
Assange Hearing Day 6 - k1m
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/09/your-man-in-the-public-gallery-the-assange-hearing-day-6
======
roenxi
Assange's crime here is embarrassing powerful people. On the one hand, we are
never going to get a law that explicitly states this is a crime. On the other
hand, that seems unlikely to matter. The US is apparently happy to literally
scour the world for places where Assange has done something wrong if the
Iceland claim is even a half-truth.

The basic issue that this article goes to is that the judge has broad
discretionary power to hurry the defence along, and is using it. That is not
unreasonable - defence by stalling tactics can't a legitimate strategy, so the
judge must have those powers and be free to exercise them at her discretion.
It is appropriate for the judge to have powers to guillotine witness time and
to make procedural decisions. Even if they are unusual decisions.

The only thing Assange's defenders can hope for here is a great case study of
how the US government doesn't care about details, they will reach out and try
to grab anyone who makes it clear how they are operating. And then develop a
rationalisation after the fact.

Really the most interesting thing in this article is the pervasive misspelling
of "Sweden" as "the United States". I seem to recall a whole bunch of people
arguing that Assange wasn't going to be extradited to the United States once
they extracted him from the embassy. Possibly I am not remembering correctly
and nobody admits to arguing that now.

~~~
pjc50
The facts change: the charges against him were dropped/timed out in Sweden,
and then the US started an extradition request.

The idea that it was harder to extradite him to the US from the UK than from
Sweden, and that the extradition to Sweden was a pretext, was a very odd one -
a priori I would have said it was the other way round.

~~~
sneak
There were never any charges in Sweden. Please do not propagate this false
belief.

~~~
Gwypaas
This is simply basic differences between how different justice systems
operate. He was as formally charged as you get in Sweden until the
investigation was dropped, only using different words.

 _Assange was arrested in his absence and wanted for questioning in relation
to accusations against him of rape and sexual molestation. This was the first
step in the criminal prosecution procedure in Sweden, and only after the
questioning would the prosecution authority be able to formally indict
him.[10]_

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_Authority#Accusations)

~~~
monocasa
He was then questioned on Nov 14, 2016, and still not charged.

~~~
foldr
He couldn't be formally charged under the Swedish system because he wasn't in
Sweden. (And yes, I know that _in principle_ the Swedish authorities could
_probably_ have figured out some way to try him in absentia, but they chose
not to because it would have been pointless, and they are perfectly free to
make that decision.)

Everyone repeating this nonsense should just take the time to read the British
High Court judgment, which sets it all out very clearly.

~~~
justsee
It's important to remember the Swedish authorities were never interested in
testimony from Assange.

It's worth reading this interview [1] with Nils Melzer, the UN Special
Rapporteur on torture, which reveals in shocking detail the level of
manipulation around this entire case.

As Melzer says "You just have to look at how the case was run: For Sweden, it
was never about the interests of the two women."

[1] [https://www.republik.ch/2020/01/31/nils-melzer-about-
wikilea...](https://www.republik.ch/2020/01/31/nils-melzer-about-wikileaks-
founder-julian-assange)

~~~
foldr
The Swedish prosecutors wanted to try Assange on rape charges. Their actions
were geared towards getting that to happen. Merely having Assange "testify",
outside of a courtroom setting, would not necessarily have furthered that
goal.

I do not see how that conflicts with the interests of the two women.

~~~
justsee
Actually it's clear from Melzer's thorough investigation, where he reviewed
the entire case material, including original Swedish documents, that this was
an operation to frame Assange and extradite him to the US – and nothing to do
with the two women, who were very clearly pawns in the process.

It's really worth reading the interview closely to understand how thoroughly
justice has been perverted in numerous countries to get at someone who
revealed horrendous crimes.

~~~
foldr
I'm aware of the existence of such conspiracy theories. To me, the simpler and
more plausible explanation is that Assange did what the women accused him of
doing.

~~~
justsee
Melzer goes into detail about how the women didn't accuse him of rape.

