#JulianAssange hearings Part 2 - Day 3 (Thread)

Court is expected to sit from 10:30 am rather than 10am to offer #Assange the opportunity to meet with his lawyers due to the defence team's inability to access their client after the end of each day.

via @SputnikInt
John Shipton - #JulianAssange's father - arrives on his birthday to observe the third day of his son's substantive extradition hearings.

He gives @SputnikInt his brief view as to the events of yesterday's hearings.

#Assange
.@suigenerisjen (one of #JulianAssange's lawyers who will testify Trump admin offered a pardon to #Assange via congressman Dana Rohrabacher in exchange for proving that Russia was not the source of the #DNCLeaks sputniknews.com/uk/20200225107…) arrives w/ @StellaMoris1 Assange's partner
Professor Paul Rogers, emeritus professor of Peace Studies at Bradford University, is now giving testimony having submitted a report to the court. He is a political scientist specialising in international security.
Prof Rogers has concluded that Assange has very clear political opinions - and the clash of those views and successive US admin, especially the current one - suggest that he is regarded primarily as a political opponent who must experience the full wrath of government.
Prof Rogers: In the case of Afghanistan and in particular Iraq the US had a very strong commitment to going to war… and the belief was that the early success in terminating the Taliban regime was that the US had “gone back on track as a state”.
WikiLeaks revelations exposed “the fiction of success” revealing that Afghanistan was not really “under control” confirming the view of some analysts that the war had gone wrong from the start. Evidence published by WikiLeaks confirmed this to a degree of...
...detail that was not previously available.

In the case of Iraq WikiLeaks documents also confirmed why and how the war had gone so badly wrong from the perspective of the United States. Including an appreciation of the number of civilians killed "maybe possibly the most...
...important part" the information WikiLeaks provided from the Iraq War logs was an additional 15,000 killed on top of that recorded by Iraq Body Count. The shift in public knowledge has been brought about in significant part via unauthorised disclosures.
Put it this way “He helped form the WikiLeaks party in 2012 to fight for a seat in the Australian Senate… at the central of this is his view to put far greater attention to human rights… accountability and transparency.. at the root of this is a libertarian view of the need of
individuals and the public … to Assange clearly has a political view or stance. He is coming from a much more libertarian standpoint that is “very clear cut”.
"A wider political view" than merely publishing US classified documents they have also published docs connected to trade unions, NGOs & corporations.
“The answer is very clear that Assange is opposed – to put it very bluntly because of where he is coming from [as well as the publishing of classified US documentation…] – essentially the root of this is the belief that Assange and what he stands for represents some kind of
threat to normal political endeavour.”

This does appear to be a political trial for many reasons of course – the return to political motivation is a political high level… an unusual level for most Western governments. Atypical of American and Western administrations for...
many years.

[ Summary: I think the most important issue is obviously for his concern for accountability and transparency… Mr Trump appears to take consideral antipathy to President Obama and what he did during his administration. I think it is reasonable to assume that that
is one reason the current admin might take a different stance to Obama]

He continous to explain that a combination of factors show that the prosecution against Mr Assange is politically motivated. See his full statement submitted to court here: dontextraditeassange.com/wp-content/upl…
Refugee Convention in 1951 and the environment in which it came from... the Refugee Charter is very clear is that political opinions... is a valid reason to seek refugee status. I think it is very clear that Mr Assange is motivated in very large measure by his political stance...
Mr Lewis makes a formal objection regarding leading questions made by Ed Fitzgerald QC during this exchange. Judge says that she was "allowing leading" questions in this case.
As a political scientist Prof Rogers sees significance in the fact the Trump admin is prosecuting Mr Assange after it appeared the Obama admin had decided not to proceed with a prosecution due to 1st Amendment concerns.
James Lewis QC is now cross-examining Professor Paul Rogers. He has asked him to define what a political opinion is.
The internet connection became problematic so I couldn't hear his answer to this question.

Lewis QC interrupted him asking him for "shortish answers" saying "it is not a time to give a speech". Defence objected saying he was giving an answer not a speech. Judge seemed to agree.
Professor Paul Rogers: In particular we see this frequently his concern is what he calls a transnational elite of joint governance. The definition of political opinion has expanded particularly over the last 50 years.
James Lewis QC: Is simply being a journalist a person who expresses political opinions.

