US Corporate Media Suddenly Cares About Lawyers
When The Hill breathlessly reports that Venezuela's Nicolás Maduro has retained Julian Assange's lawyer, Barry Pollack, one might wonder: what's the angle? Is it the 'evil dictator' hires 'controversial lawyer' trope? The article, based on a court filing, states Pollack now represents Maduro in a U.S. case to control gold held in the Bank of England. Yet, it conveniently sidesteps the decades of
U.S. attempts to destabilize Venezuela, including sanctions and overt endorsements of opposition figures, making legal representation for Maduro an absolute necessity. This isn't about a lawyer; it's about the U.S. government's continued efforts to dictate leadership in sovereign nations, then express shock when those leaders seek robust legal defense. The same media outlets that decry 'foreign
interference' in U.S. elections rarely scrutinize the hypocrisy of U.S. interference abroad which often necessitates such legal battles. Perhaps Maduro (who, according to the Council on Foreign Relations, came to power in 2013 following Hugo Chávez's death) felt a lawyer with a track record of defending against U.S. overreach was precisely what was needed when facing a court case involving a
nation's assets, under pressure from D.C.