It's worth engaging in the facts on this issue, rather than gripping onto a
received narrative in dismissive fashion, and the interview really goes into
significant detail, including behind-the-scenes behaviour of Sweden that
Melzer was privy to as UN Special Rapporteur on torture.

It's one of those articles where people go in with the perspective you show
here, and come out the end of it stunned by the truth of Assange's unjust
treatment.

In fact Melzer starts out by stating he began with the same attitude,
initially refusing the case as "My impression, largely influenced by the
media, was also colored by the prejudice that Julian Assange was somehow
guilty and that he wanted to manipulate me."

It is probably one of the best summaries of his case I've read, from a highly
credible, independent investigator:

[https://www.republik.ch/2020/01/31/nils-melzer-about-
wikilea...](https://www.republik.ch/2020/01/31/nils-melzer-about-wikileaks-
founder-julian-assange)

~~~
foldr
He was accused of initiating sex without using a condom following an explicit
request for him to use a condom. The High Court judged that this action
certainly constituted rape under UK law. It is also a crime under Swedish law
(though I don't know how different levels of sexual assault / rape are
classified in Sweden).

It's always surprising to see just how grubby Assange's defenders are willing
to get, up to and including rape apologism.

~~~
justsee
There's a demonstrated lack of understanding around important details of this
case in your responses.

The accusation you raise is a key part of the interview with Melzer.

The original witness statement was intentionally destroyed, and the supervisor
of the policewoman who conducted the questioning wrote an email telling her to
rewrite the statement.

(The original copies of the mail exchanges between the Swedish police are
actually displayed in the article.)

The statement that forms the basis of that claim "was edited without the
involvement of the woman in question and it wasn’t signed by her. It is a
manipulated piece of evidence out of which the Swedish authorities then
constructed a story of rape."

As to your attempted lazy smearing – it doesn't really do you any favours
here.

As a final plea, perhaps read-up on the details so you can get a better
understanding of the case:

[https://www.republik.ch/2020/01/31/nils-melzer-about-
wikilea...](https://www.republik.ch/2020/01/31/nils-melzer-about-wikileaks-
founder-julian-assange)

~~~
foldr
The key evidence comes from text messages and testimony from people other than
the two alleged victims.

If indeed this evidence was all fabricated (I doubt it, but who knows), then
the best venue for evaluating that claim would have been a Swedish court.

Now we will never really know exactly how strong the case was. But it was
strong enough to justify bringing Assange to trial, and he has done himself no
favours by hiding in an embassy for seven years.

------
malwarebytess
Cases like these reveal the rot at the heart of western governments. In what
sense is what Craig Murray has just relayed to us justice? It seems
perfunctory, a stage play, to disguise the reality that the judgement has
already been handed down.

I remember when it was denied, forcefully and repeatedly, for nearly a decade
that the US was behind the Swedish extradition conspiracy. That there was no
ongoing US attempt to get their hands on Julian. That he was in the embassy
for no good reason. Now we see that there was very good reason for him to
remain in that embassy. There is no justice when you cross a corrupt empire.

~~~
nuker
> rot at the heart of western governments

Lets name names. US and UK the lap dog.

~~~
rosege
And Australia (Source: Am Australian and Google Witness K for evidence)

~~~
ChuckNorris89
So, the Five Eyes countries basically.

...

And the EU countries.

...

And the non-EU countries.

...

Basically the whole world, if you piss off the rich and powerful you'll
suffer.

~~~
nuker
Nope. All of EU were decent on this, except Sweden, which was on and off and
on.

~~~
ChuckNorris89
Austria grounded the plane of the Bolivian president because the US thought
Snowden was on board and it's not even a member of NATO.

