past few years, which is what he believes, and the UN backs him up on this, then you can hardly blame the guy for wanting to see a change in the administration. And "change" is not what Hillary represented.

And don't forget the US complaint is not about Assange personally, its about him as head of Wikileaks. If anyone else assumed the leadership they would be victimised in the same way.

My guess is that once this attack on it is all over, Wikileaks will go back to doing what it does best; being an independent whistleblower that calls corruption and powerful vested interests to account.

Billy86

recedite wrote: »

If the Obama administration has been effectively keeping him under house arrest for the past few years, which is what he believes, and the UN backs him up on this, then you can hardly blame the guy for wanting to see a change in the administration. And "change" is not what Hillary represented.

[And don't forget the US complaint is not about Assange personally, its about him as head of Wikileaks. If anyone else assumed the leadership they would be victimised in the same way.

My guess is that once this attack on it is all over, Wikileaks will go back to doing what it does best; being an independent whistleblower that calls corruption and powerful vested interests to account.

But that only backs up my post that wikileaks has become little more than a one-sided political tool and all in the interests of their founders' own personal gain.

The thing is, once organisations whose entire foundation is built on credibility begin doing massive damage to theirs personal interest, there's not much coming back for them. Now somebody might (probably will) take their place, but Julian Assange's taking a giant dump (and not the info kind) on wikileaks' credibility in order to benefit himself and the lack of dissension to this from within has done irreparable damage to them I reckon.

"The emails tomorrow will get her arrested!" carry on for months on end probably most of all. That's not even Daily Mail/Sun/etc material, that's straight from the Breitbart/Infowars etc school of sensationalism and and was never even delivered on.

oscarBravo

recedite wrote: »

That could happen, very quickly if needs be.

Of course it could. But that's not my point. He's claiming that if he's returned to Sweden, he could be extradited to the USA where he could face the death penalty.

That's simply not true. There is no way in hell that Sweden would even consider extraditing him if the death penalty was a possible outcome. So the claim that he could be extradited to face the death penalty is straight-up false.

recedite

Billy86 wrote: »

but Julian Assange's taking a giant dump (and not the info kind) on wikileaks' credibility in order to benefit himself ..

You are missing two points;
1. Assange is only threatened by the USA because of Wikileaks. Its an attack on Wikileaks, not something against him personally.
The rape charges are different; they were made against him personally.

2. If the US succeeds in destroying Wikileaks, its credibility or lack of it, will be ancient history anyway. When you corner a rat, it has no choice but to fight back or die. A dead rat has no credibility either way.

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's simply not true. There is no way in hell that Sweden would even consider extraditing him if the death penalty was a possible outcome. So the claim that he could be extradited to face the death penalty is straight-up false.

You have seen the weasel words they use. They could say officially the charges do not appear to warrant the death penalty. Then extradite him from Sweden. Then "discover" that the offences were more serious than they first thought, and decide the death penalty might be warranted after all.

Why are you so focused on the death penalty anyway? As if everything would be fine if it wasn't for that? Its not like Chelsea/Bradley Manning's fate is something Julian Assange can look forward to with relish.

All Assange needs is an official declaration that it won't happen to him.
Hopefully President Trump will oblige next January.

oscarBravo

recedite wrote: »

Hopefully President Trump will oblige next January.

Well, he does owe him one.

johnp001

I think that Obama would be very well advised to pardon Snowden and Manning (hopefully along with Sterling, Brown and Hammond) before the end of his term in order not to be remembered as the president who carried out a war on whistleblowers.

recedite

johnp001 wrote: »

war on whistleblowers.

Catchy phrase... I like it
Well, as mentioned earlier, it does seem as if the Swedes have suddenly decided to wrap up their involvement, following the result of the US presidential election. There is still time for Obama to do the same.

johnp001

recedite wrote: »

Catchy phrase... I like it
Well, as mentioned earlier, it does seem as if the Swedes have suddenly decided to wrap up their involvement, following the result of the US presidential election. There is still time for Obama to do the same.

Unfortunately the war on whistleblowers has been so extensive that the phrase has been used in many headlines from The Guardian to Consortium News

Other articles detailing the extent of the "war" and Obama's hypocrisy in waging it:

Obama Promise to Protect Whistleblowers Scrubbed From Website

Obama Has Sentenced Whistleblowers to 31 Times the Jail Time of All Prior U.S. Presidents COMBINED

recedite

johnp001 wrote: »

Obama Promise to Protect Whistleblowers Scrubbed From Website

Not surprised he had that one scrubbed....

Protect Whistleblowers: Such acts of courage and patriotism, which can sometimes save lives and often save taxpayer dollars, should be encouraged rather than stifled.
... Barack Obama will strengthen whistleblower laws to protect federal workers who expose waste, fraud, and abuse of authority in government. Obama will ensure that federal agencies expedite the process for reviewing whistleblower claims and whistleblowers have full access to courts and due process.

An interesting thing I noticed which is kinda relevant to all this; the first of the Presidential Pardons by "the founding father" types (George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams) were often concerned with treason and sedition, roughly the kind of thing that Assange is accused of.

Without knowing too much about early US history, it seems to be a kind of acknowledgement that what one administration views as sedition, another might view as legitimate. Later on they seem to have become more random about the use of presidential pardons.

johnp001

recedite wrote: »

Not surprised he had that one scrubbed....

An interesting thing I noticed which is kinda relevant to all this; the first of the Presidential Pardons by "the founding father" types (George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams) were often concerned with treason and sedition, roughly the kind of thing that Assange is accused of.

Without knowing too much about early US history, it seems to be a kind of acknowledgement that what one administration views as sedition, another might view as legitimate. Later on they seem to have become more random about the use of presidential pardons.

I doubt that any of the first three presidents you mention above would have considered Assange to be a perpetrator of treason or sedition based on their statements on the issue of free speech and a free press.

John Adams wrote:

“But none of the means of information are more sacred, or have been cherished with more tenderness and care by the settlers of America, than the press.”

John Adams wrote:

“The liberty of the press is essential to the security of the state.”

George Washington wrote:

“If men are to be precluded from offering their sentiments on a matter, which may involve the most serious and alarming consequences that can invite the consideration of mankind, reason is of no use to us; the freedom of speech may be taken away, and dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep, to the slaughter.”

Thomas Jefferson wrote:

“Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost.”

Thomas Jefferson wrote:

“Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.”