first_published_at,last_published_at,title,slug,latest_revision_created_at,charges,legal_orders,updates,categories,links,equipment_seized,equipment_broken,targeted_journalists,authors,date,exact_date_unknown,city,state,latitude,longitude,body,introduction,teaser,teaser_image,primary_video,image_caption,arrest_status,arresting_authority,release_date,detention_date,unnecessary_use_of_force,case_number,case_statuses,case_type,status_of_seized_equipment,is_search_warrant_obtained,actor,border_point,target_us_citizenship_status,denial_of_entry,stopped_previously,did_authorities_ask_for_device_access,did_authorities_ask_about_work,assailant,was_journalist_targeted,charged_under_espionage_act,subpoena_type,subpoena_statuses,name_of_business,third_party_business,legal_order_target,legal_order_type,legal_order_venue,status_of_prior_restraint,mistakenly_released_materials,type_of_denial,targeted_institutions,tags,target_nationality,workers_whose_communications_were_obtained,politicians_or_public_figures_involved 2021-04-16 02:37:26.229109+00:00,2022-04-06 15:28:48.828914+00:00,Julian Assange subpoenaed in defamation suit,https://pressfreedomtracker.us/all-incidents/julian-assange-subpoenaed-in-defamation-suit/,2022-04-06 15:28:48.750267+00:00,,LegalOrder object (110),,Subpoena/Legal Order,,,,Julian Assange (WikiLeaks),,2020-09-12,False,Washington,District of Columbia (DC),38.89511,-77.03637,"
In the early hours of July 10, 2016, Seth Rich, a 27-year-old staffer with the Democratic National Committee, was fatally shot while walking to his home in Washington, D.C. His death, while unsolved, is believed to be the result of a robbery gone wrong. It quickly, however, became a flash point for conspiracy theories: that Rich had been behind a DNC email dump to WikiLeaks and its founder, Julian Assange, and that he’d effectively been assassinated because of it. None of the claims have ever been substantiated.
On March 26, 2018, Rich’s brother, Aaron, filed a defamation suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against a slew of defendants — Texas businessman and then-frequent Fox News guest Ed Butowsky, the Washington Times, America First Media Group and its founder, Matt Couch — who he’d alleged had shown a “reckless disregard for the truth” and falsely linked both himself and his brother to the email leak.
During the course of three years of litigation, attorneys for both sides collectively subpoenaed nearly a dozen news outlets and members of the press. The U.S. Press Freedom Tracker documents all subpoena requests individually; Find a complete overview of the known subpoenas for this case in the blog post, “Nearly a dozen journalists, outlets and third parties subpoenaed in defamation suit.”
In January 2021, both Couch and Butowsky publicly apologized and retracted prior claims made about the Rich brothers, though Butowsky deleted his statement of contrition almost immediately, according to Law & Crime. Couch and Rich reached a settlement agreement on Jan. 19; Butowsky and Rich reached an agreement on March 22. The lawsuit was terminated officially when District Judge Richard Leon granted Rich’s motions to dismiss the charges against the defendants on March 29. The details of the settlement agreements were not made public.
In July 2016, some four months before the U.S. presidential election, WikiLeaks “released a trove of 20,000 emails stolen from the servers of the Democratic National Committee,” according to Vox. How WikiLeaks obtained those emails fueled endless speculation around Seth Rich and his death. The WikiLeaks founder proceeded to imply that Rich may have been the source of the leak, but specified that WikiLeaks does not reveal the identities of any of its sources. The outlet was also subpoenaed over the course of the lawsuit, which the Tracker has documented here.
Assange was taking refuge in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London when Aaron Rich filed the defamation suit, but during the discovery process, he was expelled from the embassy and arrested by British authorities. He remains imprisoned in the U.K. today.
Status of Subpoena
In the early hours of July 10, 2016, Seth Rich, a 27-year-old staffer with the Democratic National Committee, was fatally shot while walking to his home in Washington, D.C. His death, while unsolved, is believed to be the result of a robbery gone wrong. It quickly, however, became a flash point for conspiracy theories: that Rich had been behind a DNC email dump to WikiLeaks and its founder, Julian Assange, and that he’d effectively been assassinated because of it. None of the claims have ever been substantiated.
On March 26, 2018, Rich’s brother, Aaron, filed a defamation suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against a slew of defendants — Texas businessman and then-frequent Fox News guest Ed Butowsky, the Washington Times, America First Media Group and its founder, Matt Couch — who he’d alleged had shown a “reckless disregard for the truth” and falsely linked both himself and his brother to the email leak.
During the course of three years of litigation, attorneys for both sides collectively subpoenaed nearly a dozen news outlets and members of the press. The U.S. Press Freedom Tracker documents all subpoena requests individually; Find a complete overview of the known subpoenas for this case in the blog post, “Nearly a dozen journalists, outlets and third parties subpoenaed in defamation suit.”
