Joe Biden Is Railing Against Hedge Fund Managers, But He Has a Long History of Courting Them

Biden may cast himself as the champion of working people, but he’s seeking support from the same financial elite that he chides on the 2020 campaign trail.

BY BRANKO MARCETIC

http://inthesetimes.com/article/21875/joe-biden-hedge-fund-managers-unions-2020

“The country wasn't built by Wall Street bankers, CEOs and hedge fund managers,” Joe Biden told a crowd at a Monday campaign rally held in a Teamsters hall, his first appearance as an official 2020 candidate.

This is likely a different message than what Biden has been sending to hedge fund managers themselves, whom he has spent the two years leading up to his announcement aggressively courting. These titans of finance capital have also been among Biden’s early supporters.

In fact, the first time Biden publicly opened the door to a possible 2020 run, he was standing among figures from the hedge fund industry. After months of flat out denials, Biden first admitted he “may very well do it” at the Skybridge Alternatives (SALT) Conference in May 2017, where he appeared as a keynote speaker. SALT is an annual conference bringing together hedge funds in Las Vegas organized and run by Anthony Scaramucci, the hedge fund operator who briefly served as President Trump’s White House communications director in 2017. While Biden is not listed as a speaker for this year’s SALT, his picture is still featured prominently on the front page of its website.         

Attendees at the 2017 conference included billionaire investor Sam Zell, The Carlyle Group co-founder and Co-Executive Chairman David Rubenstein, hedge fund manager James Chanos, Milwaukee Bucks co-owner and Avenue Capital Group co-founder Marc Lasry, as well as a host of celebrities and political figures such as Karl Rove and Donna Brazile. Much of the coverage of the event at the time focused on Biden’s teased presidential run and his testy, possibly misreported exchange with billionaire hedge fund manager Bill Ackman. But Biden was well-received at the event, receiving a standing ovation from the 2,000-strong crowd of Wall Street bigwigs.

Biden’s speech reportedly painted an image of the kind of unified, cooperative American polity that tends to animate his worldview, one where competing interests work together and the country functions more as a singular team than one marked by class divisions. The United States had a plethora of research universities and the “most nimble” venture capitalists, he told the gathering. And while hoarding their wealth wouldn’t enrich the economy, he said, investing in education and other public goods would.

This wasn’t the only time Biden spoke alongside such an ultra-wealthy crowd that year. At an event at the University of Delaware in April 2017 to promote his Biden Institute—which describes itself as a “a research and policy center” aiming to “influence, shape, and work to solve the most pressing domestic policy problems facing America”—Biden convened a panel called “Win-Win: How the Long View Works for Business and the Middle Class.” At the panel, Biden was joined by various corporate executives and figures from the investment industry. He kicked things off by expounding on the virtues of a strong middle class, whose fate, he said, depended on “what companies decide to do with their profits”: invest them in “research, training, equipment” or plow them back into “shareholder payout.”

The eight-member panel—consisting of Biden, various corporate executives and two university associates—was critical of both corporate America, which they argued was driven to short-term thinking by fear of poor quarterly performance, and of hedge fund managers who pushed executives into such behavior.

Yet several of these panelists were themselves members of the hedge fund world: Carsten Stendevad of Bridgewater Associates, which recently topped the list of the world’s biggest and most profitable hedge funds; Sarah Williamson, a former partner and 21-year veteran of hedge fund manager Wellington Management Co. who sat onits Hedge Fund Oversight Committee; Charles Elson, a finance professor at the university who just months before was nominated to run a hedge fund; and Mark Wiseman, the Global Head of Active Equity at BlackRock, the world’s largest asset manager with billions of dollars invested in hedge funds, in which the firm is increasing investment.

The following year, Biden looked partly to the hedge fund world to fill out his institute's Policy Advisory Board, adding former hedge fund boss and major Obama bundler Eric Mindich as well as a number of employees and veterans of firms such as BlackRock, Morgan Stanley and JP Morgan Chase. The Advisory Board’s missioninvolved drafting “a set of new policy ideas to make sure Americans are able to obtain quality jobs that will grow the middle class and our economy.”

Mindich, for his part, has also promised to help Biden raise money for his current campaign.

Such events continued into 2018. Early that year, Biden reportedly attended a fundraiser at the home of Laetitia Garriott de Cayeux, a career-long hedge fund executive, and was the special guest at a $10,000 per person dinner for House Democrats at the aforementioned James Chanos’ home. Chanos, a billionaire who made his fortune by betting on the fall in value of company stocks, has said Biden would “make a great president” and “hits a chord with the middle class,” pledging to “support him any way I can.”

