Thread by @JuanLPassarelli

Second part of day 7: Carey Shenkman Constitutional Scholar and Lawyer.

Thread:

Surprise, surprise! Tech issues again!
#AssangeCase

The court tech people from their living room:
#AssangeCase

Tech issues are getting worse, we could hear Shenkman, now he's inaudible.
#AssangeCase

The tech guys in the Crown Prosecution Service:

Mr. Shenkman has to hold his telephone to his ear for the next several hours and the sound is still isn't great.

Shenkman: The Espionage Act came to life what any scholar of the first amendment would say as one of the most repressive periods of the time.
#AssangeCase

Shenkman: The espionage act is extraordinarily broad. It is one of the most contentious laws in the US. My opinion is consistent with what any serious scholar would say about the law.
#AssangeCase

Shenkman: There is no precedent for any journalist being successfully prosecuted under this law.
#AssangeCase

The espionage act is 'extraordinarily broad' it encompasses 'national defence information' which is much broader than classified information, it allows prosecution for non-classified information as well.
#AssangeCase

Shenkman: No attempts to use the act to prosecute journalist have ever come to fruition because there were 1st amendment concerns, there has been opposition from the media, and there is no coherent way to draw a line between one journalist and all journalists.
#AssangeCase

Prosecution: starts questioning by asking him if he represented #JulianAssange.

Shenkman: There was limited representation but that does not have any relation to the historical and legal framework that I'm providing to this court.
#AssangeCase

Clair Dobbin from the prosecution is asking Shenkman about a bundle that was sent to him at 3am his time.
Shenkman has not seen it and was not aware of it.
#AssangeCase

Dobbin refers to an article he co-wrote and where he is referred as member of #Assange's legal team.

Shenkman: I work with Michael Ratner dealing with questions of international law. The reason I have a byline on this piece is because I provided research on UN.
#AssangeCase

Dobbin: You describe #Assange as being a victim of the UK, is that right?

Shenkman: That's right, I'm a human rights lawyer and every country has a duty to human rights.

Dobbin: Trying to disregard Shenkman's credibility by citing objectivity.

Shenkman: That's right and my historical analysis on the Espionage Act has nothing to do with other parts of this case, I don't write about Arbitrary Detention or the UK obligations on Human Rights.

The prosecution now moves on to ask the legendary question: Are you doing this pro bono I assume?
Shenkman: Why do you assume that?
Dobbin: I ask the questions.
Shenkman: I was just curious as to why you're asking, no I am being paid as I have taken time to do the report.

The prosecution is going on to questions that don't relate to the speciality of Shenkman, the judge has asked twice the relevance.
It all relates to the Obama decision not to prosecute Assange at the time.
Cont..

Shenkman: I can see your line of questioning lets get to the point, there simply was no indictment by the Obama administration.
#AssangeCase

Dobbin: I'm going to move on to the area that you say you are an expert....
This questioning is painful!

Shenkman: The issues that you are raising right now are hypotheticals and I don't understand how I can contribute to that.
#AssangeCase

Dobbin: Do you think that a government employee who steals government information are not entitled to first amendment defence.
Shenkman: I cannot answer these hypothetical questions.

Dobbin keeps on making hypotheticals and Shenkman keeps on debating that all of her questions depend on the situations.

Dobbins says to the judge I've ask the witness questions that require short answers.
Baraitser: I'm not going to hear that, I you haven't developed your case within your time and the witness has been as helpful as he can to you.
End court.
#AssangeCase