The Assange trial. "A farce. Us govmt keeps changing the charges and Brit judge allowing them" - Snowden

[hater]

https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/1302992667740123136?s=19

[hater]

DAY 2 OF THE FARCE:

6:30 am EDT: Five minute pause as Assange spoke out in court spontaneously. Difficult to make out what he said but he seemed to be objecting to being represented by proxy and not being allowed to speak. Judge Vanessa Baraitser angrily said she had several options, but only named one: that he speak to his lawyers.

[ChumpDumper]

DAY 2 OF THE FARCE:

6:30 am EDT: Five minute pause as Assange spoke out in court spontaneously. Difficult to make out what he said but he seemed to be objecting to being represented by proxy and not being allowed to speak. Judge Vanessa Baraitser angrily said she had several options, but only named one: that he speak to his lawyers.:tu

[Bogie]

:tu

He loves America, though, remember.

called it

[Ef-man]

What happened on day 1?

[hater]

8:30 am EDT: Court is in lunch break. Morning session ended with re-direct of defense witness Smith. Consortium News is following every moment of the extradition trial via a video-link to Old Bailey.

Prosecution had tried to establish on cross that Assange is not being charged with publishing classified information, but only publishing names of informants, which happened to be in classified documents.

There is no specific U.S. statute against revealing informants names, as there is regarding the names of covert government agents, as readers will recall in the Valerie Plame case. But James Lewis QC for the prosecution argued that informant names are national defense information and thus protected by the Espionage Act.

This is a sleight of hand and speaks to the public relations nature of the U.S. case. Lewis on the one hand argues Assange is not being charged with publishing, but only with publishing documents with informants’ names. That is an appeal to First Amendment concerns. But that is still a charge of publishing classified information, even if restricted to those with informant names.

The U.S. appeal to the public is to depict Assange as an ogre who doesn’t care for human life, while at the same time portraying the United States as being concerned for a free press.

Lewis read from the book by David Leigh and Luke Harding, Wikileaks: Inside Julian Assange’s War on Secrecy, in which the authors say that Assange was unconcerned about revealing the names of informants, and quotes from a dinner in which Assange was alleged to have said that informants deserved it, if they were killed.

Lewis asked the defense witness Smith if he agreed with Leigh about this or with Assange? It was a below-the-belt question. Smith said there was 200 years of law to protect defendants from hearsay. Smith then returned to a point he repeatedly made that Lewis, as a British lawyer, didn’t know how U.S. trials are conducted the way Smith, an American lawyer, does.

Smith said it doesn’t matter what’s in an indictment, because other evidence is routinely introduced at American trials.

But Mark Summers, QC for the defense, went a step further, reading directly from the espionage indictment of Assange, which clearly shows that he is being charged on more than just the documents containing informant names. Instead he is charged with with conspiring to “obtain documents, writings, and notes connected with the national defense,” including “U.S. State Department cables, and Iraq rules of engagement files classified up to the SECRET level … with reason to believe that the information was to be used to the injury of the United States or the advantage of any foreign nation.”

Lewis objected that Summers wasn’t reading it correctly, so Summers repeated by sarcastically reading it out with the punctuation marks.

[hater]

arlier under direct examination from Summers, a litany of U.S. war crimes, torture and assassination programs revealed by WikiLeaks were discussed in open court in Britain, one of America’s most staunch allies. It was an extraordinary moment, with U.S. officials sitting there listening behind their British lawyers. One them, Lewis, on cross, tried to dismiss it by saying that Assange wasn’t be charged for releasing any of the documents that revealed the crimes Smith was referring to and that they were irrelevant to the case.

It was at that point that Assange cried out, “This is nonsense,” that the prosecution was wrong because he’s being charged for receiving and publishing all the documents.

Smith, who represented Guantanamo detainees, said at one point that over-classification by the U.S. was the most serious matter since 9/11 and said evidence of torture of his clients was part of this over-classification.

[hater]

2:50 pm EDT: Day 2 of Assange’s substantial hearing has ended. Consortium News followed every moment of the hearing that went about 20 minutes over time via a video-link from Old Bailey.

The prosecution tried to narrow the Espionage Act charges down to only classified documents that mentioned the names of informants, a gambit shot down by the defense when it quoted directly from the indictment proving otherwise.

Before the defense got the chance, Julian Assange shouted from his glass cage at the back of the court that it was “nonsense” to suggest he wasn’t being prosecuted for all the classified material he published. That brought a firm warning from Magistrate Vanessa Baraitser that he would be removed from the court if he did it again.

The informants theme is one we can expect the government to continue harping on for the duration of this hearing, as they have very little else go on. James Lewis QC for the prosecution quoted from a book that alleges Assange said informants deserved to die, an assertion that has been denied by a German editor present. He is to testify next week.

The other line of attack from the prosecution is that Assange “conspired” with Chelsea Manning to “hack” government a computer to obtain classified documents. In the afternoon, the continuation of Prof. Mark Feldstein continued from Monday.

Under direct examination Feldstein made a spirited defense of Assange’s activities as being routine for journalists. The government, he said, “paints journalistic activities in a nefarious light.” He said it is “standard to ask sources for evidence and documents to back up what they say and working with them to find documents, making suggestions to what they should look for. It’s all routine.”