The US can persuade or twist the arm of any EU nation to get want it wants.
When dealing with the US, none of them will take the high road.

~~~
nuker
You're right. I dont recall any EU country offering asylum.

> When dealing with the US, none of them will take the high road

I think main pressure point is financial system. EU banks just cannot function
without US say so.

------
simion314
What a joke, with all the energy US and their friends put into it and they
still have to use such shameful tactics to block a fair trial. The already
poor image of Western powers is getting even worse, the fucking "values" are
shown to be just a propaganda, if you upset the leaders you don't get poisoned
but you get a similar bad faith( honestly I think if Assange was in US we
would have gotten the news that he committed suicide and for some reason the
cameras did not work and the guards were busy ).

~~~
raxxorrax
Overall it is a far, far greater threat to security than the necessary leak
itself. Not only do governments and their judiciary look weak and
hypocritical, they also actively undermine the trust in their own
institutions.

This fear to face these issues could really be the end of US hegemony.

~~~
dane-pgp
The implicit excuse of the US during the Cold War was "It's okay if we break a
few rules, because we're fighting against an opponent that is literally evil".

That excuse starts to break down when the two sides become more and more
similar, which might be what we're seeing now, but it's never a good situation
to be in, even before it breaks down.

See also, the internal US political scene.

------
tomalpha
The Assange saga is clearly very polarising. Different people have extremely
strong views on both sides.

Trying hard to steer a neutral course in this comment, there are a few things
that stand out to me in and about this article, and the case:

1\. The author is clearly on one of those sides

2\. The author, along with like-minded others, want and expect the court
hearings around the extradition to consider the case(s) in some detail.

3\. The state and, I'd guess other individuals with different views to the
author, want the court hearings to focus narrowly on the technical aspects of
the extradition process itself.

Personally I'm unconvinced by at least _some_ of the arguments that the author
puts forwards, and I would like to see further, more neutral reporting around
the case. The partisanship of the author (whether justified or not) on at
least some points makes it hard for me to have confidence in the rest of the
post.

~~~
implements
My understanding is that a journalist can receive and publish unlawfully
obtained material, but they can’t incite or assist someone to obtain it.

Does sufficient evidence exist that Assange broke US law? If so it would seem
that he’s extraditable - and I’m not sure how the ‘bigger picture’
(‘Whistleblower’ public interest, ‘time served’ in the Embassy) overrides UK’s
legal obligations here.

~~~
severine
You can read a different take here:
[https://www.emptywheel.net/2020/09/07/the-us-government-
form...](https://www.emptywheel.net/2020/09/07/the-us-government-formed-a-new-
understanding-of-wikileaks-after-2016/)

(edited to remove editorializing)

~~~
raxxorrax
It isn't a nuanced take at all. The supposed intelligence infrastructure
targeting the US is not supported by evidence. Even mentioning Trump and
hinting to alleged hypocrisy is pretty laughable and betray the author.

> in addition, the allegations of involvement in Russia in all this are well-
> founded. The folks involved in the LulzSec chatrooms now incorporated into
> Assange’s CFAA charge acknowledge there were Russians there as well, though
> explain that the whole thing was so chaotic [...]

Unsensible. We may find law and you can nail him on intricacies of it and
extradite him, but I doubt it leads to justice for showing evidence of an
illegal war of aggression. He basically just released info to the public. If
that is a crime, the judiciary might be in deep trouble indeed.

------
motohagiography
The Assange odyssey may be the Dreyfus Affair of our time.

As insane as this reads, the job of litigators is not to make sense, it is to
press whatever possible advantage they can construe. They are not in the
pursuit of truth, that is not what the court establishes. If a litigator is on
the receiving end of public outrage for things like the absolutely insane
assertions by the prosecution, they take it as credit for doing their job.
This professional contempt for truth and principle outside the narrow
constraints of legalism is what gives lawyers the reputation for being
assholes, and what makes some of them insufferable when their work habits
bleed into their personal lives.

