September 25, 2020
Okay, so remember Juan’s tweet yesterday about how Assange’s attorney had to put his ear up to the glass box that the court is holding Assange in like a terrorist in order to hear his own client, and I was all “this is peak insanity but…how does the court hear Assange yelling to the judge?”
5 minute break. The camera pans to Julian who seems to be instructing Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald has to put his ear to the glass in order to hear #Assange. Julian is wearing a mask and is well groomed with a smart suit, white shirt and tie.— Juan Passarelli (@jlpassarelli) September 24, 2020
Right. So apparently there are slits in the glass because things can’t get anymore absurd and ass backwards 1800s in this case:
So besides that ridiculous fun fact just my daily reminder: Belmarsh prison puts Assange through a five-hour ordeal every day just to take him to court which includes being handcuffed, strip-searched, and a three-hour round-trip transport. I’m wondering how many journalists and publishers out there that refuse to speak out on his behalf against this extradition request would feel if the U.S. arrested them tomorrow and put them through this punishment for simply practicing journalism. Especially those who used WikiLeaks documents in the past to bolster their work, image, or publications.
Release of Medical Report
There was a discussion in court about whether or not to withhold Assange’s medical report which includes his family history. Both the defense and prosecution agreed that it shouldn’t be released to the press, “‘Open justice would not be advanced’ by the disclosure of this information, the defense told the court. After speaking to a member of the press who suggested that they redact the documents, the judge said she would make her ruling on Monday. Also see Naomi Colvin’s tweet, “For those who are interested, the Supreme Court ruling that’s now being discussed re: disclosure of the #Assange medical evidence is this one, Cape v Dring” (link included).
Previously the defense had asked the judge for more time to put together closing arguments which she naturally belly-ached about and the discussion came up again today. The prosecution said that they were fine with just written arguments (no oral arguments) and that they would only need one to two weeks to complete. The judge granted the defense four weeks to prepare closing arguments and the prosecution another two weeks to respond which means there will be no decision in this dog and pony show until after the U.S. election (and the new year). Interestingly enough, Judge Vanessa Baraitser asked the defense if the upcoming election would impact their case. According to AssangeDefense.org, Assange’s attorney stated:
“’Much of what we say about Mr. Trump personally goes to why this was initiated, that will all remain good,’ and, ‘Much of what we say about the fate which awaits Mr. Assange remains good because it’s about systemic faults in the prisons and his underlying conditions.’ But ‘the situation would be all the worse’ if Trump were to win re-election, he said.”
More from AssangeDefense.org:
“In asking the defense how the outcome of the U.S. presidential election would affect its case and indicating that she had hoped to issue a ruling before election day, District Judge Vanessa Baraitser has acknowledged what has been clear since even before the first indictment against Julian Assange was unsealed, that this is a politically motivated prosecution.”
Although it’s a bit frustrating to have zero transcripts or a live/taped broadcast of the hearing in order to confirm this is exactly how it went down in court, if it is indeed how it went down this is a huge huge deal which probably won’t make a difference in this case but will perhaps in appeals court. Thinking out loud about the U.S. government’s tactics, why in the world would Judge Baraitser even ask such a question?
The prosecution objected to the submission of two reports written by a U.S. prison psychologist arguing that the issues raised in the them were already addressed by other witnesses. They also complained that it was “late evidence” and that “enough is enough” astoundingly after routinely sending defense witnesses hundreds of documents mere hours before they’re scheduled to testimony but, more importantly, filing a second superseding indictment like six weeks before this train wreck started. Naturally Baraitser agreed with the prosecution and stated that “a line must be drawn” on filing. Oh, the drama! She then rejected the defense’s submission.
Defense Witness #24: Jakob Augstein
Jakob Augstein’s witness statement was read in court, no cross-examination. Augstein is a publisher and the editor in chief of German media outlet Der Freitag and he said in his statement that he was “asked to provide [his] recollection of a number of events in 2011 concerning Julian Assange.” Key points:
- On August 25, 2011, Der Freitag published an article about leaks at WikiLeaks, Daniel Domscheit-Berg, and Open Leaks (a platform/dropbox for leakers and whistleblowers created by Domscheit-Berg and others after they left WikiLeaks)
- They received information about “the security of platforms upon which data previously considered to be disclosable only via a closely guarded password, had become vulnerable”
- They investigated the information and came across an “obscure file on the internet” containing unredacted U.S. cables
- Der Freitag reported that the year prior Domscheit-Berg and others had left WikiLeaks taking the unredacted cables with them
- Prior to the article’s publication, Assange called Der Freitag and voiced his concerns about informants’ safety
- Augstein assured him that they would not publish anything that would harm American informants (note “American” because the prosecution is also going after Assange for foreign informants)
Defense Witness #25: Patrick Eller
Patrick Eller, a digital forensic expert, testified during the hearing about whether or not Assange helped Chelsea Manning crack a password on a U.S. government system. I’m not a tech person so I’m totally pawning this off on others:
Kevin Gosztola (Shadowproof) who wrote, “”At the time, it would not have been possible to crack an encrypted password hash, such as the one Manning obtained,’ testified Patrick Eller, a digital forensic expert.” Read “Prosecutors’ Password-Cracking Conspiracy Theory Against Assange Unravels At Extradition Trial.”
