Durign a press briefing on Wednesday, State Department Spokesperson Matthew Miller answered reporter questions on the release of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.
Fuel your success with Forbes. Gain unlimited access to premium journalism, including breaking news, groundbreaking in-depth reported stories, daily digests and more. Plus, members get a front-row seat at members-only events with leading thinkers and doers, access to premium video that can help you get ahead, an ad-light experience, early access to select products including NFT drops and more:
https://account.forbes.com/membership/?utm_source=youtube&utm_medium=display&utm_campaign=growth_non-sub_paid_subscribe_ytdescript
Stay Connected
Forbes on Facebook: http://fb.com/forbes
Forbes Video on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/forbes
Forbes Video on Instagram: http://instagram.com/forbes
More From Forbes: http://forbes.com
Fuel your success with Forbes. Gain unlimited access to premium journalism, including breaking news, groundbreaking in-depth reported stories, daily digests and more. Plus, members get a front-row seat at members-only events with leading thinkers and doers, access to premium video that can help you get ahead, an ad-light experience, early access to select products including NFT drops and more:
https://account.forbes.com/membership/?utm_source=youtube&utm_medium=display&utm_campaign=growth_non-sub_paid_subscribe_ytdescript
Stay Connected
Forbes on Facebook: http://fb.com/forbes
Forbes Video on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/forbes
Forbes Video on Instagram: http://instagram.com/forbes
More From Forbes: http://forbes.com
Category
🗞
NewsTranscript
00:00Are you satisfied with the outcome of this and that – and can you give us any details
00:06on the diplomatic negotiations that you – that went ongoing between Australia and U.S., UK
00:13and all that?
00:14Give us any light on that.
00:15MR PRICE Yeah.
00:16So with respect to the first question, I'm not going to have any comment, only because
00:20under our system we have an independent Justice Department that makes its own decisions on
00:24these matters, and it's appropriate that they be the ones that speak to them and not
00:28have other departments in the United States weigh in one way or the other.
00:32That has always been the case, but of course we have confidence in our colleagues at the
00:36Justice Department to make these decisions and make them in full – with the full interests
00:41of the United States in mind.
00:42As it pertains to involvement of the State Department, I can tell you it was very limited
00:46only in the last few days.
00:47This was a matter that was handled by the Justice Department through law enforcement
00:50channels.
00:51There was some small coordination role between our embassy and the Australian Government
00:56just in the past few days, but this was – other than that, a law enforcement matter handled
01:01through law enforcement channels.
01:02QUESTION But are you satisfied that the case is over?
01:04MR PRICE So look, the Justice Department has spoken
01:07to that and I don't have anything to add.
01:08Obviously, the – obviously, the ambassador put out a statement that said we were happy
01:13to work with our Australian colleagues on it, and that remains the case.
01:16I do think it is important when we talk about Julian Assange to remind the world that the
01:20actions for which he was indicted and for which he has now pled guilty are actions that
01:25put the lives of our partners, our allies, and our diplomats at risk, especially those
01:30who work in dangerous places like Afghanistan and Iraq.
01:33This was some years ago now, almost 15 years ago, so I think the world has forgotten much
01:37of it.
01:38But if you recall, when WikiLeaks first disseminated and published State Department documents,
01:43State Department cables, they did so without redacting names.
01:46They just threw them out there for the world to see.
01:48And so the documents they published gave identifying information of individuals who
01:55were in contact with the State Department.
01:57That included opposition leaders, human rights activists around the world whose positions
02:05were put in some danger because of their public disclosure.
02:08It also chilled the ability of American personnel to build relationships and have frank conversations
02:12with them.
02:13And at the time – those of you who covered the State Department at the time will probably
02:17remember that in the days leading up to that release, the State Department really had to
02:21scramble to get people out of danger, to move them out of harm's way.
02:25It was an extraordinary effort performed by dozens of government officials around the
02:29world, but that doesn't change the danger that those actions put innocent people all
02:35around the world in through no fault of their own.
02:38And that's, of course, not even to mention the further actions by WikiLeaks down the
02:42road to essentially serve as a conduit for Russian intelligence interfering in a U.S.
02:47presidential election.
02:48QUESTIONS FROM THE PRESS
02:49Sorry to interrupt.
02:50So I actually did cover the State Department back then, and I don't remember there being
02:54any public – that there was a public concern that was raised about the potential security
03:00risk posed to sources who might have been quoted.
03:05Was there actually any?
03:07Did you ever discover anyone who was injured, killed, had to go into hiding because of them?
03:16So a few things about that.
03:18One, I can't give you a definitive answer, only because I wasn't here at the time in
03:21so much time.
03:22And so – hold on.
03:23Hold on.
03:24No, let me – Matt, let me finish.
03:25I have a full answer on it.
03:26One, I can't speak to that because it was some years ago and I don't have a full accounting
03:31of what happened.
03:32But number two, the State Department did an extraordinary amount of work when we found
03:38out that these cables were going to be published to get people out of harm's way, to go around
03:43and look at what might become public and take action so people that would be put in danger
03:48would be put out of harm's way.
03:50But third, if you drive drunk down the street and get pulled over for drunk driving, the
03:55fact that you didn't crash into another car and kill someone doesn't get you out
03:58of the reckless actions and the endangerment that you put your fellow citizens in.
04:04And it's the same thing – the same principle applies here.
04:06Right.
04:07Well, I – and I don't think that it does.
04:09But the fact of the matter is, is that the State Department has been, at least as far
04:13as I know – and maybe I'm wrong – but has been – has never been able to point
04:18to anyone who was compromised or killed or put at risk because of this.
