“There will be witnesses called today… probably gonna hear more arguments basically dismissing all these absurdities &the claims that Julian is not a journalist and his activity outlined in this horrendous indictment are not journalistic..
"Not withstanding whether you think it out to be you must be aware that... under the Official Secret Acts 1984 there is no defence in the public interest"
Clive Stafford Smith: No, it wouldn’t.
The people who are being "outed as it were by WikiLeaks" is the subject of the prosecution says James Lewis QC for the US government.
James Lewis QC: I think you're completely wrong Mr Stafford Smith... because the government have explicitly said in the indictment...
Clive Stafford Smith: "I think I can actually.."
James Lewis QC "Can you show me in the indictment where it says publishing to the public"
James Lewis QC: So you are saying [the US attorney is lying]?
Clive Stafford Smith: "Where is it that he says that we won't have an evidene on the expert of conspiracy?"
Firstly, have you ever been in a position to classify national security?
Clive Stafford Smith: No, I have not
The answer to your question is no I have not sat down and issued a report”
What they have to prove are 3 things:
3rd one is "disclosure of documents must be potentially damaging ot the United States or potentially useful to an enemy of the United States."
So going back to your WS par 36:... It's quite a sweeping statement isn't it?
It is and let me say why I said it. But if you look over the last 19 years of my govt's response to 9/11 beyond torture and assasination the single most damaging thing has been the overclassification of information.
Clive Stafford Smith: Well it is difficult. [ Not necessarily because Americans reveal it]... [He does accept it isn't proper to reveal identities when its not neccessary]
Quotes from a book which said "Julian didn’t seem concerned" about revealing identities “Well they’re informants he said, so if they get killed they got it coming to them. They deserve it” Mr Assange is alledged to have said according to this book.
Clive Stafford Smith says evidence can be introduced via expert testimony that goes beyond what is alleged in the indictment.
Court adjourned briefly so defence can speak to Mr Assange
Documents relating to national defence -, detainee assessment briefs; cables; Rules of Engagement; and documents containing the names of individuals
It has been suggested to you that the only cables subject to the prosecution is the subject of the names. Is that a correct reading of the charges as you ...
Clive Stafford Smith: No, it isn’t, but I think it misses the point about the nature of how the US engages in its prosecutions at any rate.
Clive Stafford Smith: Other than detainees informing by other detainees. But ultimately that was published by the US government at the end anyway.
Clive Stafford Smith: [Can’t comment on it]
MS: Do you know Luke Harding?
Clive Stafford Smith: I do.
MS: Do you know he was responsible for...
CSS: [No comment]
Judge: It sounds like you are cross-examining your own witness.
MS: This book was presented by the prosecution.
[No further questions. Court adjourned]
"Assange and WikiLeaks Redacted Documents and Protected Sources - Defence Team"
JL QC: “I’m telling you what the case is. It is our case”
Judge: “Not something which requires determination by me now”
Judge: “If it is, no doubt, it will be raised in due course”.
[Professor Feldstein is now being secured to continue his testimony from yesterday]
Mark Summers QC: It is alledged that WikiLeaks publications were criminal because they disclosed names of individuals. How do you respond?
prosecute him for publishing information without the same theory being
then there is no way to prosecute Assange.”
Comey suggested “putting a head on a pike as a message” and Trump recommended “putting reporters in jail.” Three days later, he instructed his attorney general to investigate “criminal leaks” of “fake”
CIA director Mike Pompeo publicly attacked WikiLeaks as a “hostile intelligence service” that uses the First
“pressuring” their prosecutors to outline an array of potential criminal charges against him,
First Amendment issues involved and a “vigorous debate” ensued. Two prosecutors involved in
the case, James Trump and Daniel Grooms, reportedly argued against charging Assange.
I understand that the grand jury was ongoing as I covered it as a reporter no as a lawyer.
Professor Feldstein: That's a good question. I don't know, no doubt there are things I would do differently if I had.
JL QC: is now suggesting the reason Prof Feldstein did not incude a WaPo article in his second report (though he did refer to it in a footnote) is that there was something in it he didn't want..
Why did you not include those paragraphs if you are an unbiased expert?
What was also in the public domain was "Assange's arguments are contradicted by judicial findings made int he US. On March 4... US District Judge Barbara... was persuaded that there was ongoing investigation".
Why didn't you mention that in your report?
James Lewis QC: Quotes a tweet from WikiLeaks.
Doesn't this indicate that Assange didn't belive Obama had decided not to prosecute?
Prof Feldstein: Agreed.
Prof Feldstein: I don't necc agree
I wouldn't necc. infer that
I don't know what the defence team think?