Feldstein also told defense attorney Mark Summers that no publisher had ever been prosecuted before for publishing, but that former presidents had tried. He told the story of Richard Nixon who wanted to prosecute columnist Jack Anderson but was told by his attorney he could not because it would violate the First Amendment.

So Nixon then hatched plans with a former CIA agent to send a false story on White House letterhead hoping he’d publish it then be exposed, but Anderson checked it out and didn’t use it, unlike many of today’s journalists who run with government hand outs.

So Nixon then tried to kill Anderson, but all the plots were foiled: poisoning his aspirins , trying to crash a car into him or stabbing him to make it look like a mugging. All this, but Nixon did not prosecute Anderson for publishing.

It was chilling testimony in a British court that added to earlier testimony about U.S. war crimes.

But on cross examination Feldstein fell apart. He allowed himself to be bullied by Lewis. It this were a prize fight, the referee would have ended it.

Instead Lewis took advantage of his prey, asking legal questions he knew Feldstein was not equipped to handle. He badgered him about why the grand jury on Assange continued, even though Feldstein testified that the Obama administration decided not to prosecute because it would run up against the First Amendment.

Lewis then bored into a completely flustered Feldstein about how he could call the Assange prosecution political when he could not prove an order came from the White House. But attorneys general and CIA directors can exert political pressure. Lewis also adopted a very narrow definition of politic, excluding that getting Assange was to preserve U.S. foreign policy from exposure as well as maintaining the political reputations of U.S. officials.

When Baraitser announced that court was adjourned a broad smile lit up Feldstein’s face. His ordeal was over.

[hater]

https://consortiumnews.com/2020/09/08/day-two-of-assange-hearing-us-tries-to-narrow-its-espionage-charge-to-only-naming-informants-defense-witness-crumbles-under-cross-examination/

[ChumpDumper]

:lol Julie lashing out

[hater]

https://twitter.com/55krissi55/status/1302567931935686657?s=19

[hater]

What happened on day 1?

Nobody knows their zoom meeting crashed :lol

https://twitter.com/JohnWRees/status/1302990553387335680?s=19

[hater]

Mq nig dotcom going balls deep

https://twitter.com/KimDotcom/status/1302917907928637440?s=20

[Ef-man]

Nobody knows their zoom meeting crashed :lol

https://twitter.com/JohnWRees/status/1302990553387335680?s=19

:lmao

Curse you Bill Gates!

[TheGreatYacht]

THE "JULIAN ASSANGE" *HOAX* EXPOSED.
MAGTRUTH

https://www.bitchute.com/video/gnDVURlGEJnr/

Spurtacular hater

[pgardn]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-54070046

Meanwhile Germany about to kick Russian in the gonads.
Ouch.

[Ef-man]

THE "JULIAN ASSANGE" *HOAX* EXPOSED.
MAGTRUTH

https://www.bitchute.com/video/gnDVURlGEJnr/

Spurtacular hater

TGY, Assange is ok facing death sentence.

He requests no support from you as there is no need to add insult to injury.

:tu

[pgardn]

And in Belarus, politicians go "missing"

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-54068451

I wonder if Assange and Snowden are available for comment.
Oh, they are? Wonder why they dont go "missing"

[TheGreatYacht]

TGY, Assange is ok facing death sentence.

He requests no support from you as there is no need to add insult to injury.

:tu

I always found it odd that Julian Assange never exposes Zionism and Israel. That is a huge red flag.

[pgardn]

I always found it odd that Julian Assange never exposes Zionism and Israel. That is a huge red flag.

He is a very determined self promoter.
But he is NOT, a complete nut like you.

[hater]

DAY 3 OF THE FARCE:

7:06 am EDT: On cross examination of the defense witness, Prof. Paul Rogers, political scientist at Bradford University, the prosecutor, James Lewis QC, is hammering Rogers to try to get him to admit he has no basis to testify that the prosecution of Julian Assange is politically motivated.

Lewis is trying to destroy the witness’ credibility as an expert by saying he did not include a statement by the U.S. prosecutor stating that the charges against Assange are moved by criminal justice, and not politics.

Rogers says he has no doubt Department of Justice officials acted professionally in putting together an indictment, but questions officials at high levels of government who gave the orders to prosecute in the first place. They have done this, Rogers testified, after eight years of failure by the Obama administration to do so, despite a desire to, and that it is the particular political anomosity of the Trump administration that brought the prosecution about.

[Will Hunting]

Snowden is a respected whistle blower who is above politics. Julie became a joke once he started to take sides and became partisan.

[hater]

Snowden is a respected whistle blower who is above politics. Julie became a joke once he started to take sides and became partisan.

Journalists take sides all d time. If we gonna prosecute them for it then we are in 1984 of a brave new world ma nig

[Will Hunting]

Journalists take sides all d time. If we gonna prosecute them for it then we are in 1984 of a brave new world ma nig
I'm not talking about whether Julie should be prosecuted. I'm saying he lost his credibility when he decided to help a billionaire oligarch get elected president.

[hater]

I'm not talking about whether Julie should be prosecuted. I'm saying he lost his credibility when he decided to help a billionaire oligarch get elected president.

Disagree with that premise. But sure you dont have to like him. His prosecution would be the end of journalism as we know it.

Welcome to 1984

[Will Hunting]

Disagree with that premise. But sure you dont have to like him. His prosecution would be the end of journalism as we know it.

Welcome to 1984
He’s not a journalist. He’s a computer hacker motivated by helping right wing politicians.