Mohamed Elmaazi (Sputnik) who wrote, “[Eller] also confirmed that wouldn’t have been necessary for Ms Manning to crack the password hash because Ms Manning already had access to the classified documents that she leaked via the militaries intranet system.” Read “Cracking Password Was Neither Possible Nor Necessary to Access Classified Docs, Assange Expert says.”
Binoy Kampmark (Counterpunch) who wrote, “The grounds for the defence, fashioned by Eller’s written testimony, are two-fold: “that the alleged passcode hash conspiracy was impossible, but even if it were possible, it has no utility to what is attributed to it.” Read “Assange on Trial: Elections, Cracking Passwords and Failures of Proof.”
The Twitter users I followed today that I want to give a special thanks to for covering the hearing and that were used as my source material include (these guys and gals do the heavy lifting so we don’t have to):
A head’s up that @SMaurizi will no longer be covering the hearing (for now). Yesterday, the UK prosecution for the United States took issue with her doing so ⟶ “I am afraid today and in the coming days I won’t be able to follow and cover the Julian #Assange extradition hearing because the lawyers acting for the US government asked I won’t do it as I am a witness of fact in the Julian #Assange extradition hearing.” – Stefania Maurizi
Richard Medhurst’s Daily Updates (video) HERE
@AssangeDefense’s Daily Report HERE
See above under “Defense Witness #24: Patrick Eller”
“How Did We Get Here? The Threat of Fascism in U.S.” Davey Heller via ClassConscious.org
“No more appeals to the fascist Trump! The Assange campaign must turn to the working class!” Davey Heller via ClassConscious.org
“The Darkest Corner: Special Administrative Measures and Extreme Isolation in the Federal Bureau of Prisons.” Center For Constitutional Rights
Conditions of Prison in Alexandria, VA via The Justice Campaign (Twitter thread)
“Lockdown Life is Better in Virtual Reality” Madeleine Spence, The Times
“Wikileaks – USA against Julian Assange (english subtitles)” via ardmediathek.de
- Day 1 and 2: Mark Feldstein
- Day 2: Clive Stafford-Smith
- Day 3: Paul Rogers, Trevor Timm
- Day 4: Eric Lewis (cancelled)
- Day 5: Eric Lewis
- Day 6: Eric Lewis (continued), Thomas Durkin
- Day 7: John Goetz, Daniel Ellsberg
- Day 8: John Sloboda, Carey Shenkman
- Day 9:
- Nicky Hager
- Jennifer Robinson (statement read in court, no cross-examination)
- Khaled El-Masri (statement read in court, no cross-examination)
- Carey Shenkman (continuation from day before)
- Dean Yates (statement read in court, no cross-examination)
- Day 10:
- Christian Grotthoff
- Andy Worthington (statement read by judge/unclear)
- Cassandra Fairbanks (statement read in court, no cross-examination)
- Day 11: Dr. Kopelman
- Day 12:
- Dr. Quinton Deeley
- Seena Fazel
- Dr. Catherine Humphries (statement read in court, no cross-examination)
- Day 13:
- Dr. Nigel Blackwood
- Dr. Sandra Crosby
- Christopher Butler (statement read in court, no cross-examination)
- John Young (statement read in court, no cross-examination)
- Day 14:
- Jakob Augstein (statement read into court, no cross-examination)
- Patrick Eller
- Edward Fitzgerald QC (Assange defense)
- Mark Summers QC (Assange defense)
- Jennifer Robinson (Assange defense)
- Gareth Peirce (Assange defense)
- Florence Iveson (Assange defense)
- James Lewis QC (prosecutor for the U.S.)
- Joel Smith (prosecutor for the U.S.)
- Claire Dobbin (prosecutor for the U.S.)