In January 2021, both Couch and Butowsky publicly apologized and retracted prior claims made about the Rich brothers, though Butowsky deleted his statement of contrition almost immediately, according to Law & Crime. Couch and Rich reached a settlement agreement on Jan. 19; Butowsky and Rich reached an agreement on March 22. The lawsuit was terminated officially when District Judge Richard Leon granted Rich’s motions to dismiss the charges against the defendants on March 29. The details of the settlement agreements were not made public.
In July 2016, some four months before the U.S. presidential election, WikiLeaks “released a trove of 20,000 emails stolen from the servers of the Democratic National Committee,” according to Vox. How WikiLeaks obtained those emails fueled endless speculation around Seth Rich and his death. Assange was also subpoenaed over the course of the lawsuit, which the Tracker has documented here.
Status of Subpoena
On April 11, 2019, federal prosecutors unsealed an indictment against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, charging him with one count of conspiring with Chelsea Manning, a WikiLeaks source, to violate a federal anti-hacking law. The charge was unsealed just hours after Ecuador terminated Assange’s political asylum and British police arrested Assange inside the Ecuadorian Embassy in London.
The indictment — originally filed under seal in the Eastern District of Virginia on March 6, 2018 — focuses on Assange’s communications with Manning in 2010, when she was an Army intelligence analyst looking to leak classified documents to WikiLeaks.
According to the indictment, between January 2010 and May 2010, Manning downloaded hundreds of thousands of internal government documents — including significant activity reports from the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, diplomatic cables, and Guantanamo Bay detainee reports — and leaked them for publication on WikiLeaks.
The indictment alleges that in March 2010, after Manning had already leaked large caches of documents to Assange, she asked Assange to help her cover her tracks in order to avoid being detected as WikiLeaks’ source. Specifically, she wanted help breaking a hashed password so that she could use a different user account to access the government databases from which she was downloading documents. The indictment alleges that Assange agreed to help Manning decrypt the password, though it does not mention whether he actually did so.
Assange is being charged with one count of conspiracy to violate provisions of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, a broad anti-hacking law that prohibits unauthorized access to computer systems. If convicted, he could face up to five years in prison.
The indictment specifically alleges that Assange entered into a conspiracy with Manning to “facilitate Manning’s acquisition and transmission of classified information related to the national defense of the United States so that WikiLeaks could publicly disseminate the information on its website.” It alleges that Assange tried to further this conspiracy by agreeing to try and crack the password for Manning.
The indictment also lists different “ways, manners, and means” that Assange and Manning allegedly used to carry out the conspiracy, some of which are typical of interactions between sources and reporters:
19. It was part of the conspiracy that Assange and Manning took measures to conceal Manning as the source of the disclosure of classified records to WikiLeaks, including by removing usernames from the disclosed information and deleting chat logs between Assange and Manning.
20. It was part of the conspiracy that Assange encouraged Manning to provide information and records from departments and agencies of the United States.
21. It was part of the conspiracy that Assange and Manning used a special folder on a cloud drop box of WikiLeaks to transmit classified records containing information related to the national defense of the United States.
The indictment alarmed some press freedom groups.
“The indictment and the Justice Department’s press release treat everyday journalistic practices as part of a criminal conspiracy,” Jameel Jaffer, executive director of the Knight First Amendment Institute, said in a statement about the charges. “Whether the government will be able to establish a violation of the hacking statute remains to be seen, but it’s very troubling that the indictment sweeps in activities that are not just lawful but essential to press freedom — activities like cultivating sources, protecting sources’ identities, and communicating with sources securely.”
Manning is currently imprisoned for refusing to testify in front of a grand jury. Assange is currently in British police custody in London, and it is unclear whether he will be extradited to the United States to face these federal charges.
“We can confirm that Julian Assange was arrested in relation to a provisional extradition request from the United States of America,” the UK Home Office said in a statement.
Assange will have the opportunity to challenge his extradition at a May 2 hearing held at the Westminster Magistrates’ Court.
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is seen in a police van in London, England, after his extradition from the Ecuadorian Embassy and arrest by British police.
