Assange Allies Turn to Squire Patton Boggs to Help Lobby DOJ

A WikiLeaks fundraising organization has hired Squire Patton Boggs to lobby the Justice Department on behalf of the site’s publisher, Julian Assange, amid his espionage charges, according to public records and three sources familiar with the matter.

German foundation Wau Holland has paid Squire at least $1.2 million since last October to push DOJ on journalists’ rights to publish classified information, federal disclosures show. The sources said the global law and public policy firm has been seeking a meeting with the department to discuss how the espionage case against Assange holds up in light of Attorney General Merrick Garland’s recent policy to protect journalists from enforcement actions.

The hiring of one of Washington’s most storied and influential firms marks an escalation of a years-long public advocacy campaign. Advocates haven’t yet succeeded in persuading the Biden administration to abandon the Trump-era prosecution of Assange for publishing classified war documents.

There’s no sign the two Squire attorneys listed on the lobbying disclosures—both former government lawyers—have made headway in convening with DOJ officials to understand how Assange’s charges mesh with Garland’s press-friendly approach. But their campaign on behalf of someone condemned by members of both political parties, which hasn’t been previously reported, represents the Big Law firm’s most lucrative federally-disclosed work over the past six months.

Assange is a polarizing figure due to his high-profile national security breaches and publication of hacked Democratic National Committee emails in 2016. He was arrested in 2019 in London on a US warrant and remains detained as he fights his extradition.

Squire’s efforts align with press freedom and civil liberties groups, major news outlets, and the House’s progressive wing, who have warned that extraditing Assange from the UK and putting him on trial in US court would threaten First Amendment rights.

Squire Patton Boggs declined to comment, citing a policy against discussing client matters.

DOJ also declined to comment. Wau Holland didn’t provide a comment.

Foundation Funding

Squire received $600,000 from the Wau Holland Foundation in each of the prior two quarters starting in October 2022, according to lobbying filings disclosed in mid-April.

The foundation, a longtime Assange and WikiLeaks financer, enlisted the firm to lobby DOJ on “First Amendment issues related to the publication by journalists of classified information,” Squire said in the filings.

The disclosures don’t mention Assange.

Three sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity to share private discussions, described the lobbying effort in interviews.

Squire’s two lobbyists on the matter, the sources said, want to discuss with the department Assange’s 2019 indictment on mostly Espionage Act charges. They’re questioning whether the charges against Assange contradict Garland’s policy codified last September, which significantly limits DOJ’s ability to subpoena journalists for publishing classified material.

Squire doesn’t represent Assange in the DOJ case, stemming from WikiLeaks’ dissemination in 2010 and 2011 of thousands of classified military and diplomatic documents, nor is the firm defending him before the UK’s high court in ongoing extradition proceedings. Assange isn’t a direct lobbying client, according to the disclosures.

Nonprofit advocates say their appeal to the Biden DOJ has thus far failed to generate a response. The addition of Squire’s lobbying duo signals a new tack: to access DOJ leaders through members of DC’s national security and criminal law establishment.

Squire’s two partners listed in the Q1 2023 disclosure are Clark Ervin, a George W. Bush administration inspector general at the departments of Homeland Security and State who’s also received Democratic appointments; and Jerrob Duffy, a veteran federal prosecutor and DOJ criminal fraud supervisor who joined the law firm in December.

Their interactions with DOJ typically wouldn’t trigger a lobbying disclosure requirement. The white collar defense bar commonly engages with federal agencies on clients’ behalf without having to register.

But firms are required to disclose that work when it is designed to influence public policies, said Craig Holman, a government affairs lobbyist at Public Citizen.

To those who’ve long warned of the case’s dangers—including back when the Obama DOJ opted against charging Assange based on press freedom concerns—the Squire lawyers’ involvement may be worthwhile.

“The reason why the Assange case is so difficult is because both parties have their reasons for cheering this on. Republicans have been eager to use the Espionage Act against the media. Democrats blame WikiLeaks for the 2016 election debacle,” said Ben Wizner, director of the ACLU’s speech, privacy, and technology project. “This is when having cooler heads involved is really necessary. To the extent that the lobbyists can facilitate conversations that would not take place without them, more power to them.”

Wau Holland

Wau Holland is a Hamburg-based charity that was formed in 2003 following the death of Herwart “Wau” Holland-Moritz, a hacker and activist. The group has been closely associated with Assange, including collecting donations on WikiLeaks’ behalf.

Last February, the foundation experienced a windfall when an anonymous crypto artist donated about $53 million worth of winnings from an NFT auction for Wau Holland’s Assange defense.

Andy Müller-Maguhn, the foundation’s VP, is Assange’s close associate and friend.

Some lobbyists and attorneys question whether the department is likely to be swayed outside of the traditional negotiations between criminal defense lawyers and prosecutors.

Other advocates had mixed views as to whether the money paid to Squire is being well spent.

“We don’t think it should require behind-doors lobbying to convince the Department of Justice that using the Espionage Act to prosecute the publisher of information of clear public significance is a significant threat to press freedom,” said Carrie DeCell, a senior staff attorney at Columbia University’s Knight First Amendment Institute.

DOJ lawyers have previously emphasized that their charges don’t imperil media rights because Assange’s activities, such as allegedly instructing his leaker how to hack into government records, aren’t legitimate newsgathering tactics.

Yet Squire’s lobbying disclosure frames their task with a journalistic hook, an implicit nod to the broader campaign to paint Assange as someone being prosecuted for publishing truthful information as a standard media outlet would.

“WikiLeaks has been much more like a data dump than” journalism, said Kathleen Clark, a law professor at the Washington University in St. Louis. “But part of the public relations battle has been trying to put Assange in the category of a journalist. You can see why that would be attractive from a public relations point of view, even though it’s not technically as a legal matter relevant.”

Squire Patton Boggs

Retaining Squire is a unique marriage between his allies and a powerful corporate lobbying shop. The firm is among the largest in Washington, with a bench of advisers that includes former House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and clients like Coca-Cola and Huawei, the China-based telecom firm.

The firm’s foreign clients also include the Chinese embassy in the US. It earned about $25 million in federal lobbying in 2022, along with $21.6 million in revenue from advising clients subject to Foreign Agents Registration Act requirements.

Wau Holland Foundation, which had never appeared on a federal lobbying report prior to 2022, represented the firm’s biggest lobbying client over the past year, according to federal disclosures.