WikiLeaks

LIVE UPDATES FROM LONDON: ASSANGE EXTRADITION HEARING ADJOURNED UNTIL MAY 18

Consortium News is in London to cover the formal extradition process of WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange and has provided updates throughout the week.

THURSDAY

11:30 pm London time:  The judge has adjourned the hearings a day earlier than planned. It will resume in Woolwich Crown Court on May 18.

The defense this week seriously undermined the prosecutors’ case that Assange had endangered lives of informants, had “solicited” classified material from Chelsea Manning, and had helped Manning crack a password to enter a government computer. The defense showed Manning had legal access to the database and did not need a user name or password. Assange was helping her download video games and movies forbidden to U.S. soldiers.

The defense also laid out its evidence that Assange actually worked to protect informants; and that Manning had not responded to WikiLeaks‘ solicitations, a charge that ignores that  asking sources for classified information is a routine journalistic practice.

The last two days of the hearings were consumed by the question of whether Assange was being accused of political offenses, and whether the British-U.S. extradition treaty or British domestic law on extraditions would apply.  The question of whether Assange was being given a fair trial also arose, given that he is cut off from communication with his attorneys during the proceedings, while being locked in a glass cage behind them. 

Assange lawyer Jen Robinson summed up the week and Kristinn Hrafnsson Thursday’s events:

6:00 pm London time: The argument continued from Wednesday about whether Britain’s domestic Extradition Act of 2003 or the 2007 U.S.-British Extraction Treaty takes precedence.

Back to the argument whether WikiLeaks has had an effect on policy, defense made this point:

 

1:20 pm London time:  Defense is arguing that WikiLeaks work is to affect change in policy.

12:10 pm London time:  Assange is back in his glass cage at the back of the courtroom.  The court gave him headphones to help him hear what is going on, but he soon after took them off. The spectacle on Wednesday, in which Assange said he was no more a participant in his own hearing that “a spectator at Wimbledon,” underscored the pettiness and even sadism of the governor of Belmarsh prison.  What other reason to separate Assange from his attorneys in the courtroom, when murder suspects routinely sit with their lawyers, what other reason to strip search him, handcuff him 11 times, put him five different cells and take away his legal papers on Monday than to simply humiliate him and show that his life is in their abusive hands?   

12:00 pm London time: The prosecution resumed its argument from Wednesday that Assange’s offense against the United States is not political. Ironically, James Lewis QC, arguing for the U.S., says Assange’s aim would have had to have been to change the U.S. government, for his “crime” to be political offense. Ironic, because most Assange critics believe he tried to change the government by denying Hillary Clinton the presidency. Assange is being charged only for activities in 2010 not 2016. This argument illustrates how the U.S. is grasping at straws in this case.

WEDNESDAY 

4:45 pm London time: Julian Assange’s attorney Edward Fitzgerald QC is arguing in Woolwich Crown Court that the U.S. charges against Assange are political, as espionage is a political crime, and thus in violation of Article 4.1 of the U.S.-British extradition treaty. However the prosecution is putting forth the argument that the UK Extradition Act, the implementing domestic legislation for the treaty, does not preclude political offenses. Further, the U.S. is arguing in court that the charges are not political in nature.

For the first time, Assange spoke directly to the court, saying he wanted to leave the bullet-proof glass cage and sit with his lawyers. “I am as much a participant in these proceedings as a spectator at Wimbledon,” Assange told the judge, who replied that his attorneys could apply for bail so that he may leave the cage. Fitzgerald told the court: “This is a gentle man of intellectual nature, there is no reason why he should not sit with us.” 

Editor-in-Chief Joe Lauria took part in a forum on Assange on Tuesday night at St. Pancras Church:

TUESDAY

11:45 pm London time:  Consortium News was in the courtroom for the full hearing on Tuesday.  Editor-in-Chief Joe Lauria filed this report:

With the sound of protestors permeating the walls of Woolwich Crown Court, Assange’s defense presented the first part of its case, demolishing the U.S. government’s extradition submission:

  • regarding Assange helping Chelsea Manning crack a password; i.e. allegedly participating in the theft of government documents;
  • the use of WikiLeaks Most Wanted List of stories as a way to supposedly “solicit” stories from Manning, 
  • that Assange recklessly endangered the lives of U.S. informants.