Meanwhile, Florida billionaire Marsha Laufer, whose husband Henry served as an executive at the $57 billion hedge fund Renaissance Technologies, had kind words for Biden before he joined the race, saying he represents “stability of government, truth and values in a traditional sense that people are longing for,” while expressing fear about the Democrats’ leftward shift.

It appears Biden may be returning to this well even after taking a rhetorical jab at “Wall Street bankers, CEOs and hedge fund managers.” Some of those slated to attend an LA fundraiser for Biden next month include: Richard Blum, hedge fund manager, private equity investor and husband of California Sen. Dianne Feinstein;  James Costos, board member of PJT Partners Inc.; and Martha Karsh, whose husband, Bruce, co-founded private equity firm Oaktree Capital.  

Biden’s closeness to the industry is nothing new. A 2015 letter signed by nearly 50 Democratic Party donors and activists urging Biden to run for president the following year featured longtime hedge fund manager Jim Torrey as well as other finance executives. Biden’s 2008 presidential campaign was fined $219,000 by the FEC partly because three members of the campaign took a flight on a private jet owned by the Clinton Group, a New York-based hedge fund. And Biden’s son Hunter was previously chairman of Paradigm, a now-defunct fund of hedge funds he ran alongside Biden’s brother, James.

Alongside this relationship to hedge funds, Biden has been heavily courting labor union support for his presidential run. He opened his campaign with an endorsement from the International Association of Fire Fighters, has spoken in union halls and in front of union audiences in the lead up to his run (including on the day he announced), and recently said that “I make no apologies—I am a union man.” This is despite union antipathy toward hedge funds, which have a history of depleting pension funds through poor performance and exorbitant fees. 

These events suggest the contours of what Biden’s campaign and potential governing style may look like. Biden will likely continue seeking the support of unions while playing up his working-class, Scranton roots in public speeches, while quietly courting hedge fund managers and other corporate and Wall Street executives for funding.

Meanwhile, unlike Bernie Sanders, one of his chief rivals for the Democratic nomination who frames the relationship between corporate America and working people as antagonistic, these episodes suggest Biden sees this relationship as a fundamentally cooperative one.

As Biden said at the Brookings Institution in May 2018, “I’m not Bernie Sanders. I don’t think 500 billionaires are the reason why we’re in trouble.” He went on to say, “The folks at the top are not bad guys… wealthy Americans are just as patriotic as poor folks.”

In this view, Wall Street and corporate executives serve as key stakeholders who must help shape government policy, with Biden acting as a kind of broker between them and the rest of the public. It’s an approach not dissimilar from that taken by previous Democratic presidents in the post-Reagan era.

But can such a coalition of the working class and ultra-rich executives hold together throughout the campaign, particularly at a time of populist anger and historic wealth inequality? With a dangerous billionaire real estate mogul in the White House, that’s one risky proposition.

Indonesia Will Move its Capital from Fast-Sinking Jakarta

Olivia Rosane

May. 03, 2019 04:44PM EST

https://www.ecowatch.com/indonesia-to-move-capital-jakarta-2636197365.html

Indonesia's president elect announced plans this week to move the country's capital away from Jakarta, reportedly the fastest sinking city in the world.

A 2018 report said that Jakarta, located on the island of Java, was one of the global cities most vulnerable to sea level rise caused by climate change. It is sinking at a rate of approximately 10 inches per year due to a combination of the drilling of wells for groundwater and the weight of its buildings. The 40 to 50 centimeters (approximately 16 to 20 inches) of sea level rise expected by 2100 even if warming is limited to 1.5 to 2 degrees Celsius would only make the situation worse.

"In Java, the population is 57 percent of the total for Indonesia, or more than 140 million people, to the point that the ability to support this, whether in terms of the environment, water or traffic in the future, will no longer be possible so I decided to move outside Java," Indonesian President President Joko Widodo told local media, as The Financial Times reported.

Jakarta's sinking isn't a problem for the end of the century. Heri Andreas of the Bandung Institute of Technology found that 95 percent of North Jakarta could be underwater by 2050, BBC News reported. Jakarta also experiences serious flooding once a decade and is so congested that its traffic costs Indonesia $7 billion a year, according to The Jakarta Globe.

Planning Minister Bambang Brodjonegoro announced Widodo's decision Monday following a cabinet meeting, Reuters reported.

"The president chose to relocate the capital city to outside of Java, an important decision," he said.

Indonesia held its presidential elections April 17, and private polls have indicated that Widodo is the winner, though his opponent Prabowo Subianto has not conceded. The official results will be announced May 22. During the campaign, Widodo promised to more evenly distribute economic growth outside Java.

