Reply With Quote
the Strategic National Stockpile was started by her husband but apparently she would just ignore it along with everything Trump did.
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
sweden less deaths than cuomo
Lololol ChumpDumper can't even face facts. How low iq
bwahahahahhaha
Chumpdump thinks more than 10k died from cov8d in sweden...or at all
foldren's revengebot malfunctions again
don’t get too hung up on Benghazi, do get hung up on Russia and Syria saving the Middle East."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
so you have bought most of the bridges in the world...
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.
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.
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
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 cir stance, 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.
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.
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 show
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
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 cons utionality 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/2020/09/1...or-publishing/
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.
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 do ents 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.
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.
Disgusting
pentagon papers hero going in raw on imperialists snowflakes
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
