Thread by @SMaurizi

1. Julian #Assange extradition hearing. Day 2: US lawyer Clive Stafford Smith, founder of @reprieve, called to testify by the JA defence confirms how #WikiLeaks documents have allowed investigations on serious human Rights violations

2. US lawyer, Clive Stafford Smith, founder of @Reprieve, called to testify by JA’s defence confirms how #WikiLeaks #Guantanamo files (#GitmoFiles) supported his work on Guantanamo

3. Clive Stafford Smith,founder of @Reprieve: shocked by what my government did, tortures like those by the Spanish Inquisition: strappado

4. Clive Stafford Smith,founder of @Reprieve: we used #wikileaks documents to bring a case to the #InternationalCriminalCourt

5. US counsel now cross-examining US lawyer, Clive Stafford Smith, founder of @Reprieve, called to testify by JA’s defence

6. US counsel, James Lewis, to US lawyer, Clive Stafford Smith, founder of #Reprieve: US is prosecuting JA exclusively for publishing documents containing unredacted names of people in places like #Afghanistan

7. Julian #Assange intervenes protesting against US counsel’s claiming US is prosecuting JA just for publishing unredacted documents containing the names of informants in places like Afghanistan. Judge Baraitser silences him

11. Clive Stafford Smith: I have seen hundreds and hundreds of cases, when we classify evidence of torture, that’s wrong

12. US counsel, James Lewis, now quoting from the book of the former #Guardian’s head of investigations, David Leigh, alleging #Assange put at risk informants in Afghanistan

13. US counsel,James Lewis, insists obsessively that the US don’t prosecute #Asaange for publishing secret documents,but rather for publishing unredacted documents putting lives at risk

14. JA defence, Mark Summer, now debunking US counsel’s argument that the US is NOT prosecuting JA for publishing documents revealing tortures, targeted assassinations etc, but rather prosecuting selected disclosures of documents containing unredacted names of informants etc

15. JA’s defence, Mark Summer, to Clive Stafford Smith: do you know that @lukeharding1968 was responsible for fabricating stories?

16. lunchtime. Hearing will resume at 2 pm

17. Wonder why the hearing hasn’t restarted yet. However, the most important info so far: how the US counsel is trying to depict the prosecution of JA strictly narrowed to publication of unredacted documents containing informants’ names

18. Don’t forget: 10 years after these #WikiLeaks publications including unredacted documents the US hasn’t been able to produce a shrewd of evidence that an informant/source/soldier died/was injured/damaged by these revelations.

19. It’s unbelievable that @Amnesty and other important observers have been denied permission to monitor the Julian #Assange extradition hearing via videolink: they are highly-qualified observers

20. Apologies: the hearing is supposed to restart at 2
pm London-time. I got confused by the fact I am Italy-based

21. You have to realise I am covering #Assange hearing as an investigative journalist who spent 1 year working JUST on cables: it was so hard and intense to read and redact, and now the US try to depict all this work as just dumping stuff on the Internet putting lives at risk

22. I was just disconnected from the videolink and I am trying getting assistance to get connected again to cover the JA heAring

23. I am still waiting to be reconnected to the videolink service to cover the Julian #Assange extradition hearing: I have called the helpline and the court: no access to the hearing. This service is such a disaster

24. I was just connected to@the court and can finally cover again the Julian #Assange hearing

25. JA’s defence just called Mark Feldstein, professor of Journalism at the university of Maryland, to testify

26. prof Feldstein: government’s indictments depict journalistic activities ( like soliciting info) in a nefarious way

27. Prof Feldstein: Obama Admin was very eager to charge #Assange but concluded it would have been unconstitutional

28. Prof Feldstein: under Trump everything changed when it comes to prosecuting journalists

29. In 2019, WashPost reported two prosecutors ( James Trump and Daniel Grooms) assigned to the JA case were against charging JA.

30. US counsel, James Lewis to prof Feldstein: please give answers no speeches, answer concisely. Weird request: Feldstein has answered concisely from the very beginning

31. US counsel, James Lewis, is trying to put depict prof Feldstein as an expert who has biases and omitted important info in his witness statement

32. US counsel, James Lewis,to prof Feldstein: you’re an expert, you are supposed to be neutral,why haven’t you mentioned in your statement that the investigation by Obama Admin on JA continued under Trump Admin?

33. US counsel, James Lewis, is doing all he can to make prof Feldstein appears as a biased expert when stating that the Obama Admin decided not to prosecute JA. It’s clear how Lewis is trying to descredit Prof Feldstein

34. Unbelievable how many energies the US counsel, James Lewis,is spending on demolishing the argument that Obama Admin did decide not to charge JA and how hard he is trying to undermine the credibility of Prof Feldstein for arguing so

35. In a nutshell: In his cross-examination of Prof Feldstein, the US counsel,James Lewis,is trying to:
Demolish Feldstein’s credibility as an impartial expert+demolish the argument Obama Admin didn’t charge JA whereas Trump did+demolish the NYT argument against prosecution

36. US counsel,James Lewis: the indictment contains 3 counts just for publishing classified documents,however those 3 counts narrowly refer to docs containing unredacted names putting lives at risk

37. US counsel,James Lewis, heavily relies on former Guardian’s David Leigh to argue Julian #Assange put informants in Afghanistan at risk. NO other sources a part from Leigh and @lukeharding1968 so far

38. US counsel,James Lewis:in order to convict JA the US government must prove that #WikiLeaks publications were damaging, must prove harm

39. US counsel,James Lewis, trying to smash prof Feldstein’s argument that JA prosecution is politically motivated

40. JA defence to prof Feldstein: how active to the NYT in assisting Daniel Ellsberg in getting out the Pentagon Papers? Feldstein: very active.

41. JA defence to prof Feldstein: what if the hacking had as purpose to make more difficult to identify the source? feldstein: protecting sources is a moral duty

42. hearing is out: it will resume tomorrow