An alternative capital has not yet been selected, and Widodo asked ministers to come up with alternatives, The Jakarta Globe reported.

Brodjonegoro said the new capital would probably be located in the center of the country, to encourage a sense of fairness and equity, and that it would need to have enough drinking water and be relatively safe from natural disasters like earthquakes, volcanic eruptions and flooding.

The frontrunner right now is Palangkaraya in Kalimantan, the part of Borneo controlled by Indonesia, BBC News reported. However, one high school student was concerned about what the move might mean for the region's forest.

"I hope the city will develop and the education will become as good as in Jakarta. But all the land and forest that's empty space now will be used. Kalimantan is the lungs of the world, and I am worried, we will lose the forest we have left," the student said.

Some Indonesians are skeptical that the capital will actually be relocated, since such a move has been discussed off and on since the country gained its independence from the Dutch in 1945. But Brodjonegoro was optimistic, pointing to other countries that had achieved similar moves.

"Brazil moved from Rio de Janeiro to Brasilia near the Amazon, and look at Canberra it's built between Sydney and Melbourne, and Kazakhstan moved their capital to closer to the centre of the country and also Myanmar moved to Naypyidaw," he said, as BBC News reported.

He estimated the process would take 10 years. Wikodo said the move could cost $33 billion, The Financial Times reported.

Reading Marx’s "Capital" Volume 1 with David Harvey

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kbufTii1U3A&w=676&h=381

A quick note: utopian or real?

May 4, 2019

peterradford

Leave a comment

Go to comments

from Peter Radford

https://rwer.wordpress.com/2019/05/04/a-quick-note-utopian-or-real/

Just a brief follow-on to my recent comments on the role of economics and its relationship with power and/or politics.

I pulled out my old copy of Polanyi’s “The Great Transformation” to refresh my memory of his position on the topic.  Recall that he talked about the way in which economic activity is embedded within the larger social and political fabric.  Mainstream economists must shudder at such a thought.  Isn’t economics superior and more “scientific” than politics?

In any case, in his introduction to the edition I have, Joe Stiglitz made a very useful comment that is worth repeating.  His words are:

“… the very utopianism of market liberalism is a source of its extraordinary intellectual resilience … its theorists can always claim that any failures were not the result of the design but of a lack of political will in its implementation.”

That is clearly true of all utopian or faith-based arguments or theories.  The purity necessary for such arguments or theories to represent reality is unattainable.  Reality is riven through with all sorts of contradictions, uncertainties, and other vagaries such that any utopian vision cannot be fully realized.

Thus, a utopian theory is rendered immune to contradiction.  How sneaky! The defenders of such theories can hide behind a convenience of their own making.  The radical rationality of market liberalism is such a theory.  Its proponents can point to any number of so-called failures that prevent its pristine wonders from occurring on earth.  Inevitably those failures are described as being a problem of governance or, rather, government interference.

The obvious retort to such talk is simply to ask why it is that the theory describes a utopian world and not the one we all observe.  To that the utopian theorists have no answer.

Why?

Because to provide a theory that accounts for the contradictions, uncertainties, and vagaries contradicts their ideological intent.  They set out to prove the superiority of markets over other forms of resource allocation, and the only way of achieving that goal is to abstract away reality with all its inconvenient facts.  However, markets, as Polanyi pointed out, are tainted by their continual co-existence and co-mingling with other forms of allocation and social activity.  Telling the consequences of one set of causes from another is difficult to say the least.  Economics can describe monopolies or rent seeking, but treats them as anomalies that sully the purity of a market.  In reality they are the norm.  Elites make them that way.

It is trivial to argue that perfect markets deliver perfect results.  It is a great deal more difficult to make a real economy tractable to analysis.  And the argument that we ought to compare the pure version with reality to see where we could improve the real world is truly bizarre and pointless.  Unless, of course, your agenda is not study but dictation.

In the context of my recent comments on power, the utopian nature of economics and its need to be other-worldly in order to arrive at its core conclusions, often renders it secondary or worse as a description of economic reality.  The ebb and flow of inequality throughout history is a good example.

Even though things like supply and demand may exist as forces in the allocation of resources and hence the level of inequality, they quite often are overwhelmed by other forces.  Like elitist control of power for instance.  Utopians will, as Stiglitz suggests, cry foul and argue that, “if only” such asymmetries as concentrations of power did not exist, the world would comply with their theory.  But such asymmetries do exist.

They always have.

Human influence on global droughts goes back 100 years, NASA study finds

May 1, 2019

NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center

Human-generated greenhouse gases and atmospheric particles were affecting global drought risk as far back as the early 20th century, according to a new study.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/05/190501141112.htm

Human-generated greenhouse gases and atmospheric particles were affecting global drought risk as far back as the early 20th century, according to a study from NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City.