Defense Opening Arguments HERE
Prosecution Skeleton Arguments (photos via @MacWBishop) HERE
Prosecution Witness Bundle Including Kromberg Statement (bundle may be subject to change with each witness) HERE
Defense Witness #2 Statement: Clive Stafford-Smith HERE
Defense Witness #3 Statement: Paul Rogers HERE
Defense Witness #4 Statement: Trevor Timm HERE
Defense Witness #5 Statement: Eric Lewis (not released)
Defense Witness #6 Statement: Thomas Durkin (not released)
Defense Witness #7 Statement: John Goetz HERE
Defense Witness #8 Statement: Daniel Ellsberg (not released)
Defense Witness #9 Statement: John Sloboda (not released)
Defense Witness #10 Statement: Carey Shenkman HERE
Defense Witness #11 Statement: Nicky Hager (not released)
Defense Witness Statement #12: Jennifer Robinson (not released)
Defense Witness #13 Statement : Khaled El-Masri HERE
Defense Witness #14 Statement: Dean Yates HERE
Defense Witness #15 Statement: Christian Grotthoff HERE
Defense Witness #16 Statement: Andy Worthington (not released)
Defense Witness #17 Statement: Cassandra Fairbanks HERE
Defense Witness #18 Statement: Dr. Kopelman (not released)
Defense Witness #19 Statement: Dr. Quinton Deeley (not released)
Prosecution Witness #1 Statement: Seena Fazel (not released)
Defense Witness #20 Statement: Dr. Catherine Humphries (not released)
Prosecution Witness #2 Statement: Dr. Nigel Blackwood (not released)
Defense Witness #21 Statement: Dr. Sandra Crosby (not released)
Defense Witness #22 Statement: Christopher Butler (not released)
Defense Witness #23 Statement: John Young HERE
Defense Witness #24 Statement: Jakob Austein HERE
Defense Witness #25 Statement: Patrick Eller HERE
Disclaimer: Ten thousand more pages of disclaimers to follow.
If you were mentioned in this article because your associate(s) did or said something stupid/dishonest, that’s not a suggestion that you did or said something stupid/dishonest or that you took part in it. Of course, some may conclude on their own that you associate with stupid/dishonest individuals but that’s called having the right to an opinion. If I’ve questioned something that doesn’t make sense to me, that’s not me spinning the confusing material you’ve put out. That’s me trying to make sense out of something that doesn’t make sense. And if I’ve noted that you failed to back up your allegations that means I either missed where you posted it or you failed to back your shiz up.
If I haven’t specifically stated that I believe (my opinion) someone is associated with someone else or an event, then it means just that. I haven’t reported an association nor is there any inference of association on my part. For example, just because someone is mentioned in this article, it doesn’t mean that they’re involved or associated with everyone and everything else mentioned. If I believe that there’s an association between people and/or events, I’ll specifically report it.
If anyone mentioned in this article wants to claim that I have associated them with someone else or an event because I didn’t disclose every single person and event in the world that they are NOT associated with, that’s called gaslighting an audience and it’s absurd hogwash i.e. “They mentioned that I liked bananas but they didn’t disclose that I don’t like apples. Why are they trying to associate me with apples???” Or something similar to this lovely gem, “I did NOT give Trish the thumb drive!” in order to make their lazy audience believe that it was reported they gave Trish the thumb drive when, in fact, that was never reported, let alone inferred.
That’s some of the BS I’m talking about so try not to act like a psychiatric patient, intelligence agent, or paid cyber mercenary by doing these things. If you would like to share your story, viewpoint, or any evidence that pertains to this article, or feel strongly that something needs to be clarified or corrected (again, that actually pertains to the article), you can reach me at firstname.lastname@example.org with any questions or concerns.
I cannot confirm and am not confirming the legitimacy of any messages or emails in this article. Please see a doctor if sensitivity continues. If anyone asks, feel free to tell them that I work for Schoenberger, Fitzgibbon, Steven Biss, the CIA, or really just about any intelligence agency because your idiocy, ongoing defamation, and failure as a human is truly a sight to behold for the rest of us.
If I described you as a fruit basket or even a mental patient it's because that is my opinion of you, it's not a diagnosis. I'm not a psychiatrist nor should anyone take my personal opinions as some sort of clinical assessment. Contact @BellaMagnani if you want a rundown on the psych profile she ran on you.
This is an Op-ed article. The information contained in this post is for general information purposes only. While we endeavor to keep the information up to date and correct, we make no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, about the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability or availability with respect to the website or the information contained on the post for any purpose. The owner of this blog makes no representations as to the accuracy or completeness of any information on this site or found by following any link on this site.
The views or opinions represented in this blog do not represent those of people, institutions or organizations that the owner may or may not be associated with in professional or personal capacity, unless explicitly stated. Any views or opinions are not intended to malign any religion, ethnic group, club, organization, company, or individual.
The owner will not be liable for any errors or omissions in this information nor for the availability of this information. The owner will not be liable for any losses, injuries, or damages from the display or use of this information.