Prof: Not necessarily.
James Lewis interrupts him again to make clear he only wants answers to questions he has asked "we will get along much better" if I ask a question and you answer them.
James Lewis QC : Just being the owner or publisher of a media or press entity does not neccessarily mean you are a holder of political opinion.

Prof: Not neccessarily, but usually.
James Lewis QC: What are Mr Assange's political opinions? Is it transparency at any cost?

Prof: [not verbatim] Not neccessarily at any cost but wider levels than is often held.
JL QC: His opinions include that secrecy must be disregarded even when it exists to protect public safety?

Prof Rogers: It is very difficult to give straight yes or no answers to complex questions. So I would have to say not necessarily.
There is now an issue whereby the professor can't see specifically a document being referred to and Mr Lewis is clearly frustrated though Professor Rogers does appear to be doing his best to find the neccessary exhibits in a bundle that is hundreds of pages long.
There is an issue of a massive bundle of a thousand pages being sent recently online to the professor yesterday which he didn't have the ability to print at home and can't access the documents via his computer while using the video link service. He is very apologetic.
[Prof Not verbatim] I have been very clear as I see it as what the basis of his political opinions. It doesn’t mean that I agree with everything he says or does. I think he has said some things which I consider to be objectionable. But it is clear that he holds political opinions
... which is a key aspect as to why he is being targeted [once again not verbatim quote].
James Lewis QC: Let’s deal with you being an expert witness. You understand that as an expert you are under the continuing obligation to be unbiased. It is an expert’s duty to consider all evidence?

Professor Paul Rogers: Yes.
James Lewis QC: Assistant U.S. Attorneys Gordon D. Kromberg explicitly refutes that this is a political prosecution but rather an evidence-based prosecution.

Prof: Yes.

James Lewis QC: Why don't you mention any part of Mr Kromberg's statement in this report?
Prof [not verbatim] I was asked to deal specifically with specific passages within my area of expertise.

Essentially I see the wider perspective of political change within the US as the one which is more important here I take it as read that there are legitimate views from other
sides including Mr Kronberg and I am happy to explore that now.

[Ed Fitzgerald QC interrupts asking that a specific passage makes Prof. position clear.]
James Lewis QC: Is now quoting from a statement from Mr Kronberg saying the indictment is not politically motivated & that a grand jury found there to be sufficient evidence for a prosecution to go ahead. Why didn't you mention by this at all in your report he asked?
They are ping-ponging back and fourth on this issue as to why he didn't cite the USG position in his report if he is an "unbiased expert".
JL QC: What evidence do you have that the actual prosecutors in this case have prosecuted him due to political bias rather than the strength of the evidence.

Prof: It depends which prosecutors you are referring to. If we are referring to the people at the top…

....
JL QC: Trump is not a prosecutor.

Prof: No... but the person who directs the department of justice is essentially a political appointee
Prof: My concern is that a higher level at that and essentially, I would take it as read is what the ordinary staff at the DOJ would behave properly.

I apologies if I should have made it clear in the statement but I am more than happy to make that clear now.
Prof: What I am concerned with is why is that from a political dimension is that these charges are brought now but now 8 or 9 years ago.

James Lewis QC: You are essentially saying the US prosecutors are acting in bad faith?
Prof: No, certainly not. Im saying that at a different level a political decision was taken to investigate this further.

JLQC: What difference does that make if a crime has been committed if there is evidence of a crime?
Prof: Has the evidence changed or much more evidence come to light as is the case in a cold case? I don't think that is the case here.

James Lewis QC: Let's now deal with your experience with the Army.
JL QC: Would say the prosecutions of soldiers in Northern Ireland being politically motivated since a decision has been taken to prosecute them after they were told originally they would be free from prosecution and now politicians have pushed for them to be prosecuted anyway?
Prof: It is difficult, I would have to see more information on the subjects but many soldiers have told me they do feel betrayed.
JL QC: If this was a political prosecution wouldn’t you expect him to be prosecuted for publishing the collateral murder video?

Prof: We come back repeatedly to the wider political dimension as to why this is being done in the first place. … there is a strong political...
motivation to bring this prosecution at this stage.

[More back and forth in this matter between Lewis and Professor Paul Rogers]
10 minute break
They are back and largely on the same issue as to political motivation vs legitimate criminal prosecution.
It has finally reached the point where James Lewis QC accused Professor Paul Roberts of "giving a biased opinion in defence of Mr Assange".

