Leaked Stratfor E-Mail Claims Julian Assange Indicted a Year Ago

The leaked Stratfor e-mails contain one by Fred Burton of Stratfor a year ago saying the U.S. has a sealed Indictment for Julian Assanage.

Email-ID 375123
Date 2011-01-26 15:23:28
From burton@stratfor.com
To secure@stratfor.com
Not for Pub --

We have a sealed indictment on Assange.

Pls protect
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

Burton, the vice-president of intelligence for Stratfor, is a former deputy chief of the counter-terrorism division of the US State Department's diplomatic security service. The Sydney Morning Herald reports on the email here, and Forbes here. [More...]

If the e-mail is real, whatever happened to grand jury secrecy?

Stratfor CEO George Friedman says he did not resign in the wake of the announcement that Wikileaks would publish the emails. Here is his purported resignation letter posted on Pastebin. Here is Friedman's release saying it was "forged."

Stratfor has issued this statement on Wikileaks.

< Feds Shut Down BoDog Gambling Site, Indict Owners | Obama Issues Rules for Determining Civilian vs Military Custody of Detainees >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Whoever disclosed the existence (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Peter G on Tue Feb 28, 2012 at 02:42:12 PM EST
    of a sealed indictment to someone outside the strict bounds of the prosecutorial team (assuming it is true) would be guilty of a criminal contempt of court.

    I Love it... (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Feb 28, 2012 at 03:58:11 PM EST
    "Make note to whomever, all the emails that make us look bad are forgeries...", said in a thunderous low declaration while slamming fist on the pulpit.

    And not to mock the 'security' guy, but validating an email is fairly simple, pretty sure WikiLeaks and Anonymous are aware and certainly wouldn't forge something so easily verifiable.  

    Odd that a intelligence guy would use that... never mind, it's not that odd, probably standard protocol.

    Jeralyn this reminds (none / 0) (#2)
    by fishcamp on Tue Feb 28, 2012 at 02:54:59 PM EST
    me of a recent indictment in Colorado that was not sealed but the Feds waited nearly three months to serve it.  If it was not sealed couldn't the defendant learn of the indictment and flee?

    Indictments in (none / 0) (#5)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Feb 29, 2012 at 02:38:14 AM EST
    multi-defendant cases are unsealed in Colorado upon the arrest of the first defendant. I'm not sure which Indictment you were referring to that was not initially sealed. Feel free to e-mail me the answer.

    Thank you (none / 0) (#6)
    by fishcamp on Wed Feb 29, 2012 at 12:48:17 PM EST
    I believe you just answered the question...

    Well, the entire scandal (none / 0) (#4)
    by Edger on Tue Feb 28, 2012 at 05:03:04 PM EST
    has lowered the cost Stratfor charge for its content to something closer to its real value, which should be helping to "enhance" their reputation among their customer base.

    Stratfor.com has for sometime has had a message at the top of their homepage:

    Temporarily offering all content for free