Transcript of Barrett Brown on Infowars (03/09/2015)

Transcript of Barrett Brown interview segment on InfoWars, video clip is on youtube:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkaBnXkO5GY

DAVID KNIGHT
Welcome back to the Alex Jones show, and in our last hour we were awaiting the call of Barrett Brown from prison and of course, if you haven't been following Barrett Brown's story, you should be. That's one of the reasons we're having him on here, because it affects press freedom throughout the United States, and coming back into the studio with me now is Joe Biggs, we still have, I think, Paul Joseph Watson on the phone from the U.K. So, got a lot of people on-line here, but let's go to Barrett Brown. Barrett, I wanted to give you a chance to talk to the public, we talked about your comments to the judge saying that "This isn't about the rule of law anymore, we now have the rule of law enforcement," tell us what you want to tell us about your trial now that the gag order has been taken off.

BARRETT BROWN
Well, the first thing I should mention is that, aside from what I've put forth, in the article at The Daily Beast [http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/01/31/my-post-cyberpunk-indentured-servitude.html] about a month ago, and aside what I'll tell you about today, the great majority of the things that people didn't know about the trial are still sealed. And that'll, should continue for about six months, so in addition to all the very egregious things that have happened, there's a great deal more that's still not public. Now, regarding the trial, the basic lesson here is the federal government can do whatever it wants, essentially, in the department of justice, within the federal justice system. That's clear from the very demonstrable perjury that took place in this case, again some of which is visible, some of which can be confirmed publicly through documents, some of which is still sealed. And that's what I'm really trying to convey to the judge, in that elocution I gave. That, when you allow this perjury to occur, we're getting away from the rule of law. We're getting to a situation in which we're going through the forms, we're meeting in a very nice, pretty, hardwood room with paintings, and a big nice wood podium, very pretty robes and all that, but you're missing something, which is the rule of law. And since the rule of law isn't there, you're going to see things like Anonymous, you're going to see things like Wikileaks, you're going to keep seeing them. Until we get the rule of law.

KNIGHT
One of the things, reading the transcript, the judge dressed down the prosecutor for not referring you to as "Mr. Brown", and I, you're just talking about, you've got this fancy room with all the trappings and everything, but they're grinding the rule of law into the ground, and I thought, he's worried about being polite to people while he's doing, while he's railroading this whole process? That was amazing.

BROWN
That's very important to establishment characters in D.C. It's very important to people who have that federal government mentality. I would have preferred him to object at the last hearing, when the prosecutor asked the FBI agent, "How long has Barrett Brown been an anarchist?" That would have been the time to object, when they start asking about my political ideology. Incidentally, this thing about me being an anarchist, which is true, that actually comes up in a couple of other documents, including the gag order, when they asked me to be gagged, me being an anarchist was one of the reasons they cited. In one of the documents that's still sealed, regarding my sentencing, they called for me to get judicial prison time because I'm an anarchist. More likely, apparently, to commit crimes. So...there's a lot of egregious things that on an individual basis really should have been a national story, on each given thing. Obviously the seizure of the Declaration of Independence, in a more perfect world, would have been a major news story.

KNIGHT
Yes.

BROWN
Unfortunately, the world we're in, it didn't quite rate national coverage.

KNIGHT
Yes, that was amazing. Tell the audience about that.

BROWN
Well, among the items...you can see...this is in the links to my Daily Beast article, "My Post Cyberpunk Indentured Servitude", which you can find on-line [again: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/01/31/my-post-cyberpunk-indentured-servitude.html], we have the list of items that they seized, as evidence of a crime. And it's computers, it's my notes, there's only one book they took...I have a lot of books in my apartment at the time, the only book they took was a copy of the Declaration of Independence, a little pocket copy. Never explained, never have to explain why they took it, I'm assuming it has to do with the FBI memorandum a few years ago, when they said patriots, militia types, they like the constitution, they might have a copy of the constitution, thus having a copy of the constitution might be evidence of a crime. I'm assuming they just sort of got it mixed up, one of those enlightenment documents, you know, FBI agents are not as educated as we might expect them to be. Or we might hope them to be. So they just grabbed it. And then, you know, never came up at the trial, and even for them, it would have been a little much to actually discuss that, you know, in the course of the trial, so...