The study, published in the journal Nature, compared predicted and real-world soil moisture data to look for human influences on global drought patterns in the 20th century. Climate models predict that a human "fingerprint" -- a global pattern of regional drying and wetting characteristic of the climate response to greenhouse gases -- should be visible early in the 1900's and increase over time as emissions increased. Using observational data such as precipitation and historical data reconstructed from tree rings, the researchers found that the real-world data began to align with the fingerprint within the first half of the 20th century.

The team said the study is the first to provide historical evidence connecting human-generated emissions and drought at near-global scales, lending credibility to forward-looking models that predict such a connection. According to the new research, the fingerprint is likely to grow stronger over the next few decades, potentially leading to severe human consequences.

Searching for human fingerprints

The study's key drought indicator was the Palmer Drought Severity Index, or PDSI. The PDSI averages soil moisture over the summer months using data such as precipitation, air temperature and runoff. While today NASA measures soil moisture from space, these measurements only date back to 1980. The PDSI provides researchers with average soil moisture over long periods of time, making it especially useful for research on climate change in the past.

The team also used drought atlases: Maps of where and when droughts happened throughout history, calculated from tree rings. Tree rings' thickness indicates wet and dry years across their lifespan, providing an ancient record to supplement written and recorded data.

"These records go back centuries," said lead author Kate Marvel, an associate research scientist at GISS and Columbia University. "We have a comprehensive picture of global drought conditions that stretch back way into history, and they are amazingly high quality."

Taken together, modern soil moisture measurements and tree ring-based records of the past create a data set that the team compared to the models. They also calibrated their data against climate models run with atmospheric conditions similar to those in 1850, before the Industrial Revolution brought increases in greenhouse gases and air pollution.

"We were pretty surprised that you can see this human fingerprint, this human climate change signal, emerge in the first half of the 20th century," said Ben Cook, climate scientist at GISS and Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in New York City. Cook co-led the study with Marvel.

The story changed briefly between 1950 and 1975, as the atmosphere became cooler and wetter. The team believes this was due to aerosols, or particles in the atmosphere. Before the passage of air quality legislation, industry expelled vast quantities of smoke, soot, sulfur dioxide and other particles that researchers believe blocked sunlight and counteracted greenhouse gases' warming effects during this period. Aerosols are harder to model than greenhouse gases, however, so while they are the most likely culprit, the team cautioned that further research is necessary to establish a definite link.

After 1975, as pollution declined, global drought patterns began to trend back toward the fingerprint. It does not yet match closely enough for the team to say statistically that the signal has reappeared, but they agree that the data trends in that direction.

Reaching a verdict

What made this study innovative was seeing the big picture of global drought, Marvel said. Individual regions can have significant natural variability year to year, making it difficult to tell whether a drying trend is due to human activity. Combining many regions into a global drought atlas meant there was a stronger signal if droughts happened in several places simultaneously.

"If you look at the fingerprint, you can say, 'Is it getting dry in the areas it should be getting drier? Is it getting wetter in the areas it should be getting wetter?'" she said. "It's climate detective work, like an actual fingerprint at a crime scene is a unique pattern."

Previous assessments from national and international climate organizations have not directly linked trends in global-scale drought patterns to human activities, Cook said, mainly due to lack of data supporting that link. He suggests that, by demonstrating a human fingerprint on droughts in the past, this study provides evidence that human activities could continue to influence droughts in the future.

"Part of our motivation was to ask, with all these advances in our understanding of natural versus human caused climate changes, climate modeling and paleoclimate, have we advanced the science to where we can start to detect human impact on droughts?" Cook said. His answer: "Yes."

Models predict that droughts will become more frequent and severe as temperatures rise, potentially causing food and water shortages, human health impacts, destructive wildfires and conflicts between peoples competing for resources.

"Climate change is not just a future problem," said Cook. "This shows it's already affecting global patterns of drought, hydroclimate, trends, variability -- it's happening now. And we expect these trends to continue, as long as we keep warming the world."

---

Story Source:

Materials provided by NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center. Original written by Jessica Merzdorf. Note: Content may be edited for style and length.