Professor Roberts responded that his words were being misinterpreted.

[END OF CROSS]

Fitzgerald QC is no re-examining Prof Roberts.
Rebecca Vincent (@rebecca_vincent) of Reporters Without Borders explains the difficulty of her & her colleague in gaining access to the court to observe the hearings despite the apparently large number of free seats in the public gallery.

#JulianAssange

via @SputnikInt
Cars, vans and motorcycles honk their horns showing apparent solidarity with #JulianAssange and his supporters around the Old Bailey in central London.
Five minutes into the restart of the hearing. No sound via video link for observer press. :(
Now we can hear someone else via video link, an apperent Witness due to testify, but neither him nor us can hear the court.

Judge has just risen, presumably for this matter to be resolved.
Professor Trevor Timm, co-founder of Freedom of the Press Foundation is now testifying via video link

Org is 5 yrs old, exists to protect freedom of the press in 21st century & systematically track press freedom violations/generally advocate for strong press freedoms in the US
Mark Summers QC for the defence is now discussing w/ Timm the significance of the Pentagon Papers case - both in relation to Daniel Elsberg and the WaPo - and the decision of the USSC in favour of WaPo. They are also discussing another failed prosecute the NYT in a separate case.
In 1975 President Ford threatened to prosecute the times, in 1981 USG threatened the author James Bamford in relation to exposing crimes by the NSA and Bush Jr Admin apparent threats to prosecute James Risen & co for reporting on warrantless wiretapping.
Professor Timm: [Not verbatim] There is a long history of courts referring to the process of news gathering. Materials that journalists often write about and print to not often land on their desk. They often talk to sources, asking for information,
if they weren’t allowed to ask for questions or more information it would be hard for them to learn anything at all. Particularly alarming is that many counts in the US indictment would criminalise this behaviour but also the mere act of obtaining these documents...
is potentially criminal. So this would potentially criminalise any journalist for receiving documents from a source which broke the law.
There was a "failed attempt to prosecute journalists from the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee – Steven Rosen – an attempt which was dropped."
"Only time in modern history the Federal Government attempted to use ...
... the Espionage Act against someone who wasn’t a government employee. They were receiving information and potentially passing it on to other journalists.
Case fell apart due to Judge’s rulings and Government ultimately dropped the case."
Professor Timm: “Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein could have all been charged in the wake of persistently asking for and receiving documents [from the FBI deputy director aka Deep Throat]”
Mark Summers QC: The indictment in our case terms [the secure system drop box] criminal conspiracy in assisting Manning in her criminal activities
Prof Timm:

"From my reading of the indictment it makes it seem like having a
submission system for whistelblowers is some sort of malicious anomaly or that WikiLeaks was publicly asking potential sources for information...
In fact at Freedom for the Press Foundation we built Secure Drop open source system used by 80 major news organisations worldwide."
An organisation behind the Panama Papers also have a page explicitly asking for sources to leak to them, Professor Timm says.

He confirms that many outlets have their own secure drop systems.
Full 311 page Statement of Trevor Timm, Freedom of the Press Foundation can be found here: dontextraditeassange.com/wp-content/upl…
Mark Summers QC: Is it right that news organisations even go so far as advertise these drop boxes?
Professor Timm: Yes, that is correct… the NYT has a link to theirs in their bio page. But news organisations have even taken out advertisements.. to tell whistelblowers
... about their systems... Such as the popular news site Gizmodo.
Mark Summers QC: If I had come to you in 2009 and said I am planning to do something like this and asked if I was at risk of criminal prosecution what would you have told me?

Professor Timm: I would have said that is protected speech under the first amendment.
Timm's WS: "I myself have advocated for leaks in cases where the US secrecy system is hiding abuse, corruption, or illegal acts. In 2014, I published an article specifically calling for the leak of the classified version of the Senate Committee report on
... CIA Torture... and tweeted about it..., as did others."
Mark Summers QC: Was it ever suggested to you that this was criminal activity on your part?

Professor Timm: No, it is consenous opinion that this is protected activity under the 1st Amendment
"My position is that this indictment is clearly unconstitutional". WikiLeaks has a first amendment right to expose corruption and illegality.
James Lewis QC is now cross-examining Professor Timm.
Lewis has asked Professor Timm to explain his obligations to the court under the rules regarding expert witnessess.