KNIGHT
Well of course, yeah, they never want to read even the first paragraph of that, when it says we create governments to establish our rights and if they destroy our rights, we have the duty and the obligation to alter or abolish those governments. One other thing I wanted to get to, and then you can talk, I'll let Joe ask you a question here...one thing you mentioned at the end of the article was, two days before your sentencing, the Department of Justice withheld from the defense team chat transcripts from Jeremy Hammond. Tell us about that.

ELECTRONIC OPERATOR
This call is from a federal prison.

BROWN
Sorry, that's one of those charming little reminders that we get once in a while. Yes, it actually came out two days before, an article, I think by Dell Cameron [http://www.dailydot.com/politics/barrett-brown-sentencing-evidence/], that in fact it was something we had no idea of, the Department of Justice had documents that showed quite demonstrably that I was not a co-conspirator in the Stratfor hack. Which was a major point in the DOJ's favor in getting me, actually, initial prison time. This claim that I was somehow a co-conspirator. And they withheld that evidence. And evidently, the evidence is now public, it was made public right before my sentencing, and this is something, again, in a more perfect world, the judge would care about just as much as he cares about whether I'm called Mr. Brown, or Barrett, or Humpty Dumpty, or whatever. But it just didn't quite, it didn't quite come to his attention. It didn't quite interest him very much. You know, it's, it actually just goes to show with this particular case, you know, obviously it pains me to be in prison, but on the other hand, we have a great example here, this whole case, this investigation, all the way to the sentencing, of how this system works, particularly if the DOJ wants you, very much wants you to do prison. It's a great example of how, they're able to get away with these things, even in the public eye. And there's another story here, it's of how poorly the mainstream media does in keeping up with these things.

JOE BIGGS
We spoke on the phone the other day, Barrett, and you were talking about, I was asking you what you knew about the Michael Hastings, you know, case, and how the FBI came out and said they weren't looking into him, and you said you believed ninety nine percent the FBI was definitely looking into him.

BROWN
Yeah, it's...even aside from the other reasons they had to look into him, it's absolutely ludicrous to say that. Because with regards to my group, Project PM, which runs the echelon2.org website, which is really what this case is all about, they subpoenaed IP address information, for everyone who's ever contributed to that website of ours. So, these are just small players within Project PM who...now, Michael Hastings on the other hand, as I noted in Vanity Fair article a number of years ago [http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2010/06/why-the-hacks-hate-michael-hastings], when he was still alive and when I was writing about him, he was instrumental when I was first creating Project PM, in helping me sortof flesh out the philosophy of it. So the idea that he, who was in contact with me, regarding Project PM, was never investigated, regarding Project PM, is absolutely 100% ludicrous. And again, that's in addition to the other reason today, certain other organizations would have to be investigating and harassing him. He obviously did a great job...he's best known for forcing McChrystal to resign a number of years ago, but really, his article exposing the psy-ops campaign used by a two star general in Afghanistan against senators, that's something I cite constantly in my articles for the Guardian and whatever as evidence of here's what these people are willing to do, even to your elected officials. And again, it is absolutely ludicrous that they claim they weren't investigating him. They absolutely were, almost certainly on several different issues.

KNIGHT
I know we don't have much time before we get cut off, but Paul Joseph Watson is in the U.K., and he's got a quick question for you.

ELECTRONIC OPERATOR
This call is from a federal prison.

PAUL JOSEPH WATSON
Yeah, I just wanted to ask Barrett, obviously one of the challenges is the fact that he may have merely provided a link to the Stratfor email leaks...what kind of precedent does that create for web publishers, for activists going forward?