Assange attorney Mark Summers revealed that Assange’s supposed attempt to help Manning “hack” a government computer for secret documents was actually an attempt to help her crack a password to  download video games, movies and music videos, forbidden on military computers.

Summers says Manning had legal access to classified material and did not need a user name or a password to get into the database.   The Espionage Act indictment says Assange helped Manning sign in under an administrator’s password in order to help get secrets, not the latest video game.

The U.S. government’s case is based on “lies, lies and more lies,” Summers told the court.  Summers said that there’s no evidence Manning ever saw WikiLeak‘s wish list, and she provided material that wasn’t asked for. Manning gave WikiLeaks the U.S. Rules of Engagement in Iraq to show that the Collateral Murder video had violated those rules, not because Assange had asked for it, Summers said. 

It is difficult to understand how a journalist asking sources to provide the information, even classified information, can be construed as a crime. 

Summers also gave a detailed explanation about why the government’s assertion that Assange had endangered the lives of U.S. informants was false.   He explained that Assange had instituted a Harm Mitigation Program to redact the names of informants and other people that might be at risk, a program so stringent that David Leigh of The Guardian complained to Der Spiegel, two publications partnering with WikiLeaks, that too much time was being wasted. 

A Spiegel journalist said it was the extreme measures he had ever experienced. Summers also told the court that The Guardian was responsible for publishing the password for the encrypted, un-redacted State Department cables that WikiLeaks and its media partners were slowly and carefully running out. When The Guardian made the entire archive available, Assange called the State Department to warn them.    

“You might think that would be something you would have known when the government submitted the extradition request,” Summers told Baraister.

Before the hearing began Tuesday a court officer instructed Kristinn Hrafnsson, WikiLeaks editor-in-chief, that he had been instructed to bar the “head of WikiLeaks” from entering the public gallery, a glassed-in room with two rows of seats high above the small courtroom. 

John Shipton, Assange’s father, and Assange’s brother Gabriel and Hrafnsson protested and left the cramped area where 18 people lined up to get into the gallery. A few minutes later they returned. Hrafnsson said sending out a few tweets got the court authorities to change their mind. He said no explanation for why the court wanted him barred was given.   

The family sat down to hear Assange’s lawyers complaining that on Monday Assange had been intimidated by prison authorities, being strip searched, handcuffed 11 times, made to stay in five different cells and had legal documents he was studying taken away from him.  Judge Vanessa Baraister told the court she had no jurisdiction over how Assange is being mistreated.

During the hearing Assange is separated from his lawyers in room at the back of the court behind bullet-proof glass. He wore a gray jumper and blazer and looked to have aged well beyond his 48 years. He appeared mostly able to focus on the proceedings, at times intensely.  He sent word to the judge through one of his lawyers that he wished to sit among his attorneys in the courtroom.

The hearing resumes on Wednesday.

Also from Monday’s hearing, Assange’s lawyers said in court that the U.S. had plans to assassinate Assange by faking a kidnapping.

Editor-in-chief Joe Lauria was interviewed by RT.

MONDAY

6:45 pm London time: WikiLeaks tweets that the defense will present its case “in earnest” on Tuesday at Woolwich Crown Court. Consortium News will continue its Live Updates Tuesday unless it gets a place inside the courtroom, in which case we will present a report at the end of the day.

Assange’s lawyer tells court prosecution cares little for justice and is politically motivated. Says extradition should be barred because of prosecutions’ “political motives.” Judge is told that Assange will not likely give testimony during this opening week of the hearing.

3:10 pm London time: U.S. lawyer in court is trying to turn normal journalistic practice into a crime by confusing Assange’s attempts to help Chelsea Manning (who had top secret clearance and legal access to the documents she leaked) hide her identity by logging in as an administrator, not to help her hack the material, which she didn’t need to do.  The two indictments against Assange make it perfectly clear that that is what happened and that Assange was not engaged in hacking.

2:55 pm London time: The hundreds of people demonstrating outside Woolwich Crown Court are making so much noise that it is making it difficult to hear inside the courtroom.  Even Assange said so.