04:25Their identities were compromised.
04:27The State Department went to great work to get people out of harm's way, to prevent
04:31that very action from happening.
04:32Do you know how many people about?
04:35As I said, this was some time ago.
04:36I was in the government at the time, not at the State Department.
04:38I'd have to go back and look at it.
04:39But I do know that there was work around the world, especially in places like Afghanistan,
04:43Iraq, and other places around the world, where they did have to do a great amount of work
04:48to kind of move people out of harm's way.
04:49Well, one of your predecessors, P.J. Crowley, went to – who was standing at the podium
04:54at the time – went to great pains to talk about the potential damage that could or would
05:00be caused by these revelations.
05:04And I – unless I missed it, I didn't hear that there was any.
05:12As I said, number one, the department went to a great amount of effort to avoid people
05:18being put in harm's way.
05:20But it doesn't absolve anyone of their responsibility.
05:24I know, but it's – but I know you're not, but it's an important point.
05:27Just because people were able to mitigate the harm done by your actions, that doesn't
05:31absolve you of your actions in the first place.
05:33Okay.
05:34Shannon, go ahead.
05:35Oh, I'm sorry.
05:36Oh, yeah.
05:37One other thing.
05:38You said there was some small coordination between the U.S. and Australia over the last
05:42couple of days.
05:43Was that involving the flight?
05:44Just with relation to his landing and transfer in Australia, yeah.
05:46Can I ask a follow-up?
05:47It said in the agreement that Mr. Assange would not be able to enter the United States
05:54without permission.
05:55Who will he be seeking permission from?
05:57Who would grant that permission, and how would that happen if that were to occur?
06:01So I'm not going to speak to provisions in what was a Justice Department plea agreement,
06:05but that would be handled as is the case for anyone seeking permission to enter the United
06:09States.
06:10And in the judgment – the sentencing part of the judgment, the judge noted that there
06:14were no victims of Mr. Assange's behavior, which is part of the reason that the sentence
06:19was what it was.
06:20Do you disagree with that?
06:22You think there were victims of his actions?
06:24I'm not going to speak to a comment made by a judge in a ruling.
06:29That would never be appropriate for me to do so, but I stand by the comments I made
06:31just a moment ago.
06:32What?
06:33Hmm?
06:34You're not going to speak to a comment made by a judge?
06:35I mean, if he did – I don't know that he did, but that's exactly the point of
06:40my question.
06:41Yeah, but I'm not – Questions earlier.
06:42I'm – go ahead.
06:43Which is that the State Department has never come up – even though it was one of the
06:47prime, quote-unquote, victims of these leaks – was never able to identify anyone who
06:57came under – who was killed or came under – came under –
07:02I think the point I made a moment ago is an appropriate response to that, which is just
07:08because the State Department was able to take actions to keep people out of harm's
07:13way.
07:14People that he put in harm's way doesn't –
07:15Okay.
07:16So tell us what actions – what actions did the State Department take?
07:17They were – the State Department at the time was able to reach out to individuals
07:21whose names were going to be – I can't tell you that.
07:22It was almost 15 years ago, Matt.
07:24I wasn't here.
07:25Well, I know, but I mean – But I know – but I can tell you –
07:28The case has just come to a close.
07:29But I – I cannot give you a full account of something that happened almost 15 years
07:33ago, but people that were here will tell you that the State Department went to great lengths
07:36to reach out to people whose identities were exposed and get them out of harm's way.
07:40And the other point I made is that it does – when something like that happens, it does
07:43chill the ability of American personnel to build relationships with people and count
07:48on – count on the fact that the information they provide us will be held confidential.
07:52So it is not just a harm to – or potential harm to the safety and security of those individuals.
07:56It's a harm to American diplomacy.
07:58No doubt.
07:59But the fact of the matter is that you have not been – ever been able to identify anything
08:06tangible about – any tangible negative effect.
08:11That is a different – I think I just did point to a tangible negative effect when it
08:15had – when people are less willing to trust the United States Government to keep information
08:19– information secret.
08:20Well, can you give me an example of that?
08:21Who was willing to file – It was a – so I was in – I was in government
08:25at the time, and I can tell you, traveling the world with a different – a different
08:31agency, we often heard from foreign counterparts that they were – I'm obviously not going
08:35to speak to – I'm not going to speak to the exact conversations, but we often heard
08:39from foreign counterparts that they were worried about providing information to the United
08:43States Government because of our ability to keep it too secret.
08:46I remember one, having been here at the time, and I remember that Berlusconi told former
08:52Secretary Clinton that he was concerned mainly because of what the WikiLeaks – what the
08:58cables suggested about his activities and –
09:02Activities.
09:03There were –
09:04Lifestyle.
09:05Yeah.
09:06There were more –
09:07Yes.
09:08There were more substantive and serious concerns, yeah.
09:09But were there?
09:10Yeah.
09:11Yeah.
09:12Okay.
09:13Can you name a –
09:14I'm –
09:15Not a person, a country?
09:16So I think you could see why, if the point of the conversation is someone raising concern
09:18about private conversations being made public, it wouldn't be helpful for me to then make
09:23those private conversations public in response to a question at this podium.
09:26Two years ago.
09:27I'll drop it.
09:28Yeah.
09:29Go ahead, Alex.
09:30Thank you, Matt.
09:31A couple of questions on Russia.
09:32I was going to ask –
09:33Yeah.
09:34The multiple reports claiming that Russian Government –