Professor Timmm: My role is to be "truthful to the court".

Lewis: What about being objective and nonbiased with no conflict of interest?

Timm: Sure, that's right
Lewis: You've contributed to legal costs of Mr Assange.

Professor: Yes....[with a further explanation as to why]

Lewis: How much?

Professor: About 100,000 USD

Any Agreement to be re-imbursed the 100,000 or any part?

Professor: No, not that I'm aware of.
Lewis: Do you feel you would be threatned if this prosecution went ahead?

Professor: [Myself? Im not a full time natsec reporter my fear is "on behalf of" other journalists. Not verbatim]
Lewis: Didn't you make tweets asking for leaking of documents?

Professor: Yes [gives a longer explanation as to the threats posed by such a prosecution].

[Non verbatim] I wasn't asking people to send to me I was suggesting sources go to other outlets.
Lewis: You do appear to have an interest in the outcome of this prosecution.

Professor Timm: My interest is as a press freedom advocate. Yes, absoltey, I think every expert witness has some kind of fear that prosecution of Assange will result in the prosecution of others....
Lewis: What Im having difficulty understanding is the prosecution position in this case is that Julian Assange is not a journalist. You understand that.

A: I understand that and in my opinion and the opinion of many other legal scholars it does not matter if the government deems
...one a journalist. The NYT doesn't need to issue one a press pass. This goes all the way back to the country's founding with pamphlateers. Whether he is considered a journalist is besides the point. He was engaging in journalistic activity. [Non verbatim]
There is now discussion about whether Professor Timm had been sent the USG statements before making his "unbiased report".
Lewis: The bundle you were sent on Monday was not new at all it certainly consists with ease of reference for all docuemnts you were served and 5 previous Assistant U.S. Attorney Gordon Kromberg declarations.
A rather painful back and forth between Mr Lewis Professor Timm about the submission of documents.

Lewis finally asks why Professor Timm excluded reference to USG statements like from Kromberg.

A: This wasn't deliberate my focus was about the overall general practice of leaking
Going back to USA Kromberg statement that Mr Assange is not a journalist. He is now quoting the statements from Kromberg to Professor Timm.
Why you take the view that this prosecution is the thin edge of the wedge to prosecute journalists. Because… the government is publicly not only saying it is not targeting journalist but it is publicly and expressly going out of its way to do so.
And secondly it says it is not prosecuting for mere publication but for specifically publishing the names of informants… isn’t it rather odd if your speculation that this is the thin edge of the wedge that the government when out of its way to say..
this is nothing to do with going after journalists? Do you find that odd?

Judge asks Lewis to make clear the actual question.
"I based my opinions in this case not by reading a Department of Justice Press release but by reading the actual indictment"
and there are several charges that deal with the mere fact that WikiLeaks had in its possession. Some relate to specific documents, others relate to all documents. This would affect others also in possession of these documents.
The indictment would also There are many other charges in this document which are as worrying and more worrying whether or not you believe Julian Assange is a journalist or not.
Lewis QC: We say that Mr Summers has mistated the prosecution case.
Would you agree that agreeing with someone to break a password to allow the employee to enter into the computer and take out government secretes, which side of the line would that fall?
Professor Timm: Hard to answer hypotheticals... [the only alledged motive was to keep Ms Manning anonymous.. in general journalists work to keep sources anonymous.. such as using encrypted messaging systems]
Q. Have you seen the actual evidence which supports the charges in this case?
A. As I understand the one charge which deals with conspiracy? I believe it is snippets of chats purported to be between Ms Manning and Mr Assange.
It’s possible if there is secret evidence then Professor would not have seen it, he agrees.
Q: Would a responsible journalist or any publish the name of a third party where it is unnecessary for the story, knowing that to put their names would put their lives in danger?

A: To me what or who is a responsible journalist is besides the point....
In this case, no court has ever said that the publication of names I n this matter would be illegal. In fact, Congress debated this very act and a law proposed aimed specifically making a crime to punish the publication of so called human intelligence. It failed. ...
... This showed that it wasn’t already illegal in the eyes of congress and it decided that it wouldn’t be worth it to do so.
He quotes editorial from The Guardian condemning the publication of unredacted names of sources by WikiLeaks and asks whether Professor changes his perspective now.
The question is whether or not the act is illegal not whether we agree with a particular editorial decision & the indictment which would like to make it illegal would criminalise future reporting, Professor Timm. He also notes that the same outlets have condemned the prosecution.
Isn't it a fact that whether the publication of these names is illegal or not will be determined by a jury?