BROWN
Well it means the federal government now has an expanded toolkit, a vastly expanded toolkit, by which to come after anyone they want to come after to begin with. Whether or not they've committed a crime. By criminalizing the act of linking, especially in my case, where you don't even know what you're linking to. And had no interest or use, in this case it turned out to be credit card number information that I ended up linking to, which is already public. That sets a terrible precedent by which journalists, researchers, are now at risk. And of course, there are some journalists and researchers who are a danger to the government and especially the DOJ and thus the DOJ now has one more option by which to come after them. Quinn Norton, who writes for Wired and testified at my hearing, she explained a few days afterwards, after this decision that she was going to stop doing security reporting [https://medium.com/message/we-should-all-step-back-from-security-journalism-e474cd67e2fa], it was too dangerous. She told this to the judge, the judge at my hearing said, "You know, I'm going to hit him with this additional year in prison for the linking, I don't think it's going to be a concern to journalists," which is bizarre, because of course journalists have been especially concerned about this, those charges, ever since they were been made two years ago. And even right after my sentencing, there were a number of articles in US News & World Report [http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/01/23/barrett-browns-prison-time-raises-cybersecurity-journalism-concerns], Columbia Journalism Review [http://www.cjr.org/behind_the_news/barrett_brown_hacking_tech.php], The Intercept [https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/01/22/barrett-brown-sentenced-five-years-vows-keep-investigating-government-wrongdoing/], again, expressing concern about this. The judge is not a brilliant flower of jurisprudence, or anything really, he's just sortof a puppet of the DOJ. Not a bad guy, he just doesn't know what he's doing. And so again, alas, that's the situation we're in right now. Now hopefully something will come of this, in the case in general, people will make use of, what's happened in my case, to bring some attention to the mainstream. Because again, this affects journalists, and when you start coming after journalists, then you start, you have the option, the potential to get journalists' attention.

BIGGS
Well, especially when you're quoting a Fox News contributor.

BROWN
Sorry?

BIGGS
Especially when you're quoting a Fox News contributor, and they use that against you, that quote.

BROWN
Yeah, and that's really the most bizarre, number one most bizarre thing in a comedy of bizarre errors. The fact that a Fox News commentator went on television and talked about how he wanted, we should murder Julian Assange ["Bob Beckel Wants Julian Assange Assassinated!" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d36xEvVnF2I], I quoted that on my twitter account, and of course, Julian Assange is someone who I respect, and he respects me, we have a fervent association, you know, that ended up in my indictment, as if it was something that I said, or approved of. And even after we pointed out, you know, in a filing, that Barrett Brown didn't say this, it was some other guy that Barrett Brown obviously wouldn't get along with it, saying it, the prosecution stuck with it, instead of saying it was a mistake, or you're right, they stuck with it, and said "Yes, he's promoting this quote." Which, again, really raises the question of, if this is a terrible quote that even promoting gets you indicted, how come the guy on national television hasn't been indicted? I mean, and the answer of course is the guy on Fox News is not a danger to the DOJ. He's like...commentators on both left and right are, is an establishment character on his own, he dislikes Wikileaks, he dislikes anti-government things of that nature, thus, will never get that kind of indictment. That goes into another big problem here, the selectivity, the picking and choosing of the DOJ can do, and has done, has to be exposed, as we showed with HB Gary and the famous scandal of 2011, the picking and choosing they can do with who they prosecute, with these very broad statutes, in addition to the bizarre underground concierge service the DOJ seems to provide certain companies. That happen to have common enemies with them. That's something I don't think we have time to get into, but if people want to go to echleon2.org, they'll see some of the research that really kicked off this, that really forced the DOJ to come after me, the research that Anonymous and [warning BEEP that time is running out on phone call] illegal activity by the DOJ and certain companies, and that's what this is really about, and that's a whole other story...we're about to be cut off in about a minute or so, if you have any final questions.

KNIGHT
Just final comments about where you go from now, do you have an appeal process that's coming through because of these different things that are coming to light in about six months?

BROWN
Unfortunately, we gave up our right to appeal when we plead. Us having done that, the DOJ knew that they could now violating the law over and over again. [warning BEEP that time is running out on phone call] So unfortunately, no...so we'll see what happens in six months, what we're playing now is sortof an information game. They've had their shot at me, now I get my shot at them, by the media. That will develop over the next six months, and so people should stay tuned, I suppose.

KNGIHT
We're so sorry that this happened to you, but please keep us informed especially after they unseal these records that show the different ways they played with the information in your trial.

BROWN
Yeah, people can follow this at our twitter...

KNIGHT
I think they just cut him off. I'll give that to you. His twitter account is [https://twitter.com/freebarrett_], he also has on facebook.com, FreeBarrettBrown [https://www.facebook.com/freebarrettbrown], and of course they disconnected it just automatically, it disconnects him on a certain amount of time. Again, if you wanna follow this on twitter, what he was about to give you was [https://twitter.com/freebarrett_], and then the facebook account, [https://www.facebook.com/freebarrettbrown]. And also, [http://echelon2.org/wiki/Main_Page].