",None,None,None,None,False,None,[],None,None,False,None,None,None,False,False,None,None,None,None,False,None,[],None,None,None,None,None,None,False,None,,"Department of Justice, Espionage Act",,, 2020-03-03 20:20:56.724804+00:00,2021-10-05 20:16:23.187588+00:00,"Twitter subpoenaed for information of journalists, media outlets",https://pressfreedomtracker.us/all-incidents/twitter-subpoenaed-information-journalists-media-outlets/,2021-10-05 20:16:23.124545+00:00,,LegalOrder object (32),"(2021-03-29 12:35:00+00:00) Case terminated in defamation suit in which Twitter was subpoenaed for information of journalists, media outlets",Subpoena/Legal Order,,,,"Cassandra Fairbanks (Gateway Pundit), Matt Couch (America First Media Group), Julian Assange (WikiLeaks)",,2018-06-06,False,Washington,District of Columbia (DC),38.89511,-77.03637,"As part of an ongoing defamation suit, an attorney representing Aaron Rich — brother of murdered Democratic National Committee staffer Seth Rich — subpoenaed Twitter for account information of numerous accounts, including several journalists and media outlets.
Aaron Rich named Texas businessman Ed Butowsky, America First Media Group and its founder Matt Couch and The Washington Times newspaper in the March 2018 lawsuit, following debunked reports that Seth Rich had been involved with the 2016 DNC email leaks prior to his death.
Filed on June 6, 2018, the subpoena commands Twitter to produce account data, documents and communications concerning Seth Rich or his family, the DNC, the defendants, and individuals, outlets and phrases connected with the alleged defamatory reporting from identified “primary” and “secondary” accounts. The list of primary accounts, which predominantly consists of the defendants, also includes The Gateway Pundit and its reporter Cassandra Fairbanks, and WikiLeaks and its founder Julian Assange. The secondary accounts are all those that interacted with the primary accounts via tweet, re-tweet, direct message or reply from Jan. 1, 2015, to the date of the subpoena.
Twitter was initially given until June 15 to produce all responsive documents. The Gateway Pundit reported that Twitter sent letters notifying accounts implicated in the subpoena.
Reporter Fairbanks told Law & Crime the subpoena was a “gross and far reaching violation of privacy.”
It is unclear whether Twitter turned over documents or communications in accordance with the subpoena or a court order, and Twitter declined to comment on whether it opposed the subpoena. The social media company has objected to similar subpoenas in other instances.
A portion of the subpoena demanding Twitter account information
,None,None,None,None,False,None,None,None,None,False,None,None,None,False,False,None,None,None,None,False,journalist communications or work product,['UNKNOWN'],Twitter,tech company,Journalist,subpoena,Federal,None,False,None,"America First Media Group, Gateway Pundit, The Washington Times, WikiLeaks",,,, 2018-05-01 23:11:12.145442+00:00,2019-07-31 16:02:27.612251+00:00,DNC sues WikiLeaks for wiretapping and 'economic espionage',https://pressfreedomtracker.us/all-incidents/dnc-sues-wikileaks-wiretapping-and-economic-espionage/,2019-07-31 16:02:27.515790+00:00,,,"(2019-07-30 12:01:00+00:00) Judge dismisses DNC’s lawsuit against WikiLeaks, Trump, Russia, others",Other Incident,"DNC lawsuit complaint against Russia, Trump campaign, and WikiLeaks, (http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4443264-DNC-Lawsuit.html), Democratic Party sues Russia, Trump campaign and WikiLeaks alleging 2016 campaign conspiracy (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/democratic-party-files-lawsuit-alleging-russia-the-trump-campaign-and-wikileaks-conspired-to-disrupt-the-2016-campaign/2018/04/20/befe8364-4418-11e8-8569-26fda6) via Washington Post, The DNC’S Lawsuit Against WikiLeaks Poses a Serious Threat to Press Freedom (https://theintercept.com/2018/04/20/the-dncs-lawsuit-against-wikileaks-poses-a-serious-threat-to-press-freedom/) via The Intercept, Internal memo reveals Trump campaign’s mounting fury with its critics (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/04/04/internal-memo-reveals-trump-campaigns-mounting-fury-with-its-critics/?utm_term=.94bd7ac60d5d) via Washington Post, Bartnicki v. Vopper (https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/532/514.html)",,,,,2018-04-20,False,New York,New York (NY),None,None,"The Democratic National Committee named WikiLeaks as a co-defendant in a multi-million dollar conspiracy lawsuit that it filed against the Russian government and the Trump campaign on April 20, 2018. The complaint accuses WikiLeaks of committing “economic espionage” by publishing internal DNC documents and emails that were allegedly stolen from DNC servers by Russian hackers.
No matter what one thinks of WikiLeaks, the DNC’s theory against the publishing organization could have grave implications for press freedom in the United States.
The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, accuses the Russian government, the Donald Trump campaign, Trump family members, and WikiLeaks of conspiring to hack into DNC servers, steal documents damaging to the Clinton campaign, and then publish the stolen documents. The DNC is not only seeking damages, but also admissions of guilt.
“The conspiracy constituted an act of previously unimaginable treachery: the campaign of the presidential nominee of a major party in league with a hostile foreign power to bolster its own chance to win the Presidency,” the lawsuit states.