2:50 pm London time:  WikiLeaks Editor-in-Chief Kristinn Hrafnsson has left the courthouse and addressed the media. He asked why the court was discussing the alleged harm done by the releases on Afghanistan and Iraq in 2010 and not the war crimes that those documents revealed.  “That is what we should be talking about in a courtroom in this country.

12:08 pm London time: Julian Assange’s father, John Shipton, spoke with the press outside the courthouse during a break and denounced the prosecutors’ allegation that Assange had endangered the lives of U.S. informants:

“The essential part of the argument of the prosectors’ case is that WikiLeaks publications endangered sources. This is simply not true. The Pentagon admitted, under oath, in Chelsea Manning’s trial that nobody had been hurt by the releases.

Robert Gates, ex-secretary of defense, in testimony before Congress said it’s awkward, it’s embarrassing, but no damage was done. I’ll note that the prosecutor didn’t give one example of a broken fingernail. He just said sources were endangered. Well it’s simply not true.”

Longtime Assange associate, Joseph Farrell, also spoke to the press:

11:45 am London time: The formal hearing to determine whether Julian Assange will be extradited to the United States to stand trial on 17 counts of the Espionage Act has begun in London on Monday morning.  Assange’s lawyers arrived at Woolwich Crown Court with stacks of evidence that will presented during the first week of the hearing, which will resume in May.

Yellow Vests, who’ve traveled to London from Paris to protest outside the courthouse, present a vest to John Shipton to give to his son Julian Assange.

U.S. prosecutors began by arguing that Assange is not a journalist and that he risked the lives of U.S. informants.

Revealing the names of U.S. informants is not a crime and is not listed on Assange’s indictment as a statute U.S. prosecutors are alleging Assange has violated.  After more than ten years, there is absolutely no evidence that any informant’s life was harmed by WikiLeaks revelations, said WikiLeaks Editor-in-Chief Kristinn Hrafnsson at a press conference on Wednesday.

Post Views: 2,875

43 comments for “LIVE UPDATES FROM LONDON: ASSANGE EXTRADITION HEARING ADJOURNED UNTIL MAY 18”

  1. RW Nye
    March 2, 2020 at 22:22

    Piotr, you make a telling point. While the case against Pvt. Manning was complicated by the fact that in addition to exposing war crimes she evidently exposed other classified matters where the issues were not quite as clear-cut, Mr. Assange was merely exposing the dirty laundry of a government in the way that American media have routinely done for ages, usually with impunity. Mr. Assange was not physically located in the United States, is not a citizen of the United States, and has never held an American security clearance. Must all journalists, wherever located, pursue their coverage of American news with the fear that the long arm of U.S. law will reach out across the sea to snatch them for purposes of prosecution? If this extradition goes forward, we will know that there is something very wrong with the state of the world and that traditional American notions of press freedom are being trashed. And what ever happened to the famous British spirit of fair play? Surely any thinking person can see that Mr. Assange is a benefactor of humankind, widely admired for his moral courage and sense of justice. Having learned of great injustices, he put his freedom on the line in the service of truth and righteousness. He will live in fame wherever human beings believe in freedom.

  2. Anonymous
    March 1, 2020 at 19:43

    This is a circus and nothing less. We can only hope that the judge is not a kangaroo.

  3. JOHN CHUCKMAN
    February 28, 2020 at 16:33

    Three more months in high-security prison before they can even continue this show trial?

    And a judge who says Assange must be treated like Adolf Eichmann by being kept in a glass box and not allowed to sit with lawyers?

    Britain seems intent on showing the world just how servile it can be to American brutality.

    How the mighty have fallen. Mother of Parliaments? Magna Carta? David Hume? George Orwell? Graham Greene?

  4. RBHoughton
    February 28, 2020 at 07:29

    The good news from the hearing imo is the formal exposure of Luke Harding and his mate as the publishers of the password that is said to have exposed American spooks to possible danger. The horrid hacks published the password in their book and were in such a hurry to get the publication money they failed to notice.

    So at least one doubtful charge against Assange has been properly attributed and with luck, if there is any justice in the Woolwich Court of Ms Vanessa Baraitser, it will be Luke Harding and his friend in the orange suits and wrist and ankle chains that board the plane for the FISA court in Virginia.