---

Journal Reference:

Kate Marvel, Benjamin I. Cook, Céline J. W. Bonfils, Paul J. Durack, Jason E. Smerdon, A. Park Williams. Twentieth-century hydroclimate changes consistent with human influence. Nature, 2019; 569 (7754): 59 DOI: 10.1038/s41586-019-1149-8

U.S. environment agency says glyphosate weed killer is not a carcinogen

Tom Polansek

3 MIN READ

CHICAGO (Reuters) - The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) said on Tuesday that glyphosate, a chemical in many popular weed killers, is not a carcinogen, contradicting decisions by U.S. juries that found it caused cancer in people.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-epa-glyphosate-idUSKCN1S62SU

The EPA’s announcement reaffirms its earlier findings about the safety of glyphosate, the key ingredient in Bayer’s Roundup. The company faces thousands of lawsuits from Roundup users who allege it caused their cancer.

“EPA continues to find that there are no risks to public health when glyphosate is used in accordance with its current label and that glyphosate is not a carcinogen,” the agency said in a statement.

Farmers spray glyphosate, the most widely used herbicide in U.S. agriculture, on fields of soybeans and other crops. Roundup is also used on lawns, golf courses and elsewhere.

The EPA did previously find ecological risks from the chemical and has proposed new measures to protect the environment from glyphosate use by farmers and to reduce the problem of weeds becoming resistant to it.

Bayer said it was pleased the EPA and other regulators who have assessed the science on glyphosate for more than 40 years continue to conclude it is not carcinogenic. “Bayer firmly believes that the science supports the safety of glyphosate-based herbicides,” it said in a statement. The company has repeatedly denied allegations that glyphosate and Roundup cause cancer.

But critics of the chemical disputed the EPA’s assurances.

“Unfortunately American consumers cannot trust the EPA assessment of glyphosate’s safety,” said Nathan Donley, a senior scientist at the environmental group Center for Biological Diversity.

Monsanto developed Roundup as the first glyphosate-based weed killer, but it is no longer patent-protected and many other versions are available. Bayer bought Monsanto last year for $63 billion.

The debate over glyphosate’s safety has put a spotlight on regulatory agencies around the world in recent years and, more recently, on U.S. courtrooms.

In 2015, the World Health Organization’s cancer arm classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans.” But the EPA in 2017 said a decades-long assessment of glyphosate risks found the chemical was not likely carcinogenic to humans.

In February, analysts at Brazilian health agency Anvisa also determined the weed killer does not cause cancer while recommending limits on exposure.

In the first U.S. Roundup trial, a California man was awarded $289 million in August 2018 after a state court jury found the weed killer caused his cancer. That award was later reduced to $78 million and is being appealed by Bayer.

A U.S. jury in March awarded $80 million to another California man who claimed his use of Roundup caused his cancer.

'Everything Was Done To Make Julian Assange's Life Miserable'

In his first interview since Julian Assange's arrest, WikiLeaks Editor-in-Chief Kristinn Hrafnsson discusses the "disgraceful" detention of the platform's founder, criticism of its links to Russia and what he describes as the "appalling" treatment of Chelsea Manning.

Interview Conducted By Martin Knobbe and Michael Sontheimer

https://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/wikileaks-everything-was-done-to-make-assange-miserable-a-1265603.html

Kristinn Hrafnsson, 56, spent three decades working as a journalist for media in Iceland, including the country's public broadcaster. In his reporting, including his research into the collapse of Iceland's Kaupthing Bank, he used documents from WikiLeaks. In 2010, he established Sunshine Press Productions in Iceland together with the Australian national Julian Assange. Before replacing Assange as editor-in-chief of WikiLeaks, Hrafnsson served as the platform's spokesman for six years.

---

DER SPIEGEL: Mr. Hrafnsson, on Wednesday you saw WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange in a court room in London, where he was sentenced to 50 weeks in jail for violating the conditions of his bail. British police arrested him on April 11 in the Ecuadorian Embassy after the government of Ecuador withdrew his political asylum. How is he doing?

Hrafnsson: He is in the Belmarsh high-security prison in South London. There, he is waiting for his trial for the extradition request from the United States government. On Wednesday, a court found him guilty of a bail act offense when he was using his human right to seek asylum. As you may remember, he was released on bail in December 2010 after friends had paid a deposit of 200,000 pounds. Before he entered the Ecuadorian Embassy in June 2012, he cut off his ankle monitor.

DER SPIEGEL: As the new editor-in-chief of WikiLeaks, do you sometimes worry you could end up in a high-security prison like Assange?

Hrafnsson: As WikiLeaks has been under attack for 10 years, I am aware of the dangers that come with the job. I have been working full-time for WikiLeaks since midsummer 2010. It is obvious that I am in the cross hairs of the U.S. government, its military and its secret services. We have known since 2014 that not only Julian Assange, but also other people who are connected with the organization are under investigation.

DER SPIEGEL: How do you know this?