In the lawsuit, the DNC specifically accuses WikiLeaks of “economic espionage” and “theft of trade secrets” related to its publication of internal DNC documents. The lawsuit also accuses WikiLeaks of violating federal wiretapping laws by publishing documents that it knew had been obtained through hacking:
170. WikiLeaks and Assange released and transmitted DNC trade secrets, including confidential, proprietary documents related to campaigns, fundraising and campaign strategy, on July 22 and November 6, 2016. Each release constituted a separate count of economic espionage.
171. Beginning on or before July 22, 2016, and continuing daily thereafter through November 2016, WikiLeaks and Assange, received, bought, or possessed Plaintiff’s trade secrets, knowing them to have been stolen or appropriated, obtained, or converted without authorization, and intending or knowing that doing so would benefit the Russian government, Russian instrumentalities, or Russian agents.
...
173. WikiLeaks and Assange also committed the acts described above with the invent to convert Plaintiff’s trade secrets, which are related to a product or service used in or intended for use in interstate or foreign commerce, the economic benefit of others besides Plaintiff. Each unauthorized release constituted a separate act of theft of trade secrets.
…
183. In violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(c), GRU Operative #1, WikiLeaks, and Assange willfully and intentionally disclosed the contents of Plaintiff’s wire, oral, or electronic communications, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2511.
184. In violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(d), GRU Operative #1, WikiLeaks, Assange, the Trump Associates, and the Trump Campaign willfully and intentionally used the contents of Plaintiff’s wire, oral, electronic communications, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communications in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2511.
DNC lawsuit against Russia, Trump Campaign, and WikiLeaks
These legal theories, if adopted by the courts, would have broad and dangerous implications for all types of reporters who cover election campaigns.
After WikiLeaks published documents about the DNC, countless media outlets — including mainstream news publications such as The New York Times and The Washington Post — reported on the internal DNC communications and even republished some of the documents. Under the DNC’s theory of the case, the Times and Post could theoretically also be liable for wiretapping, for "knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications” with the DNC.
(In the 2001 case Bartnicki v. Vopper, the Supreme Court ruled that news organizations have a First Amendment right to publish information in the public interest even if they knew the source of the information violated the law to obtain it.)
Separate from the case of WikiLeaks, newspapers often report on and publish internal documents and emails from all sorts of electoral campaigns. For example, the Washington Post published internal campaign document from the Trump administration in April 2016. Some of these stories may come from hacked materials, but most come from sources inside a campaign who hand documents over to news organizations without official authorization.
Under the theory of the DNC’s lawsuit, news organizations that publish internal campaign documents could potentially be sued — or even prosecuted by the government — for economic espionage or theft of trade secrets, raising serious press freedom concerns.
It's not just campaign reporters who are at risk. If the court found WikiLeaks liable for “theft of trade secrets” just for publishing internal information about the DNC, then corporations of all stripes could arguably use the same arguments to silence journalists like John Carreyrou, the Wall Street Journal reporter who exposed serious misconduct and fraud at the blood-testing company Theranos.
In a comment on Twitter responding to the lawsuit, WikiLeaks said that its publication of the DNC documents was protected by the First Amendment:
Comment on DNC "lawsuit": DNC already has a moribund publicity lawsuit which the press has became bored of--hence the need to refile it as a "new" suit before mid-terms. As an accurate publisher of newsworthy information @WikiLeaks is constitutionally protected from such suits.
— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) April 20, 2018
After reports in April 2017 indicated that the Justice Department would seek to prosecute WikiLeaks and its editor Julian Assange for its publishing activities, Attorney General Jeff Sessions told a group of reporters on April 20 that arresting Assange was "a priority."
“We are going to step up our effort and already are stepping up our efforts on all leaks," Sessions said. "This is a matter that’s gone beyond anything I’m aware of. We have professionals that have been in the security business of the United States for many years that are shocked by the number of leaks and some of them are quite serious.”
He added: “So yes, it is a priority. We’ve already begun to step up our efforts and whenever a case can be made, we will seek to put some people in jail.”
The Justice Department's statements followed a speech by CIA director Mike Pompeo at a DC think tank on April 13, where he called the publisher a “a non-state hostile intelligence service,” claiming that “we have to recognize that we can no longer allow Assange and his colleagues the latitude to use free speech values against us.” Pompeo falsely claimed that "Julian Assange has no First Amendment privileges" because he is "not a U.S. citizen." (Non-citizens have just as many First Amendment protections as US citizens.)
Central Intelligence Agency Director Mike Pompeo speaks at The Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, U.S. April 13, 2017.
",None,None,None,None,False,None,[],None,None,False,None,None,None,False,False,None,None,None,None,False,None,[],None,None,None,None,None,None,False,None,WikiLeaks,Department of Justice,,,