Ultimately, it may be decided by a jury at some point then potentially appeals judges and the Supreme Court because of the constitutional implications.
Q. Why should your opinion be preferred over the opinion of the courts of the US on this matter?

A. My opinion is in line of previous court opinions. This case is wholly unprecedented there has never been a prosecution of a publisher in such cricumstances.
A. The First Amendment is not a balancing act. It is possible in some types of speech some harm might result. But in the US our people have made the determination that having the free flow of information… makes it vital that they are protected from prosecution even when it
...comes close to a line or a particular subject matter that some of us may find uncomfortable. This is not me saying that I would have made the same decision. Editorial judgement should not be made by the government.
A; "You’re twisting my words. I didn’t say I thought it was right or that I agreed with the decision merely that it would be unconstitutional for Mr Assange to be prosecuted under the Espionage Act for this act."
Q: Lewis asks about his qualifications to comment on US law.

A: “[I graduated from law school]. Instead of practicing law I have chosen a different path where I write about the law to the general public and try to explain these complicated issues to a non-legal audience....
... I run a non-profit organisation and while I don’t myself represent us in legal issues we are constantly involve din legal issues involving government transparencies and often sign onto amicus briefs around the country that touch on press freedom issues..”
Q: He quotes from US Attorney's statement which confirms journalists have a 1st amendment right, and says prosecution isn't poitically motivated and says he is a federal prosecutor who applies the rules. US Att notes that Grand Jury didn't charge Assange for passively receiving..
... documents.. they focus on Assange assisting Mr Assange and ltd to his distribution of documents containing identities of informants [ "innocent people"]

Q. Why didn't you mention the points raised by Mr Kromberg in the experts report?
A: I didn’t specifically reference this document but I did talk about these issues… in my affidavit about how journalists engage in the exact type of behaviour that is misleadingly described in this document all the time.
[It is also inaccurate. It says the Grand Jury did not indict him for passively receiving documentation but in fact it does as noted under title 18 C S 793 (C) ]

My written statement was about a particular subset of issues not every issue in this case.
I did not talk about Grand Juries in my expert testimony. I can't claim to be an expert in Grand Juries. I do know that in 2010 a study found that 99% of Federal Grand Juries came back with charges.
[If a Fed Prosecutor went to a Grand Jury it was almost garunteed they would get an indictment, so whether an indictment was returned it is immaterial to the constitutionality of the charges.]
Q. Lewis asks why Professor Timm has not put into his report the rules regarding Federal Prosecutors.

A. I wasn't asked to write a written testimony on the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.
Q. You said the decision to indict was a war on journalism. Why didn't you account for the obligation that federal prosecutors have not to do that?

A. [Non verbatim: Yes, that is why I am saying that this is a very dangerous prosecution.]
Q. Are you saying they are therefore acting in Bad Faith and acting contrary to their obligations?

A. [will not comment on internal goings on at Justice Dept. and cites refusal of other prosecutors to prosecute Mr Assange]
Time is up.. cross-examination has finished.

Mark Summers QC is re-examining Professor Timm to clarify his expertise and qualifications.
Prof Timm: "The crux of the entire law review article [Handcuffing the Press: First Amendment Limitations ... dontextraditeassange.com/wp-content/upl…] is that it is a journalists job to not just publish the information but to also gather the news or engage in news gathering"
From law review article:

"Supreme Court has expressly disavowed any test of whether particular “speech” falls within the protections of the First Amendment that is premised on ad hoc determinations of its “value” in comparison with the “harm” it is alleged to have perpetrated"
After a bit more questions link is to be severed, Professor Timm's witness testimony is now over.