[hater]

He’s not a journalist. He’s a computer hacker motivated by helping right wing politicians.

Disagree. A journalist can come from any background. Well and this is what this "trial" is about.

[Will Hunting]

Disagree. A journalist can come from any background. Well and this is what this "trial" is about.
A journalist wouldn't have waited until the convention to drop the emails about the DNC/Wasserman-Schultz helping Hillary win the primary, he would have done it while the primary was still going before Bernie dropped out (if that news broke mid-primary Bernie might have actually won). His goal was to help Trump by creating havoc within the Democratic party.

[Bogie]

He’s not a journalist. He’s a computer hacker motivated by helping right wing politicians.

why do you think people like hater who have open are openly disdainful of America, and have reveled in its demise, love and defend the people that hastened it?

You’re correct, Assange is a computer hacker, selling his skill to the highest bidder.

[Millennial_Messiah]

The US/EU/NATO Deep State is equally scary as China/Russia, tbh

Pardon Assange and Snowden or else the US framers founded the country for literally nothing.

[hater]

A journalist wouldn't have waited until the convention to drop the emails about the DNC/Wasserman-Schultz helping Hillary win the primary, he would have done it while the primary was still going before Bernie dropped out (if that news broke mid-primary Bernie might have actually won). His goal was to help Trump by creating havoc within the Democratic party.

He obviously didnt like Hillary and her war policies. His defense is actually making that point. Also saying he dislikes Trumps policies. He delivered the leak he had. Yes I think he had hope on Trump and figured Hillary was worse. The defense is not disputing any of this. He is not being charged with interfering w election.

[hater]

9:20 am EDT: In the morning session, defense witness, Prof. Paul Rogers, political scientist at Bradford University, established that Assange is motivated by a political viewpoint that places him as a political opponent of his accusers.

WikiLeaks revelations about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, especially releasing an increased body count of civilians, set him against the interests of the United States. WikiLeaks had exposed the “fiction of victory” in Iraq and Afghanistan. In Iraq, for “two years there was no evidence for the public that the war was going wrong. WikiLeaks significantly showed how badly the war had gone for the United States,” Rogers testified.

He stressed that Assange made clear he was not against the American people, but its governments.

The professor, who testified via video-link from Bradford in the English Midlands, said that at the center of Assange’s politics is his belief that there should be more concern for human rights, more transparency, more accountability and more justice.

Rogers said Assange, who was sitting in the back of the court, is coming from a libertarian, anti-war stance and that these views clash deeply with the Trump administration. Rogers testified that this administration was out of the norm of a typical U.S. or European government. Assange is “a political opponent who might experience the full wrath of government. No question,” Rogers testified.

“Assange and what he stands for represents some kind of threat to normal political endeavor,” Rogers said.

[Will Hunting]

He obviously didnt like Hillary and her war policies. His defense is actually making that point. Also saying he dislikes Trumps policies. He delivered the leak he had. Yes I think he had hope on Trump and figured Hillary was worse. The defense is not disputing any of this. He is not being charged with interfering w election.
Nice of him to say he dislikes Trump’s policies after he helped Trump get elected. He and Susan Collins would get along great.

[hater]

Nice of him to say he dislikes Trump’s policies after he helped Trump get elected. He and Susan Collins would get along great.

He prevented a hillary presidency which saved more lifes imho

[Will Hunting]

He prevented a hillary presidency which saved more lifes imho
200k people disagree. The blood of the COVID-19 victims is on Julie’s hands.

[hater]

200k people disagree. The blood of the COVID-19 victims is on Julie’s hands.

Do you really believe Hillary woulda saved those 200k?

I have a bridge to sell you in Benghazi

[Will Hunting]

Do you really believe Hillary woulda saved those 200k?

I have a bridge to sell you in Benghazi
:lmao Benghazi bullshit. Somehow you’re more offended by 4 people dying in Benghazi than you are 200k people dying here.

Yes, I absolutely think Hillary would have handled the pandemic exponentially better than Trump did.

[boutons_deux]

why do you think people like hater who have open are openly disdainful of America, and have reveled in its demise, love and defend the people that hastened it?

You’re correct, Assange is a computer hacker, selling his skill to the highest bidder.

He's a "journalist" who published leaks, he didn't hack anything.

He's not an American, and his "crime" was committed outside of America.

How does America have jurisdiction?

And of course, the feckless, dickless Brits under blondie PM are running a Kangaroo court for Trash

[ChumpDumper]

:lol there's only like two non shithole "but muh" countries ahead of the US in proportionate deaths.

The US failed miserably in its COVID response and Trump owns a big part of that.

[boutons_deux]

...

[Will Hunting]

Why do people think Trump is some kind of Tulsi-like anti-neocon? He substantially increased the defense budget from what it was under Obama and paid for the increase with deficits, made a fucking Raytheon lobbyist Secretary of Defense, and set the record for bombs dropped in Afghanistan last year. He also had us a threadhare away from a war with Iran after drone striking Soleimani. Outside of the fact Trump gives speeches about being anti-war, there's nothing about his presidency that's been anti-war.

[hater]

:lmao Benghazi bullshit. Somehow you’re more offended by 4 people dying in Benghazi than you are 200k people dying here.

Yes, I absolutely think Hillary would have handled the pandemic exponentially better than Trump did.