The trouble in this case that I read from these updates is that the judge is
clearly acting like a second prosecutor. I blame it on a generation of people
who don't understand impartiality, and who see it as a weakness because they
don't need to be impartial if they "know" what they are encountering. Once
they have internalized the notion of history as progress, attacks on levers
and institutions that can facilitate it are attacks on progress itself. They
are litigating ideology, and law is just a host or vehicle. In exposing
corruption in the most powerful institutions in the world, to his persecutors
Assange's crimes are against progress itself, and I don't think they are
capable of impartiality.

~~~
toyg
Would have upvoted for the parallels to Dreyfus (which are there), but
downvoted for some reasoning in the last paragraph that I think are a bit of a
stretch. Bad judges have existed in governments of all ages, even when the
concept of "history as progress" didn't even exist (or was even the opposite,
with the judicial system feeling like the last defense against widespread
corruption and decay).

It's simply that judges are themselves the expression of the system that
selected them, and as such are naturally defensive towards the existing order
of things. To get where they are, they have made alliances, accepted
compromises, exchanged favors. They built a social capital that they would
stand to lose from upsets to the established order. We remember the times when
they go _against_ those insticts precisely because _they are so few and far
between_.

~~~
motohagiography
Judges aren't just bureaucrats. Their role is held to a higher standard than
petty interest. When they are compromised, they need to leave. The US system
has judges elected, where the british and commonwealth system is by
appointment, and few would argue that the mentally ill are not well
represented in both their ranks, but there is a level of petulance in some of
them that indicates risk of a total compromise of the institution.

------
tomalpha
[https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-
guidance/extradition](https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/extradition) has a
lot of details on what an extradition court hearing can/must consider, and the
legal basis of arguments against a non-consensual extradition (which this case
clearly is).

It bears reading through, regardless of your personal views on the case,
because this is what the UK's prosecution service thinks the law is. It's
likely to be the same or close to the UK Government / 'state' view too and
indicative of what the presiding magistrate in the case is working off.

------
fareesh
The fact that this is a relatively obscure story and the otherwise vocal
western media journalists who screech about press freedom when someone is mean
to them are so silent about it by comparison, is frankly really disgusting to
witness. It's embarrassing.

~~~
bboygravity
The political (US) indoctrination is incredibly effective in the Western world
I feel. I'm from The Netherlands (living abroad now in the EU) and most people
there believe that the 100% state sponsored news is mostly factual, with good
intent and unbiased, because _we are the good people_. This news is consumed
by the vast majority of Dutch. From what I've seen in other EU countries is
that their news systems are comparable (owned by a handful of companies and/or
completely reliant on state sponsoring).

Ask a person on the street about Assange and assuming they know who you're
talking about their image of him will most likely be: scary criminal sociopath
nerd rapist who leaked important military state secrets and doesn't wash
himself. "Coincidentally" that's the opinion in the best interest of the US
elite who's egos where hurt by Assange.

This is to say: the consent which the political US manufactures is extremely
effective outside of the US as well. It seems to me the US has full control
over media in any Western country for any issue that matters to the US.

At school we where/are actively taught that this sort of manipulation only
happens in evil dictatorships and can never ever happen "here". The majority
of people seem to believe this strongly.

I find all of this mind blowing and tragic.

When Assange gets sent to the US the feelings of the vast majority of people
in the Western world will be "ah, good, that's another bad guy out of the
way". And guess what: they'd think the same about Snowden if he ever gets
suicided/dissapeared/extradited/used as political change.

~~~
bgorman
This is one of the v things Donald Trump is helping address. He has called CNN
"fake news", and is generally making a mockery of the press and truth. Trump
is correct that CNN, MSNBC and the New York times are propoganda machines. It
if getting less subtle all the time

~~~
mullingitover
> Trump is correct that CNN, MSNBC and the New York times are propoganda
> machines.

Let's not delude ourselves: he's not complaining that they have a slant, he's
complaining that their slant doesn't always go his way. He also complains when
Fox News reports facts he doesn't like.

------
r721
Live updates on twitter (by Kevin Gosztola):
[https://twitter.com/kgosztola/status/1303251577344413696](https://twitter.com/kgosztola/status/1303251577344413696)

First day:
[https://twitter.com/kgosztola/status/1302888230115737600](https://twitter.com/kgosztola/status/1302888230115737600)

~~~
readred
thanks

------
Tepix
A farce. And a big disgrace for the UK.

~~~
jonathanstrange
Absolutely. Assange is facing up to 175 years in solitary confinement and
could not possibly get a fair trial in the US. Moreover, He has been illegally
recorded and spied upon for the past 7 years by the CIA, including
conversations with his lawyer. A case can hardly get more politically
motivated than this. He even received death threats from US politicians in the
past. It would be ridiculous to extradite anyone under such conditions.