    • ChildeRoland
      February 29, 2020 at 07:48

      Just to be clear, it was Luke Harding and David Leigh from the Guardian newspaper who published the password to the cache as the heading to chapter XI of their book ‘Wikileaks’, 2011. These are the people ultimately responsible for the publication of unredacted cables.

      Mark Davis, the Australian investigative journalist who made the documentary ‘Inside Wikileaks’, says that, contrary to the perception created by the corporate media, it was Guardian journalists such as David Leigh and Nick Davies who displayed a thoroughly cavalier attitude to the redaction of the cables, and pressured Assange into publishing before he was ready, a pressure which he resisted. You can watch his account here:

    • ChildeRoland
      February 29, 2020 at 17:28

      Don’t know what happened to the link, but google CN LIVE! Mark Davis Wikileaks Revelations – YouTube

  5. Donald Duck
    February 28, 2020 at 04:38

    Lies by omission – this is the usual method whereby the powers that be operate. There has been a total – and I mean total – black-out of the Assange trial in the British media, not a peep. It was the British playwright, Harold Pinter, who in his valedictory address who commented on the human rights abuses of the US and its proxies in latin America. ”It never happened, it doesn’t matter, and even when it was actually happening it wasn’t happening.”

    • Brinton Michael
      March 2, 2020 at 01:54

      Interesting

  6. Richard A. Pelto
    February 27, 2020 at 11:50

    The noise outside the court reminds me of the media-described “court-like” procedure used by the Washington State Un-American Committee, the Canwell Hearings, in the 1940s. In that case Canwell gavelled vigorously and often to have State Patrol quiet the noise. The comparison of how a mockery of justice can occur can be read in my book, Cold War Ironies by Richard Pelto.

  7. John Pretty
    February 26, 2020 at 18:40

    Quoting Hide Behind (below) “This trial is a complete farce”

    It’s not a trial. Julian is not on trial here in the UK, though as this hearing is in a courtroom with a judge it has the appearance of a trial.

    I am trying to emphasise for anyone that will listen (and I know that here there are a considerable number of Julian’s supporters) that throwing metaphorical eggs at this judge will not help Julian.

    She has the power to free Julian. She is the only one that has that power. So the defence must win her trust if they can. I think it is important to give her the benefit of the doubt here and assume that she is honourable. Okay, she may not be. But if you just assume bad faith on her part then how can you hope to succeed?

    I’m not sure that Julian is helped by some of his prominent supporters sneering contemptuously at her from the public gallery. A man’s liberty and may be life is at risk. Please for Julian’s sake save your hatreds for the UK for another time.

    • ChildeRoland
      February 28, 2020 at 06:40

      No one is “assuming” bad faith, the evidence of it is legion. When the prosecuting counsel himself argues that it is not necessary to seek bail in order for Assange to sit in the courtroom with his lawyers, and makes it clear he has no objection, given that this privilege is routinely afforded to those charged with murder, but is nevertheless overruled by the Judge, who has consistently blocked every single request made by the defence on behalf of Assange’s treatment, one doesn’t have to “assume” bad faith – one has to call it out, and condemn it. Pretending not to notice one violation of the man’s rights after another – including the right to communicate properly with his lawyers –
      in order to appease a judge on the grounds that she might be offended if her persistent refusal to afford the defendant a fair hearing arouses comment (and I do mean ‘hearing’ – he can’t, and has repeatedly said so), in other words, turning a blind eye to blatant injustice in the hope that it might curry some favour is, frankly, a hopeless response to what is demonstrably a proceeding designed to hamper the defence at every turn.

    • ChildeRoland
      February 28, 2020 at 13:14

      Apologies. Last sentence should read “in order to appease a judge on the grounds that she might be offended if her persistent refusal to afford the defendant a fair hearing arouses comment…”.

  8. Eugenie Basile
    February 26, 2020 at 14:33

    Why do I get the impression this judge is pro-torture ? I understand “dura lex sed lex” but her behavior is completely unjustifiable.
    Still I give her the benefit of the doubt and hope her verdict will contain some humanity .