Hrafnsson: Google took it to court that they were forced by a secret U.S. court to hand over data from me and others on the WikiLeaks team to an investigating U.S. secret court. Google won the right to inform us. So, Sarah Harrison, Joseph Farrell and I were informed in December 2014 that our mails were seized because of a grand jury investigating us in an espionage case.

DER SPIEGEL: How has Assange changed during his time in the embassy?

Hrafnsson: I have been quite surprised that he has been withholding and withstanding this situation in a more resilient manner than I would expect from anybody else.

DER SPIEGEL: How did the diplomatic asylum end which Assange was granted by the Ecuadorian government in August 2012?

Hrafnsson: The ambassador asked him into the meeting room of the embassy and presented a letter, which he read out loud, saying the diplomatic asylum had been revoked and that he had to leave the embassy immediately. When Julian left the meeting room and wanted to go back to his room, the lobby of the embassy was full of British Policemen who grabbed him.

DER SPIEGEL: That doesn't really fit with diplomatic rules.

Hrafnsson: Well, it was a long prepared, politically motivated move. Already last year, the embassy started a war of attrition, psychological warfare: cutting off the Internet, installing cell phone jammers, restricting visitors, turning off the heating. Everything was done to make Julian Assange's life miserable.

DER SPIEGEL: He certainly didn't look particularly well when he was dragged out of the embassy.

Hrafnsson: I am not sure if anyone would look really well when he was handcuffed and dragged out by seven policemen -- not to mention spending seven years inside one flat. It was disgusting and disgraceful.

DER SPIEGEL: How was Assange's life in the embassy before he got arrested?

Hrafnsson: The security staff and diplomats spied on him 24/7. They copied documents from his lawyers, they recorded the visits of doctors. The United Nations' special rapporteur on the right to privacy was supposed to meet with him in the embassy, but the Ecuadorians obviously wanted to expel him before the rapporteur could collect any evidence in the embassy. He has now visited him in Belmarsh prison.

DER SPIEGEL: Is it true that you were offered the surveillance material from the embassy?

Hrafnsson: Somebody was offering it on Twitter, so I contacted the person who immediately said that this was for sale. The offer was to buy the material for 3 million euros -- otherwise the information would be spread in the media. This was extortion. I flew to Madrid and had meetings with the special division of the Madrid police on blackmail and extortion. We filed a complaint there and it was taken very seriously by the Spanish police and now it is before a court. A complaint has now also been filed against the Ecuadorian minister of foreign affairs and the staff of the embassy in London.

DER SPIEGEL: Were you able to view some of the material?

Hrafnsson: I was allowed to browse through 104 folders with masses of material on every aspect of Assange's life. Videos, photographs, audio recordings. The intensity of the surveillance was shocking.

DER SPIEGEL: There were reports of Assange not behaving in a way that one would expect from a guest of the embassy. He supposedly didn't flush the toilet, and he has been described as arrogant and narcissistic.

Hraffnsson: It is not hard to manufacture some kind of supposed evidence of negative behavior when you have somebody under total surveillance for years. The security guards and diplomats were instructed to collect selectively negative material. They once found a stain on the light switch of the toilet and alleged it was feces from Julian. This report was used by the president of Ecuador as evidence that Julian had been smearing feces all over the walls of the embassy. I mean, how low can you go?

DER SPIEGEL: What kind of guy is Assange?

Hrafnsson: I have had to work with a few editors in my 30 years as a journalist, and I would describe my relationship with editors as sometimes problematic. I am rather stubborn and independent. The relationship with Julian was the least problematic of all of them. He has a very clear vision of where he wants to go. We had disagreements, but he listened to my views. Sometimes we only agreed to disagree.

DER SPIEGEL: Do you consider him a journalist or an activist?

Hrafnsson: As both. Back in 2009, I found it extremely interesting to hear his opinions on information freedom coming from his background as a digital activist in Melbourne when the term "hacker" did not yet have a negative connotation but was a label for creative people who wanted to use the internet in a democratic or anarchistic way. Although I came from the totally different background of mainstream media journalism, at the end of the day I found out that we shared the same values.

DER SPIEGEL: So, you consider yourself to be an activist and journalist as well?

Hrafnsson: If you are a journalist and you are not fighting for information freedom, for accountability and transparency, then you are not a journalist in my eyes. Besides that, I am absolutely convinced that the struggle for Julian Assange's freedom of is the biggest struggle for press freedom we have experienced so far in the 21st century.

DER SPIEGEL: WikiLeaks has a rather simple but radical approach. If documents are in the public interest and authentic, they will be published. Is this still the idea?