Huh? I coulda said Tripoli. Hillary obliterated Lybia.

How would she have handled it better? And how many less deaths would we have?

[hater]

:lol there's only like two non shithole "but muh" countries ahead of the US in proportionate deaths.

The US failed miserably in its COVID response and Trump owns a big part of that.

Agreed.

A big part like 30% of the blame should be squarely on Dump. The rest was bound to happen regardless (see New York)

[hater]

Why do people think Trump is some kind of Tulsi-like anti-neocon? He substantially increased the defense budget from what it was under Obama and paid for the increase with deficits, made a fucking Raytheon lobbyist Secretary of Defense, and set the record for bombs dropped in Afghanistan last year. He also had us a threadhare away from a war with Iran after drone striking Soleimani. Outside of the fact Trump gives speeches about being anti-war, there's nothing about his presidency that's been anti-war.

It pretty came down to Hillary promising to down Russian jets vs Dump not tbqh.

That simple

[hater]

Julian Assange is not on trial for his personality

– but here’s how the US government made you focus on it


By drawing attention away from the principles of the case, the obsession with his character pushes out the significance of WikiLeaks’ revelations

On Monday Julian Assange was driven to the Old Bailey to continue his fight against extradition to the United States, where the Trump administration has launched the most dangerous attack on press freedom in at least a generation by indicting him for publishing US government documents. Amid coverage of the proceedings, Assange’s critics have inevitably commented on his appearance, rumours of his behaviour while isolated in the Ecuadorian embassy, and other salacious details.

These predictable distractions are emblematic of the sorry state of our political and cultural discourse. If Assange is extradited to face charges for practising journalism and exposing government misconduct, the consequences for press freedom and the public’s right to know will be catastrophic. Still, rather than seriously addressing the important principles at stake in Assange’s unprecedented indictment and the 175 years in prison he faces, many would rather focus on inconsequential personality profiles

[hater]

Assange is not on trial for skateboarding in the Ecuadorian embassy, for tweeting, for calling Hillary Clinton a war hawk, or for having an unkempt beard as he was dragged into detention by British police. Assange faces extradition to the United States because he published incontrovertible proof of war crimes and abuses in Iraq and Afghanistan, embarrassing the most powerful nation on Earth. Assange published hard evidence of “the ways in which the first world exploits the third”, according to whistleblower Chelsea Manning, the source of that evidence. Assange is on trial for his journalism, for his principles, not his personality.

You’ve probably heard the refrain from well-meaning pundits: “You don’t have to like him, but you should oppose threats to silence him.” But that refrain misses the point by reinforcing the manipulative tropes deployed against Assange.

When setting a gravely dangerous precedent, governments don’t typically persecute the most beloved individuals in the world. They target those who can be portrayed as subversive, unpatriotic – or simply weird. Then they actively distort public debate by emphasizing those traits.


https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/julian-assange-trial-us-trump-chelsea-manning-chomsky-walker-b420930.html

[hater]

In the afternoon session, Trevor Timm, a trained lawyer and executive director of the Freedom of the Press Foundation, took the virtual witness stand for the defense and in sparring with prosecutor James Lewis QC on cross examination singlehandedly dismantled key parts of the government’s case.

Over the past two days the government has stressed two key points: that it is not prosecuting Assange for publishing but for revealing the names of informants. Timm testified that in fact the indictment is for passively receiving and possessing classified information beyond those documents that revealed informants’ names.

The bigger point Timm made was that it was a consensus view of First Amendment advocates and media organizations that while revealing the names of informants may be unethical, it is not illegal. He said that it was an editorial decision whether to publish such names, and while media organizations might disagree, it was not up to the government to make editorial decisions.

It is a point we have long made that there is no statute against revealing informants names. The government considers their names defense information protected by the Espionage Act. Timm further testified that the U.S. Supreme Court has in the past protected speech, however unsavory.

“I’m not saying WikiLeaks had perfect editorial judgement or that The New York Times does, but that doesn’t mean that differences of opinion make it illegal,” Timm said. ” The government should not decide whether it was sound or not. The decision is whether it is illegal and this publication was not illegal, and that the indictment making it illegal would criminalize journalism.”

[hater]

:lol US military lawyer gets schooled. (Wont matter)

[hater]

He added: “In the Manning trial the U.S. government could point to no specific deaths” from the revelation of informants’ names. “But regardless, the First Amendment is not a balancing act between harm and benefit. Sometimes it allows for odious speech. Some harm might result from speech, but our people have determined that having wide latitude for journalists and free speech make sit vital they are protected, even if it comes close to a line that makes us uncomfortable.”

“Why should your opinion be more important than what a jury decides?” Lewis shot back.

“On constitutional issues it goes beyond a jury,” Timm said. “A judge could rule it unconstitutional before it gets to a jury.” Lewis then told Timm that journalism Mark Feldstein, who testified on Tuesday for the defense, said it was “wrong to publish names putting them in moral danger.”

“I didn’t say it was right or I agreed, but merely that it would be unconstitutional for Assange to prosecuted for this act,” Timm responded.

Lewis then said Gordon Kromberg, an assistant U.S. attorney in Alexandria, Virginia, where Assange would be tried, declared that Assange was not a journalist. Timm said it was irrelevant because Assange had engaged in journalistic activity protected by the First Amendment.