~~~
mike_d
> He has been illegally recorded and spied upon

Which law in what country was broken?

The CIA is chartered to spy overseas, against foreigners. Assange is not in
the US, not an American citizen, and has ties to Russian intelligence. I'm not
aware of any law that affords him any protection.

~~~
bogle
Spying is, of course, illegal in every country that is spied upon. Assange has
been in Ecuador and the United Kingdom. Neither country may permit the
interception of confidential conversations between a client and their legal
counsel.

------
sschueller
Let's not forget this is a trial to shot the messenger of a war crime for
which no one has been held accountable for.

Hillary Clinton and many others actually made the remark that what Assange is
doing is putting American lives at risk. So in essence saying American lives
are worth more than other humans.

~~~
chrisweekly
Your comment is a tangent, but I feel compelled to point out that a US
Secretary of State has an obligation to prioritize American lives over those
of other countries' citizens.

~~~
pessimizer
There is absolutely no obligation of a US Secretary of State that they
consider the lives of Americans who murder other countries' citizens more
important than the lives of those other countries' citizens. I'm not sure
where you read or heard this.

~~~
chrisweekly
That's quite a leap, and a strawman "argument". I said nothing of the kind.

------
dalbasal
A lot of time has past since the Assange saga started, and the pertinence to
UK politics has gone from top-of-mind to minor. Combined with covid & brexit,
this farce has an unthinkable chance of passing without much attention.

To anyone in the UK, please make an effort to stay informed. Thank you to the
author for your coverage. You are a patriot, in George Orwell's sense of the
term.

------
gadders
Also worth mentioning that Craig Murray is facing legal issues of his own in
relation to the trial of Alex Salmond in Scotland:
[https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/09/craig-
murray...](https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/09/craig-murray-
defence-appeal-renewed/)

//edit// I posted this in case anyone wanted to chip in for his defence fund,
not to attack his credibility.

~~~
tilthis
Oh, I had not heard anything about this coverage of the Alex Salmond case.

Thanks very much for bringing this to my attention, I live in Scotland and the
whole thing has been very odd.

~~~
gadders
Yes, if Craig is to be believed it looks like there is a big slice of SNP in-
fighting involved.

~~~
M2Ys4U
Murray is not the most... reliable person ever, though. He certainly engages
in some odd conspiracy theories (see, for example, his stance that Russia was
not responsible for using Novichok in Salisbury in 2018)

~~~
hutzlibu
"see, for example, his stance that Russia was not responsible for using
Novichok in Salisbury in 2018"

I don't know anyhing about Murray, but tell me again, what was the evidence
again, that the russian government was behind it? And for what reason? And why
with a substance they are famous for? And not just a bullet/car accident? Why
use a very deadly secret toxin? (which happened to not be so deadly
apparently)

(And a substance btw. where the formula got out and is in posession for
examlple of western agencies)

~~~
myvoiceismypass
Not so deadly? Yes Skripel and his daughter survived, but the people who found
the bottle were not so lucky.

[https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jul/24/novichok-
vic...](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jul/24/novichok-victim-ill-
within-15-minutes-says-partner-charlie-rowley)

~~~
gadders
The poor lady that died and found the bottle was not in the best of health. It
was reported that she was a long term alcoholic.