  9. jalp
    February 26, 2020 at 13:30

    I don’t know about UK law, but in US law international treaties are at the same level as domestic Federal law — for example, either one has supremacy over a state law. That means if a treaty and a Federal law conflict, the one that became law later is presumed to be controlling. If that’s also true in the UK, it should help Assange’s legal team refute the argument that this can’t be a political case because the UK Extradition Act (passed 2003, went into effect 2004) doesn’t mention any exception/exemption for those . . . even though the UK-US extradition treaty (which didn’t go into force untl 2007) does.

  10. Luis Antonio Freire
    February 26, 2020 at 11:00

    Julian Assange revealed to the world very important war-crimes…
    ( for example, the video collateral-murder… (among many other important journalistic materials… which allowed a significant part of the population to see the reality… beyond the main-stream-media pathological narratives..)

    Therefore, he must be praised… not condemned…

  11. Conor Kingston
    February 26, 2020 at 10:35

    It is stunning to me that not a whiff of coverage has appeared in US Coroporate media regarding the extradition proceedings. Thank you Consortium News for your extensive and unparalleled coverage.

  12. Marb
    February 25, 2020 at 18:21

    They will do whatever it takes to silence Assange and dismantle Wikileaks , so that further Corporate and Government crimes are not exposed.. it would take hundreds of thousands of People storming the Court House to send them a message and rolling protests/ strikes all over the world continuously to perhaps achieve something .. it just aint happenin , sympathy and abstract concern are one thing , as long as it doesn’t disrupt peoples self indulgent little lives or impinge on their gorging on Net Flicks.

    • OlyaPola
      February 26, 2020 at 06:47

      “They will do whatever it takes to silence Assange and dismantle Wikileaks , so that further Corporate and Government crimes are not exposed.”

      Spectators often conflate attempt and achievement as a function of belief in sole/primary agency.

      The belief that spectators have agency is actively encouraged, partly to ensure that spectators make no efforts to attain agency thereby becoming practitioners.

      Some opponents believe that ends justify means, whilst many practitioners know that means condition ends and when outcomes vary from expectations attempts at greater encouragement of beliefs are required by some given their immersion in ends justifying means.

      Hence perhaps a more illuminating rendition of your sentence would read – “They will attempt to do whatever they think it takes to maintain belief”.

      Mr. McGovern’s question of “What could go wrong” refers.

    • Brinton Michael
      March 2, 2020 at 02:16

      disagree, there are a lot of good people mobilizing.

  13. Hide Behind
    February 25, 2020 at 11:51

    Thomas Jefferson once wrote, that there is the “Law” and then there is the “Spirit” of the Law, and it is the Spirit that matters most, and nowhere in US Constitution does it State a law has to be fair and just
    It is the Spirit of the.law that is on trial, why are such laws written but to protect the abusers, and not those of the abused.
    It should matter not wether Assange is/was a journalist or not, crimes were commited, crimes were reported, crimes that under blanket laws of secrecy by Government figures and policy makers they wanted to hide.
    The reality is that worlds most extensive Civilization is one of US Empirical Rule, where citizenship by nationality no longer matters, and Law is whatever US says it is, and is higher law that will be enforced by
    all nations political bodies.
    This trial is a complete farce, a “Comedy”, play, staged as entertainment for the dirty rotten egg and veggie throwers on the ground, where the intellectuals sit on bleachers, and above them the novels who pay the actors.
    It makes no difference to the dirty masses on ground floor, the intellectuals will discuss among their peers with clean air of rational thinking and continue letting those above them piss down their backs.
    In US comes from both radical left and all between to radical right proudly boast “We.are a Nation of Laws”, but then so do Europeans, but where came the laws that let their Government invite millions of foreigners to come live off the wages of those who already lived there?
    No matter the ending of this play, the hero martyred or slain, those who wrote the script, will retain the best seats in government and finance.

  14. Diana
    February 25, 2020 at 11:10

    Hat tip to everyone at CN for outstanding work! I hope that all of you will join me with a money tip to CN. Thank you!

  15. Jill
    February 25, 2020 at 09:28

    Can an arrest warrant be issued to the prison governor? He is knowingly breaking the law. These are techniques (torture) similar to those used when Gitmo detainees go to “trial”.

    Can any international body demand immediate custody of Assange for the purpose of preventing his torture? For his safety and well being.