Timm demonstrated that he understood what was in the indictment better than Lewis di

[hater]

He pointed out that Assange was not being accused of conspiring with Chelsea Manning to break a password to get documents but to help her hide her identity, an obligation of all reporters working with anonymous sources.

He said the government made out anonymous drop boxes, pioneered by WikiLeaks, to be nefarious, when about 60 media organizations, such as The New York Times, The Guardian and The Wall Street Journal use such boxes, developed by his foundation, for sources to deposit material anonymously.

Lewis was a shrunken man. All his bluster from the previous day had melted. He seemed to take it out on Magistrate Vanessa Baraitser in an argument over the time limit she imposed on him–one hour, when she gave the defense only 30 minutes.

Lewis was reduced to trying to undermine Timm’s credibility as an expert witness because he had not included Kromberg’s declaration in his written testimony. “I did not make my judgement on a government press release but what is in the indictment,” Timm said.

The trial continues.

[Will Hunting]

Huh? I coulda said Tripoli. Hillary obliterated Lybia.

How would she have handled it better? And how many less deaths would we have?
I thought you were talking about Benghazi. Yeah I vehemently disagree with the Libya intervention but still infinitely better than boots on the ground wars that Republicans prefer.

She wouldn't have waited until mid-March to recognize the problem. The experts have said that cases in the US went up literally 1000x from March 1 to March 15. Unlike Trump she actually reads briefings and listens to experts, Trump literally admitted on tape to downplaying the virus.

[ChumpDumper]

I thought you were talking about Benghazi. Yeah I vehemently disagree with the Libya intervention but still infinitely better than boots on the ground wars that Republicans prefer.

She wouldn't have waited until mid-March to recognize the problem. The experts have said that cases in the US went up literally 1000x from March 1 to March 15. Unlike Trump she actually reads briefings and listens to experts, Trump literally admitted on tape to downplaying the virus.:lol the Strategic National Stockpile was started by her husband but apparently she would just ignore it along with everything Trump did.

[hater]

I thought you were talking about Benghazi. Yeah I vehemently disagree with the Libya intervention but still infinitely better than boots on the ground wars that Republicans prefer.

She wouldn't have waited until mid-March to recognize the problem. The experts have said that cases in the US went up literally 1000x from March 1 to March 15. Unlike Trump she actually reads briefings and listens to experts, Trump literally admitted on tape to downplaying the virus.

"I have abridge to sell you..." thats a phrase meaning you seem to believe anything. Like Hillary healing Covid. Dont get too hung up on Benghazi :lol

[tholdren]

sweden less deaths than cuomo

[ChumpDumper]

sweden less deaths than cuomo:lol foldren desperately tries to change the subject.

[tholdren]

:lol foldren desperately tries to change the subject.

Lololol ChumpDumper can't even face facts. How low iq

[ChumpDumper]

Lololol ChumpDumper can't even face facts. How low iq:lol you hid in your bunker rather than face facts. You have no IQ. Just a revengebot.

[tholdren]

:lol you hid in your bunker rather than face facts. You have no IQ. Just a revengebot.

bwahahahahhaha

Chumpdump thinks more than 10k died from cov8d in sweden...or at all

[ChumpDumper]

bwahahahahhaha

Chumpdump thinks more than 10k died from cov8d in sweden...or at all:lmao foldren's revengebot malfunctions again

[hater]

https://twitter.com/CourtNewsUK/status/1303993264593408005?s=20

[pgardn]

"I have abridge to sell you..." thats a phrase meaning you seem to believe anything. Like Hillary healing Covid. Dont get too hung up on Benghazi :lol

don’t get too hung up on Benghazi, do get hung up on Russia and Syria saving the Middle East.

so you have bought most of the bridges in the world...

[Will Hunting]

There’d probably be more sympathy for Julie if he didn’t help someone who killed 200k Americans get elected.

[pgardn]

There’d probably be more sympathy for Julie if he didn’t help someone who killed 200k Americans get elected.

Assange and Trump have an understanding:
ruthless self promotion via lying.

[hater]

There’d probably be more sympathy for Julie if he didn’t help someone who killed 200k Americans get elected.

Thats not how trials work tbqh

Unless you are in 1984 imo

[Will Hunting]

Thats not how trials work tbqh

Unless you are in 1984 imo
I’m not talking about his trial, I’m talking about the general public. No one is gonna shed a tear for Julie when he helped plunge the country into chaos.

[hater]

I’m not talking about his trial, I’m talking about the general public. No one is gonna shed a tear for Julie when he helped plunge the country into chaos.

The general public believes many stupid things. I dont think Assanges and his team aim is to win the general public as they cannot compete with US military on PR.

Their aim is to win this court battle inside the court (also near impossible but less farfetched)

Should Assange be taken to US to face 175 years in prison for journalistic activities? That is the thing to concentrate on. If he does then journalism as we know it is dead. Noone wil ever publish leaked American warcrimes ever again

[hater]

DAY 5:

Outburst From Prosecutor
to Judge Over Time Restraints

6:52 am EDT: Prosecutor James Lewis QC has just engaged in a bitter argument with Judge Vanessa Baraitser about the time limit she has imposed on his cross examination, referring to it as a “guillotine.” Baraitser responded that she asked Lewis for a time estimate before the trial began and he said he would need four hours a day for cross examination. Lewis complained that Baraitser was allowing the defense witness, Eric Lewis, to “ramble on.”

