Thread by @kgosztola

At Woolwich courthouse in London for Day 2 of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange’s week-long extradition hearing

This will be thread for today’s proceedings.

Court begins with Edward Lewis, prosecutor, objecting to defense arranging through court a transcript of proceedings without notifying prosecution. #Assange

Prosecutor says everyone should be on “same playing field and at the moment we’re not.” Because defense has a transcript and prosecutor has not worked out process for paying and obtaining transcript #Assange

Defense is paying for private transcript through court company. They will give prosecution access to copy as long as prosecution shares in costs #Assange

Defense raises issue of alleged mistreatment of Assange. He was handcuffed 11 times, strip searched multiple times, and moved between cells yesterday. Judge is, once again, insisting no authority to do anything about it. “Powers are very limited in this respect.”

Prosecutor won’t speak into the microphone. Keeps it off to the side, and we in the press annex cannot hear a word. #Assange

Defense is going over what they claim are examples of Zakrzewski abuse, which means offenses in extradition request are false or outlined inaccurately as proffered by the prosecution #Assange

Defense: “False allegation” “Provably wrong.”

That Assange enabled Manning to log on to secret network with databases of information known as SIPRnet

Defense also says it is “provably false” that “Assange knowingly put people’s lives at risk.”

He mentions this is what US argues to get around First Amendment issues implicated in “pure publication counts.”

Defense: “The case has lies, lies, and more lies.” #Assange

Defense refers to Chelsea Manning’s plea statement. This is the key statement she made about her disclosures, which prosecutors desperately want to undermine. This is part of why she was subpoenaed to appear before grand jury and is still in jail. #Assange

Defense argues allegation about decrypting hash value to gain access to NetCentric diplomacy database (US State Embassy cables) on 8 an 10 of March 2010 is flawed because the allegation ignores how she released Reykjavik cable and already had access #Assange

Defense insists logging into database of cables with different account wouldn’t have made difference because database tracked users by their IP address

Judge asks, did Chelsea Mannning know that?

Defense: It’s agreed upon evidence in the court martial record. #Assange

Defense is going over the allegations that center on “Most Wanted Leaks” list.

Background is outlined about this collaborative list that were highly sought after concealed documents among journalists, NGOs, human rights organizations, activists, etc #Assange

Defense: “Absolute fantasy” that Manning uploaded cables because she saw the “Most Wanted Leaks” list #Assange

Judge mentions the noise of Julian Assange supporters outside the court, who are chanting. It is making it hard for Assange and others to hear. Journalists in the press annex struggle to concentrate and hear audio from feed

Defense is going over chronology and giving judge a sense of redaction process for cables that Assange and WikiLeaks pursued with media partners - Guardian, Der Spiegel, Le Monde, El Pais

Defense refers to expert testimony from John Goetz, investigative journalist who worked with Der Spiegel on cables in 2010-2011

There was agreement to notify WikiLeaks of “problematic cables” requiring redaction #Assange

Defense: Local media partners in specific countries were part of a “regional redaction process” #Assange

Defense: State Department was part of redaction process initially. Der Spiegel talked with officials who plgave numbers of cables to handle carefully. Those numbers were passed to WikiLeaks. #Assange

Mark Sommers, defense attorney: “Can it be said the [extradition request] represents a fair or accurate representation of what occurred?” #Assange

Another witness referenced, who provided expert testimony for defense, is Christian Grothoff, a professor of computer science. He says the cables were encrypted and there was process for partners to decrypt. Extensive security for keeping contents safe #Assange

Defense highlights book by Guardian journalists Luke Harding and David Leigh, which included password to unredacted materials. It was published in February 2011.

Enabled world to access all cables without redactions, and it circulated on internet before September 2011 #Assange

Mark Sommers, defense: “Notion that Mr. Assange deliberately put lives at risk by dumping unredacted database of cables is knowingly inaccurate.”

Defense outlines chronology of what happened after Harding and Leigh published password to unredacted cables. Assange called US State Department. “I don’t understand why you’re not seeing the urgency of this. Unless we do something, then people’s lives are at risk.”

This call to State Department by Assange, and Sarah Harrison, happened after Der Freitag pieced together story and told world it had a key. WikiLeaks warned US officials they had an emergency

Assange and Harrison try to contact UN ambassador to UK. “Very large emergency.” US cables accessed by someone else and they’re about to be dumped unredacted. They urged escalation of UN program to notify people who may be in danger.