------
kmlx
> Unlike our adversaries including the Integrity Initiative, the 77th Brigade,
> Bellingcat, the Atlantic Council and hundreds of other warmongering
> propaganda operations

wut?

~~~
pjc50
Craig Murray is a crank.

He's a former ambassador, and he's also right about quite a lot of things, but
he's also got the fundamental problem of seeing enemies everywhere.

Bellingcat, for example, is just another blogger, although doing "OSINT" to,
for example, locate the BUK launcher likely used in the shooting down of MH17,
and with various claims as to the involvment of GRU officers in poisonings
such as Salisbury and Navalny.

77th Brigade is a British Army propaganda unit. "Integrity Initiative" are
widely suspected to be such.

~~~
auggierose
As a former ambassador, he probably knows that enemies ARE everywhere.

------
techdragon
The more of these I read the stranger I find the conduct of Baraitser as a
Judge. I may not be an expert on English Law but it’s not hard to see how
under any kind of argumentative process of adjudication, where two sides
present their facts and are expected to cross examine, object, and argue as
part of the process... that someone could make any of the sorts of pre-written
statements that Baraitser has done on multiple occasions so far.

Baraitser continues to feel like someone who is merely going through the
motions waiting for their pay check and who would much rather not even be
there.

The pre-written statement stuff also has the stink of prejudice in the most
literal sense of the word. So I just cannot even fathom how it hasn’t
warranted immediate sanction given the stupid amount of evidence available.

~~~
wearsshoes
To be fair, if I were her I wouldn’t want to be there either. Two governments
breathing down my back, my career on the line? Even if I wasn’t only allowed
to preside this case because I had the right sympathies - how many other
things in my life will I sacrifice for one moment of integrity?

------
Semaphor
[https://outline.com/sVp2TY](https://outline.com/sVp2TY)

For those who also can’t concentrate on just reading the article thanks to the
scroll hijack

------
jjgreen
This story is pretty-much absent from the UK news. Radio 4's 6pm news had time
to report a magnitude 3.3 earthquake in Leyton Buzzard (no structural damage),
but a miscarriage of justice unrolling before their eyes? Not interested.

------
linspace
From the article:

"The reason given that only five of us were allowed in the public gallery of
some 40 seats was social distancing; except we were allowed to all sit
together in consecutive seats in the front row. The two rows behind us
remained completely empty."

I'm trying to understand nonetheless why still they chose to sit together.

------
GeneralTspoon
Can some legal eagle explain why a magistrate is presiding over the case,
rather than a judge?

(For those who don't know, in the UK a magistrate is just a layperson
volunteer, not a legally trained judge)

~~~
andyjohnson0
Not a legal eagle

Criminal cases in England and Wales always start in a magistrate's court. The
judge in this case, Vanessa Baraitser, is listed [1] as a "District judge
(magistrates’ courts)" \- despite the article describing her as "Magistrate
Baraitser". District Judges are full-time members of the judiciary, even
though they sit in a magistrate's court [2].

Obviously, the case will be considered by other judges on appeal.

[1] [https://www.judiciary.uk/about-the-judiciary/who-are-the-
jud...](https://www.judiciary.uk/about-the-judiciary/who-are-the-
judiciary/judicial-roles/judges/district-judge-mags-ct/)

[2] [https://www.judiciary.uk/about-the-judiciary/who-are-the-
jud...](https://www.judiciary.uk/about-the-judiciary/who-are-the-
judiciary/list-of-members-of-the-judiciary/dj-mags-ct-list/)

Edit: added "in England and Wales"

~~~
lawtalkinghuman
Also, extradition proceedings don't follow standard criminal procedure.

See s77(1) of the Extradition Act 2003...

> In England and Wales, at the extradition hearing the appropriate judge has
> the same powers (as nearly as may be) as a magistrates' court would have if
> the proceedings were the summary trial of an information against the person
> whose extradition is requested.

(A summary trial is a trial for a low-level offence - in the US, the
equivalent would be a misdemenor. "An information" is a slightly quaint
wording for what is basically equivalent to an indictment, except it isn't an
indictment because a summary offence isn't indictable.)

[https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/41/part/2/crosshea...](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/41/part/2/crossheading/the-
extradition-hearing)

In the magistrates' court, you either have a bench of three lay magistrates,
or a district judge. More serious issues, including almost all but the least
contentious extradition hearings, are likely to be heard by a DJ rather than a
lay bench, since a DJ has worked in legal practice in a way a lay magistrate
hasn't.

------
cutler
Anyone know what tech stack the original Wikileaks was built on? There's not
much on Google, it seems, other than much later when the Panama Papers were
released.

------
slim
I feel ashamed and powerless for not being able to help Assange

------
dgellow
The title seems to have a typo, it is the hearing day number 6, not number 2.