Hrafnsson: WikiLeaks' approach would not have been radical a few decades ago, but that changed with the enormous escalation of secrecy of those in power after 9/11. State secrecy and corporate secrecy have been increasing without being convincingly justified. In this environment, the fight of an organization like WikiLeaks is becoming more radical in an environment changing for the worse. At the same time, regular people are unprotected against the invasion of their privacy, as former CIA employee and whistleblower Edward Snowden revealed to us. And private entities like Google, Facebook and others are harvesting our private information as well. So, yes, this is still the idea.

DER SPIEGEL: In the beginning, WikiLeaks said: "We don't discriminate, we publish what we get." Does that still apply today?

Hrafnsson: When we started to publish U.S. military documents in 2010 on a massive scale, we were criticized for just "dumping documents" unredacted. We were accused of having "blood on our hands." In 2013, during Chelsea Manning's trial, a Pentagon official was called to testify about the harm the publications had caused and the people who had been killed because of these. He had to admit that nobody had been harmed.

DER SPIEGEL: But of course, you still have a responsibility for the people mentioned in the documents.

Hrafnsson: Once again: There have been millions of documents published by WikiLeaks. Where is the harm? And where is the harm in truthful information? And that compared to the harm that has been exposed and the bloodshed that was caused by the parties that were exposed.

DER SPIEGEL: But why was it necessary to publish full names? Does WikiLeaks have any limits at all?

Hrafnsson: Of course, there are. Parts of the Afghan war documents were withheld by WikiLeaks. If you would have the manual for how to launch intercontinental ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads, would you publish it? Of course not!

DER SPIEGEL: What will happen to Julian Assange in the future?

Hrafnsson: He almost got the maximum sentence of one year in jail for skipping bail, but the real battle is the extradition case. It can take two or three years. The U.S. government has been given two months, until June 12, to produce additional information supporting the extradition request.

DER SPIEGEL: The request is based on an indictment on a charge of conspiracy to commit computer intrusion that holds a maximum sentence of five years. Will that be the only charge?

Hrafnsson: It is obviously only the first step, and it would be extremely naive to try to maintain that other charges will not be added when he is on American soil. Letters were issued to individuals connected with WikiLeaks where they were offered immunity if they provided information pertaining to the investigation into what obviously was being described as the violation of the Espionage Act of 1917.

DER SPIEGEL: Do you think the government in Washington is trying to get Assange to the U.S. in the first place on the pretext of the relatively benign charge of conspiracy to commit computer intrusion, so that it can then come up with additional charges that might lead to a life sentence or even the death penalty?

Hrafnsson: That's an absolute certainty. That is the playbook.

DER SPIEGEL: When American whistleblower Edward Snowden escaped to Moscow, a lot of people in Germany demanded that he be provided with political asylum here. Assange's arrest has been met with silence. Why?

Hrafnsson: My impression is different. We are seeing increasing support because people are starting to understand the severity of this situation, and even some journalists are getting how important the case is for the freedom of the press.

DER SPIEGEL: It's a slow start though.

Hrafnsson: The blueprint for what has been happening was written out by the CIA and some companies working for high corporate interests, leaked to WikiLeaks and published by WikiLeaks almost 10 years ago. The concept includes fighting the support base of WikiLeaks. And it's done by attacking the individuals who are in the circle of WikiLeaks and especially by attacking Julian Assange with attempted character assassination.

DER SPIEGEL: You probably mean the investigation into him regarding

alleged minor rape. Is it possible these Swedish investigations will be reopened?

Hrafnsson: I find it highly unlikely for the simple reason that the Swedish state prosecutors wanted to close down the case in 2013 and it was the British Crown Prosecution Service that actually was pushing them to keep the investigation alive.

DER SPIEGEL: Female WikiLeaks supporters, in particular, have been deterred by these allegations. Even more supporters might have turned away after WikiLeaks published emails from Hillary Clinton and other leading U.S. Democrats. They believe that helped Donald Trump to win the election. Was it a mistake to publish those emails?

Hrafnsson: Absolutely not. It would have been a severe violation of all journalistic principles not to publish information passed to a journalistic entity about a political party and an individual prior to an election. The journalistic entity reviewed the material, found it to be truthful and in the public interest to publish it, precisely because there was a forthcoming election. It is not even a choice -- it is a duty for journalists to give the electorate access to all such information.

DER SPIEGEL: Robert Mueller stated in his report that two Twitter accounts allegedly connected to a Russian intelligent service provided WikiLeaks with these documents. Has WikiLeaks been instrumentalized by Russian intelligence?