*** there is now a legal discussion about the time estimates and how much time each party has ***
Julian Assange's father John Shipton and ex-diplomat and whistleblower Craig Murray speak in the arches of a side entrance to the Old Bailey after the end of today's proceedings.
Craig Murray (@CraigMurrayOrg) gives @SputnikInt his view that today's hearing went very well for #JulianAssange's defence team.
Charges Against #JulianAssange Are 'Unconstitutional' And Threaten Press Freedom, Expert Tells Court

My last piece of the day on day 3 of #Assange hearings

sputniknews.com/uk/20200909108…

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Mohamed Elmaazi

Mohamed Elmaazi Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @MElmaazi

8 Sep
#JulianAssange hearings Part 2 - Day 2 (Thread)

Between 2 - 3 defence witnesses are expected to testify today

via @SputnikInt
WikiLeaks editor-in-chief @KHraafnsson explains that he expects witnesses to rebut “absurdities” from prosecutors that #JulianAssange is not a journalist & that his activities – which are the subject the US indictment against him – aren’t journalistic activities

Via @SputnikInt
WikiLeaks editor-in-chief @khrafnsson:

“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..
Read 99 tweets
7 Sep
#JulianAssange hearings Part 2 - Day 1 (Thread)

Case starts off w/ formal recognition of the new arrest warrant reflecting superseding indictment. Judge Baraitser then explains that numerous people received right to view the hearing via video link "in error"

via @SputnikInt
She also says that in order to preserve the "integrity of the court" it may be necessary to review the right to view proceedings via video link if pictures or screenshots of the court are circulated (as happened in February).
Judge is currently challenging Ed Fitzgerald QC (defence counsel) as to why it is neccessary for the witnessess to give any summary of thier witness statements which she has already read. The court asked why they shouldn't proceed straight to cross examination.
Read 40 tweets
7 Apr
(THREAD) At Westminster Magistrates' Court for #JulianAssange's last scheduled case management hearing. This is the final hearing listed before the substantive extradition hearings are due to begin again in May. I will tweet from today's court hearing via this thread. @SputnikInt
Court officer explains that there is a delay because they are trying to sort out the audio so journalists can hear properly when submissions are being made. A number of the people making submissions, including lawyers, will be doing so remotely.
Press and public allowed into Court Room 9. No lawyers physically present (they may all end up making. Prison officers told the court #Assange is not being introduced because he is unwell.
Read 32 tweets
26 Feb
#ASSANGE HEARING DAY 3

Legal arguments will focus on whether the charges levied ahainst #JulianAssange by the US government are "political offences". If so, the WikiLeaks founder can't be extradited to the US, under the Anglo-US extradition treaty

via @SputnikInt
Edward Fitzgerald QC (#Assange defence barrister)

If you are detained in plain violation of the Treaty, then on that autonomous test under Article 5 (UK HRA 1998), then you are not detained in a manner prescribed by law, you are detained in a manner which is arbitrary.
Also check @kgosztola's #Assange hearing Day 3 thread here as there will be extended pauses in tweets while I write up reports on the hearings hearings.
Read 26 tweets
25 Feb
#ASSANGE HEARING DAY 2:

MARK SUMMERS FOR DEFENCE SAYS:

WikiLeaks was part of a redaction process with establishment outlets such as Der Spiegel and El Pais. The process involved USG feeding suggested redactions into media relationship... WikiLeaks followed through
accordingly. Regional redaction processes also occured when local news papers were done.

"The state department was also part of the process. They gave numbers to WikiLeaks to redact", which WikiLeaks did, knowing the requests were coming from the US. The USG knows this.
Can it be said, "with any sensible view", that the [extradition] request portrays an accurate picture of the situation

"We had many suggestions for redactions which WikiLeaks agreed to", including the names of people. Summers says quoting a WS
Read 13 tweets
18 Feb
1/4 @WilkieMP & Christensen MP visited #JulianAssange @ Belmarsh for 90min
Wilkie says:
1) #Assange is confined to his cell 20hrs+/day
2) "Absolutely no doubt" he's a "political prisoner" & US is determined to extradite him "to get even" for exposing "hard evidence of war crimes"
2/4
3) The solution "must be political"
4) It's "madness" UK is "even entertaining" a court case
5) #Assange's incarceration/potential prosecution for Espionage is "an absolute scandal"
6) Australian PM should speak to Trump/Johnson to end this
7) Assange did nothing wrong.
3/4 George Christensen MP echoed Wilkie's comments, adding:
1) He doesn't know how Assange could ever be "fairly imprisoned or extradited" to US
2 a) Assange "took heart" from Johnson's recent recognition [after being pushed by Corbyn] that US-UK extradition treaty is unbalanced
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!