“I am giving a warning,” Lewis said. “I’m not prepared to be under a circumstance, where he is allowed to give long answers. It is not how cross examinations work.” He added: “I have never been guillotined in a cross examination ever, by no judge in 35 years experience in extradition cases that I have ever known.”

Baraitser said: “The court has power to ensure efficient movement through this case. There are 39 witnesses. I asked you and you provided that estimate. The word guillotine come from you,” she said. “I say it is time management and that’s the end of the matter.”

It was an extraordinary outburst from a prosecution delivered in condescending tones to a judge. Lewis was clearly not getting the answers from the witness that he desired, no matter their length or shortness. When court returned Lewis apologized to the judge for any “intemperate” language he may have used.

[hater]

8:30 am EDT: Court has suddenly adjourned as it was interrupted by the sound of an American news report about the Assange case. The lawyers jumped to their feet throwing their arms in the air. Judge Vanessa Baraitser quickly fled the court. No one appears to have an idea how that happened. It was nearing lunch break so court will probably resume in about an hour.

[hater]

11:02 am EDT: Court was adjourned until Tuesday after it was interrupted by the sound of a U.S. TV report on Assange. A court official explained to the press that the technical issues were still be sorted out but it was hoped they would be resolved by 10 am BST Tuesday.

9:26 am EDT: The court says it is investigating whether the interruption of the proceedings came from witness Eric Lewis’ computer (he is testifying online), or whether the court’s video feed was hacked. Just before lunch the sound of a U.S. TV report on Assange came through the video-link and into the courtroom. If it was a hack there are concerns among the press that the the remote video access could be stopped.


What a shitshow :lol

US gov might get a win by having video access stopped on the trial.


Means NOBODY will really know what is going on.


Deep state pulling all the stops

[hater]

Day 6:



11:40 am EDT: Court has adjourned for the day and will resume on Wednesday morning.

Prosecutor James Lewis QC established in court that the U.S. government can prosecute a journalist for unauthorized publication of classified information, despite the First Amendment concerns of the defense.

“The right of free speech and the public’s right to know are not absolutes,” prosecutor Lewis said on cross examination of defense witness Eric Lewis, and can be “restricted” if the release of “national defense information … could threaten the security of the nation.”

James Lewis set out the Espionage Act be used against government employees who breach their trust with the government but also that the government can publish those outside a relationship with the government, such as journalists” who are unauthorized to possess and disseminate secret material.

“Can journalists be prosecuted” under the Espionage Act? Lewis asked the defense witness.

The witness said it had never been done before, because of the first amendment. He said that courts have to strike a balance between free speech and national security. “So far from your original opinion, saying that legal precedent precludes prosecuting Assange,” you are changing your testimony, Lewis said.

The prosecutor challenged the witness to cite one precedent that says a publisher can’t be prosecuted. The witness said the Supreme Court had never been faced with a case like Assange’s before.

This exchange goes to the heart of the government’s case against Assange though it is the first time it raised it. Instead it has been trying to steer away from the First Amendment issues onto Assange revealing the names of informants–which is not against the law.

In fact until its constitutionality is challenged, the Espionage Act does allow for the prosecution of journalists after unauthorized publication of secret material. The Nixon administration empaneled a grand jury in Boston to go after two New York Times journalists in the Pentagon Papers case but withdrew when it was revealed the government was tapping leaker Daniel Ellsberg’s phones and thus listening in on the reporters as well.

Politicization of the Case

On the virtual stand, witness Lewis made salient points about the role of Attorney General William Barr in politicizing prosecutions and in particular his belief in an “unitary executive” that gives the president almost king-like powers to decide who is prosecuted and who is not.

Prosecutor Lewis was trying to establish that federal prosecution guidelines maintained the independence of the Department of Justice. But the witness referred to a 19-page memo written by Barr that says all prosecutorial decisions rests with the president.

“Barr said that the attorney general and his lawyers are the president’s ‘hand,'” the witness said. “It’s the unitary executive theory. It’s a fringe theory and this attorney general has articulated that it is his job to follow the president. It is out of step with the entire history of the Department of Justice.”

A second defense witness, attorney Thomas Durkin, who served in the DOJ and has been a criminal defense lawyer in Chicago for decades, testified on direct that in his experience a grand jury is not a bar to a political prosecution.

Durkin was responding to the affidavit submitted by assistant U.S. Attorney Gordon Kromberg in which he says a grand jury is a “potent protection against abuse” of the system.

Durkin testified:

“The decision to charge someone in my view is made by the Department of Justice, or the local U.S. attorney. In the magnitude of a national security case like this, the decision to prosecute is made by the national security division of the Justice Department.”

Durkin said a grand jury refusing to return an indictment “is unheard of, maybe it happens once every four of five years.

The issue of whether the prosecution is political is crucial to Assange’s case as the U.S.-UK extradition treaty forbids extradition in a political case.


https://consortiumnews.com/2020/09/15/assange-hearing-day-six-prosecutor-says-govt-can-prosecute-journalist-for-publishing/

[hater]

Day 7:

3:45 am EDT: Daniel Ellsberg, the famed Pentagon Papers whistleblower, and German journalist John Goetz will take the virtual stand as defense witnesses on Wednesday.