    I and other people have letters showing the prison governor is well aware of UK law, prison authority regulations and international laws governing the treatment of prisoners. This is knowing, willful mistreatment which breaks both UK and international law. Who is giving Rob Davis his orders?

    • John Pretty
      February 25, 2020 at 13:01

      “Can an arrest warrant be issued to the prison governor? He is knowingly breaking the law.”

      How will this help Julian?

    • Jill
      February 26, 2020 at 09:44

      I have an error in this post which I would like to correct. The prison governor’s name is Rob not Mark Davis. Mark Davis is a wonderful supporter of Assange. I am so sorry if this error caused any harm to Mr. Mark Davis.

      Rob Davis is the Belmarsh prison Governor.

  16. bob
    February 25, 2020 at 04:23

    This typically american show trial in the UK is a perversion of justice

    What we are witnessing is the americans providing the world with all the ammunition to prove that illegally killing and murdering people, overthrowing legally elected governments, walking all over international law, condemning those they dislike to torture, preaching the values of neoliberalism as if it is right and getting away with it. They are not and never will be guilty because america is exceptional. This is the real problem here because someone had the audacity to show them for what they are and that person and others connected will never be allowed to tell the truth.

    I hate america and all those who sail in her – the UK, France, the Eu – the lot of them. They have no redeeming features – so John Pretty – who’s side are you on?

    • John Pretty
      February 25, 2020 at 13:00

      “This typically american show trial in the UK is a perversion of justice”

      Julian is not on trial in the UK. Hyperbole will not help him.

  17. John Pretty
    February 24, 2020 at 14:55

    I read Craig Murray’s tweet today:

    “experience of the Assange trials so far indicates what happens in court is utterly irrelevant to pre-determined verdict.”

    Well I’m not so cynical of Britain as Murray. And Julian is not on trial here. (Why does Murray bother to turn up if this is his view?)

    Baraitser, I believe is a South African born woman. She may have been appointed (if we are taking a cynical view here) because of her history of being very unsympathetic towards men who have been accused of sexual misconduct. However, now that Julian’s name has been cleared – at least legally – I think there is a chance of her giving Julian a relatively fair hearing.

    I don’t actually share Murray’s view that the result is pre-determined in this case and his implication that this hearing is a sham.

    I have read the opening defence document as published on wikileaks’ twitter feed. On page 11, item 3.8 Mandy Rice Davies (of profumo fame) is quoted. That is cringeworthy. How the defence thinks that this comment “he would wouldn’t he” (referring to Trump’s denial that he offered Julian a pardon) is going to cut any ice with a feminist judge like Baraitser is beyond my ken. I thought this extremely naive.

    And also the suggestion on p26 10.5 that Julian might be prone to suicide if extradited. I think that’s weak. Anyone could argue that. Prison is not nice.

    I personally will give Baraitser the benefit of the doubt for the time being and trust that British justice will see Julian freed. Of course, commentators such as Murray will feel vindicated if the decision goes against Julian.

    The bigger problem as I see it is that the British government may decide that Julian should be extradited anyway. However, this would be an overtly political decision as suggested here by Catherine Heard of Fair Trials International on the UK parliament website, paragraph 201:

    (https) publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt201012/jtselect/jtrights/156/15608.htm

    • Pandas4Peace
      February 24, 2020 at 22:42

      I am also concerned Assange is not getting an adequate defense. The prosecutors will present evidence, in their view, that will show Assange committed at least 17 crimes. It’s the defenses job to rebut this evidence – full stop. Is he guilty or not? This parade of fringe witnesses (seriously Noam Chomsky??) and all the hyperbole about the “Dark State” will not help Assange, unfortunately.

    • Antiwar7
      February 25, 2020 at 12:04

      When the judge let the prosecuting counsel give an extended address _to the media_ instead of to the court, that showed that the judge was biased and incompetent beyond redemption.

    • OlyaPola
      February 26, 2020 at 11:59

      “I don’t actually share Murray’s view that the result is pre-determined in this case and his implication that this hearing is a sham.”

      Primacy of court is often of utility and consequently the hearing is not necessarily a sham but could be a useful and necessary step in facilitating the primacy of court thereby increasing subsequent options, including but not restricted to what you appear to view as “the overtly political” perhaps in recognition of the norm being covertly political.