Hrafnsson: It is worth noting that Mueller declined the offer to hear Julian's testimony. There is no evidence anything was sent by Russian entities that later was published. Mueller jumps to a conclusion, but it is not based on evidence. But usually there is an agenda attached to leaked information. There are sometimes individuals who leak information because they believe it is in the public interest to do so. They are very honorable whistleblowers, but you could call that an agenda as well. We have to scrutinize all leaked information and publish if it is in the public interest.

DER SPIEGEL: But it was more than just getting information. Assange was in contact with Donald Trump, Jr., Mr. Trump's oldest son, during the campaign. Was he an active part in the political game?

Hrafnsson: There is nothing per se unusual about journalists being in direct contact with political campaigns. Trump Jr. was not given, in advance, substantive information. It is not a crime to inform a political campaign of information that has already been published.

DER SPIEGEL: How do you address suspicions that WikiLeaks has been fed and used by Russia?

Hrafnsson: I'm not a fan of Putin. I'm generally a skeptic of power. There's definitely a lot of criticism, justifiably pointed at Putin's Russia. However, according to the latest statistics, Russia fell from second to sixth place on the list of countries' spending on military and defense, so now Saudi Arabia is No. 2. A few days ago, there were 37 beheadings in Saudi Arabia. We are talking about a nation that sends out assassination squads to torture and kill journalists. We are talking about the incubator of Islamist terrorism. So, why don't we put things into perspective?

DER SPIEGEL: But it's conspicuous that WikiLeaks has mostly published documents relating to the U.S. and not, for example, Russia.

Hrafnsson: We have already published information about corruption in Russia. Putin is mentioned in our database 82,940 times. We have published information about private companies working for secret services in Russia. Of course, we would publish material about the Kremlin if we could authenticate it and if it was in the public interest to publish it.

DER SPIEGEL: The next time when you get documents and you know they are from Russian intelligence, will you deal with it in the same way as you did it in the past?

Hrafnsson: There's an interesting premise in your question. You said, if you knew it was from Russia. It should be fairly well-recognized now that WikiLeaks tries its utmost not to know the source of its submissions. It's our policy, that's why we have a very advanced system, where you can submit information to us without being traced. Not knowing the source is probably the best security you can offer a source.

DER SPIEGEL: But if you happen to know the source, you have to deal with it.

Hrafnsson: I would say this in general terms: If the devil himself offered me truthful information about corruption in the Kingdom of Heaven, I would publish it. That's journalistic duty.

DER SPIEGEL: Chelsea Manning, a former military analyst who has been WikiLeaks's source for the Iraq war logs and other documents, has been jailed again because she refused to testify against Julian Assange. Did the two ever meet personally -- and could that explain the degree of loyalty?

Hrafnsson: No, they never met. But I must say: What is being done to Chelsea Manning is such a serious violation of any principle of law that is absolutely appalling. Chelsea Manning basically stated: "I do not accept the mandate of a secret court, where I am being hauled in front of it to demand I give information on a crime that I was sentenced for, for which I served seven years, after which the president of the United States reduced my sentence and I was released. I've said everything that I know in my trial." Because of this stance, she has been thrown in jail again. This is something that could have happened in the German Democratic Republic or countries where there is no respect for the rule of law. This is extortion, she is being extorted into giving evidence in the attempt to get a harsher sentence for Julian Assange.

DER SPIEGEL: What conclusions do you draw from Manning's treatment?

Hrafnsson: It looks like that when it comes to the criminal justice system in the U.S., in certain cases, it's just a criminal system without justice. Look at the letters that have been sent out to several individuals who were connected with WikiLeaks and are now living in exile -- some here in Germany, some in Iceland -- threat letters with the offer of immunity if they work with the grand jury in Virginia in the persecution of WikiLeaks. In other words: If you don't cooperate, we will go after you. I refer to this as the Don Corleone offer, which is from the Godfather, an offer you can't refuse.

DER SPIEGEL: What are you hoping for from the Germans?

Hrafnsson: There has to be some resistance to that overreach. The other day Julian Assange was given the Daphne Galizia Award by the members of the left group in the European Parliament. One of the members of parliament who presented it said that the extradition request for Assange was an attack on European democratic principles, and I do agree with that. Not only are we seeing the basic principles of press freedom under attack, the whole case is an attack on our democracy.

DER SPIEGEL: So, what do you expect from the German politicians or the government?

Hrafnsson: I would like to see more spine. It's about drawing a line in the sand, it's not about the person of Julian Assange, it's not about whether you like him or not, but about the core principles at stake. If we sacrifice this one, my god, we're in a pretty nasty territory.

DER SPIEGEL: How will WikiLeaks proceed from here, and how are you going to finance the platform?

Hrafnsson: Through donations. The majority of them are relatively small, 20 euros on average.