Goetz, a former journalist at Der Spiegel, was present at a dinner in London in 2010 with Guardian editors at which the prosecution alleges Julian Assange said that the informants revealed in a WikiLeaks publication deserved to die. Goetz has gone on the record in press reports to say Assange never said such a thing. He can be expected to say the same thing under oath on Wednesday.

Ellsberg will likely testify about the role of the press and the First Amendment protections it enjoys in publishing classified information, drawing no doubt on his experiences in the Pentagon Papers case. The hearing begins at 5 am EDT, 10 am BST and 7 pm AEST.

[hater]

https://twitter.com/jlpassarelli/status/1306189575929434112?s=20

[hater]

6:15 am EDT: John Goetz, former Der Spiegel reporter has been on the stand, and he attempted to set the record straight about the sequence of events that led to WikiLeaks being forced to publish un-redacted diplomatic cables on Sept. 2, 2011.

Goetz explained to prosecutor James Lewis that it was the publication of the password to the entire archive of un-redacted cables by Guardian journalists David Leigh and Luke Harding in their 2011 book that led to the website Cryptome publishing that archive on Sept. 1. Goetz tried to explain to Lewis that WikiLeaks then republished those archives, and were not the first to put out un-redacted names as Lewis is trying to establish.

Lewis, seemingly flustered, then made the error of confusing the Afghan war logs with the diplomatic cables and was corrected by Goetz.

Under direct examination Goetz established that Julian Assange was insistent on taking security measures with documents while Goetz, for Der Speigel, worked with The Guardian and New York Times on the Afghan files. Goetz also testified that Assange took part in the effort to redact names of informants with the other news organizations. After the cables were shared with the U.S. government pre-publication, WikiLeaks asked the White House and the U.S. military in Afghanistan to suggest names that should be redacted and also technical help.

Goetz also pointed out that in the Chelsea Manning trial it was established that no named informant had been harmed.

[hater]

7:35 am EDT: The court has adjourned as opposing legal teams discuss how to put into evidence a statement from Khaled El-Masri, who was kidnapped in Macedonia by CIA agents and sent to a black site in Albania where he was sodomized, according to Goetz, who later found the CIA agents living in North Carolina.

Goetz’s cover story in Der Spiegel led to a German parliamentary investigation and the filing of an arrest warrant by Munich prosecutors for the CIA men, as El-Masri is a German citizen. But the warrant was never issued in the United States, where they lived.

Goetz testified that it wasn’t until the WikiLeaks release of diplomatic cables that he understood why. He said on the stand that cables showed the immense pressure the U.S. put on Germany not to issue U.S. arrest warrants, warning of serious repercussions in U.S.-German relations.

Lewis, unsurprisingly, argued before the judge that El-Masry’s written testimony was not accepted as evidence by the United States and that he would challenge its admissibility as the U.S. contended it was not relevant to the Assange case. Lewis then offered a compromise to allow edits to the statement. We are awaiting court to resume.


:wow

:wow


Disgusting

[hater]

:wow pentagon papers hero going in raw on imperialists snowflakes :wow

https://twitter.com/StellaMoris1/status/1306293418528780288?s=19

[TSA]

:lol @ that daily beast fake news headline that they debunk in their own article

U.S. Admits That Congressman Offered Pardon to Assange If He Covered Up Russia Links

LONDON—Lawyers representing the United States at Julian Assange’s extradition trial in Britain have accepted the claim that the WikiLeaks founder was offered a presidential pardon by a congressman on the condition that he would help cover up Russia’s involvement in hacking emails from the Democratic National Committee.

Jennifer Robinson, a lawyer, told the court that she had attended a meeting between Assange, then Republican Congressman Dana Rohrabacher, and pro-Trump troll Charles Johnson at Assange’s hide-out, the Ecuadorian embassy in London, on August 15, 2017.

Robinson said the two Americans claimed to be emissaries from Washington and “wanted us to believe they were acting on behalf of the president.” The pair allegedly told Assange that they could help grant him a pardon in exchange for him revealing information about the source of the WikiLeaks information that proved it was not the Russians who hacked Democratic emails.

“They stated that President Trump was aware of and had approved of them coming to meet with Mr. Assange to discuss a proposal—and that they would have an audience with the president to discuss the matter on their return to Washington, D.C.,” Robinson said.

The White House has denied that Trump took part in any such plan.

The claim itself is not new—Assange’s lawyers previewed the allegation in a pre-trial hearing in February—but this is the first time Robinson’s testimony has been heard in full. The WikiLeaks lawyer said Rohrabacher offered Assange the deal a year after emails that damaged Hillary Clinton in the presidential race had been published, when the Russia investigation was gathering pace. The stolen DNC emails posted by WikiLeaks were hacked by Russian operatives.

After Robinson read her testimony in a London courtroom on Friday, lawyers representing the U.S. accepted the witness statement as accurate and confirmed they had no intention of cross-examining the claim. They did dispute, however, that President Donald Trump gave his blessing for the pardon offer.

James Lewis, who was representing the U.S. government, said, “The position of the government is we don't contest these things were said. We obviously do not accept the truth of what was said by others.”

Rohrabacher, who was known as Putin’s favorite congressman, partially corroborated the claim back in February, saying at the time, “I spoke to Julian Assange and told him if he would provide evidence about who gave WikiLeaks the emails I would petition the president to give him a pardon... He knew I could get to the president.”