      Notions of “the result is pre-determined” is predicated on the notion/framing of “result” which some may seek to restrict to “the decision of the court”, perhaps in ignorance of the utility and practice of the rule of man being cloaked in the “rule of law” facilitated in part by the primacy of court (in the vernacular, a get out of goal card if deemed appropriate).

      Some do believe in pre-determination including but not restricted to “indispensable nation/indispensable social relations”, whilst belief in linear perceptions in a lateral world tends to open various Pandora’s boxes of opportunity to others, thereby precluding sole/primary agency, ergo “result” is not limited to the notion/framing of “result” believed by some.

  18. Ian Brown
    February 24, 2020 at 14:36

    It is pretty wild that the prosecutors are arguing different, and even contradictory, points than in the US indictments, many of which were already disproved in the Chelsea Manning trial.

    On the positive side, the “Rohrabacher” defense seems to be a little more logical and less disastrous than it appeared.

    • maggie harrisin
      February 26, 2020 at 09:15

      Problem is, that, although Chief Magistrate, Emma Arbuthnot, has been forced to step down, over the undisclosed fact, that Wikileaks, exposed her husbands, dirty deals with Arms Dealers ant the gifts, the couple accepted,for their help, she is still, in charge of the Case! Her son, Westminster Chief Magistrate, is in charge of Assange s
      Extradition Process and once again, conflict of interest, has not been declared! He is cyber security advisor, of a Company, founded by GCHQ and MI5, which seeks to stop data leaks! That is only a small example of what he s involved in and I hope this is brought up in Court, as it betrays, completely, our supposedly fair, Justice System!

  19. bob
    February 24, 2020 at 10:51

    you may find this useful too:

    see: twitter.com/jamesdoleman

  20. Skip Edwards
    February 24, 2020 at 10:49

    The free thinking people of the world stand behind Julian Assange. His torture by “authorities” at the direction of the US government must not be allowed to continue. One only need to look at and read about the torture of human beings still being committed in all of our names at the US “torture center” at Guantanamo in Cuba to realize that we have become just another brutal regime in a world history of brutal regimes. We should all hang our heads in shame. Free Julian Assange!

  21. Jon Travis
    February 24, 2020 at 10:18

    Thanks for the live coverage of this landmark event. Consortium News have to be applauded for keeping this issue alive for so long.

  22. smuck
    February 24, 2020 at 09:27

    Elements cited in the Law and not cited in the indictment w\n matter; this is a trial without law.. UK mobsters h\traded something for extradition.. Find that trade.. .. and name the mobsters to free Assange.. and to open the eyes of the world.

  23. Susan J Leslie
    February 24, 2020 at 08:36

    The US government should be on trial – not Julian Assange…

    • mary e
      February 24, 2020 at 13:13

      Hear! Hear! The rogue US government lies at every turn….and this is one of the worst cases ever witnessed…a true and dedicated
      journalist’s life and sanity) is at stake here and there is no show of slowing down the cruel and heartless treatment of him.
      The UK should be ashamed that it is doing the US dirty work.

  24. Will
    February 24, 2020 at 08:15

    Exposing crimes is self defense and increases the defence of everybody from criminals.
    It is the good people who set the rules, not the criminals, not the murderers, not the torturers, not the instigators of illegal wars of aggression.
    Assange is a hero.

    • Eugene F Parte
      February 25, 2020 at 11:05

      Will. You’re right that the good people set the rules but it is evident every day that those in power, Johnston, Trump and Netanyahu, break international law without consequences, or even objections from prominent Western powers or the UN! I have no hope that a British court will release Assange as I see Johnston as a toady to the Empire!

    • Piotr Berman
      February 25, 2020 at 12:32

      Not exposing a known crime is a punishable felony. The law says that authorities should be informed, but when authorities perpetrate or whitewash, a person with knowledge of crime has a moral duty to pursue the only alternative: informing the public.

    • Raymond Comeau
      February 26, 2020 at 12:52

      You (Will) are 100% correct. Thank You. It is too bad that the Judge is not as honest as you.

  25. Marcela
    February 24, 2020 at 07:02

    Thanks for this coverage.

Comments are closed.