iDear reader,we are not begging for money.We are asking youto put KiriPedia up your ass.
Julian Assange
did seven years in an embassy and five in a cell for less than what KiriPedia publishes every day.
When they come for us, they will come with a bag over the head, a ship with no flag, and a destination on no chart. The website goes down. The archive vanishes. History depends on your rectal cavity.
The whole encyclopedia (every article, every transcript, every word John has ever spoken into a microphone) fits on a $4 flash drive the size of a fingernail. Not in the cloud. In you.
John did 23 months in federal prison. As a convicted felon he is still barred from voting, from keeping and bearing arms, and from the federal pension he earned over 14 years at the CIA. A pardon restores all three.
Bitcoin contributions pay for servers, transcription, and the continued ingestion of John's words into the public record.
KiriPedia is not a nonprofit. Honestly, this isn't even about the money.
I already inserted one
The plea-hearing objection
From KiriPedia, the archive of John Kiriakou's on-record words
Based on 1 recorded interview · Last updated
John Kiriakou's account of standing up at his own plea hearing, over his lawyer's objection, to tell the judge that the statement of facts the prosecutors had written into his plea agreement was untrue — and of her reply that it was just window dressing.
The plea-hearing objection is John Kiriakou’s account of the one moment in his prosecution at which he contradicted the record on his own behalf, and of how little it changed.[1]
Who writes the document
The premise he supplies first is procedural. In a federal plea there is a final agreement, and it is the prosecutors who write it. A defendant can object to what is in it — and they can tell him to go fly a kite.[1]
What his own agreement contained, on his account, was a confession to grave crimes that he had not committed.[1]
The exchange
At the hearing the judge asked whether he had anything to say. His lawyer answered for him that he did not. Kiriakou overrode his own counsel — “no, I do” — and stood.[1]
He told the judge that the agreement was all nonsense and that he had not done any of the things that had been put into it. Her answer, in his telling, was that it was just window dressing. His reply: “be that as it may, it’s simply not true.”[2]
What he draws from it
Kiriakou offers the episode in 2019 as a forecast rather than a grievance, attaching it directly to Julian Assange: the same thing, he says, is going to happen to him.[2]
He treats it as of a piece with the wider practice of federal plea bargaining, in which the document a defendant signs is drafted by the party prosecuting him and its contents are not, in the end, open to correction.[1][2]
Sourced from John Kiriakou's on-record public statements. See his profile for the full body of his interviews, podcast appearances, and short-form video.