~~~
k1m
Thank you! Fixed.

~~~
mAritz
edit: In fact from what I can tell, this is all about day 1 of the hearing.
Day 2 is today.

According to several other sources [1][2] it seems to me like "2" was correct
and the title of the article is wrong. Or are they talking about different
things when they refer to this day number?

[1] from another comment here in this threrad
[https://twitter.com/kgosztola/status/1302888230115737600](https://twitter.com/kgosztola/status/1302888230115737600)
day 1 yesterday and day 2 today:
[https://twitter.com/kgosztola/status/1303251577344413696](https://twitter.com/kgosztola/status/1303251577344413696)

[2]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TKzXs6kXAac](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TKzXs6kXAac)
(German video summary by someone working in the EU parliament for a small
party - but it has "Tag 1" (Day 1) and yesterdays date in the title)

~~~
k1m
My guess is that he's numbering sequentially from the hearings earlier in the
year, e.g. [https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/02/your-man-
in-...](https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/02/your-man-in-the-
public-gallery-assange-hearing-day-1/)

------
mothsonasloth
Assange is the litmus test that privacy concerns are not safe from being
monopolised by one part of the political spectrum.

Before Trump and the Clinton leaks, Assange was a darling for the liberal
media and even on the conservative ring. Then when the leaks came out, Assange
became a figure of hate for the same liberal groups who were praising and
supporting him before.

Now ironically its people on both sides of the fringe that have remained
stalwart in supporting him. The middle have declared him "problematic" and
have decided to throw him under the carpet along with all the privacy concerns
and government overreach of surveillance that he and WikiLeaks had
highlighted.

Sure this is just human nature that people come and go out of favour, but this
180 flip is just hypocritical (especially with the Guardian becoming hostile
to him).

What we are seeing here in the court room, is powerful people who want rid of
him, not even treating him like a bargaining chip. Just literally wanting to
sweep him away like a nuisance.

~~~
croon
I'm digressing from this specific case, I too am a strong critic of the US
being globally handsy, but I instead want to focus on the public discourse.

There's nothing ironic or hypocritical about it.

You can appreciate earlier leaks about governmental/agency misconduct in the
pursuit of transparency.

Then wikileaks (if not Assange specifically) took it upon themselves to meddle
in elections, selectively leaking DNC hacked data and not the RNC equivalent,
antithetical to transparency.

Public opinion didn't do a 180, wikileaks did.

[https://apnews.com/ce9a4541f903109079900528d9f0a9e7](https://apnews.com/ce9a4541f903109079900528d9f0a9e7)

[https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-
senate/s...](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-
senate/senate-committee-concludes-russia-used-manafort-wikileaks-to-boost-
trump-in-2016-idUSKCN25E1US)

[https://theintercept.com/2018/02/14/julian-assange-
wikileaks...](https://theintercept.com/2018/02/14/julian-assange-wikileaks-
election-clinton-trump/)

~~~
monocasa
A) There was no successful RNC hack, even the US is saying that the attempt to
hack the RNC was foiled by the defenses the RNC had put in place.
[https://www.wsj.com/articles/republican-national-
committee-s...](https://www.wsj.com/articles/republican-national-committee-
security-foiled-russian-hackers-1481850043)