Rohrabacher said he followed up the meeting by calling then White House chief of staff John Kelly to discuss the pardon. However, the ex-congressman said he never spoke to Trump about it.

Regardless, Assange turned the offer down, his lawyers said.

Assange has argued that he should not be extradited to the U.S. because the American case against him is politically motivated. He spent almost seven years hiding in the Ecuadorian embassy in Central London, claiming that he would be jailed in the U.S. if he wasn’t granted asylum. He was kicked out of the embassy last year.

If Assange fails in his fight against extradition to the U.S., he will face 18 charges including conspiracy to commit computer intrusion, which, his defense argues, could result in a prison sentence of 175 years.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/us-admits-that-putins-favorite-congressman-offered-pardon-to-assange-if-he-covered-up-russia-links?via=twitter_page

[hater]

Assange declined a pardon from Dump to save his sauces. Damn :wow

Hes a hero :cry

[Winehole23]

postponed


The British judge hearing Julian Assange's arguments against extradition to the United States has agreed to a request by his lawyers to delay her decision until after the November presidential election.https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/julian-assange-s-extradition-decision-won-t-be-made-until-after-the-us-election-20200925-p55zf2.html

[Winehole23]

In a way, the terms of the question answer the question. Assange will be punished precisely because he revealed truths about the US war in Afghanistan and Iraq and helped to turn opinion against it.


Why is Biden Prosecuting Assange for Telling the Truth about Afghanistan? (https://www.newsweek.com/why-biden-prosecuting-assange-telling-truth-about-afghanistan-opinion-1627963)

The Biden administration is stubbornly pursuing the extradition of Julian Assange (https://www.newsweek.com/topic/julian-assange), who exposed the corrupt motives and doomed policies behind the War on Terror. This unprecedented political prosecution poses a grave threat to truth telling and freedom of the press.
Commentators across the media have drawn parallels between the U.S. withdrawal from Kabul and the fall of Saigon in 1975. Four years before the exit from Vietnam, The New York Times, The Washington Post and 17 other newspapers published the Pentagon (https://www.newsweek.com/topic/pentagon) Papers, a classified archive showing that U.S. intervention in Vietnam had been wrong from the start, and was prolonged for decades through deliberate deception.
One of us, Daniel Ellsberg, released those files. Fifty years after his case was dismissed due to governmental criminal misconduct, the American bombing and occupation of Vietnam is viewed near-unanimously as an ill-fated policy whose pursuit was morally wrong. The parallels between that case and the work of Assange—and his source, U.S. Army whistleblower Chelsea Manning (https://www.newsweek.com/topic/chelsea-manning)—are striking. Thanks in large part to their revelations a decade ago, Americans are increasingly seeing our occupation and bombing of Afghanistan in a similar light to our Vietnam policy.
When Assange published hundreds of thousands of classified military and diplomatic documents in 2010, the public was given an unprecedented window into the lack of justification and the futility of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The truth was hidden by a generation of governmental lies. Assange's efforts helped show the American public what their government was doing in their name.
Assange summed up his anti-war ethos at a 2011 rally in London. "The goal is justice, the method is transparency," he said. "If wars can be started by lies, peace can be started by truth."
Manning told the judge in her court-martial, "I wanted the American public to know that not everyone in Iraq and Afghanistan were targets that needed to be neutralized, but rather people who were struggling to live." Manning and Assange acted on their belief that the public deserved to see the reality of these wars and the horrors of how they were conducted.

[Winehole23]

"peacemaker Trump"

1442122189705203714

[hater]

This revelation is good as it makes the Extradition to US impossible now :tu

But the toothless brits will probably let him die in the cell anyway

[Winehole23]

This revelation is good as it makes the Extradition to US impossible now :tu

But the toothless brits will probably let him die in the cell anywayyour boy Trump, making peace and fighting the deep state

hater :lol

[hater]

your boy Trump, making peace and fighting the deep state

hater :lol

:lmao you thinking Biden wouldnt discuss it either :lmao

:lol partisan lemming

[Winehole23]

hater making shit up when cornered and pasting it over with emoijs

hater's BDS/TDS abides

[hater]

hater making shit up when cornered and pasting it over with emoijs

wimpy :lol

:lmao whinetroll mad at being exposed as teh partisan lemming he is :lmao

Thinking Biden would not discuss murdering Assange :lmao


:lol whinetr:lolll

[Ef-man]

:lmao whinetroll mad at being exposed as teh partisan lemming he is :lmao

Thinking Biden would not discuss murdering Assange :lmao


:lol whinetr:lolll

How the tune changes when you are #StillWithHin.
:lol

[Winehole23]

"peacemaker Trump"

1442122189705203714Pompeo confirms the story is bona fide

https://news.yahoo.com/pompeo-sources-for-yahoo-news-wiki-leaks-report-should-all-be-prosecuted-234907037.html

[Winehole23]

:lmao you thinking Biden wouldnt discuss it either :lmao

:lol partisan lemmingI neither said nor implied any such thing.

hater's BDS

hater's TDS

[Winehole23]

Assange to be extradited and prosecuted.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-59608641

1469883763484200965

[Ef-man]

This revelation is good as it makes the Extradition to US impossible now :tu

But the toothless brits will probably let him die in the cell anyway

:wow

Called it! :lmao :lmao

[ElNono]

^^^ :lol

[Winehole23]

Prediction in politics and law is a fool's game.

Also, hater's go-to. :lol