Following the Freitag story, Assange gave publication a call and said “fears for the safety of informants.” He begged the publication not to make any wider what they discovered, according to defense

Chelsea Manning’s grand jury resistance is enormous for the Assange defense. By never saying a word about her statement to court in 2013 that may have contradicted it, the defense can cite as reliable chronology to rebut and undermine the flawed chronology of US case

In great detail, I previously addressed the way Chelsea Manning’s chronology conflicted with chronology in US case against Assange and why that mattered: link.medium.com/zZUn9RlLm4

Defense goes over allegations against Assange related to detainee assessment briefs from Guantanamo and rules of engagement materials on Iraq, contending the decrypting of hash value conversation has no connection to Manning’s ability to access and disclose materials. #Assange

Once more, defense makes point in testimony about how access was tracked. The detainee assessment briefs did not require a username nor did it require a user account nor did it require a password. It was tracked by IP addresses. So why would she need decryption? #Assange

Lunchtime. I will add more detail from last bit of proceedings shortly.

Prior to lunch, defense went over chronology around rules of engagement files from Iraq that prosecution has seized upon to disingenuously assert she provided to Assange because he “solicited” through “Most Wanted Leaks” list.

But defense made clear Manning disclosed the rules of engagement files on Iraq as context for the “Collateral Murder” video, which exposed an Apache helicopter attack in Baghdad in 2007 #Assange

Defense contended long before any chat about hash values and decryption Manning had access to rules of engagement files. Her own statement reflects her decision, and it was not related to “Most Wanted Leaks” list promoted by WikiLeaks #Assange

For example of how this allegation falls apart, defense said she uploaded US Military Rules of Engagement in Iraq for 2006 and 2007. The list requested 2007-2008. She didn’t provide 2008 but did provide 2006, which wasn’t requested #Assange

The defense also pointed out that the list requested Rules of Engagement files from Afghanistan. None were ever passed to WikiLeaks #Assange

Defense: Is it fair, proper, and accurate to allege that Assange solicited Iraq War Logs?

“No, they’re not on it” - as in not on “Most Wanted Leaks” list

On the Iraq War Logs, the defense says Assange wanted more time to work on the batch of documents. That bothered some of the media partners who were cooperating on redaction of Iraq data. And WikiLeaks replaces names with blanks or XXXXXX.

Defense says of Afghan War Logs that Goetz of Der Spiegel found WikiLeaks was taking more extreme measures than he had ever previously observed as a journalist, all to ensure were kept secure. Crypto phones and encrypted chat used. #Assange

According to defense, Manning’s computer in facility where she worked was re-imaged on March 2, 2010. It was wiped. Like others, she had put unauthorized movies, music, and software on her computer. Now she needed to crack a password to get those materials on again #Assange

Defense referred to a prosecution witness who testified Manning had great expertise and openly talked about starting a business to crack passwords. She had talked about cracking hash tables. Perhaps, that better explains the exchange in chat logs with Assange

Defense says if true facts are fed into dual criminality, strip away false allegations related to decrypted hash value conversations and solicitation, “what comes out isn’t criminal” in US but it also isn’t criminal as a matter of English law #Assange

Prosecution responds to defense, maintaining all that they have to offer is innuendo and speculation. Court doesn’t actually have jurisdiction to review abuse of process matters at this stage #Assange

Jumping ahead, prosecutor James Lewis says of Chelsea Manning’s 2013 statement to court, “You can’t rely on self-serving statement without any qualification whatsoever.” It is not reliable, truthful, and unimpeachable statement. It is consistent either her trying to help Assange

Before, prosecutor said on Assange being offered diplomatic status by Ecuador and indicted by US on same day: “Why does it matter in these proceedings?” And how could that posssibly be described as abusive?

Prosecutor astoundingly asserted that it made no specific allegations related to “Most Wanted Leaks” list. When they bring it up, it is to make a “general allegation” not linked to any specific databases or disclosures #Assange

In other words, mind-bogglingly, it is wrong for defense to look at each disclosure and say it was never solicited by Assange through the “Most Wanted Leaks” list. “That’s not how it’s put in the request.” Plainly puzzling #Assange

The prosecutor really said they were talking about the WikiLeaks website, not the “Most Wanted Leaks” list, even though they made it central part of their narrative of alleged solicitation. #Assange

Court adjourned. Look for a live video report on Day 2 very soon and then like yesterday there will be a written report #Assange

Here is link for video for report on Day 2 of Assange’s hearing. Going live now youtube.com/c/shadowproofc…

Assange extradition hearing: Chelsea Manning's grand jury resistance irritates prosecutors and seems like a major hurdle for them shadowproof.com/2020/02/25/ass…