B) Since when is a journalist not allowed to report on information they have
that could affect an election result? Isn't that rather then "meddling",
instead 'the primary purpose of a free press'?

~~~
croon
A) [https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2017/jan/11/donald-
tru...](https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2017/jan/11/donald-trump/trump-
says-russians-were-unable-hack-republican-na/)

And also, though few details: [https://www.wired.com/2017/01/russia-hacked-
older-republican...](https://www.wired.com/2017/01/russia-hacked-older-
republican-emails-fbi-director-says/)

B) I don't know if you remember, but they didn't, they portioned it out for
optimal effect, teasing the drops on Twitter, not to mention coordinated with
Roger flippin Stone, and Russia.

Sure, if they are only given access to one side, they can only leak one side,
but you have to do some pretty spectacular mental gymnastics to defend that as
anything other than willful ignorance of your culpability. If it weren't for
the chat transcripts which paints a pretty clear picture of their intent.

~~~
pessimizer
Expecting a journalist to somehow balance the evidence of misdeeds between a
country's two ruling parties is bizarre, and not a standard any other news
outlet was held to over the same period.

You might as well criticize prosecutors for not bringing charges against one
Democrat each time they bring charges against one Republican.

What exactly did you expect to see in RNC leaks anyway? The utter collapse of
a party apparatus being bulldozed by Trump? If anything, you'd see them
working as hard against Trump as the Democrats worked against Sanders. _Leaks
from the RNC would benefit Trump._ The Steele dossier was a Republican
production, handed off to the Democrats when their primary ended. Bipartisan.

> coordinated with Roger flippin Stone, and Russia.

You're not making this up, somebody else did, but there's absolutely no
evidence of this. Some of the odd circumstantial cases made for this even
intentionally invert parts of the timeline. The largest and most advanced
intelligence apparatus in the history of the world has been able to offer no
evidence (and claims no evidence, just delivers summaries of the consensus of
executives.) Roger Stone, Donald Trump, and Julian Assange must be the
smartest people in the history of the world.

With Q, Russiagate, and Judeo-Bolshevism coming back in the form of Soros-
Antifa theories, I'm terrified.

~~~
dane-pgp
> Expecting a journalist to somehow balance the evidence of misdeeds between a
> country's two ruling parties is bizarre, and not a standard any other news
> outlet was held to over the same period.

True, people excuse journalists for showing partisan bias all the time (at
least, when the bias is towards their preferred party, although they may not
call it bias). Also, we might excuse a journalist for being biased against a
politician who literally joked about killing them, as Clinton did if this
claim from WikiLeaks is true (or Assange may have believed it was true):

[https://truepundit.com/under-intense-pressure-to-silence-
wik...](https://truepundit.com/under-intense-pressure-to-silence-wikileaks-
secretary-of-state-hillary-clinton-proposed-drone-strike-on-julian-assange/)

~~~
croon
[https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/julian-assange-drone-
strik...](https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/julian-assange-drone-strike/)

[https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/true-
pundit/](https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/true-pundit/)

~~~
dane-pgp
Thanks for the Snopes link, as I was wondering what evidence there was for the
claim.

> Rating: Unproven

> On 4 October 2016 Clinton answered a question about whether the rumor was
> accurate, responding that she didn’t “recall any joke … [reference to
> targeting Assange with a drone] would have been a joke”

Oh, well if she "does not recall" it (and I'm sure she has a great memory[0])
and if she'd only be _joking_ about killing him then he'd have no reason to
not want her becoming president.

[0] [https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2008/mar/25/hillary-
cl...](https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2008/mar/25/hillary-
clinton/video-shows-tarmac-welcome-no-snipers/)

~~~
croon
It's an unproven claim only reported on a website known for bullshit, but
sure.

~~~
dane-pgp
The original report may not be credible in itself, but if a presidential
candidate is accused of glibly discussing murdering someone, and their best
defence is "I do not recall" and "I was only joking", then you can maybe
understand why Assange might believe he was safer under a Trump presidency.

It's not like Assange had to worry about being shot on Fifth Avenue.

------
scoot_718
Surprised anyone would waste their time defending Assange.

------
raxxorrax
If accusers were kicked out for theft, lying and stealing, you can reasonably
sure the FBI made a deal like a good mafia would.

