7 comments for “WATCH: Explanation of High Court’s Assange Decision

  1. David G Horsman
    January 25, 2022 at 20:03

    Well Joe. It’s time to have a talk about civil war in the US now. It’s bordering on inevitable.

    On the other hand when the populace really pushes back events could transpire where they let our friends go. Julian first.

  2. marc molitor
    January 25, 2022 at 11:18

    See in this documents:


    More especially pages 33 to 41

    You will find the explanation of the next steps.

    If Assange doesn’t succeed before the SC, then the defense will introduce his cross appeal on the grounds rejected by judge Barrister in his first judgement

  3. JonT
    January 25, 2022 at 05:17

    Thanks as usual to CN for the continuing coverage. It is still hard to comprehend just how far this gone on. Does the Supreme court not have to consider the fact that all of Assanges’ privileged conversations with lawyers and medics were overheard by the US. The whole case should in my opinion be thrown out just on this point. What is the point of client confidentiality rules of they are just ignored?. If it was the US in the dock and they thought THEY had been spied on, the case would have been thrown out long ago.

  4. cjonsson1
    January 24, 2022 at 22:07

    Marie-France Germain That sounds like a valid assessment, unfortunately.
    The US is completely controlled by tech companies, banks, military industrial companies, and the big Pharma mafia.
    Humanity is no longer a priority. Julian and Ed Snowden tried to warn us about this.
    The only answer is for the people of the world to stop complying and revolt.

  5. Lyle Vincent ANDERSON
    January 24, 2022 at 14:58

    WAPO just printed its usual brief and unenlightened take. Followed here by my quotation of Joe – though they removed my tagline….


    A whole lot of self-appointed experts here. “The” so-called point of law is NOT whether Assange could “rely” on such US assurances, an obvious post hoc ruse, but this. “‘We certify a single point of law … in what circumstances can an appellate court receive assurances from a requesting state which were not before the court of first instance in extradition proceedings,’ the High Court said in an appearance that lasted less than a minute. That refers to whether the United States was legally permitted to provide assurances to the High Court after it had failed to do so during the district court’s hearing of Assange’s extradition case in September 2020.” Quoting Joe Lauria of consortiumnews,com.

    • Consortiumnews.com
      January 24, 2022 at 17:45

      Most of the other comments are shocking.

  6. Marie-France Germain
    January 24, 2022 at 14:09

    Thank you so much for keeping us updated on Assange!

    I don’t think that the UK could debase itself much further than it has in order to please its master, the United States of Barbarity. It certainly cannot retain its legacy from an earlier epoch, and is now desperate to try to regain an empire it lost after WWII. The UK, like the rest of Europe and the Anglo-Western world has sold out their sovereignty to the USA long ago and we merely tug our forelocks to the global bully while shaking in our boots and desperately seeking signs of disfavour from the brute so we could bow more deeply should that